Interval training how to calculate calories
equidivine
Posts: 101 Member
Iv just worked out 5 mins walks at 6.0 then minute on and minute off for 25 mins. 6.0 walk and 11.00 running. Then 5 mins cool down. Any ideas how much I would of burnt?
0
Replies
-
Use distance covered at the average pace1
-
I would log the number of minutes walking at the walking pace and then the number of minutes running at the running pace if I wasn't using an app like RunDouble, which tracks all that for you.1
-
Sorry stupid question also on the treadmill is it kilometre per hour? Or miles? I was doing 11 when running and I'm tiny like 5ft3 so fast for my little legs lol just want to get this correct on logging0
-
Do you have a heart rate monitor or are you doing it on a treadmill? It really depends on the level of intensity and your heart rate if you want to be accurate.
If you take the average heart rate, you can find a calculator online that should give you a pretty good calorie estimate.
Without knowing your level of intensity (heart rate), it would be a guess for anyone.
On a side note 6.0 (assuming treadmill) isn't usually a walk for most people unless you have very long legs and are walking very fast.1 -
Heart rate when walking or jogging or ski machine or anything is normal 170-180 and I walk really fast naturally I used to sprint for wales0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »Use distance covered at the average pace
This is probably your best option.slowbubblecar wrote: »Without knowing your level of intensity (heart rate), it would be a guess for anyone.
On a treadmill, pace (aka speed) is probably the best proxy for intensity/effort. Heart rate is your body's reaction, to the effort and to other things like how much caffeine you've had lately, your emotional state, hydration level, etc.0 -
slowbubblecar wrote: »Do you have a heart rate monitor or are you doing it on a treadmill? It really depends on the level of intensity and your heart rate if you want to be accurate.
If you take the average heart rate, you can find a calculator online that should give you a pretty good calorie estimate.
Without knowing your level of intensity (heart rate), it would be a guess for anyone.
On a side note 6.0 (assuming treadmill) isn't usually a walk for most people unless you have very long legs and are walking very fast.
HR is not a very accurate way to measure calories. Distance running and distance walking (as well as your weight) are the important numbers. Plus, unless you traveled many miles, the burn isn't that great. I'd just take the actual distance you ran and use that as the number.1 -
equidivine wrote: »Sorry stupid question also on the treadmill is it kilometre per hour? Or miles? I was doing 11 when running and I'm tiny like 5ft3 so fast for my little legs lol just want to get this correct on logging
I would think that if you are in a country that uses metric it would be in metric. 11 mph is fast. That's 17.7 km per hour, if that helps.0 -
slowbubblecar wrote: »Do you have a heart rate monitor or are you doing it on a treadmill? It really depends on the level of intensity and your heart rate if you want to be accurate.
If you take the average heart rate, you can find a calculator online that should give you a pretty good calorie estimate.
Without knowing your level of intensity (heart rate), it would be a guess for anyone.
On a side note 6.0 (assuming treadmill) isn't usually a walk for most people unless you have very long legs and are walking very fast.
HR is not a very accurate way to measure calories. Distance running and distance walking (as well as your weight) are the important numbers. Plus, unless you traveled many miles, the burn isn't that great. I'd just take the actual distance you ran and use that as the number.
I guess we disagree then. If I know my avg heart rate, I can use an online calculator to estimate calories based on my height, weight and age.
If you walk a mile down a hill, are you burning the same amount of calories you would burn walking a mile up a steep hill at the same pace?
Just using distance covered doesn't take into consideration the level of exertion.0 -
slowbubblecar wrote: »slowbubblecar wrote: »Do you have a heart rate monitor or are you doing it on a treadmill? It really depends on the level of intensity and your heart rate if you want to be accurate.
If you take the average heart rate, you can find a calculator online that should give you a pretty good calorie estimate.
Without knowing your level of intensity (heart rate), it would be a guess for anyone.
On a side note 6.0 (assuming treadmill) isn't usually a walk for most people unless you have very long legs and are walking very fast.
HR is not a very accurate way to measure calories. Distance running and distance walking (as well as your weight) are the important numbers. Plus, unless you traveled many miles, the burn isn't that great. I'd just take the actual distance you ran and use that as the number.
I guess we disagree then. If I know my avg heart rate, I can use an online calculator to estimate calories based on my height, weight and age.
If you walk a mile down a hill, are you burning the same amount of calories you would burn walking a mile up a steep hill at the same pace?
Just using distance covered doesn't take into consideration the level of exertion.
If I run 10 minutes at 5 miles per hour or 10 minutes at 6 miles per hour, my heart rate will not change. Only the distance I run will change (I am a long distance runner and this is accurate - my HR would not change at these paces). Do I burn the same calories?
Here's a nicely written explanation of what is really happening. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
Also, running downhill is more difficult than many imagine. Different muscles for sure, but still not easy.0 -
slowbubblecar wrote: »If I know my avg heart rate, I can use an online calculator to estimate calories based on my height, weight and age.
Sure, but you can do that if you don't know your heart rate, too.
Heart rate is useful for guessing calories on a bike, for reasons that don't have anything to do with running. Running the same mile at any pace will burn about the same number of calories. That's just plain physics, the amount of work done doesn't change. That's vastly different on a bike. Most bikes have freewheels, you can't coast when you run. People have a fairly narrow range of speeds they can run at, not enough for air resistance to change meaningfully. On a bike, it takes 8x the power/calories to go 2x as fast. People don't double their running speed when they sprint, and in any case we're talking about a lady on a treadmill.
An HRM can be a useful training and pacing tool for runners.0 -
slowbubblecar wrote: »slowbubblecar wrote: »Do you have a heart rate monitor or are you doing it on a treadmill? It really depends on the level of intensity and your heart rate if you want to be accurate.
If you take the average heart rate, you can find a calculator online that should give you a pretty good calorie estimate.
Without knowing your level of intensity (heart rate), it would be a guess for anyone.
On a side note 6.0 (assuming treadmill) isn't usually a walk for most people unless you have very long legs and are walking very fast.
HR is not a very accurate way to measure calories. Distance running and distance walking (as well as your weight) are the important numbers. Plus, unless you traveled many miles, the burn isn't that great. I'd just take the actual distance you ran and use that as the number.
I guess we disagree then. If I know my avg heart rate, I can use an online calculator to estimate calories based on my height, weight and age.
If you walk a mile down a hill, are you burning the same amount of calories you would burn walking a mile up a steep hill at the same pace?
Just using distance covered doesn't take into consideration the level of exertion.
If I run 10 minutes at 5 miles per hour or 10 minutes at 6 miles per hour, my heart rate will not change. Only the distance I run will change (I am a long distance runner and this is accurate - my HR would not change at these paces). Do I burn the same calories?
Here's a nicely written explanation of what is really happening. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
Also, running downhill is more difficult than many imagine. Different muscles for sure, but still not easy.
I wouldn't expect a big change for a long distance runner with a 1mph difference. When I was running 7 miles a day and getting ready for my half marathon, it wouldn't make a difference to me either. If it was someone with a lower level of fitness, their heart rate could go up a bit.
I agree that running downhill is more difficult and would personally prefer to run uphill than downhill, but when I was doing the Spartan races and Tough Mudder races, I would catch my breath again on the down hill sections and didn't feel like I was doing much of the work as the hill propelled me.
Even at the same weight level, there can be a substantial amount of difference in the level of fitness between two people. I don't think it would be a stretch to say a very sedentary person who doesn't workout at all would burn more calories than someone the same weight who is on a regular cardio workout schedule. An example would be someone at 250 pounds who can't barely climb a flight of stairs and a 250 pound person who exercises for an hour a day. If they did the same workout (ex ran 1hr at 6mph), I would suspect the out of shape person would have burned more calories as they would likely be at a much higher HR.
I understand that HR is just an estimate, but everything is an estimate. Personally, I would prefer to go based on my HR than weight and distance traveled.
0 -
slowbubblecar wrote: »An example would be someone at 250 pounds who can't barely climb a flight of stairs and a 250 pound person who exercises for an hour a day. If they did the same workout (ex ran 1hr at 6mph), I would suspect the out of shape person would have burned more calories as they would likely be at a much higher HR.
Somebody who can't barely climb a flight of stairs can't run a 10K. However many calories you expect either of them to burn, it's like asking how many angles can dance on the head of a pin if only one of them can actually do it.slowbubblecar wrote: »I understand that HR is just an estimate, but everything is an estimate.
Think about it for a minute, if it was impossible to measure burnt calories ever at all, it wouldn't be possible to estimate them either. It's like you can go to the store and find out how many dollars something costs, because we can all agree on the value of a dollar; you can't go to the store and find out how much Monopoly Money something costs because that doesn't have a set value. All sorts of things can be used to measure energy use, like metabolic chambers, doubly labeled water, power meters, etc.0 -
slowbubblecar wrote: »slowbubblecar wrote: »slowbubblecar wrote: »Do you have a heart rate monitor or are you doing it on a treadmill? It really depends on the level of intensity and your heart rate if you want to be accurate.
If you take the average heart rate, you can find a calculator online that should give you a pretty good calorie estimate.
Without knowing your level of intensity (heart rate), it would be a guess for anyone.
On a side note 6.0 (assuming treadmill) isn't usually a walk for most people unless you have very long legs and are walking very fast.
HR is not a very accurate way to measure calories. Distance running and distance walking (as well as your weight) are the important numbers. Plus, unless you traveled many miles, the burn isn't that great. I'd just take the actual distance you ran and use that as the number.
I guess we disagree then. If I know my avg heart rate, I can use an online calculator to estimate calories based on my height, weight and age.
If you walk a mile down a hill, are you burning the same amount of calories you would burn walking a mile up a steep hill at the same pace?
Just using distance covered doesn't take into consideration the level of exertion.
If I run 10 minutes at 5 miles per hour or 10 minutes at 6 miles per hour, my heart rate will not change. Only the distance I run will change (I am a long distance runner and this is accurate - my HR would not change at these paces). Do I burn the same calories?
Here's a nicely written explanation of what is really happening. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
Also, running downhill is more difficult than many imagine. Different muscles for sure, but still not easy.
I wouldn't expect a big change for a long distance runner with a 1mph difference. When I was running 7 miles a day and getting ready for my half marathon, it wouldn't make a difference to me either. If it was someone with a lower level of fitness, their heart rate could go up a bit.
I agree that running downhill is more difficult and would personally prefer to run uphill than downhill, but when I was doing the Spartan races and Tough Mudder races, I would catch my breath again on the down hill sections and didn't feel like I was doing much of the work as the hill propelled me.
Even at the same weight level, there can be a substantial amount of difference in the level of fitness between two people. I don't think it would be a stretch to say a very sedentary person who doesn't workout at all would burn more calories than someone the same weight who is on a regular cardio workout schedule. An example would be someone at 250 pounds who can't barely climb a flight of stairs and a 250 pound person who exercises for an hour a day. If they did the same workout (ex ran 1hr at 6mph), I would suspect the out of shape person would have burned more calories as they would likely be at a much higher HR.
I understand that HR is just an estimate, but everything is an estimate. Personally, I would prefer to go based on my HR than weight and distance traveled.
Assuming the more out of shape person had enough conditioning to run 6 mph and be in a steady-state condition, if both weigh 250 lbs, then calorie burn will be roughly the same.
Calorie burn is based on the metabolic cost of the workload, not on the actual heart rate itself. This is a common mistake made by people who don't know basic exercise physiology (understandable, since they are not exercise physiologists). The energy cost of running 6 mph is roughly 10 METs, no matter who is doing it.
In the scenario you described, the unfit person will have a greater perceived effort, because running 6 mph represents a higher percentage of their maximum HR.However that doesn't change the energy cost of running 6 mph.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions