Calorie burn at gym - does this sound right?

Carfoodel

Looking for a bit of advice/expertise please.

I used to spend a massive amount of time at the gym and used to make it that I wouldn't leave the gym until I had burned 1000 calories. I have had a break of a couple of years and am getting back into it. My cardio sessions used to be roughly 600 calories for every 60 mins and I did wieghts, classes and swam loads 8k 9k weekly amounts were normal- I have a new watch and it isn't reporting back the same amounts - but I am really pushing myself.

I was at the gym yesterday and I did a quick 20 mins on the weights machines, then went on the cycle machine and did 10 miles in 40 mins. I am 44, when I checked my resting heart rate last week it was 79 and I am 277 lbs. I did it on level 7 and the machine was constantly in the 2nd bar and my revs was kept between upper 80's to 100. This came up as 350 cals for the whole session and 50 of that was from the weights session. I am using the polar ft7.

So 300 calories for this - does that sound about right?

Carfoodel

This sunk like a stone with the boards moving so quickly, but would appreciate if anyone could give advice.

I don't mind if you just say "yeah its because you are old and not working out as hard as you think" or "that's normal". I just don't have full faith in my new HRM.

cheers.

dad106

Your HRM is correct.

Weight lifting does not burn that many calories anyway... I think the average is like 100-200 calories an hour depending on the person and what type of weight lifting you are doing, etc.

I've been using an FT7 for the past 8 or 9 months, and I fully trust it. Machines and MFP tend to be very off in their calculations when it comes to calories burned.

Carfoodel

I know that weight lifting doesnt burn many calories - I was asking about the 40 mins on the cycle machine. My previous watch - the ft40 had the fitness test component and I don't know if this is making a big difference or not . So it's not based as a comparison of machines or mfp it's comparing it to my previous polar watch I was wondering if the ft7 is not as accurate as it is not got the same features as my ft40

XDoodlebugger

A couple of assumptions: you have the age and weight correctly set in the watch?

What was your minimum and maximum heart rate during the exercise session?

My calories burned can vary depending on intensity of workout but average about 11 calories a minute when I'm in the groove to 9 calories a minute when I'm struggling. I think your results are OK if your heart rate was 120 or lower average.

I use a Polar RS300.

I disagree on the calories burned during weight lifting, I use free weights in a circuit and my heart rate varies from 117 to 140 bpm so burn just as much as a cardio session with the added benefit of burning for a longer period of time after I am done. My resting rate is about 60.

dad106

Well since you never said what you were comparing, or that you even had a FT40, I see no need for the attitude.. but since thats what I got, I'm going to roll with it.

The FT7 because it does not have the fitness test component to figure out V02Max, has the potential to be less accurate then the FT40. How inaccurate, I can't say for sure. HRM's are only about 80-90% accurate anyway.. even if they have the VO2max number.

I personally think the FT7 is pretty spot on if set up correctly..Do a treadmill for 30 minutes and I get about 260-280 calories burned. Did the elliptical for 30 min yesterday and burned 360 calories. I'm a female who is 5'9, 23 yrs old and weighs 151. So those numbers seem in the ball-park for me.

When I get my FT60(that has the fitness test) in a few weeks, I can do a comparison myself and let you know if you like.

MLeigh18

You can burn serious calories weight lifting. Just depends on how much weight you use and how fast you lift the weights.

I did a 5x5 @75#, 3x3 @ 95#, 1x1 @125# set of clean and jerks within probably 10-15 minutes. Burned almost 200 calories. Move your *kitten*, move heavy weights. You'll burn a lot more than you think lifting weights if you do it right.

Taking 3 minutes to do 12 reps with 10# free weights. You're not going to burn anything but precious time.

Instead of doing sessions of 1/2 cardio THEN 1/2 weights. Do 10 minutes weights, sprint 800meters around the track, do 15 minutes of fast weight lifting, sprint another 800 meters, etc. do it for 20 minutes. You'll burn more calories than doing it half and half i'll bet.

Carfoodel

hey dad106 sorry I didn't mean to come across so snotty - I am hopeless when i use my phone on the go rather than my laptop and i rushed my response.

my average heart rate for a session is about 156 and max is about 180. my age weight height etc is on the watch.

I have been going to the gym for about 5 weeks and i have to build it up slowly as i have very poor lung capacity so i do my weights first tokeep good form and am gradually increasing the weights on the machines- i do 3 sets of 15 and am on 42kgs. i was considering getting the new way of weights for women book as i want to change this but dont know how.

i have started doing intervals on the cardio as well which is to build up my lungs but its hard going - but 40 mins pushing myself till the sweat is running off me and my hair is soaked on the cycle with my current weight i would have thought i would get a higher burn. i don't know how to push myself more - but will try. I want to get to the point of doing my weights 3 days a week and a bit of cardio and the alternate days increasing my cardio with one rest day.

thanks again for the input