Calories question

Cannot comment on walking, but for running and cycling the calorie burn calculation seems about right for me.

Likewise.

I only use the device for running. I find the calories for exercise pretty bang on.

Some are finding issues when linking MyFitnessPal and Garmin Connect and calories numbers (adjustments, discrepancies, too high, too low, too many calories etc) but thats in many other threads. For pure calories burnt in an activity or running I cant fault it.

The 735XT is very accurate in calorie calculations. Especially if you use 24/7 OHR (which is enabled by default). Also your metabolic state, which is calculated when you exercise (my vo2max is 59-60) is affecting your kcal need. So yes - the 735xt is indeed very accurate.

Just one thing: remember to set you own values right, like weight, height etc.

Calorie calculations I always find a bit subjective. People seem to find a "formulae" they like and then require the Garmin to match - right or wrong.

I tend to see around about 100 calories per mile at my "steady" pace (around about 7:00-7:30 min/miles and perhaps 120-130 HR) and 73 kg.
For instance last night I did just over 10 miles steady on a hilly course with a few efforts on Strava segments and got 1046 calories with my 735 and 1069 with the 630. So clearly "more or less" the same.

I note your walk example is at a very low HR. Do you have examples at running effort levels? If so, might be easier for us to say whether the algorithm on the 735 is any different.

The running watches now use algorithms from Firstbeat and, after an initial "learning phase" the calorie numbers I get on the 230/235/630/920/735 are very similar. I do recall some of the lower range units used more "generic" algorithms.

That said https://www.firstbeat.com/en/consumer-products/garmin/ suggests the Vivoactive HR and the 735 both use their "Heart Rate-based Calorie Computation".
That makes logical sense to use the same algorithm.

The question might then be more a case of understanding why your numbers are what they are rather than swopping watches.

So key things are:
What is your max HR set to?
Is your weight (and other metrics like gender, height) set correctly.

What sport type are using to record your walks.

How does calories vary when you get somewhat higher heart rates. After all these watches, at least during activities, are really designed for running. Then again calorie consumption is predominantly a function of distance covered and less so effort levels. If you run faster you just burn the calories a lot quicker...

@ TimGrose

Thanks for the feedback. My max HR is set at 180. My Rhr is around 43 on average.
I am trying to find a replacement for my Basis peak that is being recalled.
I am 5'10 165 lbs
Yes, my metrics are set correctly.
What I am puzzled when I had the VAHR is that cardio (Elliptical) or cycling had the same amount of calories than the peak. And they seemed right. The elliptical always inflate calories :)
Now if I walk at 3 mph with an average of 85 bpm for 10 mn, the peak would give me 30 calories when the VAHR 100.

There are 2 threads on the VAHR forum where users have done extensive testing on the inaccuracy of calories just by walking or resting.
If the 735XT uses the same algorithm, I guess I should expect the same result.
On the other hand, if I do not lok at calories but just try to improve my swim and cycling, it looks like an awesome watch.

Pierre

Honest feedback, if you are an athlete and cycle and swim, do not record Walking as an Activity for calorie purposes. In the end 100 calories or 30 calories overall, while adding up over time are really meaningless in an overall training / diet plan.

I have seen these threads where people fret over the last calorie counted and debate accuracy about something that is an estimated and not measured metric meant to be used as an indicator and not as an absolute measure. As long as you use a consistent measure of caloric burn and measure your calorie intake properly and are consistent on both you can determine your burn / intake ratio based on weight changes and use that as your target. If people want to use 3,500 calories / pound metric and are hoping for absolute measures from any device they will always end up disappointed at some point I think.

Honest feedback, if you are an athlete and cycle and swim, do not record Walking as an Activity for calorie purposes. In the end 100 calories or 30 calories overall, while adding up over time are really meaningless in an overall training / diet plan.

I have seen these threads where people fret over the last calorie counted and debate accuracy about something that is an estimated and not measured metric meant to be used as an indicator and not as an absolute measure. As long as you use a consistent measure of caloric burn and measure your calorie intake properly and are consistent on both you can determine your burn / intake ratio based on weight changes and use that as your target. If people want to use 3,500 calories / pound metric and are hoping for absolute measures from any device they will always end up disappointed at some point I think.

That is very good feedback. Thank you.