Locus pro 3.18.1 and new track statistics
Hi
First of all, thank you so much for this new version. One can feel the intensive work which is behind. I have recorded today a track between home and work. The length is a little bit more than 10 kms. I have used several ant+ sensors. All of them are from Garmin. A HR SS3 sensor, a cadence sensor and a speed sensor. The data have been recorded using LocusPro 3181 installed on a samsung Galaxy S7 smatphone. I have also recorded these data on my Garmin Forerunner 230 watch connected to the same sensors. This is a big advantage of ant+ sensors compared to the Bluetooth ones. My profil is correctly entered on both sides. Here are my results. One can observe some significant differences:
1. HR max - FR230: 181 ; LocusPro 3181: 180
2. HR avg - FR230: 138 ; LocusPro 3181: 139
3. Energy - FR230: 269 Cal ; LocusPro 3181: 455 Cal (this is a huge difference)
4. Cadence (max) - FR230: 95 rpm ; LocusPro 3181: 95 rpm
5. Cadence (avg) - FR230: 68 rpm ; LocusPro 3181: 55 rpm
6. Altitude (min) - FR230: 49m ; LocusPro 3181: 46m
6. Altitude (max) - FR230: 90m ; LocusPro 3181: 90m
This is my own experience. Any comments ?
Best regards,
sl91
The same question
Hello sl91,
this is very very nice test, thanks for it. Even if Garmin values may not be 100% correct, I think we may use them as some kind of standard ... at least everyone will expect same results.
Firstly, may I ask you for export of your recorded track to GPX 1.1 format and share it with me, so I may test it directly on track, where I know expected values.
Difference in energy is interesting and together with average cadence values, these are "only" values that has big difference. In case of cadence, it is a big surprise as it looks for me like quite logical method how I compute this average value.
In case of energy: there is not a lot known methods how to compute energy based on heart rate. In the end, I found only one. Anyway I may optimize some parameters in this method and reduce computed values.
Hello sl91,
this is very very nice test, thanks for it. Even if Garmin values may not be 100% correct, I think we may use them as some kind of standard ... at least everyone will expect same results.
Firstly, may I ask you for export of your recorded track to GPX 1.1 format and share it with me, so I may test it directly on track, where I know expected values.
Difference in energy is interesting and together with average cadence values, these are "only" values that has big difference. In case of cadence, it is a big surprise as it looks for me like quite logical method how I compute this average value.
In case of energy: there is not a lot known methods how to compute energy based on heart rate. In the end, I found only one. Anyway I may optimize some parameters in this method and reduce computed values.
Well, I think that Garmin has a long experience with this kind of data. Do you want the file recorded by LP3181 or that one exported from Garmin Connect and recorded from my FR 230 ? May be both ?
Best regards,
sl91
Well, I think that Garmin has a long experience with this kind of data. Do you want the file recorded by LP3181 or that one exported from Garmin Connect and recorded from my FR 230 ? May be both ?
Best regards,
sl91
If you may share both with me, it will be perfect. I may at least compare data from both sources if they match. Thank you.
If you may share both with me, it will be perfect. I may at least compare data from both sources if they match. Thank you.
OK. Both files are ready. Please tell me how to transfer them in a private way.
Regards
sl91
OK. Both files are ready. Please tell me how to transfer them in a private way.
Regards
sl91
Hello,
firstly thanks for the files.
About cadence: interesting thing is, that Garmin recorded 125 points with cadence equal 0 and 22 points do not have cadence at all. Where Locus has only 48 points with 0 cadence value and no points without cadence value.
Problem here is that Locus use only two states - no cadence at all (then there is no record in exported file) or any cadence (in this case I mean any value, also a 0 which is valid cadence value). And final cadence value is then computed as sum of measured RPM values over certain time. When any point has recorded 0 value, then it dramatically reduce final average.
I do not want to discuss why are there these 0 values (probably some downhill ride), but rather what value you expect: average value over whole ride even a downhill, where there were no movement OR really average value just when you were trample with foot?
And energy: here it will be more complicated.
Anyway try for example this web page I quickly found: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml . After insert of your values, I get almost 500 kcal so even more then in Locus.
My wife is a nutritionist and she computed for me expected energy requirements for average speed cycling, based on your values you send me and values from imported files, and her software say it should be around 300 - 400 kcal.
Another case: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350958587 , here you get 250 kcal.
Anyway ... in case, you have measured HR values, Locus use these values to get more precise results. When you do not have recorded HR values, Locus use own system to compute energy values based on selected activity and speed.
I've just send you GPX file of your track, with removed all lines with HR values. Try to import it into Locus database. Then open this track and on first page select your activity. Then check value on second page in statistics ... well? :)
Hello,
firstly thanks for the files.
About cadence: interesting thing is, that Garmin recorded 125 points with cadence equal 0 and 22 points do not have cadence at all. Where Locus has only 48 points with 0 cadence value and no points without cadence value.
Problem here is that Locus use only two states - no cadence at all (then there is no record in exported file) or any cadence (in this case I mean any value, also a 0 which is valid cadence value). And final cadence value is then computed as sum of measured RPM values over certain time. When any point has recorded 0 value, then it dramatically reduce final average.
I do not want to discuss why are there these 0 values (probably some downhill ride), but rather what value you expect: average value over whole ride even a downhill, where there were no movement OR really average value just when you were trample with foot?
And energy: here it will be more complicated.
Anyway try for example this web page I quickly found: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml . After insert of your values, I get almost 500 kcal so even more then in Locus.
My wife is a nutritionist and she computed for me expected energy requirements for average speed cycling, based on your values you send me and values from imported files, and her software say it should be around 300 - 400 kcal.
Another case: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350958587 , here you get 250 kcal.
Anyway ... in case, you have measured HR values, Locus use these values to get more precise results. When you do not have recorded HR values, Locus use own system to compute energy values based on selected activity and speed.
I've just send you GPX file of your track, with removed all lines with HR values. Try to import it into Locus database. Then open this track and on first page select your activity. Then check value on second page in statistics ... well? :)
One more note: seems that Locus do not use measured HR values to compute your calories. Good information for me as well. In your case, it makes really big difference.
To be true, your HR values are quite high, so expect you will need more energy then some programs which do not use HR values, display.
From my point of view, all is correct. What you think?
One more note: seems that Locus do not use measured HR values to compute your calories. Good information for me as well. In your case, it makes really big difference.
To be true, your HR values are quite high, so expect you will need more energy then some programs which do not use HR values, display.
From my point of view, all is correct. What you think?
Hi,
Many thanks for all these explainations. During my tour I made two short stops, at 16':03" and 17':39" because I was following some diesel cars (this is France !) on a hilly part. I a have imported the file you sent me by email. It gives an energy value of 53 Cal. This is too low . Isn't it ?
Regards
sl91
PS: I will do the same test while hiking on next sunday
Hi,
Many thanks for all these explainations. During my tour I made two short stops, at 16':03" and 17':39" because I was following some diesel cars (this is France !) on a hilly part. I a have imported the file you sent me by email. It gives an energy value of 53 Cal. This is too low . Isn't it ?
Regards
sl91
PS: I will do the same test while hiking on next sunday
Replies have been locked on this page!