Garmin 610 Cycling Mode Absurdly High Calories?
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.....
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.....
0
Replies
-
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)0
-
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.0 -
That does seem pretty high for cycling. What was your average speed? How long where you biking?0
-
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.0 -
Make sure you choose cycling versus running before you start. Mine gives 30 to 40 calories per mile generally when cycling.0
-
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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...
0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
0 -
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?
0 -
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!0 -
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.0 -
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
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
0 -
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....0
-
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 difference0
-
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.0
-
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.0 -
^^ interesting...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions