Calories burned (Garmin)

[deskrider]

Why does the Garmin computer say 1800+ calories burned when I am NOT wearing the heart rate monitor and about 300 calories burned when I AM wearing the monitor (same distance and route) ??

[limewave]

What Garmin is it? And what setting do you have it at (running, biking, other)? That can make a difference. Maybe not as great as a difference of 1500, but it can be significant if you have it set to running and then had it set to cycling.

[deskrider]

Ooops there is a TYPO in my subject line. It is the new Garmin Edge 500, set on biking.

[limewave]

Huh. I don't know. Mine has been consistent. I have a Garmin 305. I had to split my long run up yesterday, first half without hrm second half with. The calories burned per mile were nearly identical.

[OakLeaf]

The newer Garmins use a heart rate-based calorie algorithm. For whatever reason, the firmware updates to the older computers don't include that feature.

I brought my 705 (distance and time algorithm) and my 310XT (heart rate algorithm) both on a run once - mainly to get the more accurate elevation profile from the 705's barometric altimeter. There wasn't that much of a difference in the calorie projection, as I remember. I don't honestly think either one is all that accurate. It might be different for cycling, though, since your effort level is so variable depending on wind and grade. I don't think I've ever brought both computers on a ride. You've got me curious now.

[sgf726]

I don't see that big a difference but I do see a significant distance with and without the HR Monitor. I have the 310XT in running mode with the HR monitor is about 60% of without the heart-rate monitor. I am not sure why and I think specifically on some longer runs the w/HR calories burned seems very low.