Garmin calorie burn

RUNucbar

I have a Garmin watch which I use for running but the calories it gives are VERY different to MFP. I know MFP overestimates but I'm now confused.

I'm 22 years old, 5 foot 2 and weigh 151.0lbs. I ran for 28 minutes at a fairly sedate pace.

MFP thinks I burned 288 calories
The app linked to my heart rate monitor thinks I burned 291
My Garmin racewatch puts the burn at just 117.

I have no idea which one seems 'right' and no idea what I should actually log. One of those measurements is not correct. How do I know which one?

TavistockToad

Weights in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles

which is usually within a few calories of what my Garmin tells me.

yirara

What @TavistockToad says. Use those numbers. My fitbit charge 2 also overestimates big time unless I add an exercise manually after the fact. Then it seems to be using 0.63* lbs * miles for some reason. And I can confirm those for myself at least from years of tracking.

mitch16

I have used these formulas from Runner's World to double check my burns:



They say that the calculations apply to walkers doing an 18:36 pace and runners doing a 10:00 pace and there is some variation around the walking (faster walkers burn more calories) but there isn't much variation in the running until you get significantly faster than 10 minute miles.

My math puts you closer to the mfp/app calories than your Garmin...

TimothyFish

Nobody gets it exactly right, but my experience with Garmin is that they get it within the ballpark.

yirara

mitch16 wrote: »

I have used these formulas from Runner's World to double check my burns:



They say that the calculations apply to walkers doing an 18:36 pace and runners doing a 10:00 pace and there is some variation around the walking (faster walkers burn more calories) but there isn't much variation in the running until you get significantly faster than 10 minute miles.

My math puts you closer to the mfp/app calories than your Garmin...

Looks a bit high for walking. The compendium of physical activities give you 9.8 mets for running and 3.5-4.3mets for walking. The running one looks to be gross calories while you need net calories to calculate with as gross is already included in the bmr

mitch16

TimothyFish wrote: »

Nobody gets it exactly right, but my experience with Garmin is that they get it within the ballpark.

Agreed. The RW calculations (for me) are always pretty close to the ones I get from my Garmin Fenix 5S (which also matched pretty well with my old chest strap HRM)... It's unusual that the Garmin was so much lower (and that mfp was the more accurate number).

michellebirtleeds

I've been using my Garmin for 6 months, and it usually gives me very reasonable estimates for cardio calories. By this I mean that the estimates are similar to those found by exercise physiologists, AND that my weight loss was progressing at expected speeds.

Calorie burn estimates for weightlifting are a mess, but that's true for all methods of estimating weightlifting calories.

That said, the estimates have been...weird...for the last 2 weeks. I don't know if that is due to a software update or something else.

VintageFeline

What method of HRM are you using? Is it wrist read? As with the above my wrist read has been funky very recently, it's not picking up my heart rate properly so I'm getting really burns. I haven't tested with my chest strap though to know if it's a universal heart rate issue with them. They've been doing a lot of tweaking with all the new devices that just came out.

stanmann571

117 seems a bit low, I'd check the calibration on GC and make sure your weight is right. Because even if you were running really slowly, you probably did about 2 miles and so the burn should be closer to 180ish.

jjpptt2

Is this the first time you've used the garmin?

If not...
- are the number usually closer?
- if it's a chest strap HRM, does it need to be cleaned or battery replaced?

If so...
- is the watch configured/setup properly?

stanmann571

Also, which watch?

One of their GPS models? or not? and HRM?