Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Inaccurate or scientific?

5635691
over 3 years ago

 
This makes no sense to me. Went for a run on the same exact path as my fiancé and I walked on. Literally a circle from our driveway around the block back to our driveway. She’s not a fast walker so we were leisure. How did I burn more calories walking a 21 minute mile than a 10 minute mile? Please tell me this watch is not a waste of time (pun intended). Any explanations would be greatly appreciated, especially from Garmin. 

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    The calories you see includes your resting calories.

    Garmin will use the values you've entered about yourself (length, weight, age) and the measured data (heart rate, speed etc.) so it is hard to do the same calculation from that little data as in the images. Your VO2 max is probably used as well.

    I used calorie calculators online and found these values for me:

    36 minutes walking will burn 159 kcal.

    16 minutes running will burn 184 kcal.

    My resting calories per day is 2006 kcal according to Garmin => 1.4 kcal/minute

    36 min: 159 + 1.4 * 36 = 209 kcal

    16 min: 184 + 1.4 * 16 = 206 kcal

    Those are my very simplified calculations without taking the heart rate or any other more advanced variables into account. I don't know exactly how Garmin calculates the calories, but it isn't odd if the walking burn same or more calories when it so much longer in time.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to e7andy

    I’m speechless. My whole life I assumed a one mile jog was burning twice that as a one mile walk. I guess 1 ton of bricks and 1 ton of feathers really do fall at the same speed haha I appreciate your thorough breakdown and clear explanation!

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to 5635691

    You can also think that the amount of work to move your body 1.6 miles will be about the same no matter the speed.