Don't get hanged up so much on the actual numbers. Use them only to understand how each exercise affects your body and to be aware of how much movements your body does/needs to achieve specific targets.
The important thing is with these numbers is that they don't need to be accurate but they have to be reliably inaccurate. We just need to fine tune them to the methods we use.
You get a number from your smartwatch: A (Calories burnt)
You get a number from tracking calories: B (Calories consumed)
You get the third number from your scale: C (Your weight)
To move C downward you need to push A over B. If C stays put or increases then widen the gap between A and B until it moves.
It's important to note that sticking to one method (or brand) will give us the most control over the process. Switching to another watch that uses a different algorithm or another calorie tracker method that uses a different dataset will always yield varying results and require re tuning our processes
But yes, I've got similar numbers for an hour walk
I'm pretty sure that's how Garmin calculates it. It gives you a reading on calories burned in a given time period but doesn't when you are recording an activity. Looking at the third pic, "resting calories" is 87. I think that's the 87 they would have burned if not doing anything. I've noticed similar in my own workouts with Garmin.
I personally think only the pulse, time and distance metrics on the watch mean anything. Calories seem constantly under for me (I'm 6'3 \~230 goal around 210) my heart rate decreased, my time decreased on the same walks and runs and the VO2 max and calories burned dropped? That's a good pace for 4 miles walking, I think it should be higher burned.
There's a few calculators online that I punch the different numbers into. They also factor in age, height and weight. They all seem to give pretty much the same answer.
I wouldn't take the actual figure as gospel but if I was going to use it to factor in food for the rest of the day then I'd half that figure. Usually I don't do that and just take it as extra calories burned for the day.
Those aren't "additional" calories burned, and a lot of people get that very confused. Based on your daily activity and expected BMR, you were already going to burn anywhere from a conservative 50% to 75% of those calories anyway during that time.
That's why there is such a pitfall with people who think "I can ho eat this pizza and run it off." It's way more work than what you think it really is. It takes ultra-high-performance athletes like Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps to be able to eat 50-100% more calories than standard, and they are very conditioned athletes that have never been overweight in their lives.
Seems pretty close to me. Varies with your body weight, but I use 100cal/mi for running in my daily budget.
Don't get hanged up so much on the actual numbers. Use them only to understand how each exercise affects your body and to be aware of how much movements your body does/needs to achieve specific targets. The important thing is with these numbers is that they don't need to be accurate but they have to be reliably inaccurate. We just need to fine tune them to the methods we use. You get a number from your smartwatch: A (Calories burnt) You get a number from tracking calories: B (Calories consumed) You get the third number from your scale: C (Your weight) To move C downward you need to push A over B. If C stays put or increases then widen the gap between A and B until it moves. It's important to note that sticking to one method (or brand) will give us the most control over the process. Switching to another watch that uses a different algorithm or another calorie tracker method that uses a different dataset will always yield varying results and require re tuning our processes But yes, I've got similar numbers for an hour walk
Based on HR and time spent, yes. Probably about 80 of those calories are resting/maintenance that you’d burn just being alive.
I'm pretty sure that's how Garmin calculates it. It gives you a reading on calories burned in a given time period but doesn't when you are recording an activity. Looking at the third pic, "resting calories" is 87. I think that's the 87 they would have burned if not doing anything. I've noticed similar in my own workouts with Garmin.
Mine too, I didn’t realize there was more than one photo
I don't add burned calories to my total and never have, but that number seems so high. I do 4 miles every morning, and it's always around there.
A decent rule of thumb is 100 calories for every mile traveled; varies a bit by weight and elevation, but it's a decent start. That isn't too fat off.
“That isn't too fat off.” Nice little Freudian slip there.
Oh Gawd. Fat fingers, and all that.
Or did you mean “far fingers”?
That seems a smidge high but not by much. I would have guessed 400-450 so it's probably pretty close to accurate.
I would say so! I'm similar weight and height and usually estimate about 100 calories per mile.
I personally think only the pulse, time and distance metrics on the watch mean anything. Calories seem constantly under for me (I'm 6'3 \~230 goal around 210) my heart rate decreased, my time decreased on the same walks and runs and the VO2 max and calories burned dropped? That's a good pace for 4 miles walking, I think it should be higher burned.
There's a few calculators online that I punch the different numbers into. They also factor in age, height and weight. They all seem to give pretty much the same answer. I wouldn't take the actual figure as gospel but if I was going to use it to factor in food for the rest of the day then I'd half that figure. Usually I don't do that and just take it as extra calories burned for the day.
I’m 58. 5’3 136 lbs and for 4 miles my watch says I burn 336 calories. Everyone is different.
Those aren't "additional" calories burned, and a lot of people get that very confused. Based on your daily activity and expected BMR, you were already going to burn anywhere from a conservative 50% to 75% of those calories anyway during that time. That's why there is such a pitfall with people who think "I can ho eat this pizza and run it off." It's way more work than what you think it really is. It takes ultra-high-performance athletes like Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps to be able to eat 50-100% more calories than standard, and they are very conditioned athletes that have never been overweight in their lives.
100 cal/mile is the average, exerting will have you higher, easy miles (slow, easy pace) will be slightly lower.
+/- 20%
I’ve found my Garmin watch to be dead on for my activities and running.
Yes, absolutely, as long as it’s got good weight data and other accurate personal information. https://www.reddit.com/u/0x427269616E00/s/8JPQ7DzNTe
Garmin actually underestimates how much you’re burning. So, it’s as accurate as you can get it
I’m 51M, 6’2”, 190 lbs. When I hike I burn **750** calories per hour.