Discussion: 4 sec longer...

...you must be getting older ;)

So you got a new GPS - why the 205 instead of 305?
I suppose the price is better, any other reasons?

I was thinking that yesterday - getting old issue. If I get 4 sec / hour worse every day ... not good. Maybe I should compensate it by training a bit more and every every year.

But also distance of the loop was 10 m longer this time, so maybe I don't need to worry. I am not loosing speed, the universe is getting larger.

---

Price was better (245 euros), and I already have good Polar HRM (710i) with barometric altimeter, so if I need hr or altitude data I can take both units and join logs afterwards. And data is better than whout you get from 305 (better altimeter).

... and my wife has now 305, so I can borrow it if I like. I bought 305 for her because it is red, very same color as her laptop ;]

This universe getting larger thing - I´m not too sure about that...

Since I started using my GPS all my previously map-measured runs have become shorter - meaning all my runs done when I was younger actually weren´t as fast as I thought! I don´t know what to do about that?

Do you have any experience from the 'calorie readings' from your watch? I usually don´t care too much about those, but noticed yesterday that I was supposed to have used almost 2000 calories for a one hour run. This sounds a bit too much...

What! Don't you believe in Hubble?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/h...

I think I can calculate the exact age of the universe by running the same loop couple of times more.

---

I haven't checked calory readings. But as far as I know we use about 1 kcal / kg / km. So if you weight 70 kg and you ran 11 km, you have used about 770 kcal.

For 2000 kcal your weight should be about 100 kg and and you should have run 3min/km (20 km).

I guess forerunner uses also climb data for these calory calculations. GPS altitude readings go up and down a lot, so you may have got some extra hills and that might explain it. And you should check what you have typed in as your weight. Maybe lbs as kg?

There´s nothing wrong with my personal settings in the software or the watch - I checked it out. But as you say, the altitude readings aren´t particularly accurate, at least from what I can tell, so that may be one of the reasons. I ran an almost completely flat course yesterday, but the difference in altitude was quite big...
I was talking to a colleague today about the same thing and he mentioned the same numbers (800-1000) for an hour´s exercise, so there´s definitely something wrong - numbers are usually twice that. Oh well, it really doesn´t matter since I´ve never paid any attention to this before - I just won´t in the future either.