levitation specialist
Okay, I normally don't care about this stuff, am not watching my weight, and know the calcs are just calcs based on various things but......
After my 16 miler today, as I was recording my stats in my written log and found them to be very very odd, bare with me as this was a long run:
Mile 1: 907 pace, 141 avg HR, 75 cals
Mile 2: 909 pace, 145 avg HR, 78 cals
Mile 3: 903 pace, 148 avg HR, 78 cals
Mile 4: 912 pace, 144 avg HR, 74 cals
Mile 5: 901 pace, 146 avg HR, 74 cals
Mile 6: 916 pace, 145 avg HR, 72 cals
Mile 7: 912 pace, 144 avg HR, 69 cals
Mile 8: 905 pace, 146 avg HR, 69 cals
Mile 9: 907 pace, 140 avg HR, 52 cals
Mile 10: 857 pace, 146 avg HR, 61 cals
Mile 11: 924 pace, 139 avg HR, 48 cals
Mile 12: 929 pace, 139 avg HR, 46 cals
Mile 13: 929 pace, 138 avg HR, 44 cals
Mile 14: 922 pace, 144 avg HR, 56 cals
Mile 15: 958 pace, 141 avg HR, 51 cals
Mile 16: 919 pace, 144 avg HR, 56 cals
Total miles, 16. Cal burn 1001.
I find this very odd, only because on my Thursday night 10 miler, it said my burn was 849. Again, I did say I didn't care but I am a data geek and there is no way that both metrics can simulaniously be right. I haven't seen such a big discrepancy before on any data points in runs my 610 has recorded prior.
Ideas as to why? The Garmin has no idea the weather but it does have the elevation correction enabled(and has since day 1). My user profile hasn't changed other than me now being 39 as opposed to 38(12/26), I am still female and 117 lbs.
I guess the only reason this bothers me is that a lot of people DO rely on calorie burn listed to meet a weight goal. Are they always this WRONG? What exactly is the point of calculations if they are so off, even for the same person, let alone the variety of users out there.
Super B****
Yep, I've had this problem... I once walked a mile to a 10K and burned 92 calories, then burned 123 during the entire race. Uh huh. I don't NEED to know this, but having paid so much for a device, I expect it to function as it should. After having it replaced twice and still encountering the same problem, I pretty much gave up. But this is what Garmin told me:
Many customers look to calorie burn to manage many facets of theirworkout program. With that said, there are many different ways tocalculate calorie burn and there are competing theories as to which ismore accurate.We can all agree that the discussion about calorie burn is one that hasmany sides, multiple ways of being calculated, and can more than likelybe discussed for an infinite amount of time.We do value the information everyone has provided and we do considerthis information critical to improving our products using FirstBeattechnology, which calculates calories through heart rate and userprofile. We also acknowledge that there are many factors that cancontribute to a calorie burn more or less than expected. Some of thesefactors may be, but are not limited to, running efficiency, very lowworkout intensity, inaccurate comparisons, etc...Garmin will continue to work with Firstbeat to investigate which of theabove factors are true and refine any area that may challenge thecaloric expenditure for specific users. Again, we appreciate all usersinput and passion to improve our products and the accuracy in the datathey provide.
chasing the impossible
because i never shut up ... i blog
Garmin looks at caloric burn by your weight input and HR.
You burn less for easier efforts because your HR is lower.
The only true numbers on exercise that I think are accurate are off of my power meter on my bike because it gives me Kilo Joules via looking at the wattage of power over a period of time. That is a true representation of work done.
I would say I get that, and that I thought that was the case for calcs, except it also taking distance and perhaps elevation into account. But of that was the case, mile 6 and mile 16 shouldn't be as different as they are.
18 cals for 3 secs and 1 HB per minute different?
OR
So now same pace, distance, and 1 HB per minute and we are 23 cals off?
Cereal? Something doesn't work mathematically here.