Running cal estimates - what do you do?

Whatever my Garmin (without HRM) says is what I use.

Garmin works out your mass, travelling at a certain pace, over a certain distance. So does every GPS device/app used without a HRM strap. Its always worked fine for me.

The thing with a standard HRM is that it deducts your BMR before calculating your cal burn, whereas (I think) MFP doesn't, nor do the apps, nor does a Garmin or similar GPS.

The thing with a standard HRM is that it deducts your BMR before calculating your cal burn, whereas (I think) MFP doesn't, nor do the apps, nor does a Garmin or similar GPS.

Oh wow, really? Now it suddenly all makes sense. I didn't know that the HRM deducted BMR first. Now it suddenly all makes so much more sense! For my last 10mile run, my runkeeper app estimated 1693. My HRM gave me about 900.

I'd been thinking about maybe getting a garmin, as I was picking up variations from the standard HRM, for running, but I hadn't understood why.

Do you think it's worth 'trading up' to a garmin? (I've got a Polar FT7 at the moment.)

There are a few models of Garmin that don't use your HR in the calories burned calculations. It's merely there for observation, not function. Stick with the Polar FT7. Polar has always been known for leading the field in HRMs. I use both, my Garmin and FT7, and the Polar is always more consistent.

Also of note the Garmin X10 models use a different calculation than the older X05 models. The X05 models based their calorie burns off distance where the X10 models calculations include HR.

Do you think it's worth 'trading up' to a garmin? (I've got a Polar FT7 at the moment.)

Depends how much of a running geek you are! I'm about an 8 on the geek scale. I have to be able to see my pace, distance, lap pace in real time whilst running. Its not easy to do that with a phone app, especially when going balls out in a race.

The HRM feature isn't that important to me but the "on the fly" info is.

Incidentally, due to the type of running I normally do, I think the lack of HRM compensates for the soggy terrain and elevation changes I experience. I'm not good at running with a strap. Maybe its something i should train myself to do but i just find it too restrictive.

Also of note the Garmin X10 models use a different calculation than the older X05 models. The X05 models based their calorie burns off distance where the X10 models calculations include HR.

So the x10 uses a combination of HR and distance / elevation?

www.dcrainmaker.com

He goes into depth on his reviews but not sure if he actually gets into the equation. I can't get to his blog from work but you can check it out.

I think the only way to be 100% accurate would be to exercise in a lab which is as unrealistic as it gets. As a 10 year runner, according to my Garmin, I burn about 150 calories per mile while running at a 9 minute per mile pace. I don't know if that is 100% accurate but it is as much data as I will ever have. I burn about 110 calories per mile when I walk. Agaiin, not sure how accurate but it works for me.

I use a Garmin (no HRM) GPS watch which calculates it based on body weight, speed and the route.

The problem with formulas such as the .75 * weight * distance is that if you are running on streets with lots of hills, that will make a huge difference. The formulas are all based on flat mileage. The GPS computes calories for each individual mile (not a generally useful feature) and I have a couple of absolutely brutal hills near my house and a mile with one of those hills can be 20-25% more calories than a flatter mile.

^This ties back into the amount of effort you put in, which can't be tracked using distance/time. A simple test on the treadmill proves this, run at 1 minute with no incline, then 1 minute with say a 6% incline. You'll notice during that second minute your heart is pumping faster and you're probably breathing harder. I run the same loop around my house frequently and burn anywhere from 130-300 calories (using my HRM), on the exact same course, just depends on how hard I push myself. There is too much variation to leave it to chance, at least that's my opinion. Get an HRM, it's worth it. It's also very useful because as Trail Addict said, the more you run the better your AHR will get, and you can't track that progress any other way.

I'm reading quite contradictory things about the best way to estimate calorie burn for running. Some articles suggest HRM is best, others suggest that a distance / weight based calculation is more accurate.

What do you use?

HRM here Meerkat. However, if I had no HRM, I would estimate the run at 100 calories per mile, regardless as to the speed I ran. Actually, the faster I ran the more calories I would burn.

HRM!!! I use it for all exercises, even strength.