Garmin calories seem way out

[Puncture Kid]

So used my new Garmin for the 2nd time yesterday on a MTB ride. At the end of my day the watch reported cals burned as 1200 resting and 1560 active. That seems way out as my ride was 38km with 740m altitude gain with avg heart rate 140 (training effect 5 - overreaching). Sitting at my PC for 5 hours burns almost the same cals as a 38km ride?  No way...

 

Also the steps is obviously way out while on the MTB. Anyone here can clarify?

[Grebel]

How old are you? if you are say 25 years old, then your theoretical HRM is 195. (Garmin use the 220 - age unless you input your HRM) 140 ave equates to 71% of HRM. What was the duration of your ride? 360 cal could be about right depending on a few things. There is also the arm vs chest strap measurement discussion in terms of measurement accuracy.

 

Remember that calories burn't are base on how many beats your heart is doing. Just because you are sitting behind a PC doesn't mean your calories burnt is 0. I read somewhere that you brain alone burns about 20% of your daily calories.

 

As for steps. I sometimes ride so slow uphill that my Garmin thinks I am walking..... It is based on forward motion and the accelerometer thingy in the watch along with some software and programming. 

[Puncture Kid]

  On 5/24/2019 at 8:02 AM, Grebel said:

How old are you? if you are say 25 years old, then your theoretical HRM is 195. (Garmin use the 220 - age unless you input your HRM) 140 ave equates to 71% of HRM. What was the duration of your ride? 360 cal could be about right depending on a few things. There is also the arm vs chest strap measurement discussion in terms of measurement accuracy.

 

Remember that calories burn't are base on how many beats your heart is doing. Just because you are sitting behind a PC doesn't mean your calories burnt is 0. I read somewhere that you brain alone burns about 20% of your daily calories.

 

As for steps. I sometimes ride so slow uphill that my Garmin thinks I am walking..... It is based on forward motion and the accelerometer thingy in the watch along with some software and programming. 

 I am 54 years old. Ride duration was 2:30. I totally get that sitting at my PC does not burn 0. It just seems that comparatively speaking, sitting at the PC vs reasonable high intensity (for me at least) ride the cals burned during the ride seems low.

[Quagga]

  On 5/24/2019 at 8:14 AM, Puncture Kid said:

 I am 54 years old. Ride duration was 2:30. I totally get that sitting at my PC does not burn 0. It just seems that comparatively speaking, sitting at the PC vs reasonable high intensity (for me at least) ride the cals burned during the ride seems low.

Garmin devices calculate active calories based on the activity level, type of activity, age, height, weight, gender and heart rate (if available). 

 

 

Does your garmin have your correct weight, height etc etc? This could cause your activity cals to be out

[Puncture Kid]

  On 5/24/2019 at 8:23 AM, Quagga said:

Garmin devices calculate active calories based on the activity level, type of activity, age, height, weight, gender and heart rate (if available). 

 

 

Does your garmin have your correct weight, height etc etc? This could cause your activity cals to be out

 

Yes it has the correct details.

[Grebel]

  On 5/24/2019 at 8:35 AM, Puncture Kid said:

Yes it has the correct details.

 

Wrist based or chest strap HR? Sometimes wrist based can under read. Also check smart measuring or something like that. It can take some time to "react" to increased HR readings. 

 

I had an issue on the Wattbike a few weeks ago. Felt like I was bleeding through my eyes and the HR registered at 67%....

[Puncture Kid]

  On 5/24/2019 at 8:54 AM, Grebel said:

Wrist based or chest strap HR? Sometimes wrist based can under read. Also check smart measuring or something like that. It can take some time to "react" to increased HR readings. 

 

I had an issue on the Wattbike a few weeks ago. Felt like I was bleeding through my eyes and the HR registered at 67%....

 

Only wrist. But does not look like it is under reading. My max HR for the ride was 167. And it felt like it....

[slickjay007]

"That seems way out as my ride was 38km with 740m altitude gain with avg heart rate 140 (training effect 5 - overreaching)"

 

Seems like you were exercising in the 80% HRM (using your age minus the 220 calculation)for the entire ride which gave you the "effort 5" score. Like Grebel said, that the more your heart beats the more calories you burn.

 

Maybe you pushed it a bit too much on the ride?

 

I would do a few more rides and then look at the average Calories burnt to get a better picture.

[Puncture Kid]

  On 5/24/2019 at 9:02 AM, slickjay007 said:

"That seems way out as my ride was 38km with 740m altitude gain with avg heart rate 140 (training effect 5 - overreaching)"

 

Seems like you were exercising in the 80% HRM (using your age minus the 220 calculation)for the entire ride which gave you the "effort 5" score. Like Grebel said, that the more your heart beats the more calories you burn.

 

Maybe you pushed it a bit too much on the ride?

 

I would do a few more rides and then look at the average Calories burnt to get a better picture.

 

I have done some more reading. It seems that intensive activity burns way less cals than I thought. But I dont understand the resting cals of 1200 vs active cals 1560. Doesnt 'feel' right

[cat-i]

  On 5/24/2019 at 7:28 AM, Puncture Kid said:

...At the end of my day the watch reported cals burned as 1200 resting and 1560 active....

 

Was that 1560 for 2 hours of riding and 1200 for 22 hours of non-riding? So 3760 for the day? (Just trying to understand the question)

[Bonker]

  On 5/24/2019 at 7:28 AM, Puncture Kid said:

So used my new Garmin for the 2nd time yesterday on a MTB ride. At the end of my day the watch reported cals burned as 1200 resting and 1560 active. That seems way out as my ride was 38km with 740m altitude gain with avg heart rate 140 (training effect 5 - overreaching). Sitting at my PC for 5 hours burns almost the same cals as a 38km ride?  No way...

 

Also the steps is obviously way out while on the MTB. Anyone here can clarify?

 

 

That's probably inaccurate. There are so many variables to take into account. The intensity of the workout or external factors like wind, oxygen, fitness levels etc.  the best you could get from your watch is a rough estimate. If your goal is weight loss, diet is more important. Otherwise just take the measurement as ballpark. 

 

Here's a nice read on calorie burning if you have time. 

https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/caloricexp.html

[slickjay007]

  On 5/24/2019 at 9:17 AM, Puncture Kid said:

I have done some more reading. It seems that intensive activity burns way less cals than I thought. But I dont understand the resting cals of 1200 vs active cals 1560. Doesnt 'feel' right

 

Also depends on how fast you were cycling and your body weight

[Puncture Kid]

  On 5/24/2019 at 9:24 AM, cat-i said:

Was that 1560 for 2 hours of riding and 1200 for 22 hours of non-riding? So 3760 for the day? (Just trying to understand the question)

 

Hmm couple dicrepancies in the totals I saw yesterday. But yes garmin connect says 3078 cals for yesterday with 1560 being the MTB ride and the remainder (1518) the resting burn.

 

It is just that I expected the high intensity ride to burn way more in comparison to the resting burn. But then the total resting burn total for the day likely starts aggregating at 00:00

[BigDL]

  On 5/24/2019 at 10:54 AM, Puncture Kid said:

Hmm couple dicrepancies in the totals I saw yesterday. But yes garmin connect says 3078 cals for yesterday with 1560 being the MTB ride and the remainder (1518) the resting burn.

 

It is just that I expected the high intensity ride to burn way more in comparison to the resting burn. But then the total resting burn total for the day likely starts aggregating at 00:00

100% - resting will be the whole 24hrs. Remember an adult make burns 2000 odd calories a day just being alive. 1500 sounds about right for 2.5 hrs compared to mine, which would be similar.