Burned 583 calories?! Is this possible?!

kayfrog

Went hiking for 2.7 miles at a 3-4.5 mph pace and my HRM was beeping at me the entire time because my heart rate was in the 170-180s. I burned a little over 800 calories.

EccentricDad

Most of the apps require you to put in your weight. If my math is correct, you were going just over 3.5 mph; if you weight under 120 lbs then you shouldn't be losing that much at that intensity. Try the app again and see if it was set up wrong; or use endomondo which is free for android users too.

I weigh 160 lbs and I was going at the same speed and I lost only 290 calories. When I weight 170 and I was going the same speed I lost more. It makes since because your body is the resistance and the more the resistance, the more calories you'll burn.

If you want to lose a LOT of calories, buy some ankle, wrist, and hand weights and walk while holding those (and track your "weight" as the total weight combined".

ladyark

Buy a HRM....u will love it

Yes a HRM is definately a good investment. I do 3.5 - 4 miles on the treadmill at 3.5mph and it takes me about 70 minutes and i am usually pumping my arms the whole time and my HRM puts me at about 518 and in that range on several occasions.

lauehorn04

If you walked for 5 miles at 3.5MPH uphill the entire time, you may have burned that much. Comparatively speaking, 3.0MPH for that time on a flat surface would get you less than 300.

I use this for calorie estimates: http://www.my-calorie-counter.com/Activity_Calorie_Calculator.asp

JamesBurkes

I'm not so sure if HRMs are accurate for lower heart rates (as attained when walking). I'm pretty fit but my HRM says I burn 1000 cals walking at almost 4 miles an hour for 1 hr and 45 minutes. Now okay, I'm 210 lbs and my route has a lot of (shortish) hills and inclines, but that seems excessive.

The online calculator that someone posted a link to above has me at 650 cals for that time and speed (I didn't enter the incline as I wasn't sure what to put in). That seems a lot more reasonable to me. Interestingly, the calorie burns for running on that calculator tie in almost exactly to what my HRM says for running.

As I say, I just don't think they're accurate for lower heart rates (like, 55- 60% max). To push it even further, it says I burn 6000 cals a day just sitting at the computer, which is obviously wrong. I suspect this may be because the algorithms are calculated using averages of people who maintain steady cardio exercise (mine actually says "running at a steady pace" in the manual), so doing less intense work throws the accuracy of the calculation out.

That online calculator was interesting, though - thanks for posting that!

Jynus

I'm not so sure if HRMs are accurate for lower heart rates (as attained when walking).

correct, they are not. and not accurate for strength training too. HRM's only really estimate exercise done while using the cardio energy system. Not the fatty acid energy system (the one used to power the muscles for low intensity things like walking and general living) or the anaerobic ones.

heybales

I'm not so sure if HRMs are accurate for lower heart rates (as attained when walking). I'm pretty fit but my HRM says I burn 1000 cals walking at almost 4 miles an hour for 1 hr and 45 minutes. Now okay, I'm 210 lbs and my route has a lot of (shortish) hills and inclines, but that seems excessive.

The online calculator that someone posted a link to above has me at 650 cals for that time and speed (I didn't enter the incline as I wasn't sure what to put in). That seems a lot more reasonable to me. Interestingly, the calorie burns for running on that calculator tie in almost exactly to what my HRM says for running.

As I say, I just don't think they're accurate for lower heart rates (like, 55- 60% max). To push it even further, it says I burn 6000 cals a day just sitting at the computer, which is obviously wrong. I suspect this may be because the algorithms are calculated using averages of people who maintain steady cardio exercise (mine actually says "running at a steady pace" in the manual), so doing less intense work throws the accuracy of the calculation out.

That online calculator was interesting, though - thanks for posting that!

Curious what your avgHR was for that walk, if the HRM keeps past workouts, and the maxHR reached?

Because inclines can play a difference. Usually people slow down instead of powering up at the same speed, so when you enter avg speed, it does indeed workout correctly. Sounds like you just powered up, HR just went up as expected.
Good job.

Now, your HRM may have the stat of HRmax, with your personal stats, incorrect, which would lead to reporting inflated burns.
If it defaulted to 220-age HRmax, and that is much lower than your actual HRmax, the HRM would think you were doing a massive workout when you really aren't.
And that applies all the way down to low intensity stuff too.

You are correct too - that calculator for flat walking, like treadmill at known speed, would be more correct than HRM that is mis-setup, and is actually a great way to get it corrected. Just takes some experimentation a couple times to adjust the HRmax correctly so the calorie counts end up the same. Then when you do more active stuff, still as good as it gets. Because that's actually when the calculators lose accuracy, because your own personal efficiency at running takes over.

Though, walking 10% grade at 4mph is a great way to show upper ends of HR too.
Hmmm.