Garmin Heart Rate Monitor

Sparksfly

I think I might be having issues with the calorie counter on this HRM.

Anyone have a Garmin with a chest strap?

Today I did a boot camp type class at my work gym. Definately difficult for me with sprints, lifting, push-ups etc. The total class was 45 minutes and we didn't break that much at all.

My highest HR was around 165 and my max is supposed to be about 195.

The HRM said I only burned about 290 calories for the whole 45 minute class. I am 5'4 and I weigh anywhere from 129-132lbs.

Does this seem too low? I used to estimate I burned about 400 calories for the class before the Garmin HRM. Thanks for the help!

Mollydolly10

That sounds about right to me. I am 5'4" 119 llbs and use a HRM. Your HR got decently high, but it's unclear how long you were actually in that range (and you said that was your HIGHEST). I use a Polar and not a Garmin though. 400 before sounds like WAY too much, cause you are not overweight, so it'll take a lot to burn calories.

Just as an example, I only burned 255 calories during a 35 minute run with my avg HR at 154 and my max HR at 170.

cmw9696

I have a Garmin 305...I am in the same boat for indoor activities...I find it is only "more accurate" when it can actually track your mileage by the satellite (outdoors). That is what Garmin GPS is all about...

I just don't depend on it for calories or anything indoors

jillybeanruns

Melissa, honestly return in. Garmins are great (I just bought one) but only to be used for outdoor runs. If you don't see much running - particularly endurance events (10 milers and up) in your future it's not a good investment for you. I knew I wanted a Garmin but bought a Polar first because Garmins are not made for indoor workouts and their calorie count calculations are off. Peruse the Garmin boards and you'll find people with similar experiences. I now have the Garmin for 1/2 and full marathon training as I want splits, elevations and the likes but I will only use the calories burned numbers as a guesstimate.

jillybeanruns

Oh and your calorie burn is probably on the low side, but based on your weight and height you most likely didn't burn anything higher than 8 calories/minute. Stinks huh?

Sparksfly

Yeah I have the Garmin 405 CX which includes the chest strap for indoor activities. I just see all these people on here with POLAR HRM's and they are burning crazy calories per workout...even if they are around the same weight as me.

6.5 calories burned a minute seems so disheartening! That 290 burned was also not subtracting my BMR (about -45 cals for 45mins).


Molly! Wow, I could have sworn that people our height would be burning 80-90 cals per 10mins not 60-70 cals.

Mollydolly10

Haha yeah it's a bummer. Some of those people you see with big numbers might also not be subtracting the "resting calories" from their total number though also. So I have to subtract 1.13 calories per minute of exercise I do in order to get just the calories I am burning from exercise (so the number I SEE on my watch is always higher).

If you don't know what I mean, you can see my reply to this person's post (i posted right after the original poster):

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/147931-how-accurate-are-heart-rate-monitors

Sparksfly

Melissa, honestly return in. Garmins are great (I just bought one) but only to be used for outdoor runs. If you don't see much running - particularly endurance events (10 milers and up) in your future it's not a good investment for you. I knew I wanted a Garmin but bought a Polar first because Garmins are not made for indoor workouts and their calorie count calculations are off. Peruse the Garmin boards and you'll find people with similar experiences. I now have the Garmin for 1/2 and full marathon training as I want splits, elevations and the likes but I will only use the calories burned numbers as a guesstimate.

Thanks Jill. I am really considering returning it. I do like to run a good amount and the GPS feature is AWESOME, but I really am pissed that the calorie count has been soooo low.

jillybeanruns

Melissa, honestly return in. Garmins are great (I just bought one) but only to be used for outdoor runs. If you don't see much running - particularly endurance events (10 milers and up) in your future it's not a good investment for you. I knew I wanted a Garmin but bought a Polar first because Garmins are not made for indoor workouts and their calorie count calculations are off. Peruse the Garmin boards and you'll find people with similar experiences. I now have the Garmin for 1/2 and full marathon training as I want splits, elevations and the likes but I will only use the calories burned numbers as a guesstimate.

Thanks Jill. I am really considering returning it. I do like to run a good amount and the GPS feature is AWESOME, but I really am pissed that the calorie count has been soooo low.

The more fit you are, the more efficient your body gets as well - so lower burn for the same workouts. I don't even burn 90 calories running a 9 minute mile anymore. I think for you it's probably Garmin being inaccurate and low-balling you as well as you being more fit than you realize. A better option for you might be the Polar FT60 or Polar FT80 with a footpod/GPS. That's what I have and have been using for running up until now. You can still get a mileage and pace read if you have the footpod or GPS and you'll get one of the most accurate HRMs (I have the FT60). You won't get the elevation/splits but I'm not sure that's something you need or want?! That's my vote though, but that's what I did (FT60+footpod) until now. I just wanted more information and a bit more accuracy on pace/distance for my running and that brought me to the Garmin.

Sparksfly

Haha yeah it's a bummer. Some of those people you see with big numbers might also not be subtracting the "resting calories" from their total number though also. So I have to subtract 1.13 calories per minute of exercise I do in order to get just the calories I am burning from exercise (so the number I SEE on my watch is always higher).

If you don't know what I mean, you can see my reply to this person's post (i posted right after the original poster):

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/147931-how-accurate-are-heart-rate-monitors

Thanks Molly. I used to go by a standard with indoor equipment as well. I would usually deduct 30-40% of what the machines said I burned. If my Garmin is correct, then it might be more like 50% off. THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING!

It's such a terrible cycle! You are overweight and you decide to count calories in vs. cals out, then the machines are telling you that you are burning SO MUCH MORE than you actually are! Eating back exercise calories seems more and more ridiculous as I am figuring out how little I burn for the effort. Sorry...RANT OVER! :sad:

Sporty98

Just a little humor....I have a friend who weighs about twice what I do. One day we ended up walking the same length of time, and her calorie burn was over double mine!!! I sat down all ready to pout that "My body hates me!" sort of thing....When my husband chimed right in, saying "Well, that's just not fair! How could she do that!?!? You are in better shape than her...!" It was SO funny to see this grown man belly-aching about my calorie burn like it was some important issue....! Ha ha ha! (I just ♥ him!)