Can this be right or is this exaggerated
Options
nasr25
Posts: 214 Member
Hello let me start off by giving you my stats I am a male 26 years old 292 pounds and I haven’t worked out in a while. I went for a walk today and when I got done I checked my Garmin stats and it says I burned 587 calories this was a 43 min walk and average hr was 134 bpm average speed was 2.3 mph. My garmin watch is working properly I know that for sure cause I have tested it but could I have really burned that much ??? Seems high. Please give me your thoughts.
0
Replies

Is that your total calories for that 43 min? It may be adding the calories you burn doing nothing.0

No I had activity tracker on so it was only for the activity . So I looked at my garmin connect app to check for workout stats and this was only for the 43min. Even subtracting 120 for the calories I would have burned anyway still seems high.0

Was this just your pedometer or did you do a GPS tracking on it? around 300 calories would be the expected burn from just the exercise. If this was a pedometer then i9f you looked a the calories before you started and calories after it would be calculating your exercise burn + your standard burning form being alive. For that 592 makes sense. In other word if you just sat on the couch for 45 min you would have burned 300 calories, but with your walk you burned 300+300 (rounded numbers).0

0 
I did gps tracking on it. And I saved the activity after I got done. It could be that this is a total of tdee calories and calories burned but I was under the assumption that when you start a workout with the forerunner 235 it just shows excessive calories0

It seems a little high to me. I ran it through a couple of calculators based on your stats and came up with closer to 300 calories. You might want to check your settings and see if something is set funky.0

so i checked a couple hr based calorie burn calculators online with my stats and it does give me 600 calories on both but when I use regular calculators using only height age and weight under walking the calorie burn is much lower. Idk which to believe but I guess its better to stay on the safe side.0

so i checked a couple hr based calorie burn calculators online with my stats and it does give me 600 calories on both but when I use regular calculators using only height age and weight under walking the calorie burn is much lower. Idk which to believe but I guess its better to stay on the safe side.
I think your HR is why it gave you such a high estimates burn. You should see what my watch gives me when I go to the amusement park with my kids!
As you become more fit, your heart rate will come down during your walks.2 
so i checked a couple hr based calorie burn calculators online with my stats and it does give me 600 calories on both but when I use regular calculators using only height age and weight under walking the calorie burn is much lower. Idk which to believe but I guess its better to stay on the safe side.
Using HR for calorie estimates when you are fit and average weight is prone to huge inaccuracies  using it when overweight and unfit and for an activity like walking means it's a simply awful way to guesstimate calorie burns.
There is a fairly commonly used net calorie formula which uses the physics of moving mass over distance by an average efficiency ratio....
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 gives you an approximate net calorie estimate.
292 X 1.65 X 0.3 = 145 cals8 
Hello let me start off by giving you my stats I am a male 26 years old 292 pounds and I haven’t worked out in a while. I went for a walk today and when I got done I checked my Garmin stats and it says I burned 587 calories this was a 43 min walk and average hr was 134 bpm average speed was 2.3 mph. My garmin watch is working properly I know that for sure cause I have tested it but could I have really burned that much ??? Seems high. Please give me your thoughts.
As comment above explains  no.
You could use Garmin's manual entry with distance and time to overwrite what it came up with.
Since it's calculating GROSS calories for that chunk of time  it should be higher compared to the smaller NET calories calculated.
Since Garmin is a replaceonly system, you need Gross.
If you only used MFP by itself, NET would be better.
Eventually you'll get in shape enough that walking probably won't elevate the HR enough for it to use HRbased calorie burn, and it'll stick to distance/time based (calculated from your steps like it does for the daily stuff) in which case you can2 

thanks for the help i am just gonna use myfitnesspal calculator and eat like half those back and just use my watch as a pedometer.
2 
Wolfram Alpha gives 1151 kJ which is 274 calories https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=male+walking+2.3+mph,+292+lb,+43+min0
Categories
 All Categories
 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
 392.4K Introduce Yourself
 43.6K Getting Started
 260K Health and Weight Loss
 175.7K Food and Nutrition
 47.4K Recipes
 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
 407 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
 152.8K Motivation and Support
 7.9K Challenges
 1.3K Debate Club
 96.3K ChitChat
 2.5K Fun and Games
 3.5K MyFitnessPal Information
 23 News and Announcements
 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions