login
calories burned on garmin 305
-
No new posts
 2011-02-01 8:44 PM |
Extreme Veteran  3020  |  Subject: calories burned on garmin 305How accurate is the reading for calories burned on the bicycle setting (trainer)? How off is it? Does it calculate this based on effort, weight, and heartrate? |
| 2011-02-01 9:20 PM in reply to: #3334409 |
Regular 100 | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 Sorry I don't have an answer--I was just going to ask the same question. I don't understand why the calorie counters seem so far off. I feel like this is the case with my Garmin and even when I track activities as livestrong.com. They seem way too high--even for running and swimming. |
| 2011-02-01 9:43 PM in reply to: #3334409 |
Master 1441  North edge of nowhere | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 The 305 judges calories by distance and weight, ie: if you weigh X and run Y, then you burned Z. The calories burned for running and cycling are different, and sort of generalized. I don't know if it'll make allowances for being indoors or out, so it likely just went on the distance equivalent. So, to make a short story long, yah, it's not super accurate. It'll give you a decent idea, but a model that calculates by heartrate is likely more precise. Since I have the 305 also, I'm in the same boat. |
| 2011-02-01 10:13 PM in reply to: #3334409 |
Expert 1322 Savannah | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 This article explains it all: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html |
| 2011-02-01 10:42 PM in reply to: #3334533 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 Funny this came up right now. Been sort of thinking about it, and tonight was a good example... I was on the gym trainer and it said, based on 80 minutes of interval training: I burned 1040 calores (the bike readout). I have a timex watch that knows weight and HR, and it said I burned 1640 calories. I plugged my activity in an online calculator that I use to track my calories and it spit out 1416 calories. For fun, I plugged into two more online calulators and they gave me 1510 and 1225... Side note, one time recently, just to compare, I wore both my Timex and Garmin for a RUN, and they were pretty close in calories but the Timex WAS higher (10%-20%) Anyway, what I'm showing, is that there is a HUGE disparogy in what you get... Sort of sucks. I tend to lean that my Timex may be high. The gym bike may be low. And believe it or not. The online calculators seem to be within 10%-20% of each other. Some take in body weight, others have you estimate your effort level or pace... Mind you, this is for trainer rides. Personally? I feel pretty darned comfortable with what the Garmin gives me for running and cycling. I treat what my Timex gives me as being a bit high, and generaly don't accept it. I NEVER accept a gym bike number unless it's high end equipment. Since I have to put SOMETHING down, and if I'm not using my Garmin, I tend to use the numbers my tracking software gives me and their calculator. It comes in closest to the garmin, and estimates 25% less than the timex, which "feels" right to me. Wow, sorry, I got carried away with this post! |
| 2011-02-02 5:30 AM in reply to: #3334409 |
Expert 758 Port Colborne, Ontario | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 The FR 305 calories are way off. The best way is to get your average HR for your workout and plug it into this formula: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm Use 38-40 for the V02 max if you don't know it. If you use 0 it estimates too high. |
| 2011-02-02 6:07 AM in reply to: #3334654 |
Extreme Veteran 3020 | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 RVachon - 2011-02-02 6:30 AM The FR 305 calories are way off. The best way is to get your average HR for your workout and plug it into this formula: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm Use 38-40 for the V02 max if you don't know it. If you use 0 it estimates too high. This seems way more accurate. Thank you! |
| 2011-02-02 6:11 AM in reply to: #3334552 |
Extreme Veteran 3020 | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 Kido - 2011-02-01 11:42 PM Funny this came up right now. Been sort of thinking about it, and tonight was a good example... I was on the gym trainer and it said, based on 80 minutes of interval training: I burned 1040 calores (the bike readout). I have a timex watch that knows weight and HR, and it said I burned 1640 calories. I plugged my activity in an online calculator that I use to track my calories and it spit out 1416 calories. For fun, I plugged into two more online calulators and they gave me 1510 and 1225... Side note, one time recently, just to compare, I wore both my Timex and Garmin for a RUN, and they were pretty close in calories but the Timex WAS higher (10%-20%) Anyway, what I'm showing, is that there is a HUGE disparogy in what you get... Sort of sucks. I tend to lean that my Timex may be high. The gym bike may be low. And believe it or not. The online calculators seem to be within 10%-20% of each other. Some take in body weight, others have you estimate your effort level or pace... Mind you, this is for trainer rides. Personally? I feel pretty darned comfortable with what the Garmin gives me for running and cycling. I treat what my Timex gives me as being a bit high, and generaly don't accept it. I NEVER accept a gym bike number unless it's high end equipment. Since I have to put SOMETHING down, and if I'm not using my Garmin, I tend to use the numbers my tracking software gives me and their calculator. It comes in closest to the garmin, and estimates 25% less than the timex, which "feels" right to me. Wow, sorry, I got carried away with this post! I feel pretty comfortable with what the Garmin gives me for running, too, but I question what it gives me for cycling. I wore the heartrate monitor strap. I still have some weight left to lose, so I want to know what I've burned through activity. |
| 2011-02-02 6:52 AM in reply to: #3334409 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 IME, no HRM or gym equipment provides an accurate estimate of caloric expenditure. The algorithms used to calculate caloric expenditure tend to give a higher result than one would expect if a more accurate method was used. If you are attempting to track calories in versus calories out, then to get you in the ballpark for calories out, I would start with these rough estimates: Swim - 100Cal/400m Bike - .35Cal/kgkm Run - 1Cal/kgkm Then, as you track your weight loss/gain over a few weeks, you can tweak these to give a better reflection of you caloric expenditure. Shane |
| 2011-02-02 10:05 AM in reply to: #3334716 |
Expert 758 Port Colborne, Ontario | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 gsmacleod - 2011-02-02 7:52 AM IME, no HRM or gym equipment provides an accurate estimate of caloric expenditure. The algorithms used to calculate caloric expenditure tend to give a higher result than one would expect if a more accurate method was used. If you are attempting to track calories in versus calories out, then to get you in the ballpark for calories out, I would start with these rough estimates: Swim - 100Cal/400m Bike - .35Cal/kgkm Run - 1Cal/kgkm Then, as you track your weight loss/gain over a few weeks, you can tweak these to give a better reflection of you caloric expenditure. Shane So you're somehow suggesting that the generic average numbers you posted are more accurate than the science behind the HRM algorithms? I disagree. I do agree that those algorithms are not as accurate as getting a real resting & dynamic metabolic test done, but they will certainly be closer than generic averages. For example, based on your 1 cal/kg/km for running, that means I should burn about 860 cals for a 9 km run. Well using my HRM & the calculation/algorithm I posted above, I get a 700 cal burn for the run I did last night. Seems yours is somewhat higher than my calc, not the other way around as you suggest. |
| 2011-02-02 10:11 AM in reply to: #3335051 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 RVachon - 2011-02-02 12:05 PM So you're somehow suggesting that the generic average numbers you posted are more accurate than the science behind the HRM algorithms? I disagree. I do agree that those algorithms are not as accurate as getting a real resting & dynamic metabolic test done, but they will certainly be closer than generic averages. You are free to believe your HRM and also believe that there is plenty of science behind the algorithms and that they are better than the average numbers I posted to give a starting point for someone who wishes to count calories. For example, based on your 1 cal/kg/km for running, that means I should burn about 860 cals for a 9 km run. Well using my HRM & the calculation/algorithm I posted above, I get a 700 cal burn for the run I did last night. Seems yours is somewhat higher than my calc, not the other way around as you suggest. As I said, the algorithms tend to give a higher number than you would actually expect; in some cases (as you have indicated) they do not. However, taking a larger sample size, you will find that the HRM average will be greater than what you get using the formulae that I posted. My method doesn't require you to guess your VO2max, give resting HR, max HR, etc; instead, it gives a quick ballpark figure that, based on the literature I have read, should give a good starting point. Shane |
| 2011-02-02 10:14 AM in reply to: #3334409 |
Runner | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 As far as running goes, the intensity of the workout doesn't matter in regards to calories burned; it's distance and weight. Intensity will determine the primary fuel source. |
| 2011-02-02 11:29 AM in reply to: #3334654 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 RVachon - 2011-02-02 3:30 AM The FR 305 calories are way off. The best way is to get your average HR for your workout and plug it into this formula: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm Use 38-40 for the V02 max if you don't know it. If you use 0 it estimates too high. Just a few comments... I like this calculator, but it seems just as good as many of the others (using MY data, it seems)... I just plugged in about 2 weeks worth of workouts and I know my V02... I found that it's about 10% LOWER than what the Garmin gives me for the run and up to 15% lower for the bike (which I already assumed was a BIT high with the Garmin)... And in fact, there was one day of MTN biking is estimated 50% HIGHER than what my garmin gave me. One anomoly. That being said. I don't think the 305 calories are "way off" as you say. Just another method that's about 10% within a lot of other methods. But I agree, it seems to run high, especially on the bike. I think the calculator is just fine and I may use it more often. It give a nice "middle of the road" estimate from the half dozen other sources I have seen. All withing 10%-20% of each other in most cases. |
| 2011-02-02 11:31 AM in reply to: #3334409 |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: calories burned on garmin 305 When I use the computrainer it gives me a calorie burned number. I believe that number is calculated with some sort of power calculation. Since calories are really an energy equation I believe that number way more than a calculation based on HR. It usually shows my garmin 705 overestimating calories burned by 1.5-2x what it actually is. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK