Well that's disappointing - Garmin swim calories

Options
sjaplo
sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
750m breaststroke in 18:49 this morning and my Garmin Vivosmart HR gave me 31 calories burned. For the record - 5ft 9in - 170.5 lbs.........

I'm assuming it has something to do with the HR tracking as it had me at an ave of 73bbm
«1

Replies

  • sjaplo
    sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
    Options
    I cycled 7.6 miles after work in 29 min and it gave me 173
    Ave hr 122.
  • Alisonswim46
    Alisonswim46 Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    Breast stroke, well swimming for that matter is zero impact. 750 meters isn't much. Maybe that's why.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Did you actually look at the HR graph?
    Why am I betting there were all kinds of drops to reading the HR.

    Obviously the avgHR gives a major clue - inaccurate HR reading.

    Ya - some stuff needs to be manually entered for better accuracy.

    Like if you were lifting or doing intervals - inflated calorie burn because wrong use of HR formula for the anaerobic and/or non-steady state nature of the workout.

    Try this, at least formula based on studies.

    http://www.swimmingcalculator.com/swim_calories_calculator.php

    Though me thrashing around attempting to do laps burns more than someone that really knows how effectively.

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    sjaplo wrote: »
    750m breaststroke in 18:49 this morning and my Garmin Vivosmart HR gave me 31 calories burned. For the record - 5ft 9in - 170.5 lbs.........

    I'm assuming it has something to do with the HR tracking as it had me at an ave of 73bbm

    The VivoSmartHR isn't designed for swimming. The accelerometers are designed for step based movement and in the water the HR sensor won't be getting a solid reading. Water flowing between the sensor and your son will disrupt the sensing.

    Fwiw my 735XT with HRM-Swim​ seems pretty solid, giving me 370 for a mile swim.
  • sjaplo
    sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
    Options
    Thanks all.
    @haybales - your web link gives me 226 - also when you log your workout as "lap swimming" in Garmin connect - it won't show the hr graph. But I think I did notice that when it was recorded as basic.
    @joenali - you need a new hat - you're talking through yours
    @MeanderingMammal - good to know this is my first fitness device - I mainly run - but have decided to do a sprint tri in august.

    I'm going to try tightening the band for better contact - other than that I'm just going to roll with whatever it gives me.

    cheers!

  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    swimming doesn't burn that many calories - for note - I swam 3500yds yesterday and that was about 430cal (it took me 1hr 13min and had no more than about 30sec rests between main sets)
  • sjaplo
    sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
    Options
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    swimming doesn't burn that many calories - for note - I swam 3500yds yesterday and that was about 430cal (it took me 1hr 13min and had no more than about 30sec rests between main sets)

    That's what I was thinking - 227 cal this am for my run - 3.13 miles in 25:39 - ave hr 160 bbm. From a "perceived effort" point of view the run was a much more strenuous activity than the swim.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Was this open water swimming or a pool? The VAHR doesn't work in open water and takes a bit of setup for the pool. Only downside to it I've found.
  • sjaplo
    sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
    Options
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    Was this open water swimming or a pool? The VAHR doesn't work in open water and takes a bit of setup for the pool. Only downside to it I've found.

    Swimming pool.
  • sparklyglitterbomb
    sparklyglitterbomb Posts: 458 Member
    Options
    DC Rainmaker has a good review of the VAHR, and how to set it up for swimming as @Tacklewasher mentioned. (I know I keep discovering various things I need to "set up" with the VAHR prior to using for new activities) https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/05/garmin-vivoactivehr-review.html
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    The VivoActiveHR takes the VivoSmartHR and wraps a GPS receiver and some additional processing around it and gives it a different form factor.

    What it does give is access to the Connect app platform.

    However if you want to upgrade for a Tri I'd suggest something a bit more focused than the VAHR.

    The legacy Forerunner 320XT or 910XT do multisport with the latter capable of pool swim tracking. With more budget you've got the 920XT or 735XT up to the 935, each of which do pool swimming to a similar level of sophistication. The main issue then becomes battery life, and the question of whether you'll be out for more than 12 hours or not.
  • sjaplo
    sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »

    However if you want to upgrade for a Tri I'd suggest something a bit more focused than the VAHR.

    The legacy Forerunner 320XT or 910XT do multisport with the latter capable of pool swim tracking. With more budget you've got the 920XT or 735XT up to the 935, each of which do pool swimming to a similar level of sophistication. The main issue then becomes battery life, and the question of whether you'll be out for more than 12 hours or not.

    Thanks - going to try the first one and see if I enjoy it. As it's a sprint tri - I figure about 2hrs ought do cover it.
  • ValeriePlz
    ValeriePlz Posts: 517 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'10'' and 160 lb. and MFP gives me 185 calories for a 15-minute breaststroke swim. I know that MFP overestimates calories, though.

    Breast stroke is a lower calorie burn per hour than a faster stroke, like front crawl (i.e. "freestyle"). Also, be careful using breast stroke in your triathlon; the kick is strong and you can really bean someone.
  • sjaplo
    sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
    Options
    ValeriePlz wrote: »
    I'm 5'10'' and 160 lb. and MFP gives me 185 calories for a 15-minute breaststroke swim. I know that MFP overestimates calories, though.

    Breast stroke is a lower calorie burn per hour than a faster stroke, like front crawl (i.e. "freestyle"). Also, be careful using breast stroke in your triathlon; the kick is strong and you can really bean someone.

    Can't swim any other way and the swim portion takes place in a pool.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    ValeriePlz wrote: »
    I'm 5'10'' and 160 lb. and MFP gives me 185 calories for a 15-minute breaststroke swim. I know that MFP overestimates calories, though.

    Breast stroke is a lower calorie burn per hour than a faster stroke, like front crawl (i.e. "freestyle"). Also, be careful using breast stroke in your triathlon; the kick is strong and you can really bean someone.

    Actually no, the less efficient strokes are not lower calorie burn per time and equal distance.

    They burn more, and usually force more lower body usage - which is bad setup for bike/run later.

    But most people do them slower though unless truly training for that style, so may burn less per time, but also go less distance.

    And the problem isn't that the MET's database that MFP uses like many other sites inflates calorie burn - but on many items there is no intensity level to it like that web link I gave.
    So you have no idea if you are as intense as the entry is talking about.
    You could be more, and burning more, then shown.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    sjaplo wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    swimming doesn't burn that many calories - for note - I swam 3500yds yesterday and that was about 430cal (it took me 1hr 13min and had no more than about 30sec rests between main sets)

    That's what I was thinking - 227 cal this am for my run - 3.13 miles in 25:39 - ave hr 160 bbm. From a "perceived effort" point of view the run was a much more strenuous activity than the swim.

    It's not really possible to do PE on different workout types like that because in this case - gravity. And amount of muscles used, and size of those muscles.

    And HR-based calorie burn formula can be really lacking if missing some key components.

    Like if the Garmin is set on default HRmax figure of 220-age, then 160 avgHR could have been like 84% of HRmax if age of 30. That's just starting to be top of aerobic HR zone.

    But if actual HRmax is say 180, that means your 160 was really 89% of HRmax - now past aerobic and probably at AT/LT line if not above.

    Of course the latter would be bigger calorie burn, but if Garmin is using former info, you get less.

    Not sure if your Garmin account allows changing HRmax for that device. I've got VO2max, but quick scan couldn't find HRmax though I'm sure I've seen it before.

    Also have to pick your Activity Class correctly - or perhaps that device allows auto-setting based on number of workouts.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    sjaplo wrote: »
    ValeriePlz wrote: »
    I'm 5'10'' and 160 lb. and MFP gives me 185 calories for a 15-minute breaststroke swim. I know that MFP overestimates calories, though.

    Breast stroke is a lower calorie burn per hour than a faster stroke, like front crawl (i.e. "freestyle"). Also, be careful using breast stroke in your triathlon; the kick is strong and you can really bean someone.

    Can't swim any other way and the swim portion takes place in a pool.

    people will still try to pass you in the pool - I just encourage you to be aware - a good friend of mine got kicked in the chest during her Ironman last year and had to pull out of the race because of it (heavily bruised ribs) and personally, I ended up with a concussion a couple years ago from someone kicking me during an open water swim
  • Buk30
    Buk30 Posts: 67 Member
    Options
    I always thought swimming burned lots of calories. i always see my biggest results on holiday & I assumed that was because of all the swimming, now I'm just confused
  • Alisonswim46
    Alisonswim46 Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    sjaplo wrote: »
    ValeriePlz wrote: »
    I'm 5'10'' and 160 lb. and MFP gives me 185 calories for a 15-minute breaststroke swim. I know that MFP overestimates calories, though.

    Breast stroke is a lower calorie burn per hour than a faster stroke, like front crawl (i.e. "freestyle"). Also, be careful using breast stroke in your triathlon; the kick is strong and you can really bean someone.

    Can't swim any other way and the swim portion takes place in a pool.

    If you are are doing a triathlon, pool or open water. You should consider learning how to swim freestyle. You're still going to get passed, you still might kick someone.
  • nichjones
    nichjones Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    Have you tried swimming without the HR monitor? I noticed the calorie burn is significantly higher on the Garmin when I don't use the strap.

Categories