New watch, 1200 cals in an hour-ish? Really?

louisekerry86
louisekerry86 Posts: 58
in Fitness and Exercise
So I just got this new watch, its supposed to tell me my heart rate, and how many calories I burn during exercise. I used it for the first time today, and it tells you all this determined by how long you work out for, your heart rate, and your preset age, weight, height and gender. So I go to the gym today and I'm in there about an hour and a half all in all. This watch then tells me at the end of 1hr 15mins that I have burned approx 1200 calories. Does that seem correct? It seems like a lot, I mean, I never tracked how many calories I was burning with my strength training etc, but today I did my normal 35 minute strength workout and did 45 minutes of cardio. Altogether my workout came to 1 hour 15 minutes...for over a thousand calories...I want to get opinions before I let myself be happy about this.

Anyone? x

Replies

  • SwindonJogger
    SwindonJogger Posts: 325 Member
    Seems high:

    http://www.shapefit.com/calories.html
  • tony56pr
    tony56pr Posts: 141 Member
    Don't know which watch you got but one I got says you have to press heart button on it several times during workout for best accuracy (mine was cheap one that manually checks heart rate sportline) anyways for me it would say 300 calories in about 20 mins. So sounds like yours is close to same number.

    However, I doubt it is correct and many argue heart rate tells little about how many calories you are burning or not. I simply don't know, but never trusted the numbers. Or on mfp for that matter. It would be nice to have reliable accurate measure of calories burned but I don't know of any honestly.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    1200 calories an hour is exceptionally high. That is 20 calories a minute. Consider that the average person burns about 10 calories a minute running at a 10 minute mile. Weight does play a role in calories burned but even considering that it is still extremely high.

    It is also important to note that HRM calorie estimation formulas are designed to estimate calories during moderate intensity steady state cardio. They are not accurate for thigs like weight lifting.

    Here is a really good explanation
    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
  • JoseeGendron
    JoseeGendron Posts: 1
    A slow jog is about 100 cals per mile...so at 5mph it<s about 500 calories per hour. I don<t know of any sport that burns more but there are calculators online. However I wasn<t there and it has more to do with intensity. I would burn more walking at 3 mph if the incline was higher % than the jog...it<s all about intensity.
  • GetSoda
    GetSoda Posts: 1,267 Member
    It's probably 3-4x too high.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    This watch then tells me at the end of 1hr 15mins that I have burned approx 1200 calories.

    Highly unlikely. It takes me 90 minutes running in the real at about 9-10min/ km to burn 1100-1200 calories.

    It's likely that the problem is using it for resistance training. HR is used as a proxy for calorie consumption, and that depends on the assumptions made in the design of the operating system of the watch. Few, if any at the moment, HRMs are designed to account for resistance training as in that instance HR is a very bad proxy.

    You'll have a massive over estimation for the time that you were resistance training.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Let's go to step one ... what model watch coupled with what exercises?
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    Depends on your mass, but seems unlikely.

    Could you burn 1200 Calories in 75 minutes? Sure. I do all the time. I just burned 850 calories in 45 minutes and 2 weeks ago, I burned 1300 calories in 70 minutes. BUT that is running straight though, and burning 0.62 Cal/lb/mile (which is what everyone does).
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    It had no chest strap, right? The ones without are pretty inaccurate.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Depends on your mass, but seems unlikely.

    Could you burn 1200 Calories in 75 minutes? Sure. I do all the time. I just burned 850 calories in 45 minutes and 2 weeks ago, I burned 1300 calories in 70 minutes. BUT that is running straight though, and burning 0.62 Cal/lb/mile (which is what everyone does).

    And I suspect, based on some quick calculations, that your runs are often at a pretty good pace, not just a jog.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Depends on your mass, but seems unlikely.

    Could you burn 1200 Calories in 75 minutes? Sure. I do all the time. I just burned 850 calories in 45 minutes and 2 weeks ago, I burned 1300 calories in 70 minutes. BUT that is running straight though, and burning 0.62 Cal/lb/mile (which is what everyone does).
    Most people would need to be 200 lbs. running 8mph to burn that much, according to the compendium of physical activities.

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/exercise/art-20050999
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Depends on your mass, but seems unlikely.

    Could you burn 1200 Calories in 75 minutes? Sure. I do all the time. I just burned 850 calories in 45 minutes and 2 weeks ago, I burned 1300 calories in 70 minutes. BUT that is running straight though, and burning 0.62 Cal/lb/mile (which is what everyone does).
    Most people would need to be 200 lbs. running 8mph to burn that much, according to the compendium of physical activities.

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/exercise/art-20050999

    I had to do a conversion :happy:
    MPH means nothing to me pace wise - I do minute per mile, but yeah, I got about a 7 minute mile pace for a 200 lb person to burn about that. 8 mph would be about a 7:30 m/m so pretty close.

    That is a pretty good effort.

Categories