PDA

View Full Version : 310xt and calorie usage -- seriously?



JTHRELKELD
09-02-2009, 12:52 PM
I'm having a lot of trouble believing that I'm truly using as few calories as the Garmin claims I do. My users settings are as follows:

Gender: Female
Age: 44
Weight: 130 lbs
Height: 65"
Activity Class: 9
Lifetime Athlete: No*
Resting heart rate: 45
Maximum heart rate: 208

This morning I went out on a 8.7 run, running the first 4 miles at 75% HRMax. The next 4.7 miles were at tempo effort, between 88-90% HRMax.

Grand total calories used? 475

This is consistent with what I've gotten for other hard workouts, and it's not that much more in terms of relative calorie usage than I get with easy workouts (runs at 60-65% HRMax). Am I really only using less than 55 calories a mile when running hard? I find this hard to believe.

As an experiment I plan to plug in wildly different user profile settings before I do a hard 20 miler this Sunday, just to see if I get a very different calculation for calorie usage. But it would be helpful to know if these calculations truly reflect physiological reality.

*Although it should probably be set to Yes, since my resting pulse is well below 60 and I've been training hard for 3+ years. But I can't reconcile that with the word "lifetime."

JSIEGE11
09-02-2009, 02:30 PM
The HR based calories for the 310XT seem VERY low. Compared to my old Polar HRM, its been somewhere between 25% and 30% lower. A 45 min run used to log 625-650 calories but the 310XT is in the upper 400's.

My data:
Gender: male
Age: 25
Weight: 150 lbs
Height: 72"
Activity Class: 9
Lifetime Athlete: yes
Resting heart rate: 45
Maximum heart rate: 195

R.MCLACHLAN
09-02-2009, 03:18 PM
I think in general the 310XT calorie count is lower because the 310XT uses a more accurate heartbeat based algorithm for calculation than previous Garmin (& probably Polar) products. Here is a link to a Firstbeat Technologies White Paper on this subject.

www.firstbeattechnologies.com/files/Energy_Expenditure_Estimation

I can imagine most people getting upset because they would prefer to be burning more calories rather than less, unfortunately if the science is correct then that is the way it is.

NDURANCERIDER
09-02-2009, 04:01 PM
Another option is to get a New Leaf (http://www8.garmin.com/products/trainingcenter/newleaf.jsp) test and have the 310 calculate based on your specific make-up.

April

BILLBUNTON
09-02-2009, 06:25 PM
FWIW, in cycling mode the calories agree pretty closely with the KJoules figure from my powertap, so I tend to think the 310XT calorie calculation is pretty accurate.

SEILOGRAMP
09-02-2009, 08:16 PM
I can imagine most people getting upset because they would prefer to be burning more calories rather than less.

Not necessarily. I would rather err on the low side, especially if I'm on a calorie restrictive diet to lose weight. If you allow yourself to ingest more calories because of erroneous data from your device then you're likely to not lose weight according to your schedule, maybe even gain.

EKUTTER
09-02-2009, 09:54 PM
No, the calorie counts, are wildly inacurate. As noted above, there is no way she is only burning 55 calories per mile on a hard run. Chances are it is well over 100. I see the same discrepancy as compared to a VO2 max test I had done where they calculate calorie burn rate based on oxygen uptake levels and corilated to HR zones. The FR310 is definitely way under estimating calorie burn, both on the bike and the run. Polar is actually quite accurate all VO2 max testing I have done since it bases the calorie count completely on the HR and the user profile including age, weight, VO2 Max, sex. I thought Garmin had finally done similar stuff with the FR310.

JTHRELKELD
09-03-2009, 06:02 AM
I can imagine most people getting upset because they would prefer to be burning more calories rather than less, unfortunately if the science is correct then that is the way it is.

Aye, there's the rub: All I want to know is if the numbers are correct. I'll happily accept them if they are.

R.MCLACHLAN
09-03-2009, 08:11 AM
Aye, there's the rub: All I want to know is if the numbers are correct. I'll happily accept them if they are.

Well all I can say is there does seem to be some science and analysis in the Firtsbeat White paper. BTW I am assuming that users are using a HRM - if not then the 310XT improved calorie count method is invalid.

MUSILJAN
09-03-2009, 10:36 AM
Interesting discussion. It looks that Garmin is using some pre-defined VO2max values for the activity class you set in the HRM. Suunto uses the same algorithm, but it also lets you input your VO2max as METs which is then used to calculate the caloric burn. Garmin does not have this value therefore I assume they use pre-defined VO2max values with each activity class or use the simpler algorithm that is in lower end model Suunto units.

In general Polar units give highest caloric burn followed by Suunto and the new Garmin 310 seems to underestimate the caloric burn quite a bit. Both Polar and Suunto use the VO2max values for caloric burn calculation. Suunto recently published new version of firmware for their units that corrects the caloric burn. I wonder whether this fix from FirstBeat was already implemented in the 310 firmware or will be in the future.

All in all these caloric burn figures from HRMs are estimates and as some recently published studies shown they can be up to 15% off the real burning. So take them with grain of salt. If you are running you are burning anywhere from 80 to 130 kcal per mile (yeah wide range depending on intensity of the run, body weight, VO2max, ...). I'm just happy we do not run with the tube sticking out of our mouth connected to the watch to assess the exact caloric expenditure ;-).

Jan

POSITIVPAU405
09-03-2009, 11:08 AM
The ascent software gets the raw data from the 310xt. It also takes HR into the consideration for calorie computation. It usually shows about 15 to 20% higher than the 310xt. I'm not sure which one is more accurate. Probably neither... :)
I noticed that during my interval trainings (Usually 45 minutes) I usually burn only 550 cal. But that is very intense almost all in zone 4-5...

KANSAIBEN
09-03-2009, 02:44 PM
I'm having a lot of trouble believing that I'm truly using as few calories as the Garmin claims I do. My users settings are as follows:

Gender: Female
Age: 44
Weight: 130 lbs
Height: 65"
Activity Class: 9
Lifetime Athlete: No*
Resting heart rate: 45
Maximum heart rate: 208

This morning I went out on a 8.7 run, running the first 4 miles at 75% HRMax. The next 4.7 miles were at tempo effort, between 88-90% HRMax.

Grand total calories used? 475

This is consistent with what I've gotten for other hard workouts, and it's not that much more in terms of relative calorie usage than I get with easy workouts (runs at 60-65% HRMax). Am I really only using less than 55 calories a mile when running hard? I find this hard to believe.

As an experiment I plan to plug in wildly different user profile settings before I do a hard 20 miler this Sunday, just to see if I get a very different calculation for calorie usage. But it would be helpful to know if these calculations truly reflect physiological reality.

*Although it should probably be set to Yes, since my resting pulse is well below 60 and I've been training hard for 3+ years. But I can't reconcile that with the word "lifetime."

Curious how you arrived at the max HR of 208? Not saying that is incorrect, but certainly an outlier for your age which could have something to do with the 310 giving very low calorie readings. Would have to believe calorie burn rates to based upon typical data points in cases where proper individual testing is not involved.

JRMITCH
09-04-2009, 03:03 PM
I've been using the 310xt for about a month. my riding partner uses a 405cx. Both advertise that they use an advanced calorie caluclation. We both have input same fitness level 8. 405cx does not have "lifetime fitness" setting. I'm 59, he's 43. On a two hour ride my average HR is about 135, his about 140. My indicated calorie burn is about half his. One, or both, of the units is seriously in error. Many comments questioning 310xt, hope Garmin looks at this.

JTHRELKELD
09-04-2009, 04:32 PM
Curious how you arrived at the max HR of 208? Not saying that is incorrect, but certainly an outlier for your age which could have something to do with the 310 giving very low calorie readings. Would have to believe calorie burn rates to based upon typical data points in cases where proper individual testing is not involved.

That's an interesting theory.

208 is the highest an HRM ever hit for me -- I tore through the last quarter mile of a 5K a few years ago. Previous readings for fast, hard races had been in the low 200 range, so I tend to believe that's my max.

Today was the real kicker: Garmin had me burning 60 cals for a 9:30 mile, then 50 for an 8:30 subsequent mile. I'm going to ignore the caloric data until Garmin fixes this.

Now. Can we hear from someone at Garmin? :)

R.MCLACHLAN
09-04-2009, 04:39 PM
I've been using the 310xt for about a month. my riding partner uses a 405cx. Both advertise that they use an advanced calorie caluclation. We both have input same fitness level 8. 405cx does not have "lifetime fitness" setting. I'm 59, he's 43. On a two hour ride my average HR is about 135, his about 140. My indicated calorie burn is about half his. One, or both, of the units is seriously in error. Many comments questioning 310xt, hope Garmin looks at this.

Are you the same weight? Remember calories are about energy consumption - it requires more energy to move a greater weight.

I must admit I do not fully understand calorie consumption as from the basic laws of physics it takes the same energy to move a mass a fixed distance regardless of the velocity, only the time taken changes. This does not seem to be the case here as more energy seems to be consumed running a fixed distance than walking the same distance - perhaps body heat produced accounts for the difference?

SKIERZ2
11-15-2009, 07:04 PM
Before you do a NewLeaf Profile, please read the NewLeaf Profile Thread.

I wrote my experience on that thread and many others have as well.

I agree that based on what my Polar 625SX reported based on all the profile parameters and tests that it is for more accurate for calorie burn. I did the NewLeaf Profile because I thought calorie burn was low for me, but did NewLeaf and now think it is high (18 cals per minute at 133-141).

I do think Garmin needs to look into how to make 310XT users more comfortable with the data.

TRYING2GOFAST
11-16-2009, 03:30 PM
Yeah, I'm not uncomfortable with the estimates being much lower than they used to be, but I am uncomfortable with the estimates for a hard effort being equal to or lower than the estimates for an easy jog.

50 y/o F
121#
63"
activity class 8 (somewhere between 8 and 9)
Lifetime athlete Yes ("athlete" is the word I struggle with there ;), but I went ahead and selected it because there have only been a few short periods in my life when I haven't worked out regularly)
RHR 50 (true RHR is almost certainly lower, I've never worn my HR strap to sleep, but 50 is what I see if I'm sitting around during the daytime)
MHR 192 (the highest I've seen this summer on a hot day toward the end of a race or interval session, where the graph was good and smooth and I was sure it wasn't a spike).

So anyway, I did mile repeats x 2 this morning. The first effort was off by my own fault (forgot to bring my footpod, and the route went through a tunnel). The second one was all in good clear view of the sky and distance and pace seemed accurate.

So... my warm-up, 1.33 mi @ 10:34, AHR 146 - 84 kcal
Second mile effort, 1.00 mile @ 8:10, AHR 172 - 60 kcal
Recovery/cool down, 0.91 mile @ 12:10, AHR 152 - 62 kcal

I wonder if elevation errors are playing into it, though. (Another reason to wish for a barometric altimeter...) The 310 thought I climbed 220 feet in the warm-up, 137 feet in the second mile repeat, 208 feet in the cool-down. In actuality the route was pancake flat. There might have been a slight rise over the whole length of the out-and-back, but no more than 10-15 feet per mile absolute max. Even SportTracks elevation correction only brought the day's total down to the 500 ft range. :(


I know I'm slow... kind of embarrassed to post these numbers here, but, I try. :p

SKIERZ2
11-19-2009, 12:14 AM
Trying to go faster,

I am not 100% but I do not think that the elevation plays into the calorie calculation. I think any ascent or descent would be reflected in your HR at the time and that is what is used to calculate your Calorie Burn.

I looked at a table (pg.175, table 12.2) from The Complete Book of Triathlons by Sally Edwards (SE), MSN Health and Fitness Calorie Burn Calculator, and MyFooddiary.com (MFD) to compare what an average calorie burn would be for the times and speeds you posted:

+++++++++++++310XT----SE ------MSN------MFD---Median

Int #1 AHR 146 - 84 kcal ---120 -----119-------121-----120---1.33 mi @ 10:34

Int #2 AHR 172 - 60 kcal----85--------92-------99 --------92---1.00 mi @ 8:10

Int #3 AHR 152 - 62 kcal-----102 -----88 -------96 -------96--- 0.91 mi @ 12:10


Is time you put down the pace you ran at or the time you ran in? (I assumed the time you ran in). To get the SE numbers I extrapolated your weight, time, and pace to get your numbers. For the others I entered your weight, time, and speed (approximately).

So your Calorie burn reported by the 310XT is low (compared to chart) based on these other measures. I did read the FirstBeat White Paper on Energy Expenditure and they admit they have about a 7-10% error rate. If you look at the median of the three comparisons they are approximately 50% higher than the Garmin/First Beat numbers.

I am thinking you might experiment with your MHR. While the best way to figure a max HR is by what you can actually do (which you did), yours is high. Using the MathMax HR for a female of 50 weighing 121 your predicted HR max is 210-(age/2)-(body weight*.05) = ~179 bpm. Maybe you could input this maxHR in your profile and you will get a closer to accurate Calorie Burn #. Also on this point, you could calculate your real resting HR when you first wake up by just having a watch with a second hand and checking your pulse rate for a minute and multiplying by two.

I would be curious what the results would be and what others think. Let's face it 7-10% is probably great, but 50% raises some big red flags and it would be great to hear someone from Firstbeat, NewLeaf, or Garmin to weigh in on this as well.

TRYING2GOFAST
11-23-2009, 03:35 PM
The times I posted were pace, not elapsed time. For the one mile it would be the same. ET for the warm-up was 14:06, for the cool-down was 11:15.

Thanks for looking at it, though. Really I don't get too excited about calorie calculations one way or the other, but if the watch is going to make the estimates, they ought to be vaguely credible IMO.

MAXPROFWELL
12-02-2009, 03:56 PM
Since using the HR monitor my calorie counts have increase by an average of 70% for comparable workouts (speed walking). Which is likely more accurate?

KAFOLSKE
12-02-2009, 05:36 PM
Since using the HR monitor my calorie counts have increase by an average of 70% for comparable workouts (speed walking). Which is likely more accurate?

What do you mean by comparable? The same distance? The same time? Was the average heart rate the same?

MAXPROFWELL
12-03-2009, 07:01 PM
What do you mean by comparable? The same distance? The same time? Was the average heart rate the same?

Same course and distance, same time, same pace. I don't know the average HR for the events before I started using the monoitor.

RSANKURATRI
12-08-2009, 05:15 PM
I ran 12.5 miles on the Santa Monica Beach today morning with my three week old Forerunner 310XT. The sky was clear, had the HR monitor strapped on, footpod on. Both were detected by the 310XT. I ran at an average of 7:51/mile the entire course. However the calorie burnt shows up as just 244 C. This is absolutely baloney.

I had called in earlier and the Garmin tech told me to set the Activity Class to 6, which I did. I run about 40 - 45 miles per week and I think the Activity Class "6" is a bit low for that. Anyway even setting it at 6 did not help.

So after the 12.5 mile run today I called the Garmin support again and that person seemed "surprised" to hear this problem. He says that he will report it to the engineers and if there is a problem they will provide a patch.

I did send the run statistics and am including them in the post also just in case...

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/20245557

Gender: Male
Age: 44
Weight: 155
Height: 5'11"
Activity Class: 6


Thanks and hope to get a fix for this problem... Good that I still have my good old Forerunner 405.

RS

RSANKURATRI
12-10-2009, 01:17 PM
So after sending the details to tech support, I got back a response from the tech support asking me to reset the instrument. I did what was asked, but still am having the same results. This morning I did a 10 mile run (http://connect.garmin.com/activity/20332318) and the calorie count is still way off. I am reproducing the instructions from the tech support below...

===============================================
Thank you for contacting Garmin International.

I am happy to help you with this. From what you describe your unit is not functioning correctly. To correct this issue I would suggest that you master reset your unit to clear out any corrupt data. This will clear out all data in the unit and reset it to factory defaults and settings. Following are instructions on how to perform a Master Reset on your unit:
-- With the unit powered off, Press and hold the Mode and Power button at the same time. You will then see a screen that says, "Do you really want to erase all user data Yes/NO" Select Yes and the unit will be reset.
After the master reset please place your unit outside so that it has a clear view of the sky for 25 to 30 minutes so that the unit can acquire new almanac data. I would also suggest going to our website at the following link and updating your units operating system.
http://www.garmin.com/products/webupdater/howtoinstall.jsp

===============================================

BSTARR67
12-10-2009, 02:24 PM
Remember, no matter what Polar (or even Garmin) says, HR is useless for calculating calories. See my post at

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?t=3962

You'll get much more accurate calorie estimates by using these general guidelines:

running calories = miles x 100
walking calories = miles x 65

This is for a 150-pound person. Scale your results in proportion to your body weight (higher weights use more calories).

Remember that calorie consumption does NOT vary with running speed! It only varies with distance.

ANTHONYDAS
04-29-2012, 03:52 PM
Hi Guys,

Although this post is now quite old, I think I've nailed it down to a bug in the Garmin 310XT software when a footpod is enabled. The original poster was also using a footpod from reading her earlier posts. (This separate post also shows that the FR60 is probably affected: https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?t=25987)

I ordered my 310XT with the footpod, but since the footpod was out of stock, I used my 310XT without the footpod for several months. Last week, when the footpod finally arrived, I attached it to my run shoes and turned it on within my run settings.

Prior to switching on the footpod, I had reasonable calorie data when compared to my old Polar RS200. This was for both running (outdoors with GPS and HRM, and on treadmill with HRM only) and when cycling (indoors on a turbo trainer with HRM). Now, with the footpod turned on, I am getting hugely reduced calorie figures - even when cycling where the footpod should play absolutely no role.

Indeed, when doing two near identical indoor cycles (same HR range, same turbo trainer, same bike on the same gearing, and at the same RPM cadence as given by my Cateye cycle comp) I suffered the following drop:

Time 1:00:04 Avg HR 156 Max HR 164 calories = 677
Time 51:13 Avg HR 155 Max HR 164 calories = 327 *
* Yes, this was shorter in duration but extrapolating to an hour still only gives 382 calories.

Hoping to raise this with Garmin TechSupport. For reference I am using the latest firmware for the 310XT, namely v4.20, and the new style SDM4 footpod.

MBALES369
05-04-2012, 11:49 PM
Hi Guys,
Time 1:00:04 Avg HR 156 Max HR 164 calories = 677
Time 51:13 Avg HR 155 Max HR 164 calories = 327 *
* Yes, this was shorter in duration but extrapolating to an hour still only gives 382 calories.

Hoping to raise this with Garmin TechSupport. For reference I am using the latest firmware for the 310XT, namely v4.20, and the new style SDM4 footpod.

Wow, excellent find, I was going to try to use the footpod without much intervening time to notice something like that happen likely.
Curious about your setup on watch with newest firmware I have too.

Did you really have a selection for the Activity Class during setup, or find a place to enter that number?
Were you prompted for the Lifetime Athlete yes/no? Or did you find it in the settings which I did?

The whole increased accuracy of calorie burn is based on code from Firstbeat's use of a formula for calculating VO2max, and without that Activity Class, that formula based on a study isn't happening.

Shoot, I had figured out how to tweak the height so that you could make that formula spit out a VO2max figure matching what I already had tested for - since Garmin has no field to enter it specifically if known. Too bad.

MCBADGER
05-05-2012, 04:36 AM
The whole increased accuracy of calorie burn is based on code from Firstbeat's use of a formula for calculating VO2max, and without that Activity Class, that formula based on a study isn't happening.
Other than lifetime athlete, the activity class is based on how much you work out a week, isn't it? So the newer firmwares just monitor what you do and set the class based on that (which saves you changing the class as your training volume changes). And that's fine unless you're doing a lot of exercise that isn't tracked on the Forerunner, playing football or rowing or what have you. For that reason I think I'd rather be able to set it myself again (I don't play football or anything but I do commute by bike and don't usually bother using my 310 for that, so it's missing out on a fair bit of exercise)

MBALES369
05-05-2012, 06:49 PM
Other than lifetime athlete, the activity class is based on how much you work out a week, isn't it? So the newer firmwares just monitor what you do and set the class based on that (which saves you changing the class as your training volume changes). And that's fine unless you're doing a lot of exercise that isn't tracked on the Forerunner, playing football or rowing or what have you. For that reason I think I'd rather be able to set it myself again (I don't play football or anything but I do commute by bike and don't usually bother using my 310 for that, so it's missing out on a fair bit of exercise)

That's what they did, well, I don't use it for everything either. I guess the tweak to height to get VO2max more correct can still work at least, but they would have to reach the same Activity Level I'm using in formula.

Thanks for info, good to know they are still using Firstbeat's algorithms.

TRYING2GOFAST
05-06-2012, 04:14 PM
Nope. I read this and went back through my recent training logs - I'd done a couple of runs recently without my footpod for various reasons. I did the same 9.37 mile loop in December with my footpod and in April without it. GTC says 737 calories in December, 709 in April (and even that small discrepancy is possibly accounted for, since the watch thought I climbed slightly less and descended slightly more on the April run; my pace was 0:13/mile slower in April; and my AHR was lower by 1 bpm in April).

So it isn't the footpod, at least not with my 310.

MBALES369
05-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Nope. I read this and went back through my recent training logs - I'd done a couple of runs recently without my footpod for various reasons. I did the same 9.37 mile loop in December with my footpod and in April without it. GTC says 737 calories in December, 709 in April (and even that small discrepancy is possibly accounted for, since the watch thought I climbed slightly less and descended slightly more on the April run; my pace was 0:13/mile slower in April; and my AHR was lower by 1 bpm in April).

So it isn't the footpod, at least not with my 310.

Well, in his test the footpod had never been paired.
Later it was paired. But of course not used on the cycling stats he made the discovery on.

So the mere act of pairing could have changed some logic as to formulas to use.
I know in the Firstbeat whitepaper it states it even uses your running speed to fine tune the calorie burn, but it is not used in cycling. But if the application of the formula is wrong, you could have always had deflated values, having never seen higher ones.

Or did you do a hard-reset to your unit since using the foodpod, and then never paired the footpod again on this recent test. It being seen and activated for reading from doesn't seem to be the issue since it wasn't there for indoor cycling.

Is there a way to de-pair without a hard reset?

PEDR001
05-10-2012, 04:34 AM
How strange that I am having exactly the opposite problem. I think the calorie burn totals are way too 'HIGH' using my 310XT, they're certainly much higher than my FR60 used at the same time with the same HRM, footpod or GSC10. On a 10 mile ride my 310XT will read some 300+ more calories burned. Total rubbish!

SMIGLIDIGLI
09-15-2013, 03:10 PM
You'll get much more accurate calorie estimates by using these general guidelines:

running calories = miles x 100
walking calories = miles x 65

(...)

Remember that calorie consumption does NOT vary with running speed! It only varies with distance.

If you're saying "the calorie consumption does NOT vary with running speed", why are you giving two different formulas for running and walking? Isn't "running" just a faster "walking"?

BUCKYWOOD
09-20-2013, 07:15 AM
I think in general the 310XT calorie count is lower because the 310XT uses a more accurate heartbeat based algorithm for calculation than previous Garmin (& probably Polar) products. Here is a link to a Firstbeat Technologies White Paper on this subject.

www.firstbeattechnologies.com/files/Energy_Expenditure_Estimation

I can imagine most people getting upset because they would prefer to be burning more calories rather than less, unfortunately if the science is correct then that is the way it is.

Fist Beat technology is only a different algorithm used to calculate what cannot be measured (calories burned). It is always an estimated value, but is dependent on only three factors: % of HR max, weight and time spent at that rate. Taking them one at a time, the HRmax is prone to error unless you actually exercise to your max and actually measure that rate (rather than calculating it using a formula such as 220 minus your age). It is well established that, for a given body size, the calorie burn goes up with your HR. Weight should be obvious, since it takes more calories to pull or push a heavier object. And time spent is obvious.

Let's assume that the 8.7 mile run was at an average pace of 8:00 per mile for a run of 70 minutes. It sounds like the watch is not accurately programmed, since her calories burned should be in the range of 12/min or even more with the increase in pace toward the end. That would be 840 calories. Funny, but the fairly accurate estimate of 100 calories per mile correlates well with that number.

BUCKYWOOD
09-20-2013, 07:17 AM
I'm having a lot of trouble believing that I'm truly using as few calories as the Garmin claims I do. My users settings are as follows:

Gender: Female
Age: 44
Weight: 130 lbs
Height: 65"
Activity Class: 9
Lifetime Athlete: No*
Resting heart rate: 45
Maximum heart rate: 208

This morning I went out on a 8.7 run, running the first 4 miles at 75% HRMax. The next 4.7 miles were at tempo effort, between 88-90% HRMax.

Grand total calories used? 475

This is consistent with what I've gotten for other hard workouts, and it's not that much more in terms of relative calorie usage than I get with easy workouts (runs at 60-65% HRMax). Am I really only using less than 55 calories a mile when running hard? I find this hard to believe.

As an experiment I plan to plug in wildly different user profile settings before I do a hard 20 miler this Sunday, just to see if I get a very different calculation for calorie usage. But it would be helpful to know if these calculations truly reflect physiological reality.

*Although it should probably be set to Yes, since my resting pulse is well below 60 and I've been training hard for 3+ years. But I can't reconcile that with the word "lifetime."

Fist Beat technology is only a different algorithm used to calculate what cannot be measured (calories burned). It is always an estimated value, but is dependent on only three factors: % of HR max, weight and time spent at that rate. Taking them one at a time, the HRmax is prone to error unless you actually exercise to your max and actually measure that rate (rather than calculating it using a formula such as 220 minus your age). It is well established that, for a given body size, the calorie burn goes up with your HR. Weight should be obvious, since it takes more calories to pull or push a heavier object. And time spent is obvious.

Let's assume that the 8.7 mile run was at an average pace of 8:00 per mile for a run of 70 minutes. It sounds like the watch is not accurately programmed, since her calories burned should be in the range of 12/min or even more with the increase in pace toward the end. That would be 840 calories. Funny, but the fairly accurate estimate of 100 calories per mile correlates well with that number.

EMMAN_KAS@HOTMAIL.COM
02-27-2014, 10:58 PM
I did a 43 min run on the treadmill using the food pod. According to the treadmill my distances were 4.70 miles and my Garmin said l ran 4.63 miles. The treadmill said l burned like 635 calories, but l was a bit shock with the Garmin cos it said l only burned 262 calories. Is kind of hard for me to believe that. I using the premium heart rate monitor. I did input all my data right. I am about 151 lbs, 30 y/o male in good healthy condition. I have been running for roughly over 1 year. Can someone tell me if l am doing something wrong?