Your biggest one hour calorie burn while running?

Donelson

I managed to drag mine over 1100 last night according to my gamin. probably not super accurate but a nice big number all the same!

rom

1,444 for 72 mins = 1203 for 60 mins

tunney

Donelson wrote: »

I managed to drag mine over 1100 last night according to my gamin. probably not super accurate but a nice big number all the same!

Which garmin, which method of calculation.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

Donelson

tunney wrote: »

Donelson wrote: »

I managed to drag mine over 1100 last night according to my gamin. probably not super accurate but a nice big number all the same!

Which garmin, which method of calculation.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

my was with a 305 and hr strap, so if I'm reading the link (thanks btw) it will be using the fr60 algorithim.
When I think about it the fitter you get the less calories you'll burn for a given speed/distance!

Krusty_Clown

Donelson wrote: »

my was with a 305 and hr strap, so if I'm reading the link (thanks btw) it will be using the fr60 algorithim.
When I think about it the fitter you get the less calories you'll burn for a given speed/distance!

Also, the heavier you are, the more calories you burn. So this thread favours the more portly ladies and gentlemen. So, who's gonna post a winner now?

rom

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Also, the heavier you are, the more calories you burn. So this thread favours the more portly ladies and gentlemen. So, who's gonna post a winner now?

That got me crying into to my coco-pops that are balanced on my belly.

huskerdu

Thanks for the link tunney.

I love looking at the calories burned on my 305, for the laugh. I do like numbers
and graphs and patterns and as far as I can see, its random.

The average calories burned per km for my height and weight is 60.

Sometimes it varies from 59 to 62 and there is no colleration with speed
or elevation. I don't use the HRM very often, but when I do the variation is
more, but I don't see any colleration with HR.

Of course, its only an estimate and the difference over the run is minimal, but
I do like my numbers to make sense ( An engineering degree does that to you).

slowsteady

Came across this yesterday http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/

Convincing argument on the benefit of running versus walking in the calories burned stakes. Also discusses the post-run calorie burn-off from higher metabolism levels.

Did 20 miles on Sunday, burned c.2,200 calories, and between mid-run re-hydration and nutrition and post-run feed consumed most of them again:o

Donelson

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Donelson wrote: »

my was with a 305 and hr strap, so if I'm reading the link (thanks btw) it will be using the fr60 algorithim.
When I think about it the fitter you get the less calories you'll burn for a given speed/distance!

Also, the heavier you are, the more calories you burn. So this thread favours the more portly ladies and gentlemen. So, who's gonna post a winner now?

Does it matter if your heavier stronger or heavier fatter?

rom

Donelson wrote: »

Does it matter if your heavier stronger or heavier fatter?

When it comes to running both slow you down I'd say

huskerdu

Donelson wrote: »

Does it matter if your heavier stronger or heavier fatter?

Not in this case. The amount of calories that it takes to move 80kg is more than it takes to move 70kg.

But, as has already been mentioned, the average values used by Garmins and other calculators, are just that - averages. Any individuals might be different.

rom

huskerdu wrote: »

Not in this case. The amount of calories that it takes to move 80kg is more than it takes to move 70kg.

But, as has already been mentioned, the average values used by Garmins and other calculators, are just that - averages. Any individuals might be different.

I presume that it uses my weight and HR to work it out though.