Garmin 610 Cycling Mode Absurdly High Calories?

WSCHEREM
WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
I use a Garmin 610 to compute calories for hiking, biking, gym equipment. For me, a 60 mile ride in the flats is showing up as 4000 calories, but that is the same amount of calories as a 9 hour winter hike with 3100 feet up and down, and with snowshoes, 12 miles.

Anyone else have a 610 and is willing to comment? I use the heart rate monitor for accuracy with the First Beat Algorithm.

I chose the 610 because the internet was full of comments saying the 610 underestimated calories burned.....

Replies

  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    The 610 is a running watch. I didn't even know it had a cycling mode. Regardless, do you find other devices also overestimate like this? Sometimes it can be your personal interface with the HRM that causes the overestimation (IE the HRM is reading higher than reality)
  • linsdog
    linsdog Posts: 94 Member
    Typical is 30-40 calories per mile cycling. Depending on effort level, fitness, etc.

    Something sounds off as I use Garmin 1000 for cycling and it is pretty spot on.
  • tdatsenko
    tdatsenko Posts: 155 Member
    That does seem pretty high for cycling. What was your average speed? How long where you biking?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    edited May 2015
    Is it set properly for your weight, age, etc? My assumption is that it uses those as part of the algorithm for calculating cals burned.

    I have the 610, and assumptions and estimates aside, it's been pretty dead on for me.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Make sure you choose cycling versus running before you start. Mine gives 30 to 40 calories per mile generally when cycling.
  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    linsdog wrote: »
    Typical is 30-40 calories per mile cycling. Depending on effort level, fitness, etc.

    Something sounds off as I use Garmin 1000 for cycling and it is pretty spot on.

    Well I weigh about 230, 52 years old, carry about 8lbs of water and lock/cable, and there is 1738ft of accumulated climb. Average cadence reported by bike sensor is 62...but the calculation dies not include coasting....

    Tracking my calories consumed, weight loss, and 3 weeks of the same exact bike ride, I feel that the watch should give 2600 cals, not 4000.



  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    glevinso wrote: »
    The 610 is a running watch. I didn't even know it had a cycling mode. Regardless, do you find other devices also overestimate like this? Sometimes it can be your personal interface with the HRM that causes the overestimation (IE the HRM is reading higher than reality)

    Yes it has cycling and accepts a cadence sensor.

  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    scottb81 wrote: »
    Make sure you choose cycling versus running before you start. Mine gives 30 to 40 calories per mile generally when cycling.

    Yes I checked that because I have made that error in the past.
  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    edited May 2015
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    That does seem pretty high for cycling. What was your average speed? How long where you biking?

    About 15.3 mph using moving time only, road bike, 120 psi tires, not much friction...just under 4 hours of moving time. About 5.5 hours total..1.5 hours for lunch and stopping to see nature.

    At about 45 miles it feels as if my legs lose all their power and i have to use the lower gears even on mildest inclines...

  • tdatsenko
    tdatsenko Posts: 155 Member
    WSCHEREM wrote: »
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    That does seem pretty high for cycling. What was your average speed? How long where you biking?

    About 15.3 mph using moving time only, road bike, 120 psi tires, not much friction

    That does seem pretty high, but just don't eat all of them back. I'm having the same issue with my strava estimates, I just don't eat all of them back, and adjust my food based off my weight loss averaged over a month.

    In my humble opinion, the best estimate of calories burned on a bike would be with a power meter. HRM isn't great since it takes stuff like temperature, caffeine intake, and even mood into consideration. Even then it probably still isn't perfect.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Definitely too high, but not sure on the fix as I don't have experience with that Garmin. My last ride was 67 miles and had a 20mph pace roughly with 2800' of climb and I only burned like 2800 or something.
  • tdatsenko
    tdatsenko Posts: 155 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Definitely too high, but not sure on the fix as I don't have experience with that Garmin. My last ride was 67 miles and had a 20mph pace roughly with 2800' of climb and I only burned like 2800 or something.

    That's a pretty impressive pace!
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Definitely too high, but not sure on the fix as I don't have experience with that Garmin. My last ride was 67 miles and had a 20mph pace roughly with 2800' of climb and I only burned like 2800 or something.

    That's a pretty impressive pace!

    I'm an impressive guy ;) Kidding of course.

    Just looked though, 66.7 miles - 19.4 mph pace - 2241 elevation so i was a little off.

    Anyway, 2539 calories in 3h26m roughly.

  • tdatsenko
    tdatsenko Posts: 155 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Definitely too high, but not sure on the fix as I don't have experience with that Garmin. My last ride was 67 miles and had a 20mph pace roughly with 2800' of climb and I only burned like 2800 or something.

    That's a pretty impressive pace!

    I'm an impressive guy ;) Kidding of course.

    Just looked though, 66.7 miles - 19.4 mph pace - 2241 elevation so i was a little off.

    Anyway, 2539 calories in 3h26m roughly.

    I wish I lived somewhere that flat, riding outside I average about 700 ft of elevation every 10 miles around here. I'm actually doing my "Endurance" training on my rollers because when I ride outside on the rolling hills it pretty much becomes "Interval" training.

    Back on topic though, how are you getting your calories?

  • wolf39us
    wolf39us Posts: 163 Member
    I challenge you to maintain that pace here in Connecticut lol. I couldn't even maintain 19mph in flat Florida for more than 30 minutes lol.

    Really impressive though!
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Definitely too high, but not sure on the fix as I don't have experience with that Garmin. My last ride was 67 miles and had a 20mph pace roughly with 2800' of climb and I only burned like 2800 or something.

    That's a pretty impressive pace!

    I'm an impressive guy ;) Kidding of course.

    Just looked though, 66.7 miles - 19.4 mph pace - 2241 elevation so i was a little off.

    Anyway, 2539 calories in 3h26m roughly.

    I wish I lived somewhere that flat, riding outside I average about 700 ft of elevation every 10 miles around here. I'm actually doing my "Endurance" training on my rollers because when I ride outside on the rolling hills it pretty much becomes "Interval" training.

    Back on topic though, how are you getting your calories?

    We are pretty much rolling hills as well. They aren't fair at all since it takes 2 minutes to get up one and 2 seconds to get down...lol. Definitely not a ton of elevation in Oklahoma. Our kryptonite is wind.

    I get mine through a Garmin 510 with the HR strap. How accurate is it? I don't know, nor care. I just ride.
  • tdatsenko
    tdatsenko Posts: 155 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    tdatsenko wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Definitely too high, but not sure on the fix as I don't have experience with that Garmin. My last ride was 67 miles and had a 20mph pace roughly with 2800' of climb and I only burned like 2800 or something.

    That's a pretty impressive pace!

    I'm an impressive guy ;) Kidding of course.

    Just looked though, 66.7 miles - 19.4 mph pace - 2241 elevation so i was a little off.

    Anyway, 2539 calories in 3h26m roughly.

    I wish I lived somewhere that flat, riding outside I average about 700 ft of elevation every 10 miles around here. I'm actually doing my "Endurance" training on my rollers because when I ride outside on the rolling hills it pretty much becomes "Interval" training.

    Back on topic though, how are you getting your calories?

    We are pretty much rolling hills as well. They aren't fair at all since it takes 2 minutes to get up one and 2 seconds to get down...lol. Definitely not a ton of elevation in Oklahoma. Our kryptonite is wind.

    I get mine through a Garmin 510 with the HR strap. How accurate is it? I don't know, nor care. I just ride.

    Agreed
  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    Well we all agree that it is too high....I will disable the speed cadence sensor to the 610 and see if that changes anything. I will report back.....same ride this Saturday or Sunday

    I never get any false readings from my HRM so I cant blame that.

  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    wolf39us wrote: »
    I challenge you to maintain that pace here in Connecticut lol. I couldn't even maintain 19mph in flat Florida for more than 30 minutes lol.

    Really impressive though!

    I dont have the great performance of the other rider but I live in Connecticut....I travel over to the Harlem Valley Rail Trail, park free at Wassaic station and bike up past Hillsdale over to Route 23. No "hills" at all...and only 2 miles on the dangerous Route 22. Even though the trail is not complete there are wonderful back roads that are
    safe. You can also take a side trip to Bish Bash falls....

    Rt 22 is full of texting drivers or people with wide trailers..its not fun having a junk mattress mounted sideways on a trailer whizzing by your elbow at 65 mph.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    WSCHEREM wrote: »
    Well we all agree that it is too high....I will disable the speed cadence sensor to the 610 and see if that changes anything. I will report back.....same ride this Saturday or Sunday

    I never get any false readings from my HRM so I cant blame that.

    I'm confused. Are you or are you not using the HRM function of the 610?
  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    edited May 2015
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    WSCHEREM wrote: »
    Well we all agree that it is too high....I will disable the speed cadence sensor to the 610 and see if that changes anything. I will report back.....same ride this Saturday or Sunday

    I never get any false readings from my HRM so I cant blame that.

    I'm confused. Are you or are you not using the HRM function of the 610?

    I am using the Garmin heart rate monitor AND the combination speed/cadence sensor GSC10. The cadence sensor records pedal strokes per minute. The speed sensor, once calibrated automatically by the GPS, vastly improves the accuracy of distance traveled and indicated speed, or so it is claimed. The 610 records all sensors.

    Power sensors are about 1900 bucks, and the 610 cannot use them.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Gotcha. I don't have speed or cadence (at least not yet)... HRM alone works really well for me. But as with most things in this realm, cals burned is calculated based on a formula and a set of assumptions/averages. The closer you fall to those assumptions/averages, the closer the calculated cals burned will be for you. If you're far from them, there's only so much you can do.
  • tdatsenko
    tdatsenko Posts: 155 Member
    WSCHEREM wrote: »
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    WSCHEREM wrote: »
    Well we all agree that it is too high....I will disable the speed cadence sensor to the 610 and see if that changes anything. I will report back.....same ride this Saturday or Sunday

    I never get any false readings from my HRM so I cant blame that.

    I'm confused. Are you or are you not using the HRM function of the 610?

    I am using the Garmin heart rate monitor AND the combination speed/cadence sensor GSC10. The cadence sensor records pedal strokes per minute. The speed sensor, once calibrated automatically by the GPS, vastly improves the accuracy of distance traveled and indicated speed, or so it is claimed. The 610 records all sensors.

    Power sensors are about 1900 bucks, and the 610 cannot use them.

    Make sure that your weight/height/age are all correct in the app. Some apps like Strava even let you enter the weight of your bike.
  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    OK height weight age are correct. I wish the Garmin site would allow you to plot calories versus time....If I saw a higher burn rate coasting down a long hill at 33 mph than struggling up a hill at 4mph...well that would b a dead give away....
  • claireholden37
    claireholden37 Posts: 21 Member
    I have used my garmin 610 today on a cycle ride alongside my strava app and for 36 miles the garmin said I burned 1685 cals and my strava says 1053 both of them have my weight, height in its a huge difference
  • bigd66218
    bigd66218 Posts: 376 Member
    I use a Garmin 200/basic model and today I burned 1568 calories for 80 minutes at a 15.84 Avg. Way too high for me at 6'6.5"/230 lbs. I don't eat back the calories and it doesn't matter.
  • WSCHEREM
    WSCHEREM Posts: 19 Member
    edited May 2015
    I believe I have solved or improved the problem!

    I did 70 miles the same rail trail/ backroad that I have been using...just added some laps to increase total mileage from 60 to 70 and got interesting data

    Here is my assertion: IF you are losing weight, and EVEN IF you adjust your profile to be withing 5 lbs of true weight, the First Beat Algorthim will report absurdly high calories.

    If you are losing weight, and you do a HARD RESET on your watch (you must re-enter your profile) , the calories will become more realistic. Doing a HARD RESET makes the First Beat Algorithm forget whatever it has learned about you.

    The cost of doing a hard reset is that you have to set up your custom pages all over again, and re-enter your profile...it does not seem to mess up Garmin Express.

    The reason I make this assertion is that I did a 70 mile ride on the same exact rail trail that I have been using, and only burned 2900 calories compared to last week's 4000 calories and 60 miles. There were absolute no other differences other than a hard reset and profile entry(same as before hard reset) between the two rides.

    Thus I conclude the First Beat Algorithm does not work well with people who lose weight, Even If You Update Your Profile regularly.

    I plan to use the hard reset after every 5 lbs lost.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    ^^ interesting...