TomTom Spark 3 counts a lot of calories

RostenhollanderRostenhollander Posts: 1 [New Traveler]
I recently bought the new tomtom spark 3, after having used the older tomtom runner 1. Apparently there is a huge difference in calorie calculation. Where a 4km walk in 48min was around 270cal(level surface, male, 75kg) has changed to 450 or even more. How could you explain this? cellphone with endomondo would say 270 as well...

For walking with the old Runner1, i would track as running and afterwards change to freestyle, with the new spark 3 I can track as freestyle... if this is the reason, it is still a lot of calories, 450 for 4km.

Comments

  • tfarabaughtfarabaugh Posts: 15,625 Superusers
    I recently bought the new tomtom spark 3, after having used the older tomtom runner 1. Apparently there is a huge difference in calorie calculation. Where a 4km walk in 48min was around 270cal(level surface, male, 75kg) has changed to 450 or even more. How could you explain this? cellphone with endomondo would say 270 as well...

    For walking with the old Runner1, i would track as running and afterwards change to freestyle, with the new spark 3 I can track as freestyle... if this is the reason, it is still a lot of calories, 450 for 4km.

    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. So in the past it was using a table for running which was not going to necessarily be accurate at walking pace. In Freestyle it is actually measuring your HR and using that to compute calories so it is going to be much more accurate (assuming it got a good HR reading). I find that the calorie calculations using HR are very accurate and tie out to the standard HR based calories formula to within a few calories.

    I hope this helps, please let me know if this answered your question. If it did, please mark it as a solution so others can look for it if they have the same question.
  • PixelfanaticPixelfanatic Posts: 4 [Neophyte Traveler]
    Just a quick question:
    What is the HR Sensor for, when its not used in running, cycling and swimming?
    I understand the use of MET Tables for Users using no HR, but using MET Tables for users with HR Monitor is weird.
    If hr-monitor=true then hrkcal else mettables
    Maybe you can insert that line in the firmware ;)

    Sorry, but that is an absolutely nogo for me - if I want inaccurate Calories I could stick with my Vivosmart
  • tfarabaughtfarabaugh Posts: 15,625 Superusers
    Just a quick question:
    What is the HR Sensor for, when its not used in running, cycling and swimming?
    I understand the use of MET Tables for Users using no HR, but using MET Tables for users with HR Monitor is weird.
    If hr-monitor=true then hrkcal else mettables
    Maybe you can insert that line in the firmware ;)

    Sorry, but that is an absolutely nogo for me - if I want inaccurate Calories I could stick with my Vivosmart

    Whether it is inaccurate or not is up for debate. I find the MET tables are fairly accurate for me in most cases. It uses the MET factor along with your personal stats to come up with an energy expenditure number. Again, depending on where you fall within the average used to compile the tables it may or may not match you exactly. Ultimately, any devices calorie number is just a guess, regardless of method. HR based is actually only accurate within a relatively small range of HRs at submaximal efforts, while METs based does not take into account elevation change and HR. You just have to pick a method you agree with and stick to it. I personally use the average HR data and put it into an Excel spreadsheet with the standard HR formula, this way I am not relying on the watch to calculate calories and will be consistent regardless of device as I am just using the raw HR data.

    I agree it is weird to not use the HR as the default if it is detected and have asked for it more than once but that does not seem to be a path they want to go down. I have learned to live with it. The sensor is used to tell you your HR and for HR zone training which is the better use of it anyway. Calories is just a side calculation they do because they have the data, it is not the driving reason to have an HR monitor.

    I hope this helps, please let me know if this answered your question. If it did, please mark it as a solution so others can look for it if they have the same question.
  • Wasseene42Wasseene42 Posts: 2 [Apprentice Traveler]
    That means its not calculating right ? For example my tom tom watch calculating me my daily steps, i was surprised to see couple thousands a day ))
  • Wasseene42Wasseene42 Posts: 2 [Apprentice Traveler]
    Hello world, can someone recommend a tire site for my car? Desirable where it could also be a size classifier! I found something here but I would like to see another one too!
    https://tirereviews.co/wheel-tire-size-calculator/
Sign In or Register to comment.

Who's Online55

bohumilvojta
bohumilvojta
cachecache44
cachecache44
Claude Chamberland
Claude Chamberland
DougLap
DougLap
Elchdoktor
Elchdoktor
JoeSchmack
JoeSchmack
Jopi56
Jopi56
kumo
kumo
robu66
robu66
+46 Guests