Sudden decrease in "resting calories?"

Here is an example I have for it showing low active calories for just normal walking activities. So I only netted an extra 78 calories from walking through out that day, this seems way to low for me. By the way for this day Garmin connect tells me I had a total burn of 2058.

That's pretty typical for me outside of any significant walking/activity (50-150 is typically what is counted for "daily steps") outside of recorded activities.

I find that acceptable as the BMR*1.2 or 1.25 accounts for a general baseline already. So the 50-150 added through daily steps are my "lightly active" above sedentary not including recorded activities like running/brisk walks.

Hi,

I like that they changed the BMR to its original result (Mifflin St. Jeor)
but I think they forgotten to add a PAL value

http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5686e/y5686e07.htm

very good calculator (only german)
http://www.gesundepfunde.com/grundumsatz-leistungsumsatz-gesamtumsatz-berechnen/
you can calculate your PAL factor here with
("Leistungsumsatz" / "Grundumsatz") +1 = PAL factor

so the daily result should be
BMR + PAL + activity

or am I wrong at this point?

yesterday i had this values:

1488 + 0 + 217 = 1705
with PAL factor(1,25) it would be
1488 + 372 + 217 = 2077

the day before yesterday:
1488 + 0 + 750 = 2238
with PAL factor (1,25):
1488 + 372 + 750 = 2610

how much should I eat now?

That's pretty typical for me outside of any significant walking/activity (50-150 is typically what is counted for "daily steps") outside of recorded activities.

I find that acceptable as the BMR*1.2 or 1.25 accounts for a general baseline already. So the 50-150 added through daily steps are my "lightly active" above sedentary not including recorded activities like running/brisk walks.

Yeah I agree those numbers would be accurate if they would have include the bmr *1.2 or 1.25 calculation in the resting calories. Since they don't I end up with a low calories burned for the day like my example. Garmin needs to either go back to using their old resting calories calculation, which was a lot better than it is now, or they need to adjust they way they calculate normal activity calories and increase the burn rate to make up for not using bmr*1.2 formula.

Hi all,

I've been getting the same as I'm sure all others have. Here is Garmins response.

"Dear Graham,

Thank you for contacting Garmin Europe.

The BMR change was intentional, we changed how the calories were calculated as we believe the previous estimate was overestimated.

Many customers look to calorie burn to manage many facets of their workout program. With that said, there are many different ways to calculate calorie burn and there are competing theories as to which is more accurate.

We can all agree that the discussion about calorie burn is one that has many sides, multiple ways of being calculated, and can more than likely be discussed for an infinite amount of time.

We do value the information everyone has provided and we do consider this information critical to improving our products, which calculates calories through heart rate and user profile. We also acknowledge that there are many factors that can contribute to a calorie burn more or less than expected. Some of these factors may be, but are not limited to, running efficiency, very low workout intensity, inaccurate comparisons, etc...

Garmin will continue to work with Firstbeat to investigate which of the above factors are true and refine any area that may challenge the caloric expenditure for specific users. Again, we appreciate all users input and passion to improve our products and the accuracy in the data they provide".

Of note, I also wear a fitbit on other wrist (Not HR) and if I'm not running, just walking about of a normal day, the calorie burn estimates from both devices are very similar at the end of the day. It does tend to differ significantly when I run however with Fitbit giving me largely inflated calorie burns and garmin apparently giving me more reasonable estimates. Also Fitbit tends to miscount steps more giving me more of a calorie burn.

I really hope Garmin are doing their best to give the most accurate estimation and if that results in what some of us believe to be lower calorie burns, then so be it. I'd choose a degree of accuracy over deluding myself I'm burning more calories and potentially putting on weight by eating they calories back.

All the best...

I have been doing some basic maths and the following seems to apply on my 920xt if you exclude recorded activities.

I have a Garmin BMR of 1599.

The old formula was BMR x 1.2 which is typical sedentary estimate = 1918 calories. Then they added steps calories on top. My last day with the old formula showed 45 steps per calorie.

The new formula is BMR + step calories. I am still needing 45 steps per calorie so to get 1918 I need 319 x 45 steps = 14355 steps.

So essentially to achieve sedentary status, and match MFP formula I need 14355 steps.

Which is surely way off? I need to walk 6 miles for that. Hardly sedentary!

Can anyone with a age if 3 HR or other wrist based HR monitor watch post comparable figures as I am wondering if the HR watches use a different formula?

Yeah HR watches use a different formula
It calculates calories with the help of your heartbeat zones.
I think it gets better every day (maybe because if more data)

Example:
My BMR 1488kcal

Tuesday:
Steps 8754
Workout 253 kcal
2187 kcal

Yesterday
Steps 7296
Workout 300 kcal
2392 kcal

So you can see it more steps don't mean more burnt calories if the hr is to low

Thanks!

My wife actually has a 235 but wears it only on and off including for activity recording.

As such her calories per day are slightly odd. The watch appears to make some strange guesses if no HR reading. In fact last night while looking at her Connect stats we realised that the HR monitoring outside of activities was not working since 18.5 and needed a reboot to fix. The calorie calculations while there was no HR were inflated very erratically. Maybe worth anyone who has had surprisingly high numbers checking for this.

I am also suspicious of some of the HR stats that have been recorded on her 235. Some days have shown a resting HR of 44 which she is adamant is about 15-20 lower than she believes her real number to be. Again I can't help wondering if the wrist based HR tech is ready for this kind of thing.

But it appears Garmin have moved their formula to suit these watches so.....

Garmin's new formula is just wrong and they need to work on it. It constantly puts me around 2000 to 2100 calories a day burned and that is just plain wrong. I am averaging eating around 2200 calories a day right now and I am dropping just under a half pound a week, I am not overweight either 5'7 at 143. So if I do the math 2200+250(this is to up it to maintenance level) I am looking at around 2450 calories a day. For me it looks like Garmin is underestimating my burn by around 400 calories a day. They need to go back to the drawing board with their new formula. Btw I use a fenix 3hr.

:mad:

Yeah,
Garmin's new formula needs a lot of optimisation.
I'm 181cm / 72kg. For quite a time I used a fitbit, then a vivofit. Usually everything was fine with 1600 kcal base plus the some hundred kcal for my 10k+ steps. Plus some running. A day.

But now...
I get my 1600 (recalculated actually 1480, anyway) plus ...almost nothing. w/o changing anything in my daily-motion-behaviour. Can't understand what's the problem. And can't fix it on my own. Neither in MFP nor in GC.

Maybe they really calculate on the oHR-data of my FR235. But they calculate far! to few.

Dear Garmin - pls give us a switch somewhere in GC to choose how to calculate (old/new) - or even better, fix the actual calculation.
Thank you.

So essentially to achieve sedentary status, and match MFP formula I need 14355 steps.

For me that break even point, the amount of steps nessasary for my total Garmin calories to equal 1.25 x BMR and be even with MFP is about 9-11K. Certainly not sedentary.

This whole thing reminds me of my wife's attitudes towards air conditioning in the car. There are only 2 settings for her so if it is a little warm she goes full Max AC. If she gets cold -- it's right over to all red.

I'll play with the temperature. Lower it a little, raise the fan speed a bit.