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

Options
13»

Replies

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    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
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    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
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    Options
    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
    firedragon064 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    I have Timex and it does over calculate. I use this website to recalculate my calorie with Vo2Max = 40
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    Options
    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
    DarrenSeeley Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    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
    lwoods34 Posts: 302 Member
    Options
    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
    lwoods34 Posts: 302 Member
    Options
    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
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    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
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    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
    catwhitfield1980 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    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
    AllezAllez1 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    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
    Bretto Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    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
    thejackswild79 Posts: 102
    Options
    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
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    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
    butterflyliz32 Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    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
    Rockerchick77 Posts: 64
    Options
    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
    ambitious01 Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    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
    mommabella79 Posts: 1
    Options
    I do Zumba for an hour, with a Polar chest HR monitor. It say's from 950-1150 everytime.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    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?

Categories