login
garmin/calories burned??
-
No new posts
 2009-03-23 7:55 AM |
Expert  1194   |  Subject: garmin/calories burned??I was just looking at my garmin training center and I rode 62mi the other day, I looked at the totals at the top of the screen and It said total calories burned was 3337. I know I was working pretty hard but this seems a bit high to me. Are these numbers even close to what one would burn during a long ride....or is it just useless information. |
| 2009-03-23 8:03 AM in reply to: #2033993 |
Extreme Veteran 417 Davidson | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? I have always been suspicious of the calorie burn number in the Garmin Training Center software. I am generally a 17-18 mph rider and Training Center usually pegs my calorie burn right at about 1,000 calories per hour when I do a Z3/Z4 intensity ride. Seems high to me too and it sounds like it is giving you about the same burn rate. For reference, I weigh 153lbs. and have an 18lb. bike. I think it takes both of those factors into consideration when it does the calculation for calorie burn. FWIW, Greg |
| 2009-03-23 8:05 AM in reply to: #2033993 |
Extreme Veteran 1942 In front of computer when typing this. | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? I just ignore the biking calories burned on a Garmin. For running it seems to come closer to what you might expect, but for biking it is way (WAY) off. On my 30 minute, 10 mile commute home Garmin says I burned 1000 or so calories. No way. If I were running it, yes, but not biking. |
| 2009-03-23 8:14 AM in reply to: #2033993 |
Expert 1194 | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? I'm not looking to loose weight or anything I'm 6'0 170-175 usualy and don't worry to much about counting calories, but for someone who is trying to loose weight...there probably looking at the garmin thinking d@mn, I just burned 3000 calories I can eat anything I want for the rest of the day! |
| 2009-03-23 8:16 AM in reply to: #2033993 |
Champion 9407  Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? |
| 2009-03-23 8:47 AM in reply to: #2033993 |
| Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php I just use about 2/3 of what the Garmin says for biking and figure the running one is close enough. |
| 2009-03-23 8:57 AM in reply to: #2034090 |
| New user 6 West Des Moines, IA | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? DanielG - 2009-03-23 8:47 AM http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.phpI just use about 2/3 of what the Garmin says for biking and figure the running one is close enough. Hmm...I just used this calculator to calculate my bike ride yesterday, and it came within 20 calories of what my garmin said I burned. |
| 2009-03-23 9:04 AM in reply to: #2033993 |
Extreme Veteran 510 Falls Church, VA | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? The way I look at it is for running the Garmin knows your weight the distance run, and the amount of accent/descent. With those values it can concievably get a good estimate of calories burned. For biking, it has the same values but has no idea of your wind resistance. Whether your on a raod bike, hybrib, MB, or in aerobars. Without knowing this the garmin calculations can be way off. GIven the gamin estimate of biking calories burned I'm guessing it's using some sort of hybrid/MB for its assumed restance curve. So you might be burning 1000 cal/hr if you could ride a hybrid bike at 20 mph. |
| 2009-03-23 9:36 AM in reply to: #2034125 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? StarGazer - 2009-03-23 10:04 AM The way I look at it is for running the Garmin knows your weight the distance run, and the amount of accent/descent. If you've ever actually checked the ascent/descent data from Garmin, you will find it very often has NO idea. I have done 3 or 4 mile runs with the "total climbing" off by multiples of 3 or 4 times (usually too high). It actually seems much better over biking distances. |
| 2009-03-23 9:44 AM in reply to: #2033993 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? I pretty much ignore everything on mine except time, distance (hence pace), and HR. Even distance is sometimes questionable. But I'm pretty sure it keeps good time... |
| 2009-03-23 9:56 AM in reply to: #2034198 |
| Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? Experior - 2009-03-23 10:44 AM I pretty much ignore everything on mine except time, distance (hence pace), and HR. Even distance is sometimes questionable. But I'm pretty sure it keeps good time... I've found the distance to be consistently shorter than the mapping program from here, either of my bike computers and my cars' odometers. I figure as long as I'm doing all my measuring with the Garmin it doesn't much matter and I still do have a good measure of improvement over the year(s) |
| 2009-03-23 10:01 AM in reply to: #2034184 |
Extreme Veteran 510 Falls Church, VA | Subject: RE: garmin/calories burned?? JohnnyKay - 2009-03-23 9:36 AM StarGazer - 2009-03-23 10:04 AM The way I look at it is for running the Garmin knows your weight the distance run, and the amount of accent/descent. If you've ever actually checked the ascent/descent data from Garmin, you will find it very often has NO idea. I have done 3 or 4 mile runs with the "total climbing" off by multiples of 3 or 4 times (usually too high). It actually seems much better over biking distances. Yeah, I figured someone would bring this up. The reported summary data out of the garmin is pretty raw. It'd be fairly easy to apply a smoothing algorithum for a much better value of accent/desent. |
 2009-03-23 10:36 AM in reply to: #2034184 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK