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

Garmin steps vs walking

7254632
over 4 years ago

Hi,

I do a 6 mile walk a few times a week. 

I used to register it as a walk activity and use the GPS in the Garmin Forerunner.

My normal calorie burn was 1050 for the 2.5 hours of walking activity. (I have quite a bit of weight to lose).

Recently, I've just been counting steps for the same journey rather than registering it as an activity. 

My active calories for the exact same walk + time is now 592 calories.

Why the difference? What's more accurate?

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    What I've noticed is that First Beat tends to estimate lower calories than without First Beat.  I was using an FR910XT for cycling and would routinely show 1,100 to 1,200 calories burned for a 1.5 hour ride. I now use an Edge bike computer and I get 500 to 600 calories for the same ride.

    The other thing I noticed is that if you turn off the heart rate monitor for an activity, it tends to overestimate calories burned.

    In summary, I think 592 is likely more accurate.

  • 0 over 1 year ago

    I share the frustration with inaccuracy. I think it is using heart rate in different ways. I tend to think the tracked activity is more accurate. I find myself ravenous when I try to follow the calories but have walked a lot during the day. I wish they would make it more consistent! MoveIQ correctly identifies dedicated walks. Seems like better calorie estimation could be part of MoveIQ!

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to AnonJohn

    Agreed. I think it’s tracking heart rate consistently when it’s a registered activity hence it’s more accurate. I suspect it’s not when I’m just casually wearing it whether I’m walking or not. My husband is a lot slimmer than me and his casual wear and activity calories are fairly similar. Probably because his HR doesn’t change as much as mine when walking.