Did I really burn over 1100 calories today?

BBryans07
BBryans07 Posts: 16 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Question for you experienced runners/walkers out there. I use a heart rate monitor to monitor my average bpm and time spent working out. I don't follow the calorie count my HRM gives me since it has always been way off anyways. Today I spent two hours doing a run/walk with an average bpm of 163. I have never done this, so I'm sure that is why my heart rate was so high at times. When entered on here AND on a calculator I found at shapesense, it says I burned at least 1100 calories. I have read that using a HRM is the most accurate way to measure calories burned. I feel totally exhausted, but I can't believe I burned that much. Is that REALLY true? Your thoughts, please. :)

Replies

  • bacitracin
    bacitracin Posts: 921 Member
    550 calories an hour doesn't seem that off at all. I've been known to burn 550 in a half hour, or 900 in an hour.
  • nopeekiepeekie
    nopeekiepeekie Posts: 338 Member
    I usually get close to 500 in 45 mins with my HRM, so it seems like a reasonable burn to me.
  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    an average HR of 163 during 2 hours of run/walk?

    I'm going to say that's wrong. But idk how much you weigh, height, age etc....
  • kellybean14
    kellybean14 Posts: 237 Member
    If your heart rate was really that high, 1100 calories in two hours sounds very accurate to me!
  • vmclach
    vmclach Posts: 670 Member
    having yur heart rate at 163 for 2 hours is pretty extensive exercise. I'd say it could be correct. When I run for about 90 min I burn that many calories.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    I believe that on average, if you're working out hard you burn around 10 cals a minute, meaning up to 600 per hour. So if you were pushing yourself for two hours straight, 1100 sounds pretty attainable! Go you!
  • juliep1974
    juliep1974 Posts: 222 Member
    I'd say that it is likely. I ran this morning - avg heart rate of 160 for 47 minutes and my HRM said 450 calories. I'm 143 lbs.
  • RobP1192
    RobP1192 Posts: 310 Member
    I would say yeah, it's pretty close. 163 bpm is a pretty good rate. Definitely indicates that you were getting in some good work. The higher the bpm, the more intense your workout is, typically. If that was your average, i would imagine you got up higher than that during some of your running. So yeah, i'd say it's possible you burned around 1100 calories from all that. But that's just my opinion. Maybe someone else has a different assessment.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    an average HR of 163 during 2 hours of run/walk?

    I'm going to say that's wrong. But idk how much you weigh, height, age etc....

    Idk, it sounds right to me. When I run my HR usually gets up to about 180. If I were to alternate running/walking it would probably hover around 160 for however long I did it.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Does your HRM give a calorie estimate? If so, I'd look at that and compare.

    Another thing is to make sure your HRM settings are up to date.

    It's probably close to accurate though.
  • Thomasm198
    Thomasm198 Posts: 3,189 Member
    1100 for two hours sounds reasonable.
  • dsjohndrow
    dsjohndrow Posts: 1,820 Member
    If you are not too big, that is probably pretty close.

    I am 208 lbs and 1100 per hour is about right when I run the entire time.
  • Mischievous_Rascal
    Mischievous_Rascal Posts: 1,791 Member
    If it really was that intense, then, yup, you really did.

    Now go get something to eat! lol
  • KateRunsColorado
    KateRunsColorado Posts: 407 Member
    Did you calculate how far you went? One way to estimate is about 100 calories per mile (walking or running - doesn't matter, but obviously if you run it, you'll get the calories faster than if you walk it).
  • BBryans07
    BBryans07 Posts: 16 Member
    Yes, the HRM gives a calorie count but it said 2200 calories burned (which of course I know is not true). It's always overestimating. :noway: My heart rate got as high as 202 bpm while running (uphill I might add) and around 150 while walking fast. I just couldn't believe it when I plunked in all the info and got 1100 calories.
  • MrsGriffin67
    MrsGriffin67 Posts: 485 Member
    I have a BodyMedia Fit LINK and it said that the calories I burnt yesterday was close to 1100 calories. It was a 3.5 mile hike that took about 2 hours to complete. I was wondering the same thing...is this right? But I do believe that it is pretty accurate since the BodyMedia is suppose to be >90% accurate.
  • crlyxx
    crlyxx Posts: 186 Member
    Not exactly. What I didn't realize at first is that you need to subtract the amount you've burned (say, 500 in one hour) from your bmr, the calories you would've burned anyway by simply living. For me, it's about 57 calories an hour. So if my heart rate monitor said I burned 500 in an hour, really I was only burning 443 or so.
  • BBryans07
    BBryans07 Posts: 16 Member
    Yes! My lunch today was an 8 oz sirloin with a load of veggies. Then a homemade wild berry smoothie made with yogurt. I definitely know I will not be doing this intense of a run/walk everyday but it's nice to know I accomplished such a crazy burn.
  • Asavitzk
    Asavitzk Posts: 66
    For two hours of heavy exercise (if you were truly sweating the whole time which that average heart rate would generally indicate) then yes, it's definitely possible.
  • bacitracin
    bacitracin Posts: 921 Member
    Not exactly. What I didn't realize at first is that you need to subtract the amount you've burned (say, 500 in one hour) from your bmr, the calories you would've burned anyway by simply living. For me, it's about 57 calories an hour. So if my heart rate monitor said I burned 500 in an hour, really I was only burning 443 or so.

    That... that's not what you're supposed to do. You're doing it wrong. You're REALLY BURNING 500. What you're trying to say is that that is only ~443 EXTRA, over what you would burn if you were in bed asleep. So in OP's case, she may have REALLY BURNED 1100 in two hours, which would be at least 900 EXTRA over what she would have burned if she was just watching TV.
  • crlyxx
    crlyxx Posts: 186 Member
    Not exactly. What I didn't realize at first is that you need to subtract the amount you've burned (say, 500 in one hour) from your bmr, the calories you would've burned anyway by simply living. For me, it's about 57 calories an hour. So if my heart rate monitor said I burned 500 in an hour, really I was only burning 443 or so.

    That... that's not what you're supposed to do. You're doing it wrong. You're REALLY BURNING 500. What you're trying to say is that that is only ~443 EXTRA, over what you would burn if you were in bed asleep. So in OP's case, she may have REALLY BURNED 1100 in two hours, which would be at least 900 EXTRA over what she would have burned if she was just watching TV.

    Yes, but if she plans on logging her exercise calories, she should only log the 443, because MFP already has the 57 calories factored into her daily goal.

Categories