Garmin + HRM calories

lua_
lua_ Posts: 258 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Has anyone with a Garmin and HRM experienced incorrect calorie burns?

I've just got a new Garmin 210 and premium HRM, it has my calories burnt for a 2 mile run at 366! I've added my weight to it correctly, and I'm about 10lbs overweight. I ran at 11:54mph, so not fast by any means. I know these HRMs are very accurate, but could mine need calibrating or did I really burn that many calories?

Replies

  • Melo1966
    Melo1966 Posts: 881 Member
    That does sound a bit high but I can get more than 600 for 4-5 miles. What was your average heart rate? Did you change the sex, age, height and weight on the watch?
  • lua_
    lua_ Posts: 258 Member
    Set my sex, age, weight and height correctly, here are my stats for the run:

    Avg HR: 89 % of Max
    Max HR: 96 % of Max

    Avg HR: 165 bpm
    Max HR: 178 bpm

    My resting heart rate is 58bpm

    Avg HR: 4.9 z
    Max HR: 5.6 z
  • RaluKitty
    RaluKitty Posts: 62 Member
    weird... my Garmin 210 always gives me a lot fewer calories consumed than I expect... for my last 12 mile run, it said I burned 650! I wanted to burn it there and then...
  • lua_
    lua_ Posts: 258 Member
    weird... my Garmin 210 always gives me a lot fewer calories consumed than I expect... for my last 12 mile run, it said I burned 650! I wanted to burn it there and then...

    Do you have a HRM too?
    I'm just going to believe what mine tells me seeing as it's the new premium HRM and a brand new Garmin
  • Samstan101
    Samstan101 Posts: 699 Member
    Has anyone with a Garmin and HRM experienced incorrect calorie burns?

    I've just got a new Garmin 210 and premium HRM, it has my calories burnt for a 2 mile run at 366! I've added my weight to it correctly, and I'm about 10lbs overweight. I ran at 11:54mph, so not fast by any means. I know these HRMs are very accurate, but could mine need calibrating or did I really burn that many calories?

    I'm alot heavier than you but also a lot slower. I have a Forerunner 310 and did 2.16 miles at an average pace of 14:08min/mile and burned 376 cals. I've been using the Garmin & HRM for all land based cardio for 6 months and eat back my exercise cals as I'm losing at around 2lbs a week as I expect to for the deficit I have set I think it must be accurate or I'd be losing more slowly.

    Totally anecdotal I know but I hope it helps put your mind a little at ease :)
  • rgunn02
    rgunn02 Posts: 169 Member
    My garmin always seem really low. If I wear it for a 5k run it says I only burn around 300 cal's, but if I wear my timex for the same run it says I burn 500+ cal's.
  • running_free_1984
    running_free_1984 Posts: 115 Member
    My 210 told me i burned 986 calories on an 80 min run at a 10/min mile. But if i run for 30 minutes at a 9min/mile it comes up close to 500 calories. Speed seems to make quite a difference to calories burned.
  • rgunn02
    rgunn02 Posts: 169 Member
    weird... my Garmin 210 always gives me a lot fewer calories consumed than I expect... for my last 12 mile run, it said I burned 650! I wanted to burn it there and then...

    Do you have a HRM too?
    I'm just going to believe what mine tells me seeing as it's the new premium HRM and a brand new Garmin

    My garmin always seem really low. If I wear it for a 5k run it says I only burn around 300 cal's, but if I wear my timex for the same run it says I burn 500+ cal's.
  • junlex123
    junlex123 Posts: 81 Member
    Set my sex, age, weight and height correctly, here are my stats for the run:

    Avg HR: 89 % of Max
    Max HR: 96 % of Max

    Avg HR: 165 bpm
    Max HR: 178 bpm

    My resting heart rate is 58bpm

    Avg HR: 4.9 z
    Max HR: 5.6 z

    Your heart rate seems very high for your pace considering you're only 10lb overweight, and it's heart rate that hrm use as the main basis of their calculations. I'm a bit confused because your resting heart rate is fairly low which is often (but not always) an indicator of good cardiovascular fitness. Heart rate unfortunately does not have a very accurate correlation with calories burnt for everyone, it's more of a general indicator that is only accurate for the "average" person.

    If you're new to running then you'll probably see your heart rate get a fair bit lower over the next few months, so your hrm will report fewer calories burnt - that's not because the amount of calories is actually changing, just your heartrate is coming closer to the average that the hrm expects for a given amount of effort. If you've been running a while you might want to get your blood pressure checked to make sure nothing's up as far as hypo or hypertension.

    Edit:

    data from my own garmin w/ hrm to illustrate:

    21st July 2012 5km in 27:29 - average heartrate 172bpm, 405 calories
    31st July 2013 5km in 27:11 - average heartrate 158bpm, 335 calories
  • steve2kay
    steve2kay Posts: 194 Member
    HRMs are accurate at measuring heart rate, but the calories burnt are still just a calculation based on averages and assumptions.

    Your heart rate seems pretty high which may account for the high calories (the calories are about what I burn but I'm significantly more than 10lbs overweight).

    How did you calculate your max heart rate? Did you go off the formuia or actually work it out with a test?
  • elephant_in_the_room
    elephant_in_the_room Posts: 145 Member
    I have a Garmin FR 310XT and have just recently discovered that it way overestimates my calories.
    I wore it for a day including the chest strap, it gave me close to 4000 calories in 24 hours. Where even 2000 seems on the high side for me.
    People say it's not meant for using all day long, rather only for (high intensity) exercise, but shouldn't I expect it to work for an 8-hour bike ride? And if I can't trust that measurement, why should shorter measurements be more accurate? Only the error will be less in absolute numbers.
  • CassandraBurgos83
    CassandraBurgos83 Posts: 544 Member
    If you are out doors incline and decline also play just as much importance as speed and distance.
  • jtromb01
    jtromb01 Posts: 9 Member
    Set my sex, age, weight and height correctly, here are my stats for the run:

    Avg HR: 89 % of Max
    Max HR: 96 % of Max

    Avg HR: 165 bpm
    Max HR: 178 bpm

    My resting heart rate is 58bpm

    Avg HR: 4.9 z
    Max HR: 5.6 z

    That is actually very similar to what I got yesterday using my polar H7 and digifit on my iphone for the first time. I did a 3.2 mi run and it said I burned right around 500, and my heart rates were very similar to yours. My resting rate hovers around 58 as well.
  • thepetiterunner
    thepetiterunner Posts: 1,238 Member
    I don't know how much you weigh, so it's hard to say. I have the exact same watch and HRM as you (Forerunner 210 with the soft, premium strap). I run a mile, weigh about 107 lbs and I usually burn (on average) 70-80 calories/mile with my HR being at about 80-90% of my max.

    It's possible you've set it at too low an "activity" level or some other variable, but hard to say without knowing your rate of exertions. As others have said, it's only an estimation and it can vary wildly from one thing to another.

    ETA: I will say though, that when I met with my nutritionist, she said I'd average burning about 100 calories / 15 minutes, which is about right for a 70 calorie/mile estimation from my HRM (I run at about a 10 minute pace on an average day). So for me it seems accurate.
  • 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.

    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 or more worth of runs before enough data is collected for the calorie burns to be accurate and reasonably consistent.
  • johnwhitent
    johnwhitent Posts: 648 Member
    I have a Garmin FR 310XT and have just recently discovered that it way overestimates my calories.
    I wore it for a day including the chest strap, it gave me close to 4000 calories in 24 hours. Where even 2000 seems on the high side for me.
    People say it's not meant for using all day long, rather only for (high intensity) exercise, but shouldn't I expect it to work for an 8-hour bike ride? And if I can't trust that measurement, why should shorter measurements be more accurate? Only the error will be less in absolute numbers.

    Here's a link to an MFP discussion of why a hrm is only accurate for steady state aerobic exercise. An accurate calorie burn is dependent not only on heart rate, but on VO2, and the relationship between the two. A hrm will not be accurate for all day measuring or for activities that do not elevate the heart rate and VO2 consistently, such as strength training. But it will do fine for your 8 hour bike ride.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
  • lua_
    lua_ Posts: 258 Member
    Thanks for the responses, a lot of mixed ones!
    How did you calculate your max heart rate? Did you go off the formuia or actually work it out with a test?

    I didn't calculate anything, that's just what's written on my Activity Summary on Garmin Connect
    It's possible you've set it at too low an "activity" level or some other variable

    If you mean the Activity Class on Garmin Connect (https://support.garmin.com/support/searchSupport/case.faces?caseId={3baae930-40ad-11de-5dd5-000000000000}) I set it to 7, since I run 4 times a week and with my new training program total about 2.5-3 hours. I would have set it to 6 but that's 1-3 days a week for less than 3 hours, and I'm doing 4 days for almost 3 hours. Do you think I should lower the activity class?
    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 or more worth of runs before enough data is collected for the calorie burns to be accurate and reasonably consistent.

    This could explain why my reading was so high. I'll monitor my runs over the next week and see if the calorie burns look more accurate. Could it be that my HRM needs to adjust to my HR too?
  • mreeves261
    mreeves261 Posts: 728 Member
    Has anyone with a Garmin and HRM experienced incorrect calorie burns?

    I've just got a new Garmin 210 and premium HRM, it has my calories burnt for a 2 mile run at 366! I've added my weight to it correctly, and I'm about 10lbs overweight. I ran at 11:54mph, so not fast by any means. I know these HRMs are very accurate, but could mine need calibrating or did I really burn that many calories?

    There have been tons of complaints about the Premium HR Strap. When you say Premium HRM I assume you are talking about Garmins soft strap. If that is the case the best solution for fixing the error in readings is get the soft strap Polar makes and snap the Garmin sensors in that strap. According to 90% of the people listing that issue, this has fixed the problem.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    This could explain why my reading was so high. I'll monitor my runs over the next week and see if the calorie burns look more accurate. Could it be that my HRM needs to adjust to my HR too?
    Check to see if your age, gender, max HR and weight are set correctly on the watch. Those matter. Activity class doesn't matter because the watch will figure that out on its own as you do more workouts.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I always used to knock off about 30%...I can't remember where I read it and I can never find it anymore but when I first got into all of this I read an article about garmin HRMs testing out to be about 70% accurate for calorie burn for an aerobic event. If you take your burn and multiply it by .70 you get 256 which seems more reasonable to me for a 2 mile run...even maybe a little high still.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 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.

    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 or more worth of runs before enough data is collected for the calorie burns to be accurate and reasonably consistent.

    This. Garmins learn. My 610 was a little wonky for a few weeks after I got it, but it has settled and is now consistently what I would expect.
  • claireamadams
    claireamadams Posts: 1 Member
    Huh, I have the same issue and I'm not happy at all! I went for a usual 1hr 50 run on Sunday (brand new Garmin 210 with premium HRM, by the way), which is cross country and pretty tough going in places. I have been using Runkeeper for years, so I set them both going. Garmin was way more accurate with the map.

    Anyway, back to the calories - so, for the best part of a 2 hour tough run, Runkeeper says I burned some 1,550 calories, give or take. Probably over egging it, but Garmin ..... about 470! A third of Runkeeper's result! No way. I've checked my settings - gender, height, weight etc. So NOT happy...
  • janehudson
    janehudson Posts: 4 Member
    HI does anyone use their Garmin for bike riding?:wink:

Categories