A queston for Garmin Connect users - what is "time"?
35dollars
Posts: 832 Member
In the Activity display there are 3 time entries - I understand what 2 of them are, but what's the other one?
0
Replies
-
-
From the way I understand it. Elapsed Time is from the first moment you hit record on your Garmin till the moment you hit save on your Garmin, Moving Time is how long you were moving and Time shows how long you were in your exercise. It helps with people who do not have Auto Pause turned on.
Elapsed Time might be 2 hours, but you stopped for a 30min coffee brake. So that means Time would be 1h30mins. And Moving Time might be 1h27m due to stopping for traffic.
But I could be way off. If someone wants to chime in and correct me feel free to.0 -
I do have autopause switched on, so I'm baffled what the difference is between Time and Moving Time0
-
From what you have, you stopped for 6 minutes and hit "stop" or the auto pause noticed you were stopped. The 2 minutes is when you paused but it was not considered stop. I have auto pause off. I get this difference in time and moving time when I stop at a light or sign and do not hit "stop."0
-
The help text isn't a great deal of help when you have Auto Pause set to on:
Moving Time: includes only the time you were moving
Time: includes time moving and time not moving (if Auto Pause is off)
Elapsed Time: includes time between when timer is started, stopped, and reset (includes Auto Pause or manual stoppage of the timer)
I have auto pause set to "on" and see only a few seconds difference between Time and Moving Time when I cycle right to my home.
When I hit timer stop short of home it does seem that the "time" extra seems to be from when I hit stop to when I get home. Maybe it's counting the time I'm moving but with timer manually stopped? Just a guess though.0 -
I use RunKeeper and have noticed something similar when I stop to take a picture or something. I have RK audibles turned on so it is easy to figure out the delays. I think the auto-pause takes a bit to stop recording...like maybe up to 30 seconds before I hear ACTIVITY PAUSED. It is not at all instantaneous to when I stop. It is much more responsive when I start back up but there probably is a 5 second delay before I hear ACTIVITY RESUMED.
These delays slow down my average pace unfairly...so I don't stop or just go-fast to make it back up0 -
I've got autopause set to switch on when I go below 0.3mph - I wonder if Time is the time it thinks I'm moving regardless of Autopause? Seems an awfully large difference between that and the moving time duration though.0
-
Time - time in motion determined by the Garmin time algorithm (I once wanted to find out what they use but soon gave up - not worthy imho)
Moving time - time in motion determined by the autopause specific value (the default or your custom) but this may be affected by the inaccuracies in the GPS track which can trick the device into thinking you have stopped while you were not.
I tend not to care about neither because I just don't care... Too many variables/riding conditions that are out of my control, can't convince me how good/bad I did in the entire ride.
I would rather use some particular segments as a comparison.0 -
To add to the mystery - I have my Garmin connected to Strava, and here are the stats from Garmin this morning:
Distance 9.33 miles
Time 41:23
Moving Time 40:15
Elapsed Time 44:02
Elevation gain 36 metres (= 118ft)
Here's what imports into Strava
Distance 9.3mi
Moving Time 41:34
Elevation 76 ft
What? I can understand the distance, as Strava is either rounding down or just displaying one decimal, but the other two numbers don't equate to anything in the Garmin record.
Does anyone else see discrepancies between the two?
Bizarrely, they both give me the same average speed, though the calorie burn figures are a mile apart - 493 in Garmin and only 188 in Strava. Purely based on my CICO calculations over the last year, the calorie numbers from Garmin seem a lot more likely.0 -
Bizarrely, they both give me the same average speed, though the calorie burn figures are a mile apart - 493 in Garmin and only 188 in Strava. Purely based on my CICO calculations over the last year, the calorie numbers from Garmin seem a lot more likely.
Garmin and Strava calculate their calories using VERY different methodologies...
I went into this at some length in another thread...
Have a look if you want - but "hold on tight, it gets rather technical"...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1120751/strava-calorie-calculations
0 -
I'm not even getting consistent numbers between my Garmin Edge and Garmin Connect. My Edge says ascent 1076 ft, connect data for that run says 207m which is only 679 ft and Strava interprets it as 650 ft.
Pretty hacked off if one or other of the latter two are correct - I thought I'd got my first ever 1000' ascent0 -
Bizarrely, they both give me the same average speed, though the calorie burn figures are a mile apart - 493 in Garmin and only 188 in Strava. Purely based on my CICO calculations over the last year, the calorie numbers from Garmin seem a lot more likely.
Garmin and Strava calculate their calories using VERY different methodologies...
I went into this at some length in another thread...
Have a look if you want - but "hold on tight, it gets rather technical"...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1120751/strava-calorie-calculations
Interesting read - now my head hurts!
I use Strava phone app and Garmin Edge 800 (with HR but no power meter) and have given up thinking they will be either similar or even consistent in their differences. Both seem low against a calibrated HRM and Garmin comes up with remarkably low numbers for low intensity / low HR rides.
I don't link them and tend to just take whichever guesstimate is higher.
I had an email exchange with Wattbike as their numbers seemed different to regular watts to calorie conversions x efficiency ratio formula.
They used the expression "It's our version of sticking a finger in the air!"
0 -
They used the expression "It's our version of sticking a finger in the air!"
that's pretty much what I was alluding to when I said
"I guess that all this waffle shows is that estimating Calories from exercise is a) difficult b) an inexact science and c) if you give 5 people a chance to do the calculations, you'll get 5 different ways of performing the calculations and AT LEAST 5 different answers."
0 -
They used the expression "It's our version of sticking a finger in the air!"
that's pretty much what I was alluding to when I said
"I guess that all this waffle shows is that estimating Calories from exercise is a) difficult b) an inexact science and c) if you give 5 people a chance to do the calculations, you'll get 5 different ways of performing the calculations and AT LEAST 5 different answers."
Yup - wonder if the finger in the air is a hairy digit or has been shaved to minimise aerodynamic drag?
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoxEzj5Ysu4
