Amazon Vehicles Editors' Picks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now STEM

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-12 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 13, 2011 7:27:15 AM PST
RockstarV says:
I just got my HRM and was so excited to try it out. I use it to track calories burned at home when I do my cardio exercises. Well I was 15 minutes into my cardio, sweating, working hard and I looked at the watch and it said 15 calories burn!? WTH? What am I doing wrong? Settings? Strap? This doesn't seem to be accurate at all. Please help.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2011 8:36:33 AM PST
D. Patton says:
The exact same thing happened to me after I completed an Insanity workout that is supposed to burn over 700 calories. The 305 said I burned 70. I was so mad! I called Garmin and this monitor does not calculate calories burned based on HR, it only tracks calories based on distance. So, if you're working out in front of your TV, it won't register your calories. If you run outdoors, it should work. Since I have 6 inches of snow and -2 degree windchill outside, I won't be able to test it's accuracy for quite some time. If you want the one that tracks calories based on HR expenditure, you'll have to buy the 310xt which is just under $400. For that price I'll do the computing myself, since I bought the 305 to track my distance as I'm training for a half marathon once we get our thaw here in Iowa. Best of luck!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2011 5:01:18 AM PST
VJS-NM says:
D. Patton is right. The calories are based on distance only. I hiked a flat 11.28 miles and supposedly burned 893 calories. Yesterday I hiked 9.72 miles with an elevation gain of over 1300 feet and supposedly burned less calories at 857 calories. I have noticed the same thing with by biking. Regardless of my effort, heart rate, speed or terrain, my calories burned are based on the miles I have traveled. I too am bummed about not being able to track real calorie burn, but at least it does everything else like heart rate, elevation gains, miles, etc. Like D. Patton, I am not going to pay $400 for that one feature.

Posted on Feb 1, 2011 3:10:38 PM PST
I just realized this too, with my FR 305 ... I've been doing indoor spin and brutal weight workouts with no calorie count ... My best suggestion is to use your HR Monitor to track which zone you are in during your workouts and for how long. As long as I spend most of my time in Zone 4 ... I know I am burning a good amount of calories, since running on the weekends (10 miles in about 1 hour 40 mins) clocks me a 1125 calories if I stay in zones 3 and 4 ... it will take time, but you'll be able to figure out you best fat/calorie burning zone :) Good luck!

Posted on Feb 7, 2011 4:05:14 PM PST
teamMC says:
yeah, I think the real thing is that by name this thing is a GPS receiver.... even though it touts having a heart rate monitor in it and doing calories, I don't think it's meant to work the same way a dedicated heart rate monitor is. It is definitely confusing though- It's good that people are bringing this up to stop others from being disappointed too!

Posted on Feb 28, 2011 1:07:03 PM PST
lelee17 says:
So glad I found this post! I was wondering the same thing when I did my cardio workout at home. while I love my Garmin for running, I am kinda bummed that it doesn't calculate actual calories burned for other activities.

Posted on Jun 7, 2011 12:12:46 PM PDT
I never thought the FR 305 would give a really accurate calorie count and I knew it was based on distance, but I thought since it also tracks elevations, heart rate, and pace that there would be an algorithm in there that would at least take these things into account. Ok, maybe it doesn't, but I am confused then about the inconsistencies. If for example a mile is roughly 125 calories which I think is reasonable, the same mileage should always yield the same results. It never seemed to do this although the discrepancies were small ones. Lately though they have become more extreme. Example I ran 9 miles and it said 1004 calories, then I ran 11 miles and it said 1100 calories and the 11 miles had a lot of hills in it too!

Posted on Jun 7, 2011 12:20:43 PM PDT
DK says:
I never thought the FR 305 would give a really accurate calorie count and I knew it was based on distance, but I thought since it also tracks elevations, heart rate, and pace that there would be an algorithm in there that would at least take these things into account. Ok, maybe it doesn't, but I am confused then about the inconsistencies. If for example a mile is roughly 125 calories which I think is reasonable, the same mileage should always yield the same results. It never seemed to do this although the discrepancies were small ones. Lately though they have become more extreme. Example I ran 9 miles and it said 1004 calories, then I ran 11 miles and it said 1100 calories and the 11 miles had a lot of hills in it too!

Posted on Jun 8, 2011 8:38:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 8, 2011 8:38:50 AM PDT
roeselare says:
Heh, you guys are funny. You'll have to pay a lot more for a medical calorie counter that monitors total biological activity. How did you think a watch could do it? It should calculate for speed (loss of efficiency due to running) and it could add a factor for climbing hills, but subtract for coming down hills?

Another thing to consider, if you're interested in total daily calorie expenditure, just sitting around - your body is using a third of a calorie per pound per minute (2/3 less than that per minute while sleeping). Of course, your 'mileage' will vary (age, sex, genetics), but you can still get a good idea why it's so difficult to lose weight. If it was easier we wouldn't have survived..

Posted on Sep 21, 2011 7:26:05 AM PDT
while using the 305, can i change the system of measurement to metric? please respond soon.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:07:44 PM PST
S Detweiler says:
I'm a runner and have a polar watch that tells me how many calories I've burned off during a run. But, this watch has no GPS (so it does not know my distance traveled!) and only knows my gender, weight age, varying heart rate during the course of the run, and the time spent running. Using maps I can figure the distance myself, I have discovered that my distance (in miles) is always 84 times the total number of Calories burned --- with an accuracy of 2%! I'll note that I Live in Florida and my routes are always pretty flat. I'd like to know how the calorie calculation is being done by polar!

Posted on Aug 9, 2012 9:22:48 AM PDT
DoubleShot says:
Its ridiculous that Garmin or any other manufacturer puts a "Calories Burned" estimate without using heart rate info. The 2 are directly correlated. The algorithm should add factors of age, weight (or BMI--though this is fraught with issues depending on whether one is a bodybuilder or couch potato), and gender for the estimate. Distance traveled is irrelevant.

Seems pretty straightforward. C'mon Garmin!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  12
Total posts:  12
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2011
Latest post:  Aug 9, 2012


Search Customer Discussions