Garmin doesn’t recognize being on the feet?
yirara
Posts: 9,986 Member
I worked for 8hrs today, being on my fet the whole time with short moments to sit here and there. I get exactly the same calories as when I’m lazying on the sofa all day. That’s really interesting! Yes, I only got 5000 steps in this time as walking distances vere very shirt. Also got 94 active calories, but those are for cycling to work and back. Anyone noticed the same? So apparently an elevated hr during this time and more movement doesn’t add anything.
0
Replies
-
I've certainly noticed that prepping and cooking food in the kitchen doesn't stop me from getting alerts for being inactive.
I presume the hand movements need to be quite pronounced (or even specifically steps?) before the watch thinks you're being active and therefore burning more calories.
I only get higher calorie burns when my heart rate is elevated and I'm walking around.0 -
Daily activity on trackers uses steps and the distance traveled to estimate extra calorie burn over BMR.
If there are no steps - you get BMR rate of burn.
Yes, being awake burns more than BMR.
Standing burns more than being awake.
You only get BMR rate.
Underestimated.
You also get no estimated TEF calorie burn for the calories eaten.
HR doesn't mean anything for non-exercise time. In fact attempting to use calorie burn formula for that time would lead to inflated.
It's why some people's walking is inflated burn, it's below exercise level but their HR is up so much above expected the device will start using HR-based formula, totally incorrect.
They all do that.6 -
FWIW, I have a vivofit 4 and I get nothing unless my arm is swinging.
(Tested by forgetting to take the watch off and putting the display thingy in an ankle pouch when I do a walking dvd. I'm usually on my tablet while doing the dvd...)2 -
FWIW, I have a vivofit 4 and I get nothing unless my arm is swinging.
(Tested by forgetting to take the watch off and putting the display thingy in an ankle pouch when I do a walking dvd. I'm usually on my tablet while doing the dvd...)
Yep - I normally carry my daughter with that arm and have noticed on a few occasions that quite a few steps don't get counted because my arm isn't moving much. On the other hand, if she's fussing and I'm rocking or bouncing to help shush her, my step count will jump up very quickly.0 -
I worked for 8hrs today, being on my fet the whole time with short moments to sit here and there. I get exactly the same calories as when I’m lazying on the sofa all day. That’s really interesting! Yes, I only got 5000 steps in this time as walking distances vere very shirt. Also got 94 active calories, but those are for cycling to work and back. Anyone noticed the same? So apparently an elevated hr during this time and more movement doesn’t add anything.
Given the things it's able to measure, how would it be able to?3 -
Daily activity on trackers uses steps and the distance traveled to estimate extra calorie burn over BMR.
If there are no steps - you get BMR rate of burn.
Yes, being awake burns more than BMR.
Standing burns more than being awake.
You only get BMR rate.
Underestimated.
You also get no estimated TEF calorie burn for the calories eaten.
They all do that.
Looking at my Garmin data, my 'resting calories' are higher than my BMR, so I would conclude that it gives more than BMR for hours when I'm not moving. My resting calories = 1640 at my current weight. Whereas my BMR = between 1424 and 1340 depending on the formula.0 -
I've certainly noticed that prepping and cooking food in the kitchen doesn't stop me from getting alerts for being inactive.
I presume the hand movements need to be quite pronounced (or even specifically steps?) before the watch thinks you're being active and therefore burning more calories.
I only get higher calorie burns when my heart rate is elevated and I'm walking around.
I've not activated this as I started to ignore it on my old fitbit at a certain time. My work is.. somewhat active I would say. Just walking distances are short: prepare for client, walk out of 'office' and greet them, which requires all of 5m to 30m walking depending on how busy or if I feel like it. Walk back, help client out of jacket, get them seated, talk a bit, give covid shot, help back into jacket, walk few meters to show them where to sit for 15m, tidy up, get next client. Some 120 times per day. My HR is at around 90, instead of my lazy *kitten* 50-65. Certainly steps get counted continuously. Not sure if all, but there's a nice continuous slope in the steps throughout this time.
The calories are certainly higher than my BMR, which is a measly 1310 or so. I get close 1600 on any day, plus activity. So I guess Garmin just uses one of those standard sedentary equations, and throws all activities the device detects op top.0 -
Daily activity on trackers uses steps and the distance traveled to estimate extra calorie burn over BMR.
If there are no steps - you get BMR rate of burn.
Yes, being awake burns more than BMR.
Standing burns more than being awake.
You only get BMR rate.
Underestimated.
You also get no estimated TEF calorie burn for the calories eaten.
HR doesn't mean anything for non-exercise time. In fact attempting to use calorie burn formula for that time would lead to inflated.
It's why some people's walking is inflated burn, it's below exercise level but their HR is up so much above expected the device will start using HR-based formula, totally incorrect.
They all do that.
Yes, and no. Garmin doesn't seem to use BMR. At least for me it looks like it uses sedentary kind of TDEE, and all detected activity gets thrown on top. Though... I wonder if Garmin has some kind of detailed calorie burn display like Fitbit has. I'd like to know what is measured at night. Doesn't seem to exist though. Hmm.. it's still early. I think I have about 530 calories when I wake up. That gives me roughly 70 calories per hour. That gives me roughly 1700 calories per day... which is more than 100 more than I normally get on lazy *kitten* days. Hmm...0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I worked for 8hrs today, being on my fet the whole time with short moments to sit here and there. I get exactly the same calories as when I’m lazying on the sofa all day. That’s really interesting! Yes, I only got 5000 steps in this time as walking distances vere very shirt. Also got 94 active calories, but those are for cycling to work and back. Anyone noticed the same? So apparently an elevated hr during this time and more movement doesn’t add anything.
Given the things it's able to measure, how would it be able to?
That's what I've been wondering. Fitbit varied quiet a bit at the end of the day. I suppose that device took arm movement, but also HR, some kind of metric for stress level and other things into account.0 -
Daily activity on trackers uses steps and the distance traveled to estimate extra calorie burn over BMR.
If there are no steps - you get BMR rate of burn.
Yes, being awake burns more than BMR.
Standing burns more than being awake.
You only get BMR rate.
Underestimated.
You also get no estimated TEF calorie burn for the calories eaten.
They all do that.
Looking at my Garmin data, my 'resting calories' are higher than my BMR, so I would conclude that it gives more than BMR for hours when I'm not moving. My resting calories = 1640 at my current weight. Whereas my BMR = between 1424 and 1340 depending on the formula.
yes, I see the same. And these numbers seem to also be added when sleeping. Curious. I'm certainly glad I asked as all the data geeks are here
0 -
Hmm.. so Garmin recognizes the movement. But doesn't do anything with it by the look of it as it's below some kind of 'this counts as activity' threshold. This is from yesterday:
0 -
I've certainly noticed that prepping and cooking food in the kitchen doesn't stop me from getting alerts for being inactive.
I presume the hand movements need to be quite pronounced (or even specifically steps?) before the watch thinks you're being active and therefore burning more calories.
I only get higher calorie burns when my heart rate is elevated and I'm walking around.
I've not activated this as I started to ignore it on my old fitbit at a certain time. My work is.. somewhat active I would say. Just walking distances are short: prepare for client, walk out of 'office' and greet them, which requires all of 5m to 30m walking depending on how busy or if I feel like it. Walk back, help client out of jacket, get them seated, talk a bit, give covid shot, help back into jacket, walk few meters to show them where to sit for 15m, tidy up, get next client. Some 120 times per day. My HR is at around 90, instead of my lazy *kitten* 50-65. Certainly steps get counted continuously. Not sure if all, but there's a nice continuous slope in the steps throughout this time.
The calories are certainly higher than my BMR, which is a measly 1310 or so. I get close 1600 on any day, plus activity. So I guess Garmin just uses one of those standard sedentary equations, and throws all activities the device detects op top.
Thanks for making the world a safer place for everybody! 🙂0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I've certainly noticed that prepping and cooking food in the kitchen doesn't stop me from getting alerts for being inactive.
I presume the hand movements need to be quite pronounced (or even specifically steps?) before the watch thinks you're being active and therefore burning more calories.
I only get higher calorie burns when my heart rate is elevated and I'm walking around.
I've not activated this as I started to ignore it on my old fitbit at a certain time. My work is.. somewhat active I would say. Just walking distances are short: prepare for client, walk out of 'office' and greet them, which requires all of 5m to 30m walking depending on how busy or if I feel like it. Walk back, help client out of jacket, get them seated, talk a bit, give covid shot, help back into jacket, walk few meters to show them where to sit for 15m, tidy up, get next client. Some 120 times per day. My HR is at around 90, instead of my lazy *kitten* 50-65. Certainly steps get counted continuously. Not sure if all, but there's a nice continuous slope in the steps throughout this time.
The calories are certainly higher than my BMR, which is a measly 1310 or so. I get close 1600 on any day, plus activity. So I guess Garmin just uses one of those standard sedentary equations, and throws all activities the device detects op top.
Thanks for making the world a safer place for everybody! 🙂
Oops, thanks a lot
I have my personal bingo chart of annoying people, but overall it's a lot of fun to do. 0 -
Daily activity on trackers uses steps and the distance traveled to estimate extra calorie burn over BMR.
If there are no steps - you get BMR rate of burn.
Yes, being awake burns more than BMR.
Standing burns more than being awake.
You only get BMR rate.
Underestimated.
You also get no estimated TEF calorie burn for the calories eaten.
They all do that.
Looking at my Garmin data, my 'resting calories' are higher than my BMR, so I would conclude that it gives more than BMR for hours when I'm not moving. My resting calories = 1640 at my current weight. Whereas my BMR = between 1424 and 1340 depending on the formula.
Yes - Garmin uses RMR instead of BMR, just a slightly higher estimate.
Which is good to account for TEF not being a separate item, unless they are adding a TEF estimate to a static BMR.
Because I have noticed the RMR figure used to change daily and I could never get an exact calculation on what they were using with the minor changes.
Or perhaps they really take the estimated sleep time at BMR, other time at RMR.
Haven't mathed it out lately to see if that still happens.
ETA - just noticed GC page used to give their formula for Active and Resting and such right there to always see. Now it's not even shown in the Help for that section.
Hmm.
ETA - "Resting Calories" is now staying constant.
My 1971 is way above any RMR calculation, tad more than 300 above highest BMR calc.
But it is Mifflin BMR x 1.2, which is the old Harris Sedentary multiplier.
So they changed their methodology.
So now your rate of sedentary burn is removed from your Workout calories to create Active Calories.
Which would explain why extra Active calories aren't created for only so many steps (calorie burn) in a day.
Also means the figures they come up with for Calories Remaining when synced with MFP still doesn't work correctly.2 -
Fitbit was nice in this sense - you could create an Activity Record for any chunk of time, and view what all the Fitbit gathered stats were for it - HR, steps, distance, calories, ect. To see what was included in the daily stats.
Even their 24 hr graph would show calorie burn rate per 15 min block - easy to math out.
Garmin daily graph for movement has no Y-axis as to what it means. So I think indeed a limit to what's considered more than RMR rate.
I guess I've never tried to create a Garmin workout after a device sync, and delete out the suggested workout calorie burn.0 -
Fitbit was nice in this sense - you could create an Activity Record for any chunk of time, and view what all the Fitbit gathered stats were for it - HR, steps, distance, calories, ect. To see what was included in the daily stats.
That's the one thing I really wish they would add to garmin connect.
1 -
Fitbit was nice in this sense - you could create an Activity Record for any chunk of time, and view what all the Fitbit gathered stats were for it - HR, steps, distance, calories, ect. To see what was included in the daily stats.
That's the one thing I really wish they would add to garmin connect.
YES! All of this! Overall I'm a much happier with Garmin compared to Fitbit and overall I find their data display to be a lot more interesting. But this one is missing, and their resting calories vs active are a bit *kitten*. Well, lets be honest: I have a good handle on calories, thus I don't need it for weight control. But: Data!0 -
I just realized - if Garmin is assuming Sedentary rate of "Resting" burn - then do they give negative Activity Calories if you don't reach Sedentary level?
That would effect the Total Calories Burned - which is synced to MFP.
Now - MFP will still adjust down because 1.25 vs 1.2, but still, what if laid up sick and no where near 1.2 either?0 -
I just realized - if Garmin is assuming Sedentary rate of "Resting" burn - then do they give negative Activity Calories if you don't reach Sedentary level?
That would effect the Total Calories Burned - which is synced to MFP.
Now - MFP will still adjust down because 1.25 vs 1.2, but still, what if laid up sick and no where near 1.2 either?
I just had a look through my data: I had one or two totally sedentary days with something like 12 activity minutes. The resting calories are exactly the same on all those days. The only thing that varies is active calories. That's actually pretty *kitten* if you ask me.0 -
I just realized - if Garmin is assuming Sedentary rate of "Resting" burn - then do they give negative Activity Calories if you don't reach Sedentary level?
That would effect the Total Calories Burned - which is synced to MFP.
Now - MFP will still adjust down because 1.25 vs 1.2, but still, what if laid up sick and no where near 1.2 either?
I haven't had a complete day under sedentary since I got my Garmin. But I've had days where I had zero active calories at a certain point of the day and I did have a small negative calorie adjustment at that point.0 -
I did use to have big sedentary days, I mean, I could be only about 2K steps.
MFP would reflect a big negative adjustment.
But I do recall seeing lately, and not looking at finer details as to why - the adjustments were smaller, like -40 or such. I just figured - huh, I was more active than I thought.
Well, BMR 1642 x 0.05 = 82 - so that should be the max I'd ever see.
Of course right now I don't think MFP has adjusted eating goal to different BMR, so that probably explains the other 40.
Don't think I like that.
I'm wondering if this was Garmin's attempt for their eating goal adjustment to be closer to the way MFP does it?
Which still isn't right, it's like they don't understand at all how MFP does it, or perhaps lack of info, maybe they can't get from MFP what it's presumed daily burn is, only the eating goal.
So they assume sedentary is selected on MFP, but use the wrong multiplier for it.
0 -
Just a note: I don't have Garmin connected to MFP. That means the calories I get are totally unrelated to MFP and just for my own amusement.0
-
I get my 10,000 steps by sitting down and playing my guitar for 45m. 2
-
I've never even looked at the calories in Garmin. I think of Garmin land as a good place for info about my training, fitness, and preparedness, along with navigation.1
-
Hmm.. I wonder if Garmin has changed something over the past two days as I've been getting activity calories just by getting up. Just a single calorie here and there, but this is new.0
-
Hmm.. I wonder if Garmin has changed something over the past two days as I've been getting activity calories just by getting up. Just a single calorie here and there, but this is new.
Does it learn you better as you go on? I've actually been using their calorie burn estimates (not just steps) to help me pinpoint the deficit I want. At first it used to be rather erratic, but it's settled into a rather consistent pattern over the past couple of weeks. It's still underestimating the burn in my case, but it is doing so consistently. 3 -
penguinmama87 wrote: »Hmm.. I wonder if Garmin has changed something over the past two days as I've been getting activity calories just by getting up. Just a single calorie here and there, but this is new.
Does it learn you better as you go on? I've actually been using their calorie burn estimates (not just steps) to help me pinpoint the deficit I want. At first it used to be rather erratic, but it's settled into a rather consistent pattern over the past couple of weeks. It's still underestimating the burn in my case, but it is doing so consistently.
I honestly doubt it as I have this watch since February #notAQuickLearner 1 -
Over a year ago the last time I had someone test for me - the Fitbit improved it's HR-based calorie burn during the 1st 2 weeks.
This made sense because one of the public studies for HR-based calorie burn (and Garmin/Firstbeat too actually when you manually selected a PAR level from chart) is based on number of workouts.
I totally believe Garmin still uses that method but automatically now instead of manual entry - they know your workouts, frequency and time - so there's the PAR number.
So for workouts it probably still does.
It was easy to see using running on treadmill at same level of work, same avgHR, and yet calorie burn different at end of 2 weeks.
So if number of workouts changes in a couple weeks - there may be a change if they still use that method.
When 2 of my workouts started being swims where I didn't log it because no HR reading possible, I noticed the estimate on other workouts changed.
I always replaced the calorie burn with better estimate anyway so didn't matter.1 -
When 2 of my workouts started being swims where I didn't log it because no HR reading possible, I noticed the estimate on other workouts changed.
This is a random tangent and might not be of practical use to anybody, but you can log your HR while swimming if you really want to. They make a couple of chest straps with memory, the watches download the HR and combine it with the activity data based on time. I do that because I use HR for cumulative training stress.1 -
penguinmama87 wrote: »Hmm.. I wonder if Garmin has changed something over the past two days as I've been getting activity calories just by getting up. Just a single calorie here and there, but this is new.
Does it learn you better as you go on? I've actually been using their calorie burn estimates (not just steps) to help me pinpoint the deficit I want. At first it used to be rather erratic, but it's settled into a rather consistent pattern over the past couple of weeks. It's still underestimating the burn in my case, but it is doing so consistently.
Yes, but probably not in ways that affect this. Or maybe they do, the only ways to know are to go to the source code which nobody in here has, or to do the kind of black box testing @yirara is doing. Garmins learn your fitness level from your running, your activity level from the workouts you've logged, stuff like that. The workouts they suggest are based on your training load and your sleep and stress levels.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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