Calories burned on one garmin watch verses another garmin wa

choran

Can anyone guide me? I have a garmin watch with a heart monitor and a foot pod to track distance. On my watch I ran 11 miles the other day in 85 minutes and the watch told me that I burned over 1000 calories. The battery is gone in my foot pod this morning so I used my boyfriends garmin (more expensive version which uses satelite to track distance and heart monitor) and I ran 10.5 miles in 88 minutes and this watch told me that I only burned 606 calories. Both watches have the same info loaded- age, weight, height etc. There is a HUGE difference between the two so which do I believe????

kelsully

Assuming your foot pod was calibrated correctly...then I would say the 11 mile calculation was probably pretty close...I have come to learn that I burn about 90 cals per mile. That is an estimate. If I am pushing my pace or the weather conditions are really hot then I might burn up to 95 cals per mile... When I was just starting out with mu running again it was closer to 100 per mile. The 1000 cals for 11 miles makes sense to me. I don't know about the discrepency...unless it is set for a man...while the weight age etc might be the same is the gender the same????

superwmn

I do not use these devices because the calorie counters are notoriously inaccurate. My understanding is that they are a guide. I would go with the lower estimate.

Charmagne

choran

Thanks Kelsully. I changed all the details on my boyfriends watch from his to mine and I just checked and did change the sex! And I ran the same course this morning that I usually run so the foot pod does track right as the distance on the two watches match. It is very confusing!!! I know I am very fit, I do marathons and run on average c. 10 miles a day. While I do know the calories are only a guide I am surprised at how much it varies between the two watches. I know I don't push myself pace wise recently so maybe I am only burning c. 600 calories? It does seem pretty low though............

jimmydeanbakker

10.5 miles in 88 minutes would put your calorie count way higher than 606 calories. That's a 7:25 pace.

kelsully

This is curious then. I have a Garmin FR60...HRM with foot pod...it seems pretty accurate but MFP will give me less cals than my HRM does...I go with MFP numbers. I know I am one of the few that FP gives me less...but then when I run a treadmill run I really push the HR as I tend to really push my pace on the treadmill...my HR is quite high and MFP doesn't know how much wrk it takes me to run 2 miles at 7:30min/miles...Try putting your pace and mileage into MFP see what it gives you and use the HRM number that is closer...I would also experiment a bit in the next few weeks doing similar runs wearing your HRM and then your boyfriends...I would by so intrigued by this that I would have figure it out.

kelsully

How does the boyfriend's watch calculate HR? Does it have a chest strap? When I reread the original post you said that his watch used satelite to track distance and HR.

If it is a HR chest strap did you use his chest strap or your own?
If the satelite/watch system records HR without cheststrap then maybe that is where the discrepency lies. If you used your chest strap with his watch maybe the styles didn't match correctly???
I don't know...I would be playing this until I figured this out...this kind of puzle intrigues me.

choran

Yes my BFs also uses the same chest strap! I actually used my own one today but they are exactly the same. The average HR and Max HR were in line with normal runs!!!

MFP is somewhere between the two results! I never eat all my calories anyway but I would like to know what I burned!!! This is very frusterating!!!

choran

FYI- My watch is the old 150 non gps version and BF's is the 110 GPS version

FrenchMob

Your boyfriends 110 uses the heart rate to calculate cals burnt, your old one uses distance/time, therefore your boyfriends would be the more accurate of the 2 units.