Garmin Negative calorie adjustment & static bike
TooManyMinstrels
Posts: 20 Member
Hi,
I’ve just done an hour’s cycling workout using a smart turbo trainer (Zwift) apparently burning 429 calories. But the Garmin negative calorie adjuster has docked about the same from my exercise totals, leaving me with a credit of 3 exercise calories. I’ve tried reading the manual for how the Garmin calorie adjuster thing works but can’t get my head around it.. can anyone help explain??
Thank you!!
I’ve just done an hour’s cycling workout using a smart turbo trainer (Zwift) apparently burning 429 calories. But the Garmin negative calorie adjuster has docked about the same from my exercise totals, leaving me with a credit of 3 exercise calories. I’ve tried reading the manual for how the Garmin calorie adjuster thing works but can’t get my head around it.. can anyone help explain??
Thank you!!
0
Replies
-
Sorry, the correct term is Garmin Connect Calorie adjustment!0
-
What activity level are you set at and how active have you been NOT counting exercise?
Things you should now:
- Garmin's calorie burn for exercise is gross, not net calories. So when you exercise, your BMR calories burned while exercising will get subtracted via the GC calorie adjustment to avoid double counting
- the GC calorie adjustment is there to reconcile your activity level with the activity level setting you choose on MFP. That setting excludes intentional exercise.
For example: if I set my activity level to active, but only take 2000 steps that day outside of intentional exercise, and then hike for five hours, GC calorie adjustment will be very negative: I haven't reached my active level (barely active outside of exercise) and from 5 hours of BMR being subtracted. The total adjustment should still be positive considering the amount of exercise.
In your case, depending on your activity level setting and how active you actually were outside of exercise, you might have coincidentally arrived at more or less equilibrium between the exercise burn on one hand and the GC adjustment on the other hand.1 -
Thanks for replying. I’ve set my activity level as low, because my day job is sitting at a computer all day. But I usually train once or twice a day, usually an hour on the bike before breakfast and a run in the evening.
Still don’t understand why it would write off the entire session though?? I don’t think I have the right brain for this!0 -
Don't think of it as writing off, the two numbers are not connected 🙂 one is exercise, the other relates to non exercise activity.
But if you're set at sedentary/not very active, you'd have to be really inactive to have that compensate for your workout. How many steps did you take?
There is some troubleshooting we can do to check if your Garmin is syncing correctly. That's by checking if your total calorie burn for the day in Garmin Connect is the same as what's sent over to MFP.
For that:
-go to Calories in the Garmin Connect app (NOT Calories in/out) and look at the total calories burned for the day
-go to your MFP diary (app) and tap on the GC calorie adjustment line. Then tap on the Extra Calories Earned line. There you can see what number MFP has received from Garmin as your total calories burned and time of the latest sync. Those numbers should be the same for a completed day (might not be identical for an incomplete day, depending on how recent the latest sync was, but should be close).
To illustrate:
1 -
Thanks for this. This was my first workout for the day, so steps taken were literally from bed to the bike 🤣0
-
It might have been a synch issue then.. as it’s now showing my exercise calories burned in my diary.
Sounds like it all just works itself out in the end?!
0 -
Perhaps wait til the day is complete, that can sometimes do weird things to the numbers
1 -
@lietchi has really explained it well. I also have a Garmin watch connect to MFP. Due to Garmin's use of Gross calories for activities, there are sometimes some discrepancies. MFP uses the "Garmin Connect calorie adjustment" to try to fix the problem. For me, this led to lots of "negative calorie adjustments" that were just plain wrong (particularly on days where I swam). In the end, I turned off that feature (de-selected it in my profile). The risk is that somedays there could be an overestimate of your calories, but in practice I found this to be rare.
Best of luck!1 -
It appears you got the issue of Garmin actually being slow to update it's own figures in all places.
It likely synced the workout first, along with a new Daily Burn figure that happened to not include the exercise calories yet.
Well, MFP to make sure there is no double counting workouts, assumes Total Daily Burned would be total and included the workout.
So it makes sure not to include the workout in the math again.
So your recent screenshot is after Garmin sent a new Daily burned figure that did include the workout - 940 total.
Prior value was likely around 511 (about 940-429), with daily projection of 1599.
Well, projected 1599 minus MFP estimated 2092 = neg 493
Neg 493 adjustment + 429 workout = neg 64 total Exercise calories.
Some difference in time there made you see a small positive for a short time.
This has nothing to do with gross or net, the way MFP handles it is correct.
The way Garmin though attempts to show an eating goal is incorrect and involves using net and MFP eating goal and just don't use it - they screwed up.
Just be aware that Garmin is slow to update their own figures, but very quick to send the workouts over.
You can likely always catch this issue if you look quick enough.
Just wait.
If you think you are very sedentary outside of exercise - I suggest keep the Neg adjustment enabled.
It only comes into play when your activity outside exercise doesn't go above the level you selected in MFP.
For me that is very frequent.
I'm getting negative on all days.
So even though with all workout days I get negative too, at least the workout increases the daily burn.1 -
Thanks for all your replies. I think I’m starting to understand it!
So here is what today ended up like. I did an easy static bike in the morning, and seven mile run after work. I’m starting to think I ignore the calorie figure MFP sets for weight loss (assuming I’m sedentary) which was about 1200. I don’t need to lose very much. I manually adjusted to 1500 and eat a bit more if I’ve done a lot, like today..
I’m probably overthinking! Grateful for your help.
thanks for your time everyone.
1 -
TooManyMinstrels wrote: »Hi,
I’ve just done an hour’s cycling workout using a smart turbo trainer (Zwift) apparently burning 429 calories. But the Garmin negative calorie adjuster has docked about the same from my exercise totals, leaving me with a credit of 3 exercise calories. I’ve tried reading the manual for how the Garmin calorie adjuster thing works but can’t get my head around it.. can anyone help explain??
Thank you!!
From what I can tell from my past experience, Garmin seems to come up with their total calorie expenditure number based on the step-tracker portion of the server and device (and things like bicycling will add nil to that number).0 -
I'm perplexed, that doesn't seem right at all to only get 17 calories extra for the amount of exercise you did if your activity level is set at sedentary.
PS: if MFP have you 1200 calories as a goal, I'm guessing you've chosen a weight loss rate that is too aggressive (or you're very small/light? Definitely good that you're not eating at that level, 1200 would be way too low considering your exercise.0 -
TooManyMinstrels wrote: »Hi,
I’ve just done an hour’s cycling workout using a smart turbo trainer (Zwift) apparently burning 429 calories. But the Garmin negative calorie adjuster has docked about the same from my exercise totals, leaving me with a credit of 3 exercise calories. I’ve tried reading the manual for how the Garmin calorie adjuster thing works but can’t get my head around it.. can anyone help explain??
Thank you!!
From what I can tell from my past experience, Garmin seems to come up with their total calorie expenditure number based on the step-tracker portion of the server and device (and things like bicycling will add nil to that number).
Obviously not true for her though since she got more than 400 calories from her cycling (which will be added to total calories burned).
Not true for me either, I get calories from strength training and rowing too.0 -
.. although on checking the site and app, it looks like they've since revised it.
The garmin site/app used to have a list of exercise calories with all the day's measured activities and a tracker adjustment number and a total... the total matched up always approximately with the tracker mileage (as in steps, and only steps) and type of movement that day, with the adjustment line varying to make them match.
ETA: Just checked recent days - and the issue does seem to have been fixed at some point.0 -
I'm perplexed, that doesn't seem right at all to only get 17 calories extra for the amount of exercise you did if your activity level is set at sedentary.
PS: if MFP have you 1200 calories as a goal, I'm guessing you've chosen a weight loss rate that is too aggressive (or you're very small/light? Definitely good that you're not eating at that level, 1200 would be way too low considering your exercise.
She isn't giving pic of the whole Exercise Diary total, just the Garmin adjustment.
So 17 extra calories is only for above sedentary.
And then the eating goal will have added on the 1158 from exercise also.
She is for sure small/lightish - around 1600 sedentary daily burn from MFP.1 -
OP - you are not overthinking it - you for sure need to eat more when you do a lot more.
And set your deficit to probably 1/2 lb weekly if little to lose.
Problem though - those workouts are probably going by HR-based calorie burn.
How long have you been using the Garmin?
And besides it learning you better - the walking, if logged as workout and therefore by HR calorie burn - will be inflated.
1 -
I'm perplexed, that doesn't seem right at all to only get 17 calories extra for the amount of exercise you did if your activity level is set at sedentary.
PS: if MFP have you 1200 calories as a goal, I'm guessing you've chosen a weight loss rate that is too aggressive (or you're very small/light? Definitely good that you're not eating at that level, 1200 would be way too low considering your exercise.
She isn't giving pic of the whole Exercise Diary total, just the Garmin adjustment.
So 17 extra calories is only for above sedentary.
And then the eating goal will have added on the 1158 from exercise also.
She is for sure small/lightish - around 1600 sedentary daily burn from MFP.
Ah right, I got confused with between the Garmin adjustment and the total exercise adjustment.0 -
Morning all!
I’m 5’8 and 140lbs. I don’t fluctuate hugely with my weight, but too heavy for me is 145lbs which is where I started earlier this year.
I set my activity level as ‘inactive’ as I’m in a full-time desk job, MFP gave me a calorie total of 1200. I am a runner/cyclist and am active most days, 1200 wasn’t sustainable for me so I plumped for a target of 1500 cals. If I’ve done a long run I’ll eat a bit more.
I suppose ultimately what I’m trying to understand is whether the Garmin calorie burn (2800 yesterday) is reasonably reliable. Because if I’m genuinely burning 2800 on one day, then I need to up my daily intake to a lot more than 1500.
I personally think the calorie burn is overestimated. I have a decent Garmin (Fenix 6) but surprised to see a 400 cal burn for an easy, 1hr, low HR static bike session.
That might be an entirely different conversation!
Thanks everyone0 -
TooManyMinstrels wrote: »Morning all!
I’m 5’8 and 140lbs. I don’t fluctuate hugely with my weight, but too heavy for me is 145lbs which is where I started earlier this year.
I set my activity level as ‘inactive’ as I’m in a full-time desk job, MFP gave me a calorie total of 1200. I am a runner/cyclist and am active most days, 1200 wasn’t sustainable for me so I plumped for a target of 1500 cals. If I’ve done a long run I’ll eat a bit more.
I suppose ultimately what I’m trying to understand is whether the Garmin calorie burn (2800 yesterday) is reasonably reliable. Because if I’m genuinely burning 2800 on one day, then I need to up my daily intake to a lot more than 1500.
I personally think the calorie burn is overestimated. I have a decent Garmin (Fenix 6) but surprised to see a 400 cal burn for an easy, 1hr, low HR static bike session.
That might be an entirely different conversation!
Thanks everyone
Just because you do a desk job doesn't mean inactive/sedentary is the right MFP activity level for you.
That job is just part of your overall (non-exercise) activity. Saying you are active most days but picking inactive will make your adjustments larger.
Sedentary would have been far too low for me when I did a full time desk job (plus running my own IT business) due to the amount of non-exercise movement built into both my working days and my weekends.
Does your static bike report power output in watts by any chance to get a better estimate?
There is a huge range of cycling ability levels and 400 net cals for an hour isn't by any means a big number for someone with decent fitness levels.
That 400 cals (net not gross) would be c. 111 average watts which really isn't a lot and under 100 watts for gross calorie estimate which your Garmin would be giving.
Also remember that hitting the 1200 minimum daily allowance is caused in large part by choosing a fast rate of loss, which probably isn't appropriate for you (plus you have picked the lowest activity setting). To find out what MFP estimates your calorie needs for a day with no exercise change to "maintain current weight" and think if "inactive" really is the right activity selection.1 -
TooManyMinstrels wrote: »Morning all!
I’m 5’8 and 140lbs. I don’t fluctuate hugely with my weight, but too heavy for me is 145lbs which is where I started earlier this year.
I set my activity level as ‘inactive’ as I’m in a full-time desk job, MFP gave me a calorie total of 1200. I am a runner/cyclist and am active most days, 1200 wasn’t sustainable for me so I plumped for a target of 1500 cals. If I’ve done a long run I’ll eat a bit more.
I suppose ultimately what I’m trying to understand is whether the Garmin calorie burn (2800 yesterday) is reasonably reliable. Because if I’m genuinely burning 2800 on one day, then I need to up my daily intake to a lot more than 1500.
I personally think the calorie burn is overestimated. I have a decent Garmin (Fenix 6) but surprised to see a 400 cal burn for an easy, 1hr, low HR static bike session.
That might be an entirely different conversation!
Thanks everyone
Does your static bike report power output in watts by any chance to get a better estimate?
There is a huge range of cycling ability levels and 400 net cals for an hour isn't by any means a big number for someone with decent fitness levels.
That 400 cals (net not gross) would be c. 111 average watts which really isn't a lot and under 100 watts for gross calorie estimate which your Garmin would be giving.
Just a quick reply - yes, power/watts was 127 average (not a lot!) I've been recording both via the smart turbo trainer (incl. power meter, chest strap heart rate monitor) and my Garmin Fenix and the calorie output on both devices are pretty much similar. I delete the smart turbo data so only one figure pulls into MFP.0 -
I've always been a bit confused as to whether the exercise calories are net or gross, so this is helpful, thank you!0
-
127 watts for an hour cycling is a very accurate 457 NET calories. (Multiply average watts/hour by 3.6)
That it felt easy to you at a low heartrate is a reflection of a good fitness level and a well trained heart, not a low energy expenditure.2 -
For running, you can use this calculator to compare with what your Garmin says:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
For example, for a 7mile run (presuming a 7MPH speed, just for ease of calculation, you might get a lsightly different number with your speed and duration):
Garmin's number is gross calories as well, so use that for comparisons with your Garmin.2 -
TooManyMinstrels wrote: »Morning all!
I’m 5’8 and 140lbs. I don’t fluctuate hugely with my weight, but too heavy for me is 145lbs which is where I started earlier this year.
I set my activity level as ‘inactive’ as I’m in a full-time desk job, MFP gave me a calorie total of 1200. I am a runner/cyclist and am active most days, 1200 wasn’t sustainable for me so I plumped for a target of 1500 cals. If I’ve done a long run I’ll eat a bit more.
I suppose ultimately what I’m trying to understand is whether the Garmin calorie burn (2800 yesterday) is reasonably reliable. Because if I’m genuinely burning 2800 on one day, then I need to up my daily intake to a lot more than 1500.
I personally think the calorie burn is overestimated. I have a decent Garmin (Fenix 6) but surprised to see a 400 cal burn for an easy, 1hr, low HR static bike session.
That might be an entirely different conversation!
Thanks everyone
Sijomial's advice about cycling calorie estimates is well-founded: Note the distinction he made between gross and net calories.
If you stick to a logged calorie level for a full menstrual cycle (or two) - as you look to be the right age for that to matter? - you can add your total calorie intake over that time period to your weight loss over the same timespan (pounds/fractions * 3500), divide by the number of days in the time period, then compare that to the average calories your Garmin estimated (all-day estimates) for the whole time period. (If you're older than I'm assuming, post menopausal, 4-6 weeks time period is good.)
Frankly, 1200 (or 1500) doesn't sound like a great plan to me, with relatively little weight to lose and what sounds like exercise-performance goals alongside. At 5'5", 125 pounds, age 65, female, I'd lose a couple of pounds a week at 1500 (not eating back extra for exercise; if eating my exercise estimates, still lose close to a pound a week, probably). Admittedly, I'm mysteriously a good li'l ol' calorie burner for my demographic . . . as such, my Garmin (worn 24 x 7 except when charging) dramatically *underestimates* my calorie needs, as compared with more than 6 years of my own logging data.
It's not so much a question of the device being accurate, as it is a question of how close to average the device's user happens to be, since the tracker's algorithms rely on large-group statistical averages to estimate calories, essentially. It won't necessarily be obvious why a particular person is non-average, either.
2800 for a busy, active day with the two exercise sessions you mention isn't out of the question, IMO. I'm maintaining now, eating 2200-2500 many of my days, and you're 3 inches taller, around 15 pounds heavier, and I suspect materially younger. Your exercise load (time + intensity combo) is higher.
(Garmin's average estimate for me for the last 7 days is 1531. Yes, I've had it, used it for a couple of years. Garmin's estimate and MFP's estimate (last time I checked the latter) for me are close. They're both wildly wrong. This is rare, but it happens.)
There are quite a few women here around my size, most younger, eating well into the 2000s to maintain. It's not that rare.1 -
You've gotten 2 good ways to see how close the Garmin might be reporting your exercise calories for running & biking. (just realize you can't compare Garmin workout gross to the watts formula net - gross will be for you 55 cal higher per hour and therefore correct match)
I'll add for the daily life, despite you saying desk job, you could have a lot of steps and distance to your day outside of exercise.
Any idea on non-workout days what the steps & more importantly the distance may be?
Sadly Garmin doesn't make it easy to see how many of the daily steps were part of exercise to just subtract from a daily total, so you have to actually look at a non-exercise day.
Because, to sijomial's point about possibly being more active than sedentary - you could actually be getting a lot of steps, and therefore an incorrect stride length figure which makes the distance off. And it's distance and time and mass that is very accurate calorie burn formula.
Like what if the stride length was set during some exercise level walking pace - which is far above your normal daily stride length.
That could matter if you commonly get say above 8K steps outside exercise.
Of course if you barely get any, like less than 3K - then it isn't a big potential deal.
In the end, as Ann is pointing out, you can make all the tweaks possible (like HRmax effects HR-based calorie burn) so the Garmin is giving best estimate possible to help with changing days and workouts - and still have to know in the back of the mind adjustment will be required.
So to that end - figuring out tweaks may not be needed, just a different adjustment.
I'm the worst in this experienced group giving advice for attempting to get the best figures possible. (I won't even attempt to explain the mind space behind that, but to say application of a sad hobby is big part of it)1 -
127 watts for an hour cycling is a very accurate 457 NET calories. (Multiply average watts/hour by 3.6)
That it felt easy to you at a low heartrate is a reflection of a good fitness level and a well trained heart, not a low energy expenditure.
OP - So that 1 hr ride for you, Garmin if close would have been around 457 + 55 = 512 cal shown for the workout session.
I'm curious how close it got since you said it felt easy and HR might have thrown off the formula used if it didn't have watts available.1 -
127 watts for an hour cycling is a very accurate 457 NET calories. (Multiply average watts/hour by 3.6)
That it felt easy to you at a low heartrate is a reflection of a good fitness level and a well trained heart, not a low energy expenditure.
OP - So that 1 hr ride for you, Garmin if close would have been around 457 + 55 = 512 cal shown for the workout session.
I'm curious how close it got since you said it felt easy and HR might have thrown off the formula used if it didn't have watts available.
So, stats comparison for similar ride this morning (same intensity/category) - using Zwift.
Wahoo smart trainer with powermeter + chest HR strap: 436 calories, avg power 119W avg HR 115 max 159
Garmin Fenix 6: (obviously not recording power) = 451 calories avg HR 114 max 158
When I say 'easy', what I mean is: I used to do these rides earlier in the year (when I was fitter) and they would always be my recovery ride. So I still see them as that, even though they are more effort than they were. I'd describe them as a moderate/easy ride at the moment.
Just looking to see how it's pulled through into MFP. Both Zwift and Garmin figures pull through, I have deleted the higher calorie version, in this case the data from the Fenix. Currently, I'm seeing a Garmin connect calorie adjustment of -518, bike deficit 436, giving me a credit of 82 for exercise. I'm starting to think I might just remove the Garmin calorie adjustment feature, I just find it confusing!
@AnnPT77 I am 46. Thank you for that really interesting answer. I can't imagine maintaining on 2000 calories a day, but maybe I need to rethink. At the moment I am hovering at approx 64kg (around 140lbs). I got to just over 60kg/133lbs a few years ago and felt strong and super-fit, that's where I want to get back to.
Thank you!
0 -
Because MFP already sees the workout, it's looking at what was your activity besides the workout - so you were 82 calories above sedentary.
I'd suggest keep it - you might have a hard exercise day with lots of calories there - but less active otherwise.
I've had 200-300 cal removed due to moving around less after a long hard ride.
You might also have a short workout and be very busy getting other active things done, and get a good sized adjustment. Or no workout.
Because you have a calorie burn for a workout already in MFP, just remember the adjustment is about non-exercise time.0 -
@heybales have I got this right - the net effect of me getting up at silly o'clock in the morning and sitting on a bike for an hour was 82 calories?!
That's more depressing than I thought! (I sweated and everything)0 -
TooManyMinstrels wrote: »@heybales have I got this right - the net effect of me getting up at silly o'clock in the morning and sitting on a bike for an hour was 82 calories?!
That's more depressing than I thought! (I sweated and everything)
Your Garmin Connect adjustment is not about your exercise, it's about your general activity level outside of exercise. (And, since Garmin sends over the gross calorie burn for exercise, it also takes away the BMR calories from that, to avoid double counting.)
If you're more active than sedentary (not counting exercise) you'll get extra calories.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions