not burning a lot of calories doing insanity

lexlyn14
lexlyn14 Posts: 290 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi...I have posted a similar topic a month ago but still need help...
I run every day 3 1/2 miles and burn 325 calories according to my heart rate monitor...

I have started insanity last month also...I have only burned 225 through 275 calories for each workout in month one...I burned 325 in month 2 work outs...When I check my heart rate sporadically it is just as high as when I am running...I also give it 100% I hardly stop through out the workout...

I sweat way more than I ever had and I feel I am working way harder than I ever had even harder than running...
My heart rate monitor is working...I am wetting the strap...I just do not get it...Believe me I am giving it 100 % I am panting on the floor covered in sweat at the end...

So does any one else have this problem???

Shouldnt I be burning more calories...By the way I am 5 ft 4 1/2 inches tall and weigh 126...

As a side note I still love insanity I find it pushes my body to limits I never knew I had...It is great for my mind and I know I am toning places that running never could but I am so CONFUSED as to the calorie burn...

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    HRM is estimating 2 things to then estimate your calories burned based on HR.

    HRmax and VO2max.

    You don't mention what HRM you are using.

    HRmax
    Vast majority including Polar assume 220-age is your max, which for women, you have better chance of being 10 bpm outside that range than in it.
    It level is mainly genetic, and if you have kept cardio fit as you age it doesn't lower nearly as much if at all. (I'm 26 by that formula compared to tested value, I'm really 44 though).
    So if it assumes 220-30 = 190 HRmax.
    You do a workout with avgHR about 160. Doesn't look that high to HRM, so it assumes not much intensity, low calorie burn.
    But if your real HRmax was actually 170, you actually had a very intense workout and burned a whole lot more calories.

    VO2max
    Cheaper Polar models without a self-test for this and stat you can change, assume a bad BMI number means bad VO2max number. Which is bad assumption too, you can have a BMI that according to tables looks bad, but you are in great shape and have a great VO2max.
    And training raises this someone if done right.
    So if HRM saw a bad BMI and assumed bad VO2max, and your avgHR was 160 during a session, combined with HRmax, it would think you had a high HR because you are unfit, not burning a lot of calories.
    But if in reality you are in great cardio shape, that 160 means you are really burning it up a lot.

    This is why people think that you burn less doing the exact same workout even if your weight doesn't change, but your HR goes down, but the pace stays the same. Because you get cardio fit, so HR can be lower to burn the exact same amount of energy.

    In fact, VO2max effects the estimate more than HRmax.

    Now, some HRM's have a HRmax stat solely for making HR zones with, not even used in the math for calories (Timex)
    And some don't get enough stats to calculate a BMI like Polar does (Timex).

    So there could be many reasons why it reads low.

    Here's great thing though, you should have what the HRM actually does - Monitor your Heart Rate, and know what the avgHR was during some sessions, and you said same as running.

    There's the answer. Running between 5 to 6.3 mph on a treadmill has formulas that are more accurate than HRM's by a long shot.

    You figure out how much that running is if between those speeds and level, and if you hit that HR doing Insanity, you've burned the same amount.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Choose Gross for comparing to HRM, choose NET to log your workout and eat back that amount.

Categories