hagar Posted January 20, 2010 Share I was just wondering how accurate is the calculator that garmin use to count the amount of calories consumed on a ride !! a little while ago there was a thread i think where there was someone saying that it was not quite up to scratch and that the polar was far more accurate !!! have garmin upgraded their software or is it still unreliable ??? i need to know so that i can work out how many bottles of wine to consume to replace my "lost calories " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewie911 Posted January 20, 2010 Share You sound like my dad.When he still rode I had to work out each time how many beers he could drink to even it out. Garmin is optimistic still as far as I know. Polar use very reliable info. Get someone with about the same hr max and age as you and compare one of your rides(same hr avg and time) with theirs to get an idea, or easier, borrow a polar from someone and compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fandacious Posted January 20, 2010 Share they use completely different calculations. garmin measures calories used to complete a distance, and polar measure calories burnt by mearusing HR thats why if you drive @ 100km/h for an hour with your garmin it will show some large number of calories burnt, even tho you hardly burnt any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar Posted January 20, 2010 Share thanks i have a polar maybe i should wear the two together on a ride then compare them ??? ok ok now what about the xtra weight that i must carry no serious i think i will give it a bash but was hoping to get some answers from garmin as they are in the pro circuit so they should have pro equipment to supply their riders !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar Posted January 20, 2010 Share they use completely different calculations. garmin measures calories used to complete a distance' date=' and polar measure calories burnt by mearusing HR thats why if you drive @ 100km/h for an hour with your garmin it will show some large number of calories burnt, even tho you hardly burnt any[/quote'] strange thing cos garmin also records HR so if it more accurate why dont they also use it ???? they have the gradient the riders weight age and all that other nice stuff ??? the info that sports tracks have how accurate is that Fand ???do they just take it out of the garmin or do they calculate it ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewie911 Posted January 20, 2010 Share I think it is because garmin is gps focused(speed, distance etc.), while polar initially is hr focused. Try the two and give us some feedback. Would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fandacious Posted January 20, 2010 Share they use completely different calculations. garmin measures calories used to complete a distance' date=' and polar measure calories burnt by mearusing HR thats why if you drive @ 100km/h for an hour with your garmin it will show some large number of calories burnt, even tho you hardly burnt any[/quote'] strange thing cos garmin also records HR so if it more accurate why dont they also use it ???? they have the gradient the riders weight age and all that other nice stuff ??? the info that sports tracks have how accurate is that Fand ???do they just take it out of the garmin or do they calculate it ??? ja - sportstracks can actually recalculate heartrate. it would be interesting to compare all 3 garmin polar sportstracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar Posted January 20, 2010 Share ok i will do that today i am going to spin session then road ride so i will come back with the stats tomorrow !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marius Posted January 20, 2010 Share Don't forget to subtract the calories your body would have burned on it's own as well from the exercise you just did for a even more accurate reading. Your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) represents the number of calories you would burn if you rested for 24 hours. Its the number of calories your lungs needs to breathe, your heart to beat, your brain, liver and organs to function. http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/Weight_Centre/15-51-92.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar Posted January 20, 2010 Share ha thanks Maruis !!! makes sense if you really want to get accurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gumpole Posted January 20, 2010 Share Garmin isn't very accurate, as it discounts factors like wind, roadsurface and only takes speed and climbing into account (as far as I know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar Posted January 20, 2010 Share would polar take the wind and road surface into account ??? neway i am going to check today what the diffrence is with the polar and the garmin going to try and wear both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewie911 Posted January 20, 2010 Share In a way, cause you work harder = higher hr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngala24 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Well i ride with a Forerunner 305 with heart rate monitor On friday i did the reserve short loop from circus side entrance, was 44 K's odd and i burnt 2400 odd caloriesSat i did a flat 58K's and only burnt 1300 odd calories so it must be taking heart into account Ok i see where you coming from now that i have read up a little on it ngala242010-01-20 02:40:44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gumpole Posted January 20, 2010 Share would polar take the wind and road surface into account ??? neway i am going to check today what the diffrence is with the polar and the garmin going to try and wear both With Polar it doesn't matter as it is measuring how hard you are working and nothing else - so it will work on the road, MTB, running, climbing or sitting at your desk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaBee Posted January 20, 2010 Share Used to be way out. I ride with both... and the Edge was laughably off. Since the 2.9 upgrade mine was better. On 3.1 now and still very close to Polar readings. The fact that they found a way to... how shall I say it... without ... stuff up of all things their elevation on 3.1 is beyond nme (but also OT!) Haven't compared to SportsTracks, though, will see when I get home. If I remember... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now