Garmin doesn’t recognize being on the feet?

heybales

NorthCascades wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

When 2 of my workouts started being swims where I didn't log it because no HR reading possible, I noticed the estimate on other workouts changed.

This is a random tangent and might not be of practical use to anybody, but you can log your HR while swimming if you really want to. They make a couple of chest straps with memory, the watches download the HR and combine it with the activity data based on time. I do that because I use HR for cumulative training stress.

When my current strap has issues and time for replace I was planning on doing that because it indeed sounded like good idea.

Is that a Garmin strap you use that integrates it correctly, or like Wahoo or other?
I kind of liked the idea of getting one with running dynamics in it too, since my FR doesn't, and footpod is rather hard set for distance per step for accuracy there.

There, said Garmin twice, hopefully not too far a tangent.

NorthCascades

@heybales

I don't know if they'll do it with straps that aren't theirs. I don't hear about people doing this very often, and I think trackers have started doing optical HR in the water even knowing it doesn't work that well, so there probably hasn't been much interest. A girlfriend gave me a HRM Swim strap a few years ago, made by Garmin, it worked really well but was very uncomfortable. I got their new HRM Pro this fall because it has sensors for skiing, I haven't used it in the water yet but it does that and RD too.

yirara

I think they do. I use my Polar OH1 optical HR thingy with my watch. The data is just a lit better when running.

yirara

Latest, and maybe last update: Garmin gave me 299 active calories so far today. 109 and 107 were for walking to work and back. Which leaves 83 cals for being on my feet for 8 hours. But considering the walking cals are very overstated (1.8km each) I'm sure this evens out a bit.

heybales

yirara wrote: »

Latest, and maybe last update: Garmin gave me 299 active calories so far today. 109 and 107 were for walking to work and back. Which leaves 83 cals for being on my feet for 8 hours. But considering the walking cals are very overstated (1.8km each) I'm sure this evens out a bit.

And the 83 is over the base sedentary you were getting credit for anyway.

Of course standing likely burned more.

So the walking workouts as logged will show gross calorie burn, I'm guessing that's the 109 & 107. Sure they are that far off?
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

But workouts have the base calories removed as they show up for Active calories, so 216 less that are part of the Active. So your standing and steps at work likely got more!

ETA - just working this out for future reference, mine may be different due to manually logged and synced in workouts not on the VF3.

Hmm, did the math on my Sat workouts and below sedentary steps (2716) outside the running workout (6941).

Workouts totaled 1101 calories in 135 min.
Active calories given 945 calories, so 156 less.

That's 1.156 cal/min removed, which is not the rate of sedentary TDEE they use (1.369 for 185), or BMR (1.141 for 154), so I'm guessing I have some extra in addition to the workout, maybe somehow.
So Sed TDEE rate should be correct subtraction, so 1101-185 = 916 net add of workouts to day.
916 - 945 Active actually given = 29 extra calories added.
For 2716 steps about, huh.

Fri was a wipe-out day after late errands driving around, 2394 steps, and yet somehow 45 Active calories. How in the world.

So at least the math appears right, and consistent. I'm now wondering how barely above 2000k steps rates as being above Sedentary (even if the old 1.2 multiplier).
Interestingly the difference on MFP side was 81 cal, about the max difference I referenced in other post.

I'll have to pay attention to calorie burn on device before sync next time and GC does it's math.

Just thinking out loud. And hoping this will help me remember by "writing" it down.

heybales

heybales wrote: »

Over a year ago the last time I had someone test for me - the Fitbit improved it's HR-based calorie burn during the 1st 2 weeks.

This made sense because one of the public studies for HR-based calorie burn (and Garmin/Firstbeat too actually when you manually selected a PAR level from chart) is based on number of workouts.

I totally believe Garmin still uses that method but automatically now instead of manual entry - they know your workouts, frequency and time - so there's the PAR number.

So for workouts it probably still does.

It was easy to see using running on treadmill at same level of work, same avgHR, and yet calorie burn different at end of 2 weeks.

So if number of workouts changes in a couple weeks - there may be a change if they still use that method.

When 2 of my workouts started being swims where I didn't log it because no HR reading possible, I noticed the estimate on other workouts changed.

I always replaced the calorie burn with better estimate anyway so didn't matter.

Found the reference for the study, which I'm pretty sure Fitbit is using too or similar enough theory.
Activity Class Chart provided by Firstbeat Technologies Ltd., portions of which are based on Jackson et al. Prediction of functional aerobic capacity without exercise testing. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise 22:863:870, 1990.

yirara

Ugh.. I need to read this again tomorrow as I just had an ultrastrong beer and can't think straight anymore.
So Garmin gives me just below 1600 calories for 'resting' every single day, regardless of what I do. Active goes on top. Today I've gotten 299 of those so far, of which 83 were for working on my feet, and the rest walking to and from work. Funnily, my actual sedentary calories are around 1750ish, but that's a totally different story. Guess I defy the usual equations a bit (plus I have quite a bit of muscle mass for a pre-menopausal woman)