Forums >Gears and Wears>Garmin HRM & Calorie Accuracy
MM #7877
I mainly use my Garmin HRM to track calories burned. But I wonder about its accuracy.
Tonights run: 10.7 miles. Average Heart Rate - 126 BPM. Average pace 9:30. Calories burned - 443.
Yes, I can increase intensity, but this was a recovery run, 2 days after I ran Shamrock Marathon in 3:42.
Still, 443 calories for 10.7 miles, and 102 minutes of exercise?
How accurate are these when it comes to calories burned? Anyone know?
Philippians 4:13.
an amazing likeness
Garmin uses a bunch of different methodologies to estimate calorie burn. All are estimates. GPS guru dcrainmaker has a good summary of the various techniques used and which device uses which, here.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Feeling the growl again
That seems awfully low. Typical estimates range 70-120 kcal/mile depending on body weight and efficiency, primarily.
But all are estimated, +/- 20-30%. Probably better than one's ability to track the calories they eat.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
So mine uses:
3) Firstbeat Algorithm (1st Generation): This is essentially the same as the above noted algorithm…except just slightly less accurate. This first generation algorithm is used on devices prior to this year, which are detailed in the below tables. Like any product, technology or concept – the calculations have evolved and are made available in its most recent incarnation on Garmin’s most recent devices. One interesting tidbit is that they found that while this 1st generation algorithm worked really well for newer runners, it was less accurate in more advanced runners – hence some of the updates seen in the 2nd generation.
I mainly use my Garmin HRM to track calories burned. But I wonder about its accuracy. Tonights run: 10.7 miles. Average Heart Rate - 126 BPM. Average pace 9:30. Calories burned - 443. Yes, I can increase intensity, but this was a recovery run, 2 days after I ran Shamrock Marathon in 3:42. Still, 443 calories for 10.7 miles, and 102 minutes of exercise? How accurate are these when it comes to calories burned? Anyone know?
Those numbers are pretty darn low. What watch are you using and how long have you been running with it? (The second question is actually much more relevant than you might think).
- Joe
We are fragile creatures on collision with our judgment day.
Sounds about right if you weigh 55 lbs.
Runners run
Sounds like a case of GIGO -- Garbage In, Garbage Out.
In addition to Joe's questions, did you set up the watch with your correct height, weight, age, gender, restingHR, maxHR, etc? Also how did you come up with the numbers for stuff like maxHR? Hopefully not some formula off the internet...
Im using the 310XT. Have been using it for 4 months. Calories have always been low.
Yes - the information I entered is accurate for height - 5'8", weight - 135, age - 47 , gender - M, restingHR - which is a 40. maxHR and I have gotten it to 194.
The one or 2 setting that seems to affect it all might be the :
Activity Class - I set to 8 since I run daily, and I average over 300 miles per month.
v02max - 41.5 - I entered a number based upon my last marathon performance.
This is of concern to me since I lost 90 pounds last year through exercise and diet, so I really want to track calories burned. My v02max needs improved, but I am learning to train faster to improve that setting. I an transitioning some from weight loss mode to improved performance.