Why the huge calories difference?

[Hastingd]

Evening all,

I have had an Edge 25 for a while & find it very good. I recently also got a forerunner 235.

I went for a short ride on the weekend to compare the two. I didn't use the heart rate monitor on the 235, so no calorie calcs used this.

What I found was both showed 7.43kms, total time 35:41 vs 35:39, avg speed the same at 12.5, same max speed of 23.5 (not quick I know but just a cruise through some back streets!). The mystery though is that the edge 25 calculated 157 cals, while the 235 came up with 264.

Any thoughts? I checked settings of both and am sure they're the same - age, height, weight, etc.

Thanks,
Darren.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Evening all,

I have had an Edge 25 for a while & find it very good. I recently also got a forerunner 235.

I went for a short ride on the weekend to compare the two. I didn't use the heart rate monitor on the 235, so no calorie calcs used this.

What I found was both showed 7.43kms, total time 35:41 vs 35:39, avg speed the same at 12.5, same max speed of 23.5 (not quick I know but just a cruise through some back streets!). The mystery though is that the edge 25 calculated 157 cals, while the 235 came up with 264.

Any thoughts? I checked settings of both and am sure they're the same - age, height, weight, etc.

Thanks,
Darren.

Metabolic energy estimates on such devices are no more than a bit of light comic relief.

[Hastingd]

Thanks for the reply. I am aware metabolic energy estimates from these types of devices are to be taken loosely.
My question is more why 2 products from the same manufacturer can track everything else almost identically, and yet come up with such a huge difference in calorie calcs.
Thanks, Darren.

[Sparx]

Stupid question - did the Forerunner think you were running or riding?

[Hastingd]

Not a stupid question - I checked that one. The 235 knew I was riding.

[vosadrian]

Does it use some of the parameters in the device such as weight/height etc. that may be different? Also, one having HR and ther other not may explain it?

[Hastingd]

I've checked personal details (height, weight, age, etc) and they are the same. The HRM on the 235 was not turned on so it would have been using algorithms to calculate calories.
It's a mystery.....

[RonK]

I've checked personal details (height, weight, age, etc) and they are the same. The HRM on the 235 was not turned on so it would have been using algorithms to calculate calories.
It's a mystery.....

No mystery to me - they are both Garmin products.

[Sparx]

I had one more idea - I remember for my Garmin there was an activity level setting - basically how fit you are etc. I think this is used to calculate calories. I think you can also set yourself as a lifetime athlete.

[Hastingd]

Thanks. I've confirmed activity level is the same on both units.
Still a mystery......

[kb]

Elevation differences?

[Tim]

As RonK said, there's no mystery to it, they're both flaky Garmin devices.
I have an Edge 800, 810 and a 520.
All the personal settings are identical.
My 45km regular home circuit varies from around 550 calories to about 750. That is riding at near to or identical average heart rates. I've accumulated 6 years of data and the calorie readings are really inconsistent from device to device and within the same device.
Recorded energy expenditure levels are only a very broadly indicative estimate. In other words, almost meaningless.
Try and make sense of your elevation gains and profiles if you want even more flakiness. Some days I climb 350 metres. Some days I climb 500. On the same course.
I await the day Garmin can release a new product or software and firmware updates that aren't plagued with bugs.
Garmin don't give a s***. Nongs like me keep buying their products regardless.
A bit like Cannondale actually. (I've finally learnt that lesson).