Hey all! First time poster here.
So, I have been happily plodding along with my Garmin Forerunner 110 for a few years and I finally decided it was time for an upgrade. It's a nifty device but I'm a bit confused by the massive discrepancy between calories burnt on it. I ran 9.5 miles today and it told me I'd only burnt off 514 cals, whereas on a 10 mile run with my old watch it was about 760. I'm 5"1 and 98lbs so I can imagine I don't use tons of energy but still 514 seems quite low?
I like to have an accurate estimate so I make sure I'm eating enough to keep me fuelled and ready for my next run so I'm a bit annoyed that I'm now completely clueless as to which is right!
Anyone have any experience of the Garmin or other GPS/Heart rate monitor devices? Would be a big help
Comments
I've never paid any attenton to the calorie counter on any device. Even if it was accurate, do you know exactly how many calories you've burnt during the other 22/23 hours of the day? Or how many you've eaten? If your weight is stable and you've got healthy eating habits just carry on doing what you're used to.
it works out the calories using your weight, is it entered correctly?
The newer ones are more accurate. I used to have a 110 and found it overestimated massivley compared to any other device I tried. I now have a 910xt and according to garmin they have finally sorted out their calorie algorithm. It's certainly not overestimating. You are ao very much lighter than me so can't begin to compare calorie burn. I just know the older models were a bit suspect.
D C Rainmaker is my first port of call for Garmin stuff. He had an article on Garmin Calories calculations which may interest you:
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html
I'm enjoying marathon training - eat until I feel sick! - it's easier than calorie counting
I wish! If I employed that tactic I'd turn up on the start line looking like Mr Creosote!