I haven't been using the HR strap on my Garmin and it still gives me calories, so I don't think it requires HR data. I think it factors elevation gain, weight, speed, etc. in to the equation. I think the Garmin data may run a bit high. I know there've been discussions about the Polars running high on calories. I will say the Garmin data I get is lower than plugging the info into some calorie counting sites.





 
					
					 but you know I'm a data geek, and I need to know how accurate my Garmin Forerunner's calorie counts are. 1700 calories for a 2-hour ride seems like an awful lot, especially when the claimed expenditure for a 1-hour run is only around 500. I know the software takes into account HR and speed, not sure what else (if anything). Anybody have any idea if these are really in the ballpark?
 but you know I'm a data geek, and I need to know how accurate my Garmin Forerunner's calorie counts are. 1700 calories for a 2-hour ride seems like an awful lot, especially when the claimed expenditure for a 1-hour run is only around 500. I know the software takes into account HR and speed, not sure what else (if anything). Anybody have any idea if these are really in the ballpark? 
				
				
				
					 Reply With Quote
  Reply With Quote
 . No, it isn't dead flat, but there sure isn't 900 feet of climbing - 60 feet or so over the bridge each way and four or five 10 foot humps.
. No, it isn't dead flat, but there sure isn't 900 feet of climbing - 60 feet or so over the bridge each way and four or five 10 foot humps. 
				 Originally Posted by echidna
 Originally Posted by echidna
					
 
				