Estimated calories vs. meassured calories (Read 167 times)

    Why are the calories shown on our workouts still only estimated if I import a route from my GPS device which has the correct calories count? I am using a heart rate monitor along with my rest and max heart rate values, so I assume that the calories count I get from my GPS device is more accurate than whatever formula this site uses. Still, the calories from the GPS device are only registered in the notes. I would like them overrule the estimated calculations, and be the ones that are shown in the calories column for the workouts.

      I just noticed. The calories that goes into the notes are not even the ones from the device. They are the same as the ones this site estimates. Whatever calories my device meassures, which are the ones I trust the most, just vanishes.

        They are all estimated calories.


        Feeling the growl again

          Unless you are wearing a mask which measures your CO2 output and/or oxygen consumption, everything is only a ballpark estimate+/- 20-30%.

          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

           

            Whatever I meassure with a heart rate belt is much more accurate than any estimate. The differene between headwind and tailwind alone is huge, and no estimate takes that into account. My heart rate does. Estimates assume that there is no wind and no hills, so they are way off.

             

            I don't see why we can't use our own meassurements on this site instead of useless estimates.

              The only way to measure caloric expenditure is with calorimetry, either direct or indirect. The heart rate belt is not measuring your calorie expenditure. It is estimating it. The method spaniel described is indirect calorimetry and this would be a measurement. I don't think it is useful to get too crazy about this stuff. You burn about 100 calories per mile, more or less, and that is as good an estimate as any as far as I'm concerned.

                If I ride my bike 50 km in constant headwind, I well get a much better estimate from my heart rate that from a calculation which takes nothing else but the speed and distance into account, because it will be way of.

                 

                I would still like to sugest the option of having the calculations from my device override the calculations made by this site. If I have two different numbers, I don't see why I cannot chose which one I would like to use. I trust an estimate made with a heart rate monitor more than I trust an estimate made without one. They may both be off, but one is more off than the other.

                  You burn about 100 calories per mile, more or less, and that is as good an estimate as any as far as I'm concerned.

                   

                  In my opinion this is totally useless. I have seen other "experts" say that you burn 40 calories per mile. I trust none of these general rules of thumb.

                     

                    In my opinion this is totally useless. I have seen other "experts" say that you burn 40 calories per mile. I trust none of these general rules of thumb.

                    I was referring to running.


                    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                       

                      In my opinion this is totally useless. I have seen other "experts" say that you burn 40 calories per mile. ...

                       

                      I need to find me one of these 40cal/mile marathons.

                      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                      Feeling the growl again

                         They may both be off, but one is more off than the other.

                         

                        And you have no idea which one is closer, and both are probably too wrong to be of real use.

                         

                        Unless you are directly measuring oxygen usage or CO2 output, it is not worth the time to pretend any measurement is more accurate than another.

                        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                         

                           

                          I need to find me one of these 40cal/mile marathons.

                           

                          Just ask for the Rascal pace group, they'll hook you right up.


                          A Dance with Monkeys

                            Whatever I meassure with a heart rate belt is much more accurate than any estimate. 

                             

                            Nope. It is still an estimate. No better, really, than any other estimate.


                            A Dance with Monkeys

                              This interesting physiologic discussion aside, the request is reasonable: why can't the users document estimated caloric expenditure using a method they prefer?


                              HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                                This interesting physiologic discussion aside, the request is reasonable: why can't the users document estimated caloric expenditure using a method they prefer?

                                 

                                Sure. Next you'll want to let runners measure their own time during the race. Such degeneration of morality has no place in serious racing.

                                It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.