Runners

Options
2»

Replies

  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    Options
    I burn 90-95. or so the heartrate thing that came with the garmin says! If i go faster (which is rare) then it does go up to over 100.

    Some Garmin models only calculate calories based off of distance and pace, and not HR, even though it may have a HR strap. I know my Garmin Forerunner 305 doesn't use HR to calculate calories burned.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    My Garmin 610 definitely basis it on HR.
  • gingerfoxxx
    gingerfoxxx Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    I burn 90-95. or so the heartrate thing that came with the garmin says! If i go faster (which is rare) then it does go up to over 100.

    Some Garmin models only calculate calories based off of distance and pace, and not HR, even though it may have a HR strap. I know my Garmin Forerunner 305 doesn't use HR to calculate calories burned.

    hmmmm, thats good to know....i should probably bust out the 8,348 page manual and try figure the darn thing out.....thanks!
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    There is actually a point where you burn more walking than you do running. There was an interesting article in runners world about it. I'm sure you could find it on their website.

    I remember reading that article and thought it was very interesting. It maintained, by the author's personal testing, that those who run at very slow speeds will burn more calories than those who run at a "normal" running speed. The same is true for those who walk at very fast speeds. The reason that was given is because these actions are not natural, so your body has to work differently and therefore will burn more calories.
  • atsteele
    atsteele Posts: 1,358 Member
    Options
    I have heard the 100 per mile thing too, but I am at more like 80 per mile, at 5'5" 133 lbs. It's annoying me!

    Im right there with you!! It could be worse... ;)
  • TS65
    TS65 Posts: 1,024 Member
    Options
    I think it has more to do with time run than miles run. I run for an hour and burn anywhere from 450 - 600. I only run 3.5 - 4 miles. Those that are faster can run more mile than I do in an hour, but from what I see, it seems as though they burn a similar number of calories. (can't back it up by fact though, it's just an observation)
  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    Options
    I don't think "speed" is really the factor. It's all relative.

    Someone who is fast may not necessarily burn more calories per mile as someone who is minutes slower. That faster person will likely have a higher lactate threshold and higher Vo2 max than the slower person; making them more 'efficient' at covering that mile, albeit "faster". But simply because they cross the mile minutes faster doesn't necessarily mean they burned any more calories than their slower counterpart. I believe, through my own HRM observations, that your average HR and max HR over the distance plays as much a role in the calories burned as your age, weight, height and gender, but "speed" not necessarily being a component.

    Oh, and for that conversation that suggests the slower person burns more calories than the faster person, I believe that is only over a specific distance, NOT a specific time. The winner of the marathon will be done in just over two hours, while the back-of-the-packers are coming in at 5 and 6 hours. Since the slower people were out there for 3-4 hours longer, it's safe to say they will burn more calories simply because they contributed both high effort PLUS a longer workout. I'd be interested to see who burned more calories if the winner and last place person both stopped at 2 hours. That's the question.
  • KatyFace9801
    KatyFace9801 Posts: 230 Member
    Options
    I usually average 75 calories per mile. I would kill for 100 cal per mile! haha

Categories