Accuracy of calories burned while biking

[Bike Chick]

Linda, based on both our experiences with this, I'm going to do some research on the Garmin site and let you know what I find out.

We did the 15 mile TT course last night with some grueling hills. My time was 50 minutes with a 17.1 average. I did not wear my hrm and the Garmin said I burned 759 calories. Just for comparison I went to caloriesperhour.com and put the info in and it said I should've burned 690 which is pretty close. Had I worn the hrm, it probably would've said 350!

[Bike Chick]

I just googled the term "Garmin 500 not calculating calories" and got a page full of the same complaints. Many forums, including Garmin's, have posts that address this issue so it's not just us. What I did read is that Garmin is aware of the issue and they will be coming out with a firmware upgrade to fix it soon. All I can say is just keep upgrading your Garmin when there is a firmware upgrade and see if it fixes the problem. Everything else on the 500 works great and I'm pleased with the computer in every other aspect.

[tongue_tied]

I mostly don't use the HR strap with my 500 because it gets irritating sometimes. But I've noticed that the 500 overestimates the calories burned, IMO, on a ride without the use of the strap. I was on the North Branch Trail this past Saturday, finished a 60 mile ride, and burned something like 3300 calories in 3 hours. No real climbing. My avg speed was 18mph. Even at 175, I think that's overestimating.

I've just learned that it's a loose gauge of calories burned.