 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Tried endomOndo for the first time this morning.
It put me at 1950 calories burnt, exported the gpx file and imported into my usual runkeeper which decided on a rather more conservative 1250 calories.
So which is right or are both rubbish?
I've found my Endomundo is lower than a Garmin but not by loads. That however is some difference
No idea which is the more accurate. How long were you exercising for and at what intensity?
i get different reading on all sorts of things. My polar hrm always gives the lowest figure, garmin edge is a fair chunk higher and gym machines tend to be the highest of all, occasionally twice the figure from the polar.
It's going to vary based on your physiology but I reckon to burn more than 1200 calories on a bike ride I'd need to be going pretty full on for about an hour and 40 minutes. 1950 is the sort of figure i'd be expecting at nearer 3 hours.
Road bike. 2hrs 20m. 30miles. Lots of climbing.
It would be really difficult to guess at especially as you say there was a lot of climbing, could well be the higher figure or something in between. The lower figure sound a bit too low to me.
I think the problem is that not only is hard to estimate calories burnt there are different meanings at quite a fundamental level
Energy output during the excercise
Energy consumed during excercise
Energy consumed during excercise and extra energy consumed after excercise
My suunto hrm is always slightly lower than endomondo but not by as much as you've seen. I think endomondo has been pretty accurate whether on mtb; road bike or running.
So endomondo calorie count is sort of accurate then? Good to know, I thought it was being a bit ambitious 🙂
Having read a bit more about the different methods I'm more inclined to believe runkeeper. They include elevation and speed data whereas endomondo seem to just work on time, weight and activity type.