Garmin vivofit 2 with and without heart rate monitor

jamierosenblum
jamierosenblum Posts: 9 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I am curious how different the calorie counts are using a Garmin vivofit 2 with or without a heartrate monitor. When I first got mine, I figured that I didn't need the heart rate monitor and would save the cost difference. I'm curious how different the calorie counts are with and without. I understand the without the calorie counts are probably average. I just wondering how much calories vary around the average. When I started using the Garmin activity calories for things like a run (vs. MapMyRun), I realized that the Garmin is giving me about half as many calories as MapMyRun for the same run. I have no idea which is more accurate.

I'm curious if the heart rate monitor tends to credit you with more or fewer calories or if its about the same.

Thanks!

Replies

  • jamierosenblum
    jamierosenblum Posts: 9 Member
    noone has tried this?
  • goddessofmishief
    goddessofmishief Posts: 1 Member
    I had a Garmin vivo fit like you and noticed the difference between it and mapmyrun. Mapmyrun uses GPS and the vivo fit uses your arm movement to estimate movement which is what your calories are calculated from. A heart rate monitor is the best way to get your most precise calorie burn calculation.

    Hopefully this helps because I was like you trying to figure out which was more accurate.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited March 2016
    jamierosenblum wrote: »
    I am curious how different the calorie counts are using a Garmin vivofit 2 with or without a heartrate monitor.

    It depends...

    For some modes of exercise just step counting is more appropriate, for others a GPS trace is more appropriate, and for others an HR record has some potential to be more useful.

    Of the three I'd say that HR has most potential to be wrong, because the range of circumstances within which HR is a useful indicator of calorie expenditure is quite narrow.

    fwiw, for running and assuming that it's a continuous run, a GPS trace with HR data should be more accurate than a step counter with HR data, and certainly more accurate than step counter alone. If you have walk intervals then HR data is going to lead to come inflation in the estimate.
  • sbobo691
    sbobo691 Posts: 5 Member
    I don't see much difference with walking but if I'm doing an exercise that doesn't necessarily have me moving my arms much (cycling, exercise videos, etc.) I put on my heart monitor and start the timer to add an activity.
  • sarahkanzalone
    sarahkanzalone Posts: 192 Member
    I just ordered a heart rate monitor so I will try and remember to post an update in this thread when I try it out

Categories