Forum menu
Massive calorie dis...
 

[Closed] Massive calorie discrepency

Posts: 9112
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#8303667]

I just came back from a short-ish run, which I found agonising (because I generally find running unpleasant.

In any case, I Strava told me I averaged 7 km/h for 29 minutes, which (again, according to Strava) means I burnt 406 calories.

Myfitnesspal, on the other hand, tells me it was only worth about 310 calories.

I can handle a bit of a difference, but that's a 25%. I prefer the Strava number, but want to be realistic. So what's your scientific opinion? Between the two, which tends to be closer to reality?

Did I burn 400ish or 300ish?


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:24 pm
Posts: 1428
Free Member
 

358


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:30 pm
Posts: 26890
Full Member
 

200ish


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:30 pm
Posts: 818
Free Member
 

Do both apps know your weight?


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:30 pm
Posts: 43955
Full Member
 

Which one was using your HRM?


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:31 pm
Posts: 91165
Free Member
 

These tools have no idea how much energy you've used up, they are just guessing. The real value varies wildly based on so many things.


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:34 pm
Posts: 371
Free Member
 

All I know is that when I let Strava "guess" calories used during exercise, as opposed to feeding it heart rate as well, it reads much higher than reality.


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:34 pm
Posts: 78460
Full Member
 

200ish

Calories or STW pages?


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:41 pm
Posts: 9112
Free Member
Topic starter
 

All I know is that when I let Strava "guess" calories used during exercise, as opposed to feeding it heart rate as well, it reads much higher than reality.

THAT'S the kind of thing I was looking for. I wouldn't have expected anything accurate; just hoping that I did better on the activity versus intake than I have for the last few days!


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:47 pm
Posts: 91165
Free Member
 

You'll be using up energy afterwards to recover too.


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 9:55 pm
Posts: 9112
Free Member
Topic starter
 

You'll be using up energy afterwards to recover too.

Nice! Sounds like I can have another piece of cake. 8)


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:07 pm
Posts: 30656
Free Member
 

*skip to the end*

Roughly 100kcal per mile is what I use.

Soooo you ran 2.1023 miles-ish, so 200kcal.

Remember, it's better to underestimate, than overestimate. The latter just makes you molgrips ๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:11 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

We seem to do this about once a week...

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/fitness-apps-tech-calorie-calculations


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:11 pm
Posts: 9112
Free Member
Topic starter
 

We seem to do this about once a week...

So I got this week's allowance.

I will await next week's with self-satisfaction.


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:14 pm
Posts: 10336
Full Member
 

Consider yourself lucky. The older Garmins overestimate by a factor of 2. Newer ones seem much better if they have your proper weight and hrm

But its still only an estimate


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:15 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

Buggerall.

You need to run for at least an hour before you burn anything.

Stored fat stays with you until you run out of that slimy stuff in your muscles, once that's gone you burn fat.

Build slowly, walk if joints hurt, lay off if sore, back on it once soreness has gone then build until you can run an hour at pace before trying to estimate calorific usage.

See you in a week when your joints give up and you start another thread called "ouch, why..??"


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:20 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I will await next week's with self-satisfaction.

I have last week's copied and ready to paste ๐Ÿ™‚

Remember, it's better to underestimate, than overestimate.

Depends on your objective.


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:32 pm
Posts: 30656
Free Member
 

Depends on your objective.

You win this round, Blobby.

If indeed that is your real name!

*smokebomb*

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 24/01/2017 10:34 pm