Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: UN-COG-KNEE-TOE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    122

    New question here. HRM Calorie Computation vs. Older method

    I am curious if anyone has experience with any of Garmin's Newer Hear Rate Monitoring Systems for Calorie Computation vs. the old style that the Edge and Older Forerunner units and such use?
    I wonder if the HRM technology is really MORE accurate for Calories burned and also how far apart the results really are if anyone has compared them Yet in actual use?

  2. #2
    Disgruntled Peccary
    Reputation: dysfunction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    867
    It's more accurate, as far as I know the only thing more accurate would be co2 percentage. While I only have a 405 in the Garmin, my other HRM does heartrate based calorie rather than distance based.

    For instance... the 405 does the same calories burned per mile, regardless of the grade traveled or altitude. So say... walking a level mile at sea level is the same PE as that same mile on a 30% grade at 12,000' yea.. right.
    mike

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: UN-COG-KNEE-TOE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    122

    ...comparing the 2 Calorie Computation systems

    Quote Originally Posted by dysfunction
    It's more accurate, as far as I know the only thing more accurate would be co2 percentage. While I only have a 405 in the Garmin, my other HRM does heartrate based calorie rather than distance based.

    For instance... the 405 does the same calories burned per mile, regardless of the grade traveled or altitude. So say... walking a level mile at sea level is the same PE as that same mile on a 30% grade at 12,000' yea.. right.
    Thanks for posting. Good info, But I guess i am trying to find out how much the 2 styles of computations vary on the Same workout. I am trying to gauge HOW much the Distance Based calculations differ when compared to the HRM calculations on the SAME workout. Has anyone who has 2 tried using Both simultaneously yet for comparison sake?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: UN-COG-KNEE-TOE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    122

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! ...asked and answered

    Since no one on the forum seemed to have Compared the 2 kinds of units simultaneously, i decided to just buy a Brand New Garmin 405cx to compare to my Edge 705 on rides, since the 405cx does Heart Rate based Calorie Computation.
    I presumed that this method Must be More accurate than the Distance-based computations since Hill Climbing and Activities at Higher elevations are more of a workout, as Dysfunction pointed out!
    After 8 rides using BOTH units simultaneously, i have data that shows the 405cx is recording about 30% Overall higher Calories burned than my 705 does, and on Rides with a lot of climbing and prolonged elevated Hear Rates, there is as much as 50% more calories burned when comparing the 2 Units.
    I now have a quantifiable comparison.
    Last edited by UN-COG-KNEE-TOE; 09-28-2009 at 10:45 PM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    162
    Well done... looking for a buyer for the 705 now

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    321
    Thank you very much! You just saved me time & money as I've been considering a 705 for the longest time. I guess I'll be looking for a GPS specific model now & leave the HRM to my Polar units.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Sometimes
    Thank you very much! You just saved me time & money as I've been considering a 705 for the longest time. I guess I'll be looking for a GPS specific model now & leave the HRM to my Polar units.
    U'uuh ... maybe not ... Yeah, I can't seem to make up mind but I just did a comparo of features of the Oregon 550t vs 705 & was reminded that the 705 has "Courses (compete against previous workouts):" feature. I'll leave that to another thread.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zudnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    90
    I've compared mine to what I get on my garmin fr60 and the results are never really that far from each other. OP can do whatever they want of course, but I'll be keeping my 705 for sure and only use the watch when I'm doing something like rowing.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: UN-COG-KNEE-TOE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    122

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Calorie computations...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zudnik
    I've compared mine to what I get on my garmin fr60 and the results are never really that far from each other. OP can do whatever they want of course, but I'll be keeping my 705 for sure and only use the watch when I'm doing something like rowing.

    ...you might have missed the point of the thread, your FR60 and 705 BOTH use the same Distance based Calorie Computations... of course they will give you about the same results.
    This thread arose around my curiosity about the actual differences the new Heart-Rate based Calorie technology would reveal, it makes sense they would be More accurate. I am getting 30-50% differences between the 2 units depending on the Hill workouts i do, so distance based is likely going to become obsolete as it is Far from accurate.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    25
    I am far from being an expert at any of this but I just thought I would add some information since I was thinking about colorie counting and my 705 just today. It has not been clear to me how much influence the HRM has on calories counted relative to my 705. Just for the heck of it I did not wear my HRM today and went over a known training course that I have been on several times. Based on the results I would have to think there is some benefit to accuracy derived from using the HRM with the 705. Over a 12 mile hilly course I recorded about 20% more calories burned on the 705 when the heart monitor was not in use. So there must be some influence from the HRM that does not relate to distance because the distance was the same in both cases. Now I have no experience at all with the 405cx mentioned in this thread. I just thought that I should mention what I had experienced since I think one point being made in this thread is that the calorie counting feature in the 705 is speed and distance based. At least from what I saw today I would have to say there is some benefit to accuracy coming from the HRM that comes with the 705 that does not correlate to speed or distance. It was clear to me while I was riding that without the HRM, the 705 was overstating calories counted for hill climbs as an example. Without the HRM the 705 was counting as much as 30 calories burned in stretched that usually record 10 to 15 calories. Does anyone have any specifics on how the 705 actually calculates calories with the HRM in use?

    Thanks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •