Garmin 405cx calorie counts??

tenunderfour

I have just started using my Garmin forerunner 405cx during indoor cardio sessions to help track calories burned. I'm a runner and recently upgraded from my old forerunner 205. It seems to calculate calories at a really low rate. I'm female, 41 years old, 5'9", 140 lbs. Today I did Insanity power & resistance along with cardio abs (56 min total) and my total calories burned was 336?!!! It also runs on the low side when I run..... for example burning only 275 calories in a 4 mile run at 9:30 pace. I pretty much thought I burned about 100 calories per mile when running.

So my question is.... does anyone else have this problem with the 405cx? Should I get a Polar HRM? Can anyone compare the two in terms of calorie expenditures? I know underestimating is better than over..... but I want accuracy and credit where credit is due as well!! ;-)

tenunderfour

anyone?

scottb81

Read this: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

My Garmin also gives a lower calorie count for running than the other brand. Personally, I think it is probably more accurate as it uses a more advanced algorithm to estimate calorie burn.

The only time my garmin was giving me what I thought was way to low I found that during a watch reset all my personal data had been erased. Once I fixed that the calorie burn seemed reasonable, but still lower than what is given by other brand HRMs or running charts.

mlb929

My Garmin is a Forerunner 405, it doesn't track calories indoors at all. The science behind it you must be moving. I wear a HRM and don't find the calorie counts even when outdoors and tracking calories are accurate - generally about 300 off with a long run vs an online calculator using age, weight, and average HR for 90 minute or more run.

scottb81

FWIW - I am male, 6'0", 174 lbs and I get around 110 cal per mile for very easy running and maybe up to between 120 and 130 per mile for very hard running on the garmin.

tenunderfour

Ok - it sounds like a low calorie reading is the norm for Garmin.

Soooo..... should I get a Polar FT7? How accurate are they?

Thanks for the responses, btw.

lescheker

The 405cx seems to be correct for me whereas other older technologies overestimate my calorie burn. As examples:

- I went walking around town last night for an hour at 4 miles per hour. From Runner's World, your total calorie burn is .53 x your weight for walking (.75 for running), so estimated calories walking for my weight was 381.6 calories. The 405cx had me at 384 calories burned.

- I have checked the 405cx against various elliptical machines with heartrate handles in my gym. Older style, running on tracks ellipticals like the Precor 556i overestimate by hundreds of calories compared with the 405cx, whereas newer machines like the Precor AMT 100i line up almost perfectly with the calorie burn from the 405cx. I burn around 550 calories according to the 405cx and AMT 100i after 45 minutes on the elliptical where I'm completely drenched in sweat, with my heartrate in the 140s the entire time.

tenunderfour

The 405cx seems to be correct for me whereas other older technologies overestimate my calorie burn. As examples:

- I went walking around town last night for an hour at 4 miles per hour. From Runner's World, your total calorie burn is .53 x your weight for walking (.75 for running), so estimated calories walking for my weight was 381.6 calories. The 405cx had me at 384 calories burned.

- I have checked the 405cx against various elliptical machines with heartrate handles in my gym. Older style, running on tracks ellipticals like the Precor 556i overestimate by hundreds of calories compared with the 405cx, whereas newer machines like the Precor AMT 100i line up almost perfectly with the calorie burn from the 405cx. I burn around 550 calories according to the 405cx and AMT 100i after 45 minutes on the elliptical where I'm completely drenched in sweat, with my heartrate in the 140s the entire time.

Ok, that RW formula is helpful. It puts me at 105 calories per mile.... which is about what I thought I burned. So for a 4 miler it would roughly be 420 calories. I am getting only 275. Maybe my unit is just off.

Thanks.

scottb81

Check to be sure your personal stats are entered correctly in the watch. Also, I have found that the soft HRM strap needs to be very tight. I have to adjust mine so that before I put it on it is at least 9 inches smaller than the circumference of my chest.

If you are uploading your data to garmin connect you can look at the HR graph to be sure it is reading correctly for the duration of the run. If it is not then the calorie count will be off.

emeryspeaking

i'm having similar problems. I row on the water. Today I my 405CX recorded 217 calories for a 1.5-2 hr row while someone else on the same boat has a different HR monitor that recorded 1000+ calories. I've checked my personal settings and they are all accurate. I have messed around with the zone values so I reset that to default.

tenunderfour

Well I ended up getting a Polar FT7 hrm..... and I compared the two. I get about 105 calories per mile running with the polar and only 78 calories per mile with the Garmin.

And I agree... that calorie count sounds WAY too low for rowing.

yelly23

When I first got my Garmin 405cx it worked great! Very accurate compared to my previous one. I quit using it for about 8 months and when I went back to using it, it is waaaaay off. I used to burn about 300cal per 3 miles and now it is about 60 cal per 3 miles. Very much off. All my stats are programmed correctly. I have no clue what the heck happened. Anyone able to help?

RunBakeLove

I have no idea how to solve this but wanted to add that the same thing has happened to me. Last night I did 2.26 miles, about 75% running, 25% walking. My Garmin says I burned 116 calories. Even walking that distance burns more and I ran most of it?! Not sure what is going on.

donrdon

Changed my reply to: Wow. Gotta start looking at the date of original post. This is almost a year old.

RunBakeLove

Deleted.