PDA

View Full Version : Calories inconsistent



SJSTRAW
10-29-2009, 10:10 PM
Hi,

I have a quick little route I sometimes take. Now I've done it a number of times but I've started seeing discrepancies in my calories count. I'm using the 310xt. And I'm wondering if the discrepincy might be due to a faulty HR monitor? Or if the two are not associated?

Anyway, take a look here;

1 Sept
3.2k Run
Calories 294
AVHR: 156 (Lower average and still more calories?)
MAXHR: 185
Time 23:23
AVTime: 7:18
BestTime:4:36



6 Oct
3.2k Run
Calories 183
AVHR: 167 (Average HR is higher yet calories is lower?)
MAXHR: 197 (Considerably higher)
Time 19:42
AVTime: 6:08
BestTime:4:39

The times are different of course, but I would not think different enough to account for a whole 110 calories.

Any ideas?
Thanks in advance.

KANSAIBEN
10-30-2009, 12:42 PM
Month between activities...possible these were recorded using different firmware/user profiles?

SJSTRAW
10-31-2009, 08:13 AM
Nope. Same user profile. Same device. Same firmware. Same course. Same everything really, except for the readings.

I have another course that I do, it's a 5.75 - sometimes it comes up as a 5.85 or a 5.90, just depends on how often I cross the road on the run I guess. But take a look at the calories between now and a month back.

SJSTRAW
11-11-2009, 05:25 AM
As a matter of interest.

I took my garmin 310xt on one wrist and my 405cx on the other, both with the exact same settings. I wore them both at the same time on the same run, here are the results;

405CX
Time 40:24
Avg Pace: 07:16 min/km
Best Pace: 03:46 min/km
Avg HR: 160 bpm
Max HR: 177 bpm
Distance 5.55 km
Elevation 265 m
Calories 520 C

310XT
Time 40:24
Avg Pace: 07:08 min/km
Best Pace: 02:35 min/km
Avg HR: 159 bpm
Max HR: 179 bpm
Distance 5.65 km
Elevation 619 m
Calories 492 C

KINBOY
11-15-2009, 02:44 PM
Do a search, there is a lot on this issue. Calorie tracking is close at best and usually off by 30-50%.
There are lots of algorithms out there but none are accurate, though some are consistent.


KIN

TRYING2GOFAST
11-16-2009, 03:44 PM
In your opinion, is either of those elevation gain figures close to accurate - and if so, which is closer?

There's a lot of discussion of this issue over in the 310XT subforum. But I'm starting to think the real issue is the wildly inaccurate elevation.

SJSTRAW
11-16-2009, 07:29 PM
In your opinion, is either of those elevation gain figures close to accurate - and if so, which is closer?

There's a lot of discussion of this issue over in the 310XT subforum. But I'm starting to think the real issue is the wildly inaccurate elevation.

To be honest I'm not sure how to read the elevation gain figures, but these are definitely not "flat" runs. What I would say though is that an elevation of Elevation 265 m (405CX) and Elevation 619 m are really quite different.

I did a run this morning, what was more remarkable was my heart rate - a whopping 226 bpm. Funny thing is I took the HM off. I turned the HM off on the watch, carried on running for 5 mins. Then put it all back on and turned everything on again, voila, straight back up to the 220's.

I am 37. Not 6.

I think it's time to take the HM in or change the battery. It is just 4 months old. But there we have it.

SJSTRAW
11-16-2009, 07:44 PM
Check this screen grab out hahahah!