Calories formula

[MrSanderz]

Hello,

Apologies if this has been already discussed. What I noticed is a consistent overestimate of the calories burned for workouts recorded on the Concept2 log. For comparison, this morning I did a ride on Xert while recording it on the ErgData app, running on Zwift in the background, and then uploaded the file on TrainerRoad, too. The result was:

Xert: 672 (kcal)
Zwift: 583
TrainerRoad: 611

Concept2: 1020.

Needless to say, my weight is updated on all the sites, and the power curves are faithful to what I did. This kind of results seems to be pretty consistent from what I observed in past rides, too, and so while the rest of the bunch is in the same ballpark, 1020 is substantially higher, which leads me to wonder if Concept2 applies a dramatically different way to translate power/work into calories. Anyone knows the mathy background to this?

[Citroen]

Unless you weigh exactly 80Kg, burn 300cals doing nothing and have a metabolism the turns 25% of your calories into work on the rowing ergo then the formula used to display calories as you row is not for you.

Curiously, there is nobody in the world that meets the curve fitting algorithm that Concept 2 invented for the PM2.

Take all calorie counters with a pinch of salt before storing their results in Room 101.

http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/ro ... meter.html

[hjs]

Hello,

Apologies if this has been already discussed. What I noticed is a consistent overestimate of the calories burned for workouts recorded on the Concept2 log. For comparison, this morning I did a ride on Xert while recording it on the ErgData app, running on Zwift in the background, and then uploaded the file on TrainerRoad, too. The result was:

Xert: 672 (kcal)
Zwift: 583
TrainerRoad: 611

Concept2: 1020.

Needless to say, my weight is updated on all the sites, and the power curves are faithful to what I did. This kind of results seems to be pretty consistent from what I observed in past rides, too, and so while the rest of the bunch is in the same ballpark, 1020 is substantially higher, which leads me to wonder if Concept2 applies a dramatically different way to translate power/work into calories. Anyone knows the mathy background to this?

Rowing is much less efficient than cycling, so the same power will cost more energy, those others are looking at cycling
I think. So yes its ofcourse not accurate, but those other numbers are clearly to low for rowing.

Skierg, I think, on feel it inbetween the both.

Reason, in rowing, there is the most not usefull movement, second in skierg, in cycling hardly any, we sit still, only the legs move, no waisted energy.

Other point, rating matters, say we pull 2.00, at a lower rating, for most, this will be less efficient, with higher Hf numbers, this again will burn not the same energy as using a softer stroke.

[MrSanderz]

It makes sense, thank. I guess that for Concept2 a priority is to aim at rowing compatibility. I did other rides and I noticed that the ratios between BikeErg calories and other cycling-specific sites tend to stay approximately constant, and that's ultimately what matters.

[hjs]

It makes sense, thank. I guess that for Concept2 a priority is to aim at rowing compatibility. I did other rides and I noticed that the ratios between BikeErg calories and other cycling-specific sites tend to stay approximately constant, and that's ultimately what matters.

Yes it is, c2 is a rowing related company at first, although it is expending with the skier and bike. And certainly biking is a potential larger pool.

In the end its not that important, I would much more look at pace distances you do. And if weight is an issue, thats mostly diet.