Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    296
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Garmin Calorie Counting - Inaccurate?

    I have a new Garmin 305 Edge with Cadence (not Heart Rate). After about an hour and 18 miles it's telling me I burned over 800 calories. That seems way high given that the terrain was pretty level with only a few short hills (and I went to a destination and then back along the same path).

    How is Garmin figuring the calories? Would adding the HRM make it more accurate?

  2. #2
    Senior Member kk4df's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Augusta, GA
    My Bikes
    Bottecchia CF frame and fork, Ultegra 6603 crank and FD, DuraAce RD, Easton Vista wheels, Brooks B-17 saddle, Shimano 105 brakes, Michelin Pro2 Race tires
    Posts
    655
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Smorgasbord42 View Post
    How is Garmin figuring the calories? Would adding the HRM make it more accurate?
    I have the HRM for the Garmin. The Garmin seems at least 20% to 25% high, IMHO. I download the Garmin into SportTracks, and then let SportTracks recalculate the calories. I think that's much closer.

  3. #3
    Dan J chinarider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Iron Mountain, MI
    My Bikes
    1974 Stella 10 speed, 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2
    Posts
    1,195
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kk4df View Post
    I have the HRM for the Garmin. The Garmin seems at least 20% to 25% high, IMHO. .
    It seems to use about 50 calories a mile. I think 30-40 is more accurate, depending on rider weight, terrain, etc.
    1974 Stella 10 Speed
    2006 Trek Pilot 1.2

    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
    Bertrand Russell

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jarery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coquitlam
    Posts
    2,538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Garmin Calories ...heh, just turn that function off.

    I have the heart rate and cadence model, and given that it has all the data to calculate calories semi accuratly, it instead chooses to ignore heartrate and cadence. And uses the brainiac idea of basing calories purely on speed.

    So if your climbing UP a 10 mile long mountain road at 6 mph standing and hammering all the way, on the verge of passing out from effort, it says you used 100 calores. Now come down the same road, at 50 mph, not even turning the pedals, and it'll say you burned 3000 calories.

    Basically its garbage, but averages out I suppose over long trips.
    Jarery

    -If you cant see it from space, its not a real hill
    -If two bikes are going in the same direction, ITS A RACE!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    296
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, I drove my car with the bike in it and the Garmin on. Although the crank wasn't turning, it said I was burning all kinds of calories coasting around at 55 MPH. Bummer.

  6. #6
    Slow and Steady ClanLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarery View Post
    Garmin Calories ...heh, just turn that function off.

    I have the heart rate and cadence model, and given that it has all the data to calculate calories semi accuratly, it instead chooses to ignore heartrate and cadence. And uses the brainiac idea of basing calories purely on speed.

    So if your climbing UP a 10 mile long mountain road at 6 mph standing and hammering all the way, on the verge of passing out from effort, it says you used 100 calores. Now come down the same road, at 50 mph, not even turning the pedals, and it'll say you burned 3000 calories.

    Basically its garbage, but averages out I suppose over long trips.
    I don't know... it seems accurate to me... Take for example:

    My commute to work: 13 miles, 40 minutes, avg speed 19.4 mph, ascents 359 ft, descents 1588 ft
    Total calories: 456

    My commute to home: 13 miles, 67 minutes, avg speed 11.7 mph, ascents 1604 ft, descents 423 ft
    Total calories: 1070

  7. #7
    grilled cheesus aham23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    8675309
    My Bikes
    2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
    Posts
    6,933
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the edge 305 calorie calculations is in no way accurate. its a well established fact that the formula garmin uses puts more emphasis on average speed then HR, CAD, or elevation changes. a quick search for "calories" over at the MB forum will tell you all you need to know.

    MB Forum

    later.

  8. #8
    Slow and Steady ClanLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aham23 View Post
    the edge 305 calorie calculations is in no way accurate. its a well established fact that the formula garmin uses puts more emphasis on average speed then HR, CAD, or elevation changes. a quick search for "calories" over at the MB forum will tell you all you need to know.

    MB Forum

    later.
    I know that my experience is only that, my experience... however, what you're telling me is that garmin puts more emphasis on average speed then HR, CAD or elevation changes. According to the data that I'm getting, that is not the case. Look at my stats above... it doesn't coincide. In fact, it's the opposite. My commute to work has a greater average speed then going home and it's mostly downhill. According to your statement, I should be buring more calories going to work then going home not the other way around.

    I recently got my garmin edge 305... who know, maybe the latest firmware adjusted how it's calculating the calories.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,797
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarery View Post
    Garmin Calories ...heh, just turn that function off.

    I have the heart rate and cadence model, and given that it has all the data to calculate calories semi accuratly, it instead chooses to ignore heartrate and cadence. And uses the brainiac idea of basing calories purely on speed.

    So if your climbing UP a 10 mile long mountain road at 6 mph standing and hammering all the way, on the verge of passing out from effort, it says you used 100 calores. Now come down the same road, at 50 mph, not even turning the pedals, and it'll say you burned 3000 calories.

    Basically its garbage, but averages out I suppose over long trips.
    i am not sure the calculation as accurate as it could be (given the device "knows" one's cadence, HR, grade, weight, speed, etc.), but i know that what you are saying above is not true.

    for example, when i bike up a 6 mile mountain pass with ~2,300' elevation gain (@ ~6mph), it reports that I burned 925 calories. this is for the ascent, only.

    when i do the same trip but look at the data for the ascent AND descent, (6 miles down -- obviously -- at ~30-50 mph, almost exclusively coasting & braking) it reports that i burned 987 calories...total.

    it's doing some type of calculation. whether it is the most accurate is another matter.

  10. #10
    Hypoxic Member head_wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    544
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When I do cardio exercises in the gym the eliptical trainer or the treadmill
    put me in the range of 600 to 900 per hour. Given that as a standard my
    Forerunner 301 is in the same range and it does vary as my perception of
    the work I have done. I would say that it is an instrument that gives a
    repeatable indication of work and is of value for training.

    By themselves heartrate and cadence are not indicators of work.

  11. #11
    Senior Member ronjon10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Topanga, but I'm not a hippy
    My Bikes
    IF Club Racer, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket
    Posts
    2,820
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a Garmin and a Powertap. (Yeah I'm a stats junkie). I reasonably trust the powertap calorie measurement since its measuring actual work done.

    The powertap consistently reports 1/2 the calories the garmin does. So, whenever I ride without the powertap and just the garmin, I cut the calorie count in half.
    just being

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •