This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

From 235 to 245M: why are calories way off?

Hi all,

Moved  from 235 to 245M: why are calories way off?

235 gave me circa 2400 kcal per day for 10,000 steps per day 

I'm 150lbs male and that;s always been spot on for me.

No changes to user stats or HR zones on 245. 
10k steps now gives me 1800 - 2000 if lucky. 

It also gives me far less for active calories for comparable activites.

Has an algorithim changed? Software bug?

  • I have used a Forerunner 235 for over 6 years. Prior to that had a Polar RCX5 with heart strap for HR.

    Decided to upgrade to the Forerunner 245.

    After a few of my usual walks/routes the 245 calories seemed high compared with previous history of readings

    I have subsequently worn both the 235 and 245 on same wrist so as to compare each models data readings.

    Distance run has been very close - <1% difference, with 245 recording a fraction longer. Elevation gain/loss has been higher on 245 (but no in same ratio as you might expect to changed the calories - today 51m vs 43m

    Calories however has been a different matter, e.g today 235 = 247kcals, 245 = 561 kcals - more than double!!

    Pace has been the same, and HR is recorded as same for both. Several times the ave & max hr has been the same with the HR chart showing it clipped avove a certain value.

    So its a question of is the 245 grossly exaggerating the calories or was my old 235 under-reading the calories.

    When I got my 235 I did the same exercise with the Polar RCX5 and there were very similar, so that suggests its the 245 in error.

    Entering data in any of the other filtness apps also suggests the calories on the 235 are in the correct range.

    So what have Garmin done?