Calories burnt HUGE, help with understanding Activity Class setting.

Well I initially bumped the MaxHR up to 195 as it was still reading massive calories for seemingly sedate stuff and that didnt fix the issue, so have taken Chunkywizards advice and shoved the MaxHR up to 200 and the last activity I did seemed better the calories seemed more in line with what I think they should be.

I guess the old ticker is better than I give it credit for especially as I am classed as obese and I run out of steam very quickly when I do try and run.

I'll keep an eye on the calories and see if this helps things, obviously today is a write off but tomorrow is a new day.

Wish it had some sort of writeup/info on the 'Activities' section of Daily Summary on Garmin Connect online. Breaks down the activities, steps, plus also shows total for day... but based on that it is overestimating my resting metabolic rate (~1700 based on various calculators.... Garmin says 2000-2100). But i suppose RMR is a VERY LOW activity level.

I think Garmin overestimates calories when it is using HR... just because someone is very out of shape and they walk a mile 'fast'.... there heart rate might get very high compared to someone of ok fitness (same weight/speed)... they do the same amount of work however. Calorie burns is pretty much the same (unless out of shape person reaches such a high BPM that they have a high after burn due to reaching anerobic rates). Same with biking - if you have a watt meter on bike.... you are able to calculate total work done for an activity, which translates almost exaclty to calories (joules).... inshape or out of shape HR will be drasticly different for same 20minute 110w ride... but total joules/calories are ~same.

Just a short note here, as i've written what feels like countless posts on this exact issue over the years.

The tldr is that for many people the extra "steps calories" Garmin gives is insanely wrong and there's basically nothing you can do about it. As an example, i can run 5k and burn ~300 calories, which is about right from years of experience. But if i've also walked another 5k across the same day, at a much lower average HR than running (since i'm just walking around) and with a reasonable looking HR trace, Garmin gives me an additional ~400-450 calories for this. I have so many examples of obviously nonsensical numbers that i ended up simply hiding all the non-activity calorie stuff on the Garmin side. I spent so long trying to understand it and make it work. Shame.

Also, as far as i can tell activity class is a remnant of how things used to be calculated many years ago and does nothing with the modern watches.

Good luck! (and sorry for the bad news - please post if you have a breakthrough)

Just a short note here, as i've written what feels like countless posts on this exact issue over the years.

Garmin gives me an additional ~400-450 calories for this. I have so many examples of obviously nonsensical numbers that i ended up simply hiding all the non-activity calorie stuff on the Garmin side. I spent so long trying to understand it and make it work. Shame.

Totally agree, i have same problem and it's really pissed me off. If count normal in activity, i cant believe it that is problem to set up algorithm for normal counting when is not in activity. I was flashing my device, restoring to defaults..playing with the HR zones and i always get a big numbers on the and of a day..actually i see this in the morning, after wake up, toilet and a have 50 active calories :-D..

I use my friend fenix5 and with same settings active calories was normal for day in the office but i don't want to give extra 300$ for normal counting :-D

Here's a reply i gave on the Garmin subreddit recently that shows how to fix things from the myfitnesspal side, if you use that:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/7qj185/not_sure_if_mfp_is_accurate/dsremsu/

Here's a reply i gave on the Garmin subreddit recently that shows how to fix things from the myfitnesspal side, if you use that:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/7qj185/not_sure_if_mfp_is_accurate/dsremsu/

TNX for the link and tips..i get my goal with weight so i turn off steps in MFP and track only what i eat and my exercise active calories.

If you ever find some normal solution for active calories counting please update this post!

Just a couple of things that may be going on.

First, Optical HR monitors do A LOT of Estimating. Because of this if you do something like get up from watching TV and go to let the dog in you'll see an ESTIMATE of your HR and it's typically 20-30 points HIGH. Guess what that adds up to if you are a lot of stopping and starting. BTW, Garmin will NOT admit to this but if you spend time searing a chest monitor and doing some checking you'll find what I am saying is true. Note, if an activity isn't running the wrist HR is usually what the watch uses unless you bring up the HR Widget, then you'll see the Wrist HR at first then a shield symbol will pop up for an instant and then the Chest HR monitor reading will come up. Makes it it easy to some comparing.

Second, I have yet to find an optical HR monitor that is accurate for me when I am working out, which is why I ALWAYS wear my chest monitor when I am exercising. BTW, I am of Anglo Saxon ancestry. I will also note that I have the 235, a Fenix 3HR, and a Strava Rhythm Plus Optical Monitor and NONE are truly accurate. Actually you should see what happens when I cut my grass with my riding mower. If I forget the Chest Monitor and Starting the Other Activity I will see HR readings off the wrist monitor over 190 and calorie count off the chart. IMO the only time the Optical Monitors are accurate is when you are sleeping or at rest watching TV or typing on a keyboard.

Finally, that old formula of 220 - Age was just an Educated Guess by the Doctor who thought it up. For the general population back in the late 40's and 50's this formula actually worked fairly well. However it did not prove out with Athletes at the time and with today's widespread Obesity Epidemic it doesn't work that well today unless your BMI is in the "good" range. Today most Fitness Doctors consider the maximum Heart Rate to be the rate which you can SUSTAIN for a minimum of 10 minutes. Means that you need to spend time testing what your HR is during a "sprint" that you can sustain for at least 10 minutes. Naturally this will be lower than your HR at total peak effort and it's best to test for this in an environment where there will be people present to call an ambulance if you collapse.

I will also note that Anaerobic Exercise should be limited to only 10-25 % of your total exercise, the rest of the time you should work at a level where you can conduct a conversation without gasping (the Aerobic Zone). Yeah, I know, that's not the old school "No Pain No Gain" method and I don't follow this advice perfectly. However in the past year I have shifted to doing at least 60% Aerobic and I am actually slowly improving my VO2 Max where before I was Plateaued. Do a Google search for MAF (Maximum Aerobic Fitness) if you are interested it reading up on this method.

Just got a 235 after having a 225 for about 3 years. I'm stunned at how bad it is estimating calories burned. According to this watch I burned 1800 calories sleeping. My settings are identical to what they were with the 225. I'm extremely disappointed and wish I had moved to something other than a Garmin.