Is this even possible? 1000 calories burned in 65 min?

Azdak

Nope-not unless the entire 6 miles was uphill. At that speed and your weight, you will burn around 650 pet hour.

sjtreely

Here's why I think it would be difficult at best for the OP to burn over 1000 calories in 65 minutes.

Given the fact the OP weighs 149 and running over a 10 minute mile, to me it just seems like an unlikely calorie burn. He stated he went 6.3 miles and that was with a 5 minute cool down. Most likely he ran 5.8ish miles. No information about elevation was given.

I could be wrong (I have been before ... once or twice) but my guess is if there was quite a bit of elevation involved, he would have stated it.

I weigh more than the OP and am 50. I average between 1250-1350 calories for a half marathon - or more than twice the distance he went. On a hilly course I might get up to 1400-1500 calories.

Of course it's possible he could burn that amount, but I'm still sticking with it's highly unlikely unless he was going up hill .... both ways.

Trail_Addict

No one has asked yet.... what was your average HR on the run? That is a big variable.

sjtreely

Ok ... I made a mistake ... the OP is female. See, I told 'ya, every once in a while I'm wrong. Glad I got that out of the way for the month.

As far as her average HR on the run ... I'm not sure we're going to hear back from her. It was her first post and she hasn't been back. Maybe she doesn't know how to find her original post. IDK.

SMoRZ3

I run a 7mi trail loop at least once a week a little over an hour and I get just over 1000 calories burned. This is according to my Garmin 405 watch.

You can see my stats here. Haven't put on the HR Monitor yet, its still too cold to want a wet strap tied around me! haha

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/155587039

methodless

At your weight and that distance, it's possible, but I would expect it to be closer to 750-800 calories

dad106

I have a Timex zone Trainer and Ive had Polar HRMs. BOTH are accurate.

No.. this is not true at all. Polar will always be more accurate at estimating calories than a Timex.. Simply because they take more info and Vo2max into consideration.

To OP:
Timex is crap.. Return and get a Polar. You'll be glad that you did.

tanklissa

I think it's possible. I was burning 150 calories/10 minutes on the treadmill today and I'm 150 lbs (4.4 speed and 15+ incline).

jelicaa

Oh its possible. I burn between 700 and 900 calories per each 45 minute bootcamp session. Depends on numerous factors, including intensity.

Although I love my HRM, I do assume its a little over here and there. I try to eat back my exercise calories but keep it in the back of my mind that it could be off. It's there for good measure

Azdak

I gotta snicker at all of the people who "think" it is or isn't possible. Let's hear from the people out there 'proving' it's possible.

I routinely burn OVER 1000 cals per hour on my trail runs. Hell, I just burned over 1400 in 80 minutes on a 10 mile run. (1396 calories on my Garmin, and 1413 calories on my Polar FT7)

So the answer is YES. Now whether YOU can accomplish this number is not for anyone on this forum to say.

Actually, people on the forum CAN say (or at least I can). It can be estimated fairly easily. The physiology is the physiology. If you weigh a certain amount and you work at a certain speed/intensity or above, you can burn 1000 calories in an hour. If you don't, you can't. It's as simple as that. You cannot "will" yourself to burn 1000 calories in an hour if you don't have the size/ability combo. And someone who can do it is not a better person, or more dedicated than anyone else. An elite female marathoner who weighs less than 120lbs is not going to be able to do it either.

On level ground, someone who weighs 67.7 kg (OP's weight) needs to run about 9.0 mph or faster to burn 1000 calories in an hour. And even if they ran on hills, it would still be highly unlikely, since the steepness of the hills would require a slowing of running speed to compensate. In order to run up hills at a speed fast enough to maintain a 1000 cal/hour intensity, the person would STILL have to have a fitness level capable of a sustained 9.0 mph speed on the flats.

Azdak

I think it's possible. I was burning 150 calories/10 minutes on the treadmill today and I'm 150 lbs (4.4 speed and 15+ incline).

Not if you were holding on to the handrails. At that speed/incline combo, if you just touch the handrails, you decrease the workload (and the calorie burn) by at least 20%, and if you hold on at all, you can decrease it by up to 70%.

Azdak

No one has asked yet.... what was your average HR on the run? That is a big variable.

Not really. HR is only necessary for an HRM. The energy expenditure (calorie burn) can be estimated accurately from speed and weight. Unless there is some unusual factor (like running the entire way into a headwind), those two variables will likely be more accurate for running, esp outdoors, than an HRM of any brand.

RAFValentina

I've burned as much as this out on hard runs according to quite advanced HRM set up correctly. Female, 23, RHR 49BPM, Max HR 190, 72Kg, 174.5cm, activity level high.

firedragon064

I have Timex and it does over calculate. I use this website to recalculate my calorie with Vo2Max = 40

mustgetmuscles1

Well according to this:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109
Adapted from: Ainsworth BE, et al. 2011 compendium of physical activities: A second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2011;43:1575.

Activity (1-hour duration)
Running, 8 mph

Weight of person and calories burned

160 pounds (73 kilograms)........................................................................ 861
200 pounds (91 kilograms)........................................................................1,074
240 pounds (109 kilograms)......................................................................1,286



As far as I know the Mayo Clinic has always been reliable.

DarrenSeeley

Surely we can only take a relative guess? No one knows "exactly" how many calories they burn regardless of how much your Garmin HR monitor watch costs. There are so many factors we cannot measure out of the lab such as lean muscle mass, vo2max etc.

Based on all the broad factors we can use, the OP's calorie burn for 65mins is roughly correct I would say. Unless you are eating back all you exercise calories it shouldn't matter anyway if it is actually out a bit. The main thing is you're obviously working hard and burning a lot of calories!

best wishes

lwoods34

I have a Timex zone Trainer and Ive had Polar HRMs. BOTH are accurate.

No.. this is not true at all. Polar will always be more accurate at estimating calories than a Timex.. Simply because they take more info and Vo2max into consideration.

To OP:
Timex is crap.. Return and get a Polar. You'll be glad that you did.

I guess its difference of opinion but WHY would I say they are both accurate when I said that I have BOTH and have used BOTH?? Im not trying to be rude here but everyone seems to think they are some kind of expert on these forums and its really nerve racking. Everyone is speaking from personal experience and there is nothing wrong with that but there is typically no reason at all to be rude about your responses.

According to the American Council on Exercise, BOTH monitors are pretty accurate. The Timex monitor battery is alot easier to change than the polar monitor battery. But that is neither here nor there. Regardless of what monitor you are using you need to have a baseline of where your heart rate needs to be. There is ALWAYS going to be a margin of error, its a device...nothing is 100% accurate, its an estimation...unless you are buying the really high tech monitors that cost over $300, these monitors will not tell you your lean muscle mass. Ive bought varies models and have been wearing HRMs for 15 years.

I completely agree with DarrenSeeley when he said that "there are so many factors we cannot measure out of the lab such as lean muscle mass, vo2max, etc." You would have to go to a lab and get hooked up to wires and all sorts of monitors to be tested to see what your "true" vo2max it. The monitor cannot give you a true measurement.

lwoods34

Also since we are talking about accuracy, the same thing can be said about calories. Nothing is black and white. Who is to truely say we are eating 1800 or 2000 calories? We dont really know 100% how many calories we are truely eating... For example a few months ago I bought Bilinski chicken sausages, the pesto romano flavor and the back of one package said 90 calories per link...I looked at another package, same brand, same flavor, same volume and it said 120 calories per link, So which one is correct?? I have noticed the same discrepancies with alot of food products out there, including chicken, turkey, etc.

Nothing is 100%.

ATT949

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/1,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

149*.075=111.75 cals/mile

By this formula, I should be burning 138.75 per mile but my Garmin 305 estimates 147.

Goes to show that these are estimates. That's the best we can do.

ATT949

Also since we are talking about accuracy, the same thing can be said about calories. Nothing is black and white. Who is to truely say we are eating 1800 or 2000 calories? We dont really know 100% how many calories we are truely eating... For example a few months ago I bought Bilinski chicken sausages, the pesto romano flavor and the back of one package said 90 calories per link...I looked at another package, same brand, same flavor, same volume and it said 120 calories per link, So which one is correct?? I have noticed the same discrepancies with alot of food products out there, including chicken, turkey, etc.

Nothing is 100%.

Yes!

This has been a significant factor in my weight loss (and my weight loss thinking) since I started thinking about losing weight back in Dec 2010. I use the phrases "rife with error" and "error prone" and that's why, when I want to lose weight, I eat 800 to 1k neet cals/day. Trying to hit a specific number is impossible, in practical terms.

I just set my calorie level so low that there was no way I was going to not lose weight. I lost 95 pounds in 7 months and, in Jan 2012, dropped 8 pounds in 14 days (I wanted to drop weight for running). I have no doubt that 1200 calories (or whatever) works for some folks. And I have no doubt that 800 to 1k works for me.

I read so many heart wrenching stories about folks who can't lose weight even though "they're eating all of [their] calories" and it's unfortunate that they don't get it that they're eating "maintenance-level" calories.

catwhitfield1980

I usually burn around 720 calories when I run for 60 minutes (10.5 K). I weigh 137 pound and am 5'7". Cat x

AllezAllez1

Seems unlikely to me, as running 6.3 miles in 65 minutes is a fairly slow pace, i'd say you would looking at more like 650 calories tops.

Bretto

I too agree it is high, unless of course you were running uphill the whole time at that speed and your heartrate was super high the whole time.....

I have found that when Iwas 150 lbs that I burned aprox 110 calories per mile whether I was running or walking. (walking of course takes longer to burn the 110 calories) The only time I think this changed much was when I was running hills.

I have talked to several people who think thier Timex HRM calculates the calories too high.

thejackswild79

When I first started running a year ago I was burning around 200 calories per mile using a heart rate monitor calibrated to me. After a few months, it was down to 175, then to 150 after six month. Recently the calorie burn just dropped to 120 per mile. This is regardless of pace, btw which always makes me laugh. I believe the generally accepted "norm" is 100 calories per mile. So if you have just started running and aren't in the greatest of shape, 1,200 might be perfectly reasonable. If you are in good shape then maybe not.

Azdak

When I first started running a year ago I was burning around 200 calories per mile using a heart rate monitor calibrated to me. After a few months, it was down to 175, then to 150 after six month. Recently the calorie burn just dropped to 120 per mile. This is regardless of pace, btw which always makes me laugh. I believe the generally accepted "norm" is 100 calories per mile. So if you have just started running and aren't in the greatest of shape, 1,200 might be perfectly reasonable. If you are in good shape then maybe not.

It doesn't make any difference. The energy cost of running at a particular speed is mostly the same, regardless of your conditioning. The calories burned will be affected by body weight, but not conditioning (not counting the first couple of workouts). The decrease that people experience using HRMs (assuming that weight has not changed) is due to a failure to update the HRM settings to account for an increase in fitness level.

butterflyliz32

I typically burn 700-750 cal in 45 min doing the Turbo Jam workout, so I would say it is possible. Make sure, if you are using one that works this way, that you are re-taking your pulse when you change intensity levels. That way you get a more accurate picture of what you are really burning.

Rockerchick77

I am wondering the same thing about "Zumba" dancing on Wii. I will dance for about 75 minutes and it'll reflect calories burned of over 1000 (I try to shoot for 1000 each workout so I pay close attention to it). However, the tracker on here states "dancing-aerobic" burns 353calories for 60 minutes.

Both systems I enter my weight, age...etc How can they be that different? Help!

ambitious01

I have the timex(chest strap + watch) I have been using for months now. I added my weight (bunches of pounds) and I never really could believe their numbers. I recently bought a fitbit and it puts the calories burnt in a better range. For instance on the elliptical (383 tracked), timex 510 cal, and fitbit 283 cals. Fitbit does make me wanna cry little, but the weight is finally coming off. That's in 30 minutes.

mommabella79

I do Zumba for an hour, with a Polar chest HR monitor. It say's from 950-1150 everytime.

BrianSharpe

It sounds on the high side to me. Runners World has a generic formula .72 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles, which in your case would be about 675 for 6.3 miles. (useful for sanity checking numbers)

Was the course flat or hilly? Are your stats (height, weight, age) entered correctly?