More bogus burns from Garmin 610

arc918
arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
On today's run I split my last mile into two halfs as follows: one easy, one hard

Distance: .5 miles
Time: 4:19:57
Calories: 56
Avg pace: 8:38
Avg HR: 137 bpm
Max HR: 147 bpm

Distance: .51 miles
Time: 3:21:72
Calories: 57
Avg pace: 6:39
Avg HR: 164 bpm
Max HR: 170 bpm

Half a mile ~ one minute faster, heart going much faster and ONE extra calorie burned? I call BS on that!

Replies

  • Tourney3p0
    Tourney3p0 Posts: 290 Member
    Another way of looking at it:

    Run 1: 13.0 calories/minute burned
    Run 2: 17.0 calories/minute burned

    Run 2 is 30.8% more efficient in calories burned at a cost of 19.7% higher average heart rate. Your numbers add up just about perfectly.
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    Another way of looking at it:

    Run 1: 13.0 calories/minute burned
    Run 2: 17.0 calories/minute burned

    Good point. But at 175 lbs, I still think 113 calories for a 7:40 mile seems 10% - 15% too low to me.
  • pweinzap
    pweinzap Posts: 8
    Your numbers look about right to me. The amount of calories you burn for a given distance should all be roughly the same. The rate at which you burn them changes (alongside the pace of the run).
  • Tourney3p0
    Tourney3p0 Posts: 290 Member
    It does sound a little low. It sounds like it's precise, but possibly not accurate.

    On the other hand, I googled a couple of Calories Burned calculators. They're showing right around 120 expected (based on nothing other than weight, distance, and time, so take that for what it's worth).
  • belgerian
    belgerian Posts: 1,059 Member
    Mine a little higher according to my GPS I run at around 165 HR for 8 miles at around a 7:45 mile and my total burn according to my Garmin 305 is around 1200 cal burned which comes down to 150 cal per mile im at around 185lbs. Garmin Forerunner 305
  • bstamps12
    bstamps12 Posts: 1,184
    Mine showed only 996 calories burned after a 2:10 all out half marathon once. I called BS on that. Should have been a good 300-400 calories more burned, surely.

    It's so hard to know what's accurate but yours does seem a little low.
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    I never used to use a HRM strap with my 405, so perhaps I'm used to inflated calorie estimates.

    None of this is life and death mind you.
  • DontThinkJustRun
    DontThinkJustRun Posts: 248 Member
    Well they say you generally, and I say generally, burn 100 cals per mile regardless of speed. Personally I've found this pretty accurate.

    While it's not life or death, I'm sure your balls felt bigger when you thought you were burning more ;)
  • trijoe
    trijoe Posts: 729 Member
    It's taken me 5 years to pull myself away from "calorie burns" listed from my Garmin. Or from anything for that matter. What used to slay me was how freaking hard I could work on a run, then bike a moderate bike, same amount of time, and the bike would be hundreds of calories higher. It's just numbers.
  • bert16
    bert16 Posts: 726 Member
    I long ago accepted that the calorie burn on my Forerunner 405CX is waaaaayy off, even with the HR monitor, and max HR properly set, etc. It decided that I burned 1,185 calories in my last marathon (when, based on any sanity, I most likely burned ~2700. Still, my Garmin is still my BFF for it ability to track distance and show me HR and pace in real time, which is a lifesaver for me. So I forgive it this sin, particularly since I don't worry about eating back my exercise calories, so the exact burn doesn't really matter, anyway. But it does seem like they could figure this out a bit better!

Categories