Garmin elevation graph

[Curlygurly2]

After I climbed what felt like several mountains on my run yesterday, I was disappointed to see Garmin only gave me 46 MTs of elevation. I then trailed the cursor over the green elevation graph, and all the little rises I went up are there, but not included in the splits. It's about 30 MTs adrift - anyone able to explain this?

[Irishprincess Graduate]

I can't help with the technical reason CG maybe something to do with the scale. I know that sometimes I run what feels like, and clearly is, a hilly run and then when I look at my Garmin page it looks relatively flat!

You could pm MarkyD as he's a bit of an technical guru.

[Curlygurly2 Graduate in reply to Irishprincess]

It's not so much that it looks flat, it doesn't - the hills clearly show, but don't appear in the splits..and my runs get imported to MapMyRun and they give me the correct elevation. Weird

[runswithdogs Graduate]

I have always assumed that it takes the maximum elevation distance - so the number from your highest hill to you lowest valley. I didn't think it measured up each individual hill and totalled it, though that would be neat. But this is just what I've assumed.

[Curlygurly2 Graduate in reply to runswithdogs]

Yes, it does, or should! If you run the cursor over the elevation line you can see the gain or loss as it happens.

[AndyD Graduate]

You could try another program like MapMyRun and plot your route to see how that differs...

[Curlygurly2 Graduate in reply to AndyD]

My runs get imported into MMR, there I usually get far nearer to the correct elevation. For this particular run MMR gave me 74 MTs, Garmin only 46 - at least on the splits table. The green graph is correct. That's what I don't understand..