Exercise Calories - SO FRUSTRATED, NEED HELP!!!!!

LotusF1ower

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

If you were to run a mile in ten minutes, why would you not possibly burn 100 calories??

I have run a mile at various speeds, from 7 min miles up to 9 min miles and each time I burn between 112 and 118 calories per mile if it is on flat ground, ie no inclines.

Azdak

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

If you were to run a mile in ten minutes, why would you not possibly burn 100 calories??

I have run a mile at various speeds, from 7 min miles up to 9 min miles and each time I burn between 112 and 118 calories per mile if it is on flat ground, ie no inclines.

Calories burned is equal to wt x intensity, so a heavier person will burn more calories at any given intensity level than a lighter one.

Often people use the "100 cal/mile" estimate, but that is a misnomer. Different people will burn a different amount of calories in a mile, depending on weight and running speed; however, the SAME person will burn roughly the same number of calories, regardless of running speed. That "consistency" holds true for a runner comparing results with himself/herself. It does not hold true for comparing different runners (unless they are the same size).

When it comes to outdoor running and walking, calculated energy expenditures are often more accurate than HRMs. That's because the equations used are based on the ACTUAL energy cost involved, not an estimate based on heart rate.

wiseg2

[quote/]

I have Mirena, too, and it's horrible for hormonal changes! I go through periods where I'm STARVING TO DEATH no matter what I eat and periods where I have no appetite. A couple months ago, I could have sworn I was pregnant -- I had all the symptoms. (I wasn't.)

And no matter how much water you drink, exercise and hormones can still cause water retention that will show on the scale.
[/quote]

I'm glad I didn't get the Mirena then!

rml_16

[quote/]

I have Mirena, too, and it's horrible for hormonal changes! I go through periods where I'm STARVING TO DEATH no matter what I eat and periods where I have no appetite. A couple months ago, I could have sworn I was pregnant -- I had all the symptoms. (I wasn't.)

And no matter how much water you drink, exercise and hormones can still cause water retention that will show on the scale.

I'm glad I didn't get the Mirena then!
[/quote]

If you had, you might have had a very different experience. This is how it's affected me, but different people have had different experiences with it.

It's really my only option besides a hysterectomy at this point.

jkohan

Also, the machines give you results of the average person. I guarantee that if you & I did the same exact workout, say on the treadmill, the calories would come out the same....and I highly doubt that that would be true.

EXACTLY--just because the machine asks for your HR by putting your hands on the bars--it is NOT using those stats to give you the calories burned. Those machines have the option for you to monitor your HR to see what zone you are currently in. Whether you put your hands on the bars or not, the calories burned number is exactly the same and based upon a formula. Even if the program you choose on the machine asks you to input your age and weight--again, it's not using that info to configure calories burned, it's using it to tell you your target HR range for the workout, NOT in the calorie burned estimate.

The HRM also uses a formula but it's based upon your actual HR--which IS more accurate than a machine's average. Further to that point, the HRMs with the chest strap are much more accurate than the ones with just the watch which uses a formula based upon your speed/distance--which is similar to the formula used by the machines--slightly different but again, not as accurate as the formulas that use your actual HR.

jkohan

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

If you were to run a mile in ten minutes, why would you not possibly burn 100 calories??

I have run a mile at various speeds, from 7 min miles up to 9 min miles and each time I burn between 112 and 118 calories per mile if it is on flat ground, ie no inclines.

Calories burned is equal to wt x intensity, so a heavier person will burn more calories at any given intensity level than a lighter one.

Often people use the "100 cal/mile" estimate, but that is a misnomer. Different people will burn a different amount of calories in a mile, depending on weight and running speed; however, the SAME person will burn roughly the same number of calories, regardless of running speed. That "consistency" holds true for a runner comparing results with himself/herself. It does not hold true for comparing different runners (unless they are the same size).

When it comes to outdoor running and walking, calculated energy expenditures are often more accurate than HRMs. That's because the equations used are based on the ACTUAL energy cost involved, not an estimate based on heart rate.

However a well respected Kinesiologist has told me that the intensity is most accurately reflected by measuring your HR during an exercise X weight. Therefore, wearing the HRM with the chest strap still is the most preferable option in measuring calories burned.