# Is the Garmin calorie counter way off?



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

I did a ride yesterday and here's the summary.
Distance: 44.40 miles
Elevation gain: 3,674 ft
Calories: 3,785 C
Moving Time: 2:48:00
Average Moving Speed: 15.9 Mph
Average HR: 146 bpm

Is the calorie count way to high for this? I am 5'6" and 157 lbs.


----------



## RUFUSPHOTO (Oct 14, 2010)

I did roughly the same ride the other day and the calorie counter on my Garmin 500 said 1781.

Yours seems to be way off.

Have you updated the firmware?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

It has the latest firmware installed.


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

check the weight of the bike amount that is in the settings. when I first got my garmin, I had the same high calorie count, then I checked the settings and the default for bike weight was like 26 pounds. I set it to proper weight, and all was good.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

It was at 21 lbs. I set it to 19 after the ride last night, but I doubt that 2 lbs will make a lot of difference.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Which Garmin unit?

Those things are usually insanely inaccurate anyway, though the 500 is closer than the other Edge units.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

It's the 705. Bought in December of last year.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

deviousalex said:


> It's the 705. Bought in December of last year.


It is a "feature".

I have a 705 too. The calorie counter serves as a comedy-relief. It doesn't use ANY ride data to actually spit out a number. To generate a calories-burned number all it does is take ride time and multiply by a laughably high constant. Does not factor in speed, or distance, or altitude climbed, only maybe rider weight.


----------



## kn0bby8 (Oct 30, 2009)

I always thought it had something to do with the heart rate monitor...


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

kn0bby8 said:


> I always thought it had something to do with the heart rate monitor...


Only the newer Edges a la 500, and I believe 800, take HRM data into account.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Way off*



deviousalex said:


> I did a ride yesterday and here's the summary.
> Distance: 44.40 miles
> Elevation gain: 3,674 ft
> Calories: 3,785 C
> ...


3785 calories over 2:48 says you averaged about 375 watts. That's the kind of wattage numbers you would see from a top professional who was really hammering, but then they would have gone a LOT farther than 44 miles (71 km) in that amount of time at that wattage.

Your calorie numbers are WAY high. Perhaps 80% high. As another poster noted: comic relief.


----------



## willieboy (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm 5'9" and 160lbs. My Edge 500 puts me at 500 calories every 42-46 minutes of training which is accurate to my Polar and Sigma set ups. A typical 45 mile ride with approximately 3500 feet of elevation gain would take about 2:45 and burn about 1800-2000 calories. hope this helps


----------



## royta (May 24, 2008)

deviousalex said:


> It's the 705. Bought in December of last year.


I also have a 705. I'll have to check Garmin Connect and see how high mine are. I'm actually thinking of going back to software ver 2.90 because it seems to be more accurate on altitude. I'd have to see if it changes measured ascent and descent at all. Maybe it will improve calorie count too.


----------



## steelrpm (Apr 27, 2011)

I just picked up a 500 and started using strava.com - the calorie numbers are about 20-30% lower after strava analyzes my data so I'll err on the lower side. It might be worth uploading the data there just to see what it does to the calorie count.


----------



## allison (Apr 19, 2006)

No cyclocomputer/GPS units are going to be very accurate for calorie-counts. The 500/800 units have a heart rate based computation to determine caloric burn, and are closer than their other units, but still far from perfect. 

Power meters show expended kilojoule burn, which is about as close as you can get. My 500 and 800 are both still a lot lower than kilojoules burned for any given ride, but typically closer than my 705 unit was in the past.

I've found it's tough to really determine BMR anyway (this year I'm going on my lowest #s ever and seem to be doing ok). 

If you're asking for weight loss/calorie counting, it's been my experience that it's really just trial and error finding a good combination of BMR and then a mix of Garmin's calories and kilojoule burn when I have that information.

But, to answer your initial question - yes, way too high.


----------



## string_wise (Mar 7, 2010)

I have a power meter and still ride with my Garmin too for GPS data. The kilojoules from the Powertap and the calories from the Garmin are never within 350 of each other and are usually 400-500 apart on average on a 2 hour ride. 

I certainly wouldn't base my diet on the info my Garmin provides, but it is probably better than nothing.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

It depends on the Garmin. If you have a newer 500 or 800, and use a HR monitor, then it's pretty accurate.


----------



## Dray3573 (Jun 22, 2010)

I would agree with nightfend. I used to use a 310xt and before that a Forerunner 305. Both of those units always had my calorie count high. Now I use an Edge 800 and the numbers seems much more inline with a more believable number (probably in the neighborhood of 50% lower). Interesting to note both of the previous models were used in connection with a HRM and both had the ability to save rider and bike info like the Edge 800 does (i.e., age, sex, fitness level, & bike weight)


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Coulnd't garmin fix this with a firmware update? Or are they conveniently ignore that.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

they forget about it especially since there's the new 200 that's out now. i went from the edge 305 to the 800 and the calorie count is loped off at least in half.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

deviousalex said:


> Coulnd't garmin fix this with a firmware update? Or are they conveniently ignore that.


It's not a _Garmin_ problem, it's a problem with any estimate (from any brand's cycling computer) based on heart rate or speed or any other metric that doesn't have any certain relationship to energy. Customers want a calorie count feature, so they include something. I'm sure it's very accurate for someone, but not everyone, and seemingly not most people. For me, the "Calories" shown on my Garmin Edge 500 will typically be much *lower* then what would be suggested by my power meter and any normal range of metabolic efficiency.


----------

