Runner 2 Calorie Counts not matching TomTom Connect App counts — TomTom Community

Runner 2 Calorie Counts not matching TomTom Connect App counts

CrandoCrando Posts: 2 [Apprentice Seeker]
Hi,

I have a Runner 2 Sports watch with HR. I used to just use it for when I was doing sports, but I've started wearing it all day to estimate total mobility/energy expenditure.

My BMR is in the region of 2000 Calories. I generally do between a long (2-4 hour) zone 2 indoor cycle, or a short (20-45 min) z4/5 interval cycle each morning - I then walk to work (30 mins each way) - and while my job is not manual labour, I am not completely sedentary.

I have a target of 3500 calories burned each day - which if I've done a long ride gets alerted by my watch early/mid afternoon. If I've done a short ride it alerts in the evening once I've walked home from work, and if I've not cycled won't alert at all - all will alert just before I go to bed, depending on how busy I've been at work.

This all seems broadly accurate - however, when I sync my watch with the App - the webpage shows a much lower total energy expenditure per day.

E.g. Monday I did a 3 hour ride, that shows as 2300 calories burned, I then walked to work - had a busy day up and around, walked home, walked to the shop etc... the 3.5k target alert happened in the afternoon, then by the end of the day when I went to bed, the watch was showing 4000+ calories, which would seem broadly accurate?

Now I've synced the watch it's showing my total expenditure for Monday to be 3500 pretty much bang on - which seems on the low end. My cycle is still showing as 2300k - which means I've only burned 1200 the rest of the day - which would be below my BMR, and doesn't account for walking to work and being generally active?

I'm *guessing* that the App/webpage is doing further calculations of some sort when syncing to get a 'more accurate' figure - but I'm not sure exactly what? Obvs with my long cycles they are in Z2 - so I thought the watch might be over egging the calories burned on that, which are then adjusted down on sync - but the individual rides still showing as per the watch seems to rule this out...?

Any ideas?

Thanks! :-)

Comments

  • tfarabaughtfarabaugh Posts: 16,679
    Superusers
    Calories burned will depend on the activity mode used. In running, cycling and swimming modes the watch is not using your HR to calculate caloric burn; it is using MET tables, which are tables of energy expenditure at various paces. They did it this way to enable users who are not using a HR monitor to get a caloric estimate (otherwise they would get a zero reading). Since MET tables are based on pace and distance, cycling of different types (mountain versus road) will produce different results, regardless of HR as the paces are different. In gym and freestyle mode, it is using your HR to calculate calories applying a standard HR based calculation considering weight, age and gender. How accurate the calories are depends on how accurate the HR readings are, and how well the watch is collecting them.

    Frankly, any device is just making a guess (educated at best) and is only going to be directional. TT was not in the market long enough to develop mature algorithms so they were never very accurate (they went out of business over 3.5 years ago). At this point the watches are obsolete and support is pretty much non-existent (I am the only superuser for sports watches left) so you may want to consider moving on to another brand or just living with it is as it is.
  • CrandoCrando Posts: 2 [Apprentice Seeker]
    Thanks for taking the time to reply - I'm surprised that a watch specifically sold with a built in HR monitor isn't using it to do the cal counts.

    I understand that it'll ultimately only be an estimate - my confusion is the 2 different figures that I'm getting from the same data... odd. Oh well, as long as it's consistently wrong, it doesn't matter too much.

    I am in the market for a new watch - my wife bought me an Apple one but I hated it - I love the Runner 2s simplicity - no fancy unneeded features - no touch screens and a million different read outs. Robust (had it 6/7 years now I think?), sturdy, and has the features I need and nothing more.

    I don't suppose I could be cheeky and ask what you'd recommend as a replacement?
  • tfarabaughtfarabaugh Posts: 16,679
    Superusers
    Crando wrote: »
    Thanks for taking the time to reply - I'm surprised that a watch specifically sold with a built in HR monitor isn't using it to do the cal counts.

    I understand that it'll ultimately only be an estimate - my confusion is the 2 different figures that I'm getting from the same data... odd. Oh well, as long as it's consistently wrong, it doesn't matter too much.

    I am in the market for a new watch - my wife bought me an Apple one but I hated it - I love the Runner 2s simplicity - no fancy unneeded features - no touch screens and a million different read outs. Robust (had it 6/7 years now I think?), sturdy, and has the features I need and nothing more.

    I don't suppose I could be cheeky and ask what you'd recommend as a replacement?

    At this point go with a Garmin. they are far and away the market leader and have a wide range from budget to top of the line. I have a forerunner 245 that I love. Great battery life, tons of features (or none if you don't want them) and spot on accuracy for HR and GPS.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Who's Online in this Category0