Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calories inconsistent

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calories inconsistent

    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.

  • #2
    Month between activities...possible these were recorded using different firmware/user profiles?
    Anthony

    My GC Digest

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        310xt vs 405cx

        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

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TRYING2GOFAST View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Check this screen grab out hahahah!

                Comment

                Working...
                X