Garmin Forerunner 410 calorie measurements VERY low

iamaelephant
iamaelephant Posts: 14
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi guys, I just took my first run with my new Garmin Forerunner 410. Everything is cool except that the calories burned seems to be VERY low - it says 270 calories for a 21.1km run. Obviously I'm not taking the measurement seriously (I logged about 1300 for it instead), just wondering if anyone else has seen this issue with Forerunner watches and heart rate monitors. I Googled it and found lots of people seeing calories 5-15% lower than expected, but not like this.

If you want to see details of the run with HR measurements it's here
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/320807435

Replies

  • bffbf
    bffbf Posts: 1 Member
    If you upload the file to Endomondo it may give you something more accurate
  • iamaelephant
    iamaelephant Posts: 14
    Uploading to Endomondo seemed to just pass the watch's calculation through to Endomondo instead of recalculating. That's a really awesome feature though.
  • PaytraB
    PaytraB Posts: 2,360 Member
    That seems very low. I have a Garmin Forerunner and for a 7-8Km run, it logs somewhere around 400 calories burned, which is the ballpark that I'm expecting for my weight.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    The newer Garmins use a different calorie algorithm than most others. It is from Firstbeat and does not calculate from simple heartrate but rather from heart rate variability. It is supposed to be the most accurate method available but does give lower counts than other methods. When I am running (178 lbs) I'll usually get between 105 to 115 cal per mile where with other methods I get over 130 per mile.

    Read the white papers here for more info. http://www.firstbeat.fi/physiology/white-papers

    Also, the garmins with firstbeat continually collect and analyze your data and keep an updated athlete profile inside the watch based on that data. From my experience it takes about a week's worth of runs before enough data is collected for the calorie burns to be accurate and reasonably consistent.

    Also see: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • astrampe
    astrampe Posts: 2,169 Member
    Did you check the battery in the strap? And did it make contact with your skin throughout the run? I have the Garmin 110, but the caloriecount is sometimes off it the HRM lost contact or shifted around...When it gave me really low HR and calorie burns (I knew the HR was off - no way my HR is 110 after running up the hill to my house) I changed the battery in the strap - and it works again!
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    Not sure how yours is calculating calorie burn, but I was seeing the same thing on my 405 and then I realized it was in "biking" mode. Might want to double check that too.
  • iamaelephant
    iamaelephant Posts: 14
    I use the strap.
    I haven't checked the battery in the strap but it seems to work fine - if you look at the data it recorded the full run with no wild swings or drop-outs in HR.

    Thanks for the info on the algorithm scott81, that's really interesting but I don't think it accounts for my issue - 270 calories for 21km is EXTREMELY low.

    I have set all of my details in the watch (weight, height, gender, etc) except for resting heart rate because I haven't measured it. Maybe this piece of data is what's throwing it off.

    Sport mode is definitely on 'running' and not biking.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    I looked at your garmin data and the spikiness of the HR graph indicates to me that the strap was getting erratic readings throughout the run. It should be a lot more smooth than that. That will cause very low calorie readings. You may need to tighten the strap more to get good contact.

    See my HR plot from this morning for comparison of spikiness http://connect.garmin.com/activity/320607916

    Or this one from last week on a flat course with steady pace http://connect.garmin.com/activity/318646355
  • iamaelephant
    iamaelephant Posts: 14
    Ah yup, definitely looks like bad data. This is my first time using a HRM so it looked ok to me, but yours are definitely smoother. I'll tighten it up a bit more next time, thanks!
  • pclarity
    pclarity Posts: 2
    I have a 410. Just got it a week ago. I had been using Digifit on my phone, but I'd rather not have to constantly charge my phone plus the GPS is supposedly better on the watch, which thus far hasn't really been true, but it HAS been more convenient. I just have to get used to it. I've noticed a marked difference between First Beat calorie counts and digifit, however, I'm annoyed by the way Garmin Connect forces you to enter HR Zones via percentage instead of actual numbers. I'd feel better if I could MATCH the zones on Digifit with the Zones on Garmin Connect. Then I'd trust the difference and be able to move on. Thus far adjusting to using this watch has been problematic, but fun. It's also been odd because I've been exercising consistently for two months now and my resting hr has been going down which is good, but makes it difficult to keep track of.

    Can anyone help me figure out how to properly use my Forerunner in doors. When I use it outside for cycling and walking, it works pretty well (except for the odd auto pause issues), but I can't get it to work properly when I'm just inside walking (mall or other indoor building) or doing aerobics. Any advice is much appreciated.

    Thanks!
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    In Garmin Connect you can enter the zones by either BPM or % heartrate. Click the header to choose which you want to change. You can also enter the numbers directly in the watch under the HR settings page.

    Indoors it will not get a GPS signal so it will not track. If you want it to track distance indoors you need to add a footpod. It should still be tracking the heartrate though and I assume calories. I have never used it indoors without a footpod so I can't really help much with that.
  • __Di__
    __Di__ Posts: 1,658 Member
    I use the strap.
    I haven't checked the battery in the strap but it seems to work fine - if you look at the data it recorded the full run with no wild swings or drop-outs in HR.

    Thanks for the info on the algorithm scott81, that's really interesting but I don't think it accounts for my issue - 270 calories for 21km is EXTREMELY low.

    I have set all of my details in the watch (weight, height, gender, etc) except for resting heart rate because I haven't measured it. Maybe this piece of data is what's throwing it off.

    Sport mode is definitely on 'running' and not biking.

    You know, when I read your opening post on this thread, I thought you put you burned 270 calories for 2.1km, I thought to myself "well that seems accurate to me" and was just about to reply, then I re-read and realized it was 21.1km - half a marathon! That calorie count is definitely out because there is no way, no matter how fit you are, that you would burn just 270 calories for a 13 mile run!

    Check the battery in both the watch and the receiver, stick the chest-strap in the washing machine and give it a good wash (not hot wash and do not stick softener in the machine either) and see if that helps.

    Scott's explanation re how the watch needs to be used for a few sessions seems very important and relevant too!

    Hope you sort it and rest assured that 270 calories was definitely underestimated LOL!

Categories