Concept 2 Rowing Calories
MilesAddie
Posts: 166 Member
Quick Question:
Is the 'calorie' function on the monitor how much energy YOU are putting into the machine, or how much energy is being created with the energy you input multipled by the simple mechanics (pulleys,etc) within the machine.
I ask because a 40 calorie row in 4 minutes seems high....although I am rowing for time in a WOD.
If it helps I'm a 175 lb male. Rower is set on 5.
Is the 'calorie' function on the monitor how much energy YOU are putting into the machine, or how much energy is being created with the energy you input multipled by the simple mechanics (pulleys,etc) within the machine.
I ask because a 40 calorie row in 4 minutes seems high....although I am rowing for time in a WOD.
If it helps I'm a 175 lb male. Rower is set on 5.
0
Replies
-
I don't know how the monitor is calibrated but I generally row at a very moderate pace of 600 cal/hr or 10 cal per min which is exactly what you seem to be doing. At this rate, I can row just under 3000m in 15 mins.
When you compare this to how fast other men can row based on verified results posted on Concept's user forum, it is a very SLOW pace. So, I would not say that 10 cal/min is a very high level of energy.
However, it does not take that much more energy to row faster. My best time for a 2k meter row last season was 9 mins 26 secs at a pace of 2 min 21 sec each 500 meters during which I burned only 112 cals at a rate of 672 cal per hour (or 11.2 cal/min) but I can tell you that doing 2k meters in less than 10 mins is much more draining than doing 3k in 15.
PS: There are men over 60 w/ranked and verified rowing results on Concept2's website who can row 2k meters in under 7 mins at a pace under 1 min 45 secs per 500 meters, which is incredibly fast. The fastest and youngest men row that distance at just barely over 6 mins.
My fastest pace ranks me near last for my age/wt group and for men overall. How's that for humble pie. LOL!
BTW, I am 66 & 158#.
Also, the damper setting on the rower has nothing to do with how much effort is exerted or how many cals or burned. How fast you row and how much energy you exert is based on how hard and fast you pull w/maximum efficiency.
The damper is just used to adjust the drag factor to simulate the motion of a scull slowing on the water after the pull. My damper is set a 6 for a drag factor of 130, which feels best to me. The drag factor best for you will probably differ.
See: http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/tips-and-general-info/damper-setting-1011 -
It's estimating your burn - the pulleys can't multiply energy.
And the good news is that at 175lb you are exactly the "standard weight" that Concept2 bases its estimates on.
Other people would have to put their weight into the C2 calculator.
See this link for more info....
http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator
0 -
MilesAddie wrote: »Quick Question:
Is the 'calorie' function on the monitor how much energy YOU are putting into the machine, or how much energy is being created with the energy you input multipled by the simple mechanics (pulleys,etc) within the machine.
I ask because a 40 calorie row in 4 minutes seems high....although I am rowing for time in a WOD.
If it helps I'm a 175 lb male. Rower is set on 5.
40 cals in 4 minutes is actually a fairly easy rowing pace.0 -
Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.2
-
I find the C2 estimate to be fairly accurate.
My easy rows (like today) come in at just about 10 cal/min for 30 min, averaging 2:30/500m, 25 spm, drag factor 108 (which on my erg is damper 6-ish).
I don't know what it was for my PB 2k (2:03/500m).0 -
Thanks very much everyone, I appreciate all the help. Be well.0
-
@gearhead426hemigearhead426hemi wrote: »Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.
Bad idea - heart rate is extremely variable between individuals.
Converting measured power to calories is far more accurate.0 -
@gearhead426hemigearhead426hemi wrote: »Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.
Bad idea - heart rate is extremely variable between individuals.
Converting measured power to calories is far more accurate.
Bad idea getting a heart rate monitor? A monitor that takes your age, resting heart rate, max heart rate, and Vo2 into account it the most accurate way to track calories burned.
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
0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »
@gearhead426hemigearhead426hemi wrote: »Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.
Bad idea - heart rate is extremely variable between individuals.
Converting measured power to calories is far more accurate.
Bad idea getting a heart rate monitor? A monitor that takes your age, resting heart rate, and heart rate during a workout a bad idea? That's crazy.
Not a bad idea to use a HRM - bad idea to use it for calorie estimates when you can use power.
Heartbeats and calories have no direct correlation. Power and energy (calories are units of energy) does.
HRMs are valuable cardio training aids - they aren't calorie counters.0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »
@gearhead426hemigearhead426hemi wrote: »Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.
Bad idea - heart rate is extremely variable between individuals.
Converting measured power to calories is far more accurate.
Bad idea getting a heart rate monitor? A monitor that takes your age, resting heart rate, max heart rate, and Vo2 into account it the most accurate way to track calories burned.
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
That's a great article - suggest you read it very carefully then you will understand the limitations of using a HRM to estimate energy.
How many people actually have had their max HR and VO2 max tested? (I have by the way, wouldn't recommend people do it unless the are fit and healthy and prepared to suffer.)
And then that assumes their HRM actually allows the set up to be configured - most basic ones don't.
Here's a practical example for you:
Three cyclists training together on identical power meter equipped bikes, all producing a steady 200 watts.
Their calorie expenditure would be pretty much the same.
But their HR is 180, 150 and 130bpm.
Still think HR is more accurate?0 -
Here's a practical example for you:
Three cyclists training together on identical power meter equipped bikes, all producing a steady 200 watts.
Their calorie expenditure would be pretty much the same.
But their HR is 180, 150 and 130bpm.
Still think HR is more accurate?[/quote]
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
1 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »
@gearhead426hemigearhead426hemi wrote: »Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.
Bad idea - heart rate is extremely variable between individuals.
Converting measured power to calories is far more accurate.
Bad idea getting a heart rate monitor? A monitor that takes your age, resting heart rate, max heart rate, and Vo2 into account it the most accurate way to track calories burned.
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
I'm pretty sure the blog you are citing kind of says the opposite.
Regardless, in the case of a Concept 2 rower, the performance monitor will measure workload (which can then be converted into calories) much more accurately than an HRM.
Just plug your numbers into here (unless by chance you weigh 175 lbs--then you're good):
http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator
1 -
@gearhead426hemigearhead426hemi wrote: »Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Yes the guy at 130bpm is in far better shape than the others (he's an exceptional cyclist) but they would be burning the same calories.
Me at 150bpm and the guy at 180 are having to work at a far higher proportion of our relative capabilities to keep up with him. But the reason the exceptional guy is exceptional is that he has the capability to create more power/burn more calories.
It's why the skinny little guys doing the Tour de France are eating 6000 cals a day - to keep up with their energy expenditure they can generate with their extraordinary CV systems.
Their heart rate wouldn't be much different to a club cyclist remember - despite being able to generate/sustain double the power.
0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.
You mean take an estimate from a second order proxy, rather than a primary measure?
Do you assess your driving speed based on your revcounter and which gear you're in?1 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
Energy consumption is a function of mass and distance.
Going back to the original question, a Concept2 measures power directly. One can convert power expended to calories consumed reliably and easily.
One can take a proxy for energy consumed, oxygen consumption, and extrapolate from that in a well defined, but not consistent, set of circumstances. We're not easily measuring oxygen uptake, but we can estimate it from knowledge of stroke volume and oxygen uptake.
Why make life complicated?
That's even before considering whether we're talking about steady state aerobic range effort cf fluctuating output.0 -
Now I am not a physicist but I run a power plant and by my calculations to move 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace takes 580.1475 joules. To move 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace takes 226.6201 joules. Converting joules to calories means it takes 138.56 calories to move 200 pounds at an 8 mile per hour pace and 54.12 calories to move at 5 mile per hour pace. If it requires more calories then it requires more energy which will make your muscles have to work harder which in turn will increase your heart rate.0
-
gearhead426hemi wrote: »...to move 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace takes 580.1475 joules. To move 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace takes 226.6201 joules.
For a defined period of time, or a defined distance?0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes, you've moved the same mass over the same distance.
0 -
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical? [/quote]
Yes, you've moved the same mass over the same distance.
[/quote]MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »...to move 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace takes 580.1475 joules. To move 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace takes 226.6201 joules.
For a defined period of time, or a defined distance?
So lets not bring up basic physics hoping it will deter someone from and intellectual argument.
Here is my calculation.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= 138.56 calories = 2.309 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 69.27 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH = 54.12 calories = .902 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 27.06 calories
So again I am not a physicist but if it 39% more calories to move the same mass for a set time then in turn you will have to exert more energy to move that mass. To exert more energy your muscles will have to work harder which will require more blood and oxygen which will require your heart to beat faster.0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Here is my calculation.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= 138.56 calories = 2.309 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 69.27 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH = 54.12 calories = .902 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 27.06 calories
So moving faster for a fixed period of time, you've moved the mass for a greater distance?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Here is my calculation.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= 138.56 calories = 2.309 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 69.27 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH = 54.12 calories = .902 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 27.06 calories
So moving faster for a fixed period of time, you've moved the mass for a greater distance?
Yes. If you change the calculation for a set distance lets say 5 miles then this is how it converts.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= For 5 miles its 86.6 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH =For 5 miles its 54.1 calories
0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
For the most part, yes. As long as you are running (as opposed to running vs walking), the increased calories burned per minute at the higher speed will be offset by the shorter time it takes to run the distance.
There is no need to speculate. This is settled science. There are energy prediction equations for running which, while not 100% accurate, are perfectly suitable for this purpose.
The energy cost of running 6 mph is approx 10 METs (MET is a shorthand term for oxygen uptake).
The energy cost of running 8 mph is approx 13 METs.
An 80 kg person will expend roughly 400 calories running 3 miles (30 minutes, 13.3 cal/min)
The same weight person will expend roughly 397 calories running 3 miles (22.5 min, 17.7 cal/min)
There are some rounding differences, but it is essentially the same number.
One of the worst things HRMs have done is to perpetuate the idea that calorie burned is DIRECTLY influenced by heart rate, rather workload/oxygen uptake. It has raised an entire generation of physiologic illiterates.
1 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
There is no "agreement" or "disagreement". There is no opinion or speculation here--any more that arguing whether "one foot" means 12 inches or 13 inches.
You also changed the parameters of argument from rate to distance.
RATE of calorie expenditure is affected by intensity (which is indirectly reflected in heart rate). So, someone working harder will burn more calories per minute.
CALORIES BURNED FOR DISTANCE (e.g. Running 5K distance) is a completely different discussion. In this case, while distance is fixed, time varies. As I stated earlier, while the *rate* of calorie burn for running 8 mph is higher, the faster speed means the distance is covered in less time, resulting in a total burn *for the distance* being the same.
Whether you multiply 2 x 6, 3 x 4, or 4 x 3--the answer is still going to be "12".
3 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
There is no "agreement" or "disagreement". There is no opinion or speculation here--any more that arguing whether "one foot" means 12 inches or 13 inches.
You also changed the parameters of argument from rate to distance.
RATE of calorie expenditure is affected by intensity (which is indirectly reflected in heart rate). So, someone working harder will burn more calories per minute.
CALORIES BURNED FOR DISTANCE (e.g. Running 5K distance) is a completely different discussion. In this case, while distance is fixed, time varies. As I stated earlier, while the *rate* of calorie burn for running 8 mph is higher, the faster speed means the distance is covered in less time, resulting in a total burn *for the distance* being the same.
Whether you multiply 2 x 6, 3 x 4, or 4 x 3--the answer is still going to be "12".
To say that there is no direct correlation between heart rate and calories is just a false statement. If you walk a mile vs run a mile there is roughly 30-40% increase in calories burned. You are right that once you get close to the 7-8 mph pace there is little difference in calories burned because the pace is relatively small between the two. Compare a 12 minute mile to 7 minute mile and workload on the muscles is dramatically increased. More workload on the muscles requires more blood flow and more oxygen therefore the heart rate will have to increase to supply the demand.
2 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
There is no "agreement" or "disagreement". There is no opinion or speculation here--any more that arguing whether "one foot" means 12 inches or 13 inches.
You also changed the parameters of argument from rate to distance.
RATE of calorie expenditure is affected by intensity (which is indirectly reflected in heart rate). So, someone working harder will burn more calories per minute.
CALORIES BURNED FOR DISTANCE (e.g. Running 5K distance) is a completely different discussion. In this case, while distance is fixed, time varies. As I stated earlier, while the *rate* of calorie burn for running 8 mph is higher, the faster speed means the distance is covered in less time, resulting in a total burn *for the distance* being the same.
Whether you multiply 2 x 6, 3 x 4, or 4 x 3--the answer is still going to be "12".
To say that there is no direct correlation between heart rate and calories is just a false statement. If you walk a mile vs run a mile there is roughly 30-40% increase in calories burned. You are right that once you get close to the 7-8 mph pace there is little difference in calories burned because the pace is relatively small between the two. Compare a 12 minute mile to 7 minute mile and workload on the muscles is dramatically increased. More workload on the muscles requires more blood flow and more oxygen therefore the heart rate will have to increase to supply the demand.
You're confusing means of locomotion. Running burns roughly double the calories er mile than walking does but that is not a result of heart rate but the differences in mechanics. You're sort of correct about more blood flow & oxygen but ignoring the fact that 7 minute mile takes less time, you may expend a little more energy per minute but for fewer minutes.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions