PDA

View Full Version : How to get Calorie count on FR60?



LKEMC5
08-11-2009, 05:45 PM
I can't seem to get my FR60 to give me a calorie count... I entered all appropriate settings: age, weight, etc. My workouts are recorded, and I get the time and heart rate statistics. However, the calorie count shows 0. I don't get it. Any ideas? I do admit that I haven't used the foot pod, since most of my workouts are aerobics sessions. I just want to see how many calories I've burned... it was the main reason I bought the watch. Frustration!! HELP!! :eek:

SEILOGRAMP
08-11-2009, 05:51 PM
If you don't have the footpod, you will not get caloric data.

SAEEDI
08-11-2009, 06:16 PM
I believe it can also use the New Leaf profile without the footpod to do HRM-based caloric computation.

SATHOMASGA
08-30-2009, 07:17 PM
Wow. This is pretty slimy of Garmin. To quote their web site:

"Log every mile and every minute with FR60, a sleek fitness watch plus workout tool that tracks your time, heart rate and calories burned. When bundled with the wireless foot pod, FR60 also tracks speed and distance, indoors or out."

A normal English-speaker would read that as

- FR60 tracks time, heart rate, and calories
- FR60+footpod also tracks speed and distance

In other words, you don't need the footpod for calories. (And there is certainly not a hint of a requirement to pay extra for the NewLeaf service.) At a minimum, OP should be entitled to a full refund.

Stephen

SATHOMASGA
09-04-2009, 07:27 AM
New firmware includes calorie calculation based on heart rate, at least that's what the release notes say.

NDURANCERIDER
09-04-2009, 07:38 AM
New firmware includes calorie calculation based on heart rate, at least that's what the release notes say.

Very interesting! I'll have to play with that. :)

April

THRASH155
09-06-2009, 10:58 AM
It has calculated mine without the foodpod sensor, But I'm still working out the bugs and getting used to run and cycle with it. I ran the other day almost a mile before I noticed it wasn't tracking my time. Doff.... :rolleyes:

I Just invested in a CatEye Cadience/Speed Double Wireless computer and don't intend to add the GSC 10 to my bike at the moment. Too bad it won't receive the data packets.

Calories should be displayed when you upload your data to Garmin Connect. Or you need to configure the display to show the calories burned on one of the 5 display screens during your workout.

If you go to Activities/History/(Whatever Your Last Workout was)/Enter on your FR60 You can scroll throgh your workout details and get calories there too.

GARYART1
09-06-2009, 05:20 PM
Does anyone have any info about the new firmware version using a heart rate calorie calculation? Is the the same calculation the new 405 uses? This upgrade just seemed to sneak in there. If so, kudos to Garmin for adding this to the FR60.

SATHOMASGA
09-06-2009, 06:15 PM
Does anyone have any info about the new firmware version using a heart rate calorie calculation? Is the the same calculation the new 405 uses?

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I doubt it. The Firstbeat technology requires measuring R-R intervals, which is why the 405CX is different from the 405. (It may also be the case that it's easier for Garmin to deal with the licensing issues when the Firstbeat stuff is confined to a specific product.) If the FR60 is capable of measuring R-R intervals, it seems unlikely that Garmin wouldn't be touting that feature in the marketing collateral.

Stephen

MPKAYE
09-27-2009, 05:06 PM
This really needs to be cleared up. The manual clearly states that the foot pod is required for the calculation of calories. However, the release notes also clearly state they have added calorie counting from heart rate.

Can someone please confirm that calories are counted on the FR60 when neither the foot bod or the speed/cadence sensor are present?

Thanks,

Mark

WILLROB27
09-28-2009, 12:53 AM
I got on the site to make sure of this and I noticed the new firmware update 2.4 I believe.

This works great for those of us who opted for no foot pod/cadence sensor.

My info is now updating properly with calories and it is awesome!

Go get the firmware and start calculating! :D

SATHOMASGA
09-28-2009, 07:53 AM
This really needs to be cleared up. The manual clearly states that the foot pod is required for the calculation of calories. However, the release notes also clearly state they have added calorie counting from heart rate.

Can someone please confirm that calories are counted on the FR60 when neither the foot bod or the speed/cadence sensor are present?

Thanks,

Mark

I can confirm that calories are estimated on the FR60 when neither the foot pod nor the speed/cadence sensor is present. I have used the FR60 on spinning workouts and it does report calories. Note that this functionality does require the firmware upgrade.

Stephen

MPKAYE
09-28-2009, 10:05 AM
Excellent guys, thank you. That has given me sufficient info to go ahead and add an FR60 to my stable of Garmin devices (FR405 and Edge 705)

FRANCISSEDGEMORE
10-01-2009, 12:49 PM
What happens if you use the new firmware and a foot pod or cadence sensor? Looking at the data from my 75km ride today, I get the impression that calories were estimated using speed and distance measured using the cadence sensor, and the figure is thus >50% too high.

If this is so, then Garmin has erred yet again in its software engineering. The algorithm that estimates calories from speed and distance data is entirely useless, and should not be used when a heart-rate-based algorithm is available.

This was my first use of my new FR60. Someone please tell me that I'm wrong about the calorie calculation when using the device with a cycle cadence sensor.

FRANCISSEDGEMORE
10-02-2009, 01:50 AM
Perhaps I can answer my own question.

When it comes to the cadence sensor, at least, I can verify that when this is active, the FR60 estimates calories from distance and speed, and does not use the new heart-rate algorithm contained in the 2.40 firmware. Otherwise, the calorie counter counter would continue to tick over from minute to minute while I'm completely stationary. It doesn't.

Given that I value having accurate estimates of energy expenditure, the cadence sensor and footpod are for me of no practical use.

SATHOMASGA
10-02-2009, 08:27 AM
Perhaps I can answer my own question.

When it comes to the cadence sensor, at least, I can verify that when this is active, the FR60 estimates calories from distance and speed, and does not use the new heart-rate algorithm contained in the 2.40 firmware. Otherwise, the calorie counter counter would continue to tick over from minute to minute while I'm completely stationary. It doesn't.

Given that I value having accurate estimates of energy expenditure, the cadence sensor and footpod are for me of no practical use.

Actually, I think I disagree with you. The FR60 may use the sensor to auto-pause the calorie count, but I don't think it uses speed/distance to calculate calories. It's hard to say for sure, of course. But, quoting my own reply to a different thread:

I rode 56 miles at 20 mph. Here's a link to the details.

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/13139885

FR60 reported calories and the value seems reasonable: 2426.

This compares okay with RunningAhead's analysis of the ride (2275 calories) and with rubiTrack's (2110 calories). A definite improvement over the non-HRM based computation. I stuck my Edge 705 in my pocket for the ride (not paired with the HRM) and it claimed 5095 calories. That's the crazy type of number I'm used to seeing from Garmin, so now I've got another reason to be happy with the FR60.

Also, FWIW, same route (but different day) using a FR305

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/12116060

reported 3824 calories. Not as bad as the Edge 705, but still makes the FR60 look a lot better.

I suppose it could be the case that Garmin has simply (finally?) improved their speed/distance algorithm to be more reasonable. In either case, though, the results seem fine to me.

FRANCISSEDGEMORE
10-02-2009, 09:54 AM
Thanks for that response, SATHOMASGA.

You could be right, but the chances of us every finding out for sure are slim, so uncommunicative is Garmin when it comes to technical details. I have asked, by the way.

My reason for suspecting that a speed/distance algorithm (however refined) is used when those data are available, is that my own tests, with calories calculated with the aid of a Garmin 310XT (which only uses heart rate for calories, when the heart rate monitor is active), a Polar, and a knowledge of physics and human physiology, show that the FR60 gives a value around twice what is credible in the circumstances.

For this reason I have today returned my FR60/footpod/cadence bundle, to be exchanged with an FR60 with heart rate sensor only. I can't be doing with waiting for Garmin to update firmwares.

If you are correct, it's still a problem for me, given that some of my cycling could be described as fixed-wheel cyclocross lite, with the bike pushed or hauled at low speed up steep forest tracks and the like. In any case, this only compounds the error arising from the use of a speed/distance algorithm.

Garmin should consider open-sourcing their device software, so that the community can get involved and improve it. They also need to work on their documentation.

SATHOMASGA
10-02-2009, 02:47 PM
You could be right, but the chances of us every finding out for sure are slim, so uncommunicative is Garmin when it comes to technical details.

Having just finished my racing season and taking a month to just play around, I'm feeling like this might a good time to conduct an experiment. I could ride tomorrow with both the FR60 and Edge705 but use the Edge HRM instead of the FR60. If the FR60 doesn't report any calories, then clearly it's not using speed/distance. If the FR60 does report calories, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that it would calculate them differently if it had access to HRM data. But I do have data from the ride above that indicates the FR60+HRM+Speed/Cadence calculates about half the calories as an Edge705. If that ratio is the same when the FR60 doesn't have a HRM, then we can probably assume that the HRM doesn't make a difference.

So I'll ride tomorrow with:

FR60+Speed/Cadence
Edge705+Speed/Cadence+HRM



Then we can check the FR60 calorie calculation

None implies FR60 always uses HRM
1/2 of Edge705 implies FR60 prefers Speed/Cadence if available but uses a better algorithm than Edge705
Other value (especially > 1/2 of Edge) implies FR60 prefers HRM if available


I realize it's late in the UK, but if you get a chance to read this and have suggested changes, throw them up here and I'll (try to remember to) check before the ride.

Stephen

FRANCISSEDGEMORE
10-02-2009, 03:41 PM
Stephen - the problem there is that, according to my limited understanding, a number of radical changes have been made over time to that part of the 705 firmware which deals with calorie calculation. And I believe that the algorithm used is closed/proprietary. However, I'm no Garmin gadget geek, and am not familiar with the ins and outs of the various firmware updates.

EPLORENZ
10-02-2009, 05:15 PM
Having just finished my racing season and taking a month to just play around, I'm feeling like this might a good time to conduct an experiment. I could ride tomorrow with both the FR60 and Edge705 but use the Edge HRM instead of the FR60. If the FR60 doesn't report any calories, then clearly it's not using speed/distance. If the FR60 does report calories, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that it would calculate them differently if it had access to HRM data. But I do have data from the ride above that indicates the FR60+HRM+Speed/Cadence calculates about half the calories as an Edge705. If that ratio is the same when the FR60 doesn't have a HRM, then we can probably assume that the HRM doesn't make a difference.

So I'll ride tomorrow with:

FR60+Speed/Cadence
Edge705+Speed/Cadence+HRM



Then we can check the FR60 calorie calculation

None implies FR60 always uses HRM
1/2 of Edge705 implies FR60 prefers Speed/Cadence if available but uses a better algorithm than Edge705
Other value (especially > 1/2 of Edge) implies FR60 prefers HRM if available


I realize it's late in the UK, but if you get a chance to read this and have suggested changes, throw them up here and I'll (try to remember to) check before the ride.

Stephen
Hi Stephen,
I've done a short iteration this test almost as you describe, except that I had the FR60 tracking HR as well. My kcal results, for my 5km, ~15 minute bike commute, were:
1. FR60+Speed/Cadence+HRM = 170kcals
2. Edge705+Speed/Cadence+HRM = 195 kcals

Also, when testing the difference for running (without a footpod), I found, for a 24km trail race with 1095m elevation gain (and loss):
1. FR60+HRM = ~5000kcals
2. Edge705+HRM = 3155 kcals

So, what I've learned is:
1. The FR60, when paired with HRM data AND speed/distance data (from any source, I suspect - be it GSC10 or footpod), calculates calories more accurately than Edge. Note that the user is expected to enter Activity Class (1-10 scale) and Lifetime Athlete Y/N in their FR60 user profile - both components of the FirstBeatTech algorithm, so I do believe they are using FBT's algorithm. BUT, my difference for this short easy ride was only 13% (170 vs 195 kcals) - if I do a longer distance test with more elevation gain/loss (read:increased HR variation), I suspect Edge 705 will vary from FR60 much more - as many users report, Edge may report as much as 50% greater kcals for a given activity than "accurate" models using FBT algorithm.

2. The FR60 [with NO distance-capture device paired to it AND the new firmware update which calculates calories with HRM alone] overestimates WAAYYY more than Edge 705!

Basically, I think they added this quietly because it's not truly ready for prime-time/still in beta, and to trumpet it with this kind of result (~58% more calories reported than Edge705!!) would only make people angry.

I'll be very interested to see your test results.

Cheers,
Eric

SATHOMASGA
10-02-2009, 06:27 PM
1. FR60+Speed/Cadence+HRM = 170kcals
2. Edge705+Speed/Cadence+HRM = 195 kcals


Interesting. Eric's experiment shows the E705+HRM about 20% higher than the FR60+HRM for cycling. In my case the E705-HRM was 100% higher. Looks like this isn't going to be quite so simple. I'll still do the experiment, though.

SATHOMASGA
10-03-2009, 10:29 AM
Here are the results from today's ride:

First up is the FR60 with Speed/Cadence Sensor but no Heart Rate:

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/15159035

Calories: 1286

Same ride with Edge 705 with (same) Speed/Cadence Sensor and Heart Rate:

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/15159417

Calories: 1939

So we know that the FR60 calculates calories without a HRM and that its calculation is about 66% of the what the Edge calculates (at least under the conditions of this ride).

Note from previous post (in this thread) that the FR60 with a HRM calculates calories to be about 48% of what the Edge calculates (for a different ride under different conditions).

It's not conclusive, but it seems like the FR60 probably calculates calories using speed cadence even when it has access to a HRM. In other words, the difference between 48% and 66% is likely due to different ride conditions and not different calculation methods. I'd feel better about this conclusion if the difference wasn't quite so large, as it is a bit of jump from 48% to 66%. But the 66% ride was a relative easy recreational ride (17.5 mph), while the 48% ride was a high intensity workout (20.5 mph). If the calculation algorithm factors in speed (i.e. air resistance), which it certainly should, then I would expect the higher speed workout to show a greater difference. So I'm okay with the tentative conclusion that HRM is only used if speed/cadence is not available. (Note: I'm not using the NewLeaf program with the FR60.)

FWIW, the FR60's calculation seems much more reasonable than the Edge. Rubitrack calculates calorie expenditure for this ride (based on heart rate) to be 1101 calories, and the FR60's value seems reasonably close.

Stephen

FRANCISSEDGEMORE
10-03-2009, 03:16 PM
That's most informative, Stephen. Thanks.

I look forward to receiving my new FR60 with HRM only. The figures it churns out are credible, and it's a very useable device. For ride and run tracking I shall continue using my Garmin Dakota, or a WAAS/EGNOS-enabled Bluetooth GPS module paired with my mobile phone.

SATHOMASGA
10-03-2009, 05:02 PM
[...] and it's a very useable device.


Second that. I've been using an old FR305 for brick workouts and races, but recently got the FR60. Even though the FR60 doesn't have the automatic multisport mode that the FR305 (and 310XT) have, I decided to use it for my big race last weekend (Ironman August 70.3). Transition's a bit more complicated with the FR60, but otherwise I love it for racing. I can easily read it on the bike in the aero position (which is not the case for the FR305), and an autolap every 3 miles reminds me to eat. Plus, it's a cinch to set up exactly what I want to see, and with automatic scrolling I never have to fiddle with any buttons. I was thinking about getting a 310XT for next year, but I'm quite satisfied with the FR60 so I may save the money and stick with it.

Just fantasizing, but if Garmin would add a multisport mode to the FR60, it would be near perfect. Total perfection would only add


Power from ANT+ on the bike
Compatibility with analog HRM for swim

NDURANCERIDER
10-05-2009, 08:55 AM
So I'm okay with the tentative conclusion that HRM is only used if speed/cadence is not available. (Note: I'm not using the NewLeaf program with the FR60.)


You are correct. The 60 uses HR-based calorie calculations only if speed/cadence is not available.

April

FRANCISSEDGEMORE
10-05-2009, 11:55 AM
You are correct. The 60 uses HR-based calorie calculations only if speed/cadence is not available.

April

Then this is a bad thing. Speed and/or cadence is a far poorer indicator of energy expenditure than cardiac activity, however much you tweak the calorie estimation algorithm. And you can in any case only tweak this so much, given the lack, or poor quality, of influencing parameters such as elevation, wind resistance and so on. For these one would require a very high-grade GPS receiver cross-calibrated with a barometric altimeter, and an ANT+ anemometer fixed to the top of the head. :-)

ABHIK1
01-14-2010, 12:38 AM
Then this is a bad thing. Speed and/or cadence is a far poorer indicator of energy expenditure than cardiac activity, however much you tweak the calorie estimation algorithm. And you can in any case only tweak this so much, given the lack, or poor quality, of influencing parameters such as elevation, wind resistance and so on. For these one would require a very high-grade GPS receiver cross-calibrated with a barometric altimeter, and an ANT+ anemometer fixed to the top of the head. :-)

One might argue otherwise. Check out this study:

Abstract

An important element in the measurement of energy budgets of free-living animals is the estimation of energy costs during locomotion. Using humans as a particularly tractable model species, we conducted treadmill experiments to test the validity of tri-axial accelerometry loggers, designed for use with animals in the field, to estimate rate of oxygen consumption (View the MathML source: an indirect measure of metabolic rate) and speed during locomotion. The predictive power of overall dynamic body acceleration (ODBA) obtained from loggers attached to different parts of the body was compared to that of heart rate (fH). When subject identity was included in the statistical analysis, ODBA was a good, though slightly poorer, predictor of (View the MathML source) and speed during locomotion on the flat (mean of two-part regressions: R2=0.91 and 0.91, from a logger placed on the neck) and (View the MathML source) during gradient walking (single regression: R2=0.77 from a logger placed on the upper back) than was fH (R2=0.96, 0.94, 0.86, respectively). For locomotion on the flat, ODBA was still a good predictor when subject identity was replaced by subject mass and height (morphometrics typically obtainable from animals in the field; R2=0.92 and 0.89) and a slightly better overall predictor than fH (R2=0.92 and 0.85). For gradient walking, ODBA predicted (View the MathML source) more accurately than before (R2=0.83) and considerably better than did fH (R2=0.77). ODBA and fH combined were the most powerful predictor of (View the MathML source) and speed during locomotion. However, ODBA alone appears to be a good predictor and suitable for use in the field in particular, given that accelerometry traces also provide information on the timing, frequency and duration of locomotion events, and also the gait being used.




"For locomotion on the flat, ODBA was still a good predictor when subject identity was replaced by subject mass and height (morphometrics typically obtainable from animals in the field; R2=0.92 and 0.89) and a slightly better overall predictor than fH (R2=0.92 and 0.85). For gradient walking, ODBA predicted (View the MathML source) more accurately than before (R2=0.83) and considerably better than did fH (R2=0.77)."

It is important to remember that the user settings of the FR60 request weight and height information, and thus, it would not be unreasonable to believe that this information is most likely a part of the overall calorie burned calculation, thus producing a somewhat accurate calorie burned value. It is also important to remember that the relation between heart rate and calories burned is subject to just as many if not more variables than the relationship between speed and calories burned.

BSTARR67
01-14-2010, 09:19 AM
One might argue otherwise. Check out this study: ...

... It is also important to remember that the relation between heart rate and calories burned is subject to just as many if not more variables than the relationship between speed and calories burned.

How right you are, ABHIK1. There are huge variances in the HR/calorie relationship, with calorie estimate errors often 30%, and sometimes much more.

Also see my post at

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

This post describes a simple situation where the calorie error is 67%!

... Bob

GIRLYFACE
01-24-2010, 07:18 PM
I can't get the calorie count on my laptop program, but I do see it online.
http://connect.garmin.com/activities

No idea how it does the calorie calculator.

Here's what it gave me:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=10578&id=100000243846232&l=29f74ae7ba

BELFASTBIKER
01-27-2010, 06:33 PM
The calorie calculation for this 317lb user without footpod, is ridiculous. :)

Luckily sparkpeople.com and runkeeper seem to work it out more realistically.

PORTACHUELO
03-07-2012, 04:31 PM
I got on the site to make sure of this and I noticed the new firmware update 2.4 I believe.

This works great for those of us who opted for no foot pod/cadence sensor.

My info is now updating properly with calories and it is awesome!

Go get the firmware and start calculating! :D

hello. could you please let me know how to get the firmware 2.4 I have the 2.7 and i dont know how to put the 2.4. reason i want to do that is becouse i have problem with the calories reading it doesn' comput calories at all. got the HRM and bike cadence sensor . any tips please

POHANLIN
03-08-2012, 01:23 PM
hello. could you please let me know how to get the firmware 2.4 I have the 2.7 and i dont know how to put the 2.4. reason i want to do that is becouse i have problem with the calories reading it doesn' comput calories at all. got the HRM and bike cadence sensor . any tips please
2.7 is the latest version so your watch already has all the features any previous versions including 2.4 provide. I guess the reason your FR60 did not calculate calorie is because it did not successfully paired with either HRM or bike cadence sensor.

POHANLIN
03-08-2012, 01:34 PM
Then this is a bad thing. Speed and/or cadence is a far poorer indicator of energy expenditure than cardiac activity, however much you tweak the calorie estimation algorithm. And you can in any case only tweak this so much, given the lack, or poor quality, of influencing parameters such as elevation, wind resistance and so on. For these one would require a very high-grade GPS receiver cross-calibrated with a barometric altimeter, and an ANT+ anemometer fixed to the top of the head. :-)

I also have concern about calorie calculation so I asked Garmin customer service how FR60 calculates the calorie if paired with both HRM and footpod/bike cadense sensor. Here is the official response from Garmin
"Which method the FR60 uses is only dependent on if the heart rate monitor is paired or not. If it is, it will always use the heart rate based computation. If it is not connected, it will use speed, distance, and pace.
The heart rate based calorie computation will be more accurate then the estimation with speed, distance, and user profile. The heart rate based one factors in the heart rate data to gauge your overall physical exertion. Where as the other method has to assume based on your speed and distance."

ADS1961
03-13-2012, 11:29 PM
I think you might find that when u upload your data thru Garmin Connect, Dashboard, it will up load everything including your calorie burn

Also you might not have the correct Data fields showing, customise your training pages to include the calorie burn field

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U38NGpKJ1DM&feature=related

Al'

EVA_MCD
01-04-2013, 04:24 PM
I'm not sure this is the answer since I have the FR70, but I think they are pretty similar so it might be the answer. If you are in Settings -> Sport -> Run and you have the HRM connected, but NO foot pod, it will not record the calories or distance. However, if you are in Settings -> Sport -> General AND have the HRM connected with or without the foot pod, it should record your calories. However, it will only record distance in Run mode with a foot pod. Clear as mud now? Hopefully it helps someone!

JETDOG9
01-16-2014, 07:02 PM
This issue has been killing me with my FR70 (see post in FR70 forum, https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?51739-My-FR70-seems-like-it-is-using-speed-for-calories-and-not-heart-rate-%28cycling%29 ).

So, we have a forum moderator saying that speed/cadence sensor takes precedence over HRM. Then, we have an email from Garmin Customer Service that says HRM takes precedence over other sensors whenever it is detected.

Anecdotal evidence seems to show the prior statement is true, and I agree with FRANCISSEDGEMORE: This is bad.

Maybe Garmin did the research and ended up having less confidence with the FR60/FR70 special calorie algorithm than calculations using speed sensors and weight data, etc. MAYBE that is a good decision for running, but there's no way it is good for BIKING. I think that elevation (climbing/descending) plays way too much of a part in the equation for cycling.

Per my post in the FR70 forum: If you spend ~60 minutes climbing a 3500-4000 foot mountain for "Lap 1" (heavy exertion level), and *coast* back down it for ~20 minutes for "Lap 2" (virtually **NO** exertion), your calorie counter should not be saying you burned more calories on the way down.

But that's what my FR70 says (and YES, both HRM and GSC-10 are properly paired and data from both is being received), which is irritating when you'd think it could come up with a better estimation if it properly used the HRM data.


You are correct. The 60 uses HR-based calorie calculations only if speed/cadence is not available.

April


Then this is a bad thing. Speed and/or cadence is a far poorer indicator of energy expenditure than cardiac activity, however much you tweak the calorie estimation algorithm. <snip>


I also have concern about calorie calculation so I asked Garmin customer service how FR60 calculates the calorie if paired with both HRM and footpod/bike cadense sensor. Here is the official response from Garmin
"Which method the FR60 uses is only dependent on if the heart rate monitor is paired or not. If it is, it will always use the heart rate based computation. If it is not connected, it will use speed, distance, and pace.
The heart rate based calorie computation will be more accurate then the estimation with speed, distance, and user profile. The heart rate based one factors in the heart rate data to gauge your overall physical exertion. Where as the other method has to assume based on your speed and distance."