Related
Options

Accuracy of calories burned, Enduro3 vs FR935, Enduro is considerably lower

GDTRFB
11 days ago

I just started using my new Enduro3 after six years with a FR935.

I like the Enduro3 and I'm getting used to it.

One noticeable difference is the Enduro3 calculates calories burned at a much lower rate than the FR935.

The calories during an activity (mostly road cycling) seem the same, but my every day calories are much less.

Take today, I'm at ~2,500, 630 of it on a 1HR road bike ride.

I walk around at work, and also walk to & from work, as well as go for a walk at lunch.

Total steps is ~15K.

On my FR935 I'd be at ~3,000 calories, my Enduro3 has me just under 2,500.

This seems low, thoughts?

  • 0 10 days ago

    Calories are derived principally from your body data (weight, height, gender, age) and the from the Resting HR and the HR throughout the day. Compare those, and may perhaps give you the answer. Steps are irrelevant (as long as the HR sensor is not disabled).

  • 0 10 days ago in reply to trux

    In looking at my data between the Enduro3 & FR935, the active calories in normal daily activities is down considerably.

    My days are fairly predictable & easy to compare from week to week. 

    Starting with my new Enduro3, my active calories burned on nearly identical days (as far as steps, recorded walks etc.) is down by ~300-500 calories.

    My resting calories are exactly the same, active calories are less.

    The only difference is the change from the FR935 to the Enduro3.

  • 0 9 days ago in reply to GDTRFB

    I was speaking about the Resting Heart Rate, and the HR self - post a screenshot of the Heart Rate in Garmin Connect Web (not from the phone app!) from the days you used FR935 and another one with Enduro 3. It could reveal some clues.