Iam an avid cyclist. Last year I purchased a piece of electronic equipment for my cycling habit, produced by Garmin, called the Edge 500. It’s a nifty little gizmo that I mounted on my bike’s steerer tube.
ADVERTISEMENT |
It uses GPS to track speed, routes, distance, incline/decline angles (which allows me to brag that I defeated a 21-percent grade with ease), total ascent (another brag point for climbers), cadence (pedal rpms), and a whole host of other metrics. Paired with a heart rate monitor, also by Garmin, it tracks heart rate, average heart rate, and calories burned. You can download all these data to your personal Garmin Connect site, and use them to improve your performance and set goals.
For years I had used a far less sophisticated cycling computer made by Polar. But Polar slipped behind the technology curve to the point that my local bike shop (LBS in cyclist jargon) stopped carrying Polar products, and stopped supporting them. Everyone I know and ride with sport Garmins. So I switched to be current.
…
Comments
Comparison
Quite a rant. But it interets me that you are expecting the same value from two different activities, especially when activity type is part of the algorithim.
I'm not sure there's an
I'm not sure there's an inconsistency here. The two devices were designed for different purposes. Running burns more calories than cycling because it engages more muscle groups. Heart rate is not the sole determining factor in calorie burn.
Did you try calibrating the devices against published averages for calorie burn, such as at Runner's World or Active.com?
http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
Jeff
Add new comment