JM's banish fat boost metabolism and hrm

Options
sabrinafaith
sabrinafaith Posts: 607 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
ok, so I've asked this before, but need help again. I weight about 170 lb and I just got my polar f6, but it says I am only burning 425 calories for 42 min (I have back problems, so I don't do the floor circuit). I want to know if this is accurate or if I've done something wrong in regards to the hrm, my avg hr is in the 160s, max in mid 180s. I finish covered in sweat feeling like I may vomit. I push myself HARD.

How do my numbers compare with people of similar weight?

I should also point out that I've been doing this workoutnfor months so I know the routine pretty well.
«1

Replies

  • nancym221
    nancym221 Posts: 23
    Options
    I am not sure but i think that 425 cals in 42 min is amazing.
  • Kate_UK
    Kate_UK Posts: 1,299 Member
    Options
    I've only just started doing this dvd, and my HRM is a cheap one with a chest strap. I weigh 155lbs and I'm 5ft 9.5. I'm not the fittest person in the world but I push hard throughout the dvd, complete all the moves and I'm ready to die by the end. My HRM gives me a reading of around 770-800 ish for the whole workout I then subtract 50 cals from that to account for my BMR calories that MFP has counted. But as my HRM isn't an expensive one I don't know how accurate it is.
  • sabrinafaith
    sabrinafaith Posts: 607 Member
    Options
    But kate, if u weigh less, u should burn less. Omg, I'm so frustrated! Thanks for the response though.
  • clioandboy
    clioandboy Posts: 963 Member
    Options
    Hi there, I am not able to compare like with like but I can tell you that my new hrm is giving me way less calories for my exercise than mfp does.......... it probably will be a good thing in the long run to overestimate the calorific values of food and underestimate the cals burned when exercising, your deficit is more or less guaranteed then!

    good luck
  • melbhall
    melbhall Posts: 519
    Options
    That is an amazing number of calories burned! I'm not sure, because I have never done that video but when I did 30 day shred I was burning similarly and I was also 170 (5'5...not sure of your height). The great (and crazy) thing, was I burned way more calories just pushing Wes around my neighborhood, up slight hills in his stroller, although the videos helped with toning. Either way, keep up the good work!
  • ickybella
    ickybella Posts: 1,438 Member
    Options
    I have a polar FT4 and it says I burn about 500 calories, after I subtract my BMR. I'm 5'6.5" and I weighed about 160 the last time I did Banish Fat. I do the whole thing, including floor work.
  • melbhall
    melbhall Posts: 519
    Options
    Oh yeah, does your HRM have a chest strap? I've read they are way more accurate than the watch you wear on your wrist.
  • bionicdiver
    bionicdiver Posts: 198 Member
    Options
    ok, so I've asked this before, but need help again. I weight about 170 lb and I just got my polar f6, but it says I am only burning 425 calories for 42 min (I have back problems, so I don't do the floor circuit). I want to know if this is accurate or if I've done something wrong in regards to the hrm, my avg hr is in the 160s, max in mid 180s. I finish covered in sweat feeling like I may vomit. I push myself HARD.

    How do my numbers compare with people of similar weight?

    I should also point out that I've been doing this workoutnfor months so I know the routine pretty well.

    I'm not sure about the F6, but I have an F4 polar HRM. Your calorie burn doesn't sound that far off.
    When you first set up your HRM, you can usually set up your different heart rate zones: low, medium, and high. These zones are auto calulated on age and weight. If you workout in the lower zones, you will find you burn a higher percentage of fat calories than if you were working out in your high zone.

    Also make sure your HRM settings reflect your current weight and height. This will make the calculations more accurate.

    Hope this helps some.
  • sabrinafaith
    sabrinafaith Posts: 607 Member
    Options
    Hi Melissa, yes I have polar f6 with chest strap. Also I'm 5'4.5", so our stats wouls be similar. Could muscle mass make a difference? I have very muscular legs, so maybe that makes me burn less than other people?
  • sabrinafaith
    sabrinafaith Posts: 607 Member
    Options
    Bionic, what do u mean? If my hr is at 135 I burn more than at 165??????
  • lilac67
    lilac67 Posts: 311
    Options
    I don't know if this helps, but I was just re-listening to and old JM radio show. She was talking about heart rate monitors and how if you don't use your upper body alot in the exercises, it doesn't monitor it accurately. My suggestion is compare it to the figures in the MFP exercise log and see what you get.
  • jrlenig
    jrlenig Posts: 364 Member
    Options
    I say yes that is about what I burn when I do that one, 425-567 ( I do the floor work, but not at the same rate, I have a week core and bad back, and your hr goes down during most of the floor work in here dvd's)
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    ok, so I've asked this before, but need help again. I weight about 170 lb and I just got my polar f6, but it says I am only burning 425 calories for 42 min (I have back problems, so I don't do the floor circuit). I want to know if this is accurate or if I've done something wrong in regards to the hrm, my avg hr is in the 160s, max in mid 180s. I finish covered in sweat feeling like I may vomit. I push myself HARD.

    How do my numbers compare with people of similar weight?

    I should also point out that I've been doing this workoutnfor months so I know the routine pretty well.

    It might be a little low, but it's not out of the ballpark by any means. Many workout DVDs (esp JMs, from what I have seen) alternate between short bursts of higher-intensity cardio moves to low to very low intensity "strength" exercises or floor work. I don't know how long this video is, but the 30 DS videos include less than 20 min of what I would consider substantial exercise.

    It may be that, while you are pushing yourself hard, the moves are such that there is a limit as to how hard you can work at doing them. Plus, Polars tend to underestimate calories at lower HR levels.

    Again--bottom line, I think your numbers are a little low, but not by a huge amount.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Hi Melissa, yes I have polar f6 with chest strap. Also I'm 5'4.5", so our stats wouls be similar. Could muscle mass make a difference? I have very muscular legs, so maybe that makes me burn less than other people?

    No. Even if that made a difference, an HRM cannot measure that--they ONLY measure heart rate--everything else is just an estimate.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I've only just started doing this dvd, and my HRM is a cheap one with a chest strap. I weigh 155lbs and I'm 5ft 9.5. I'm not the fittest person in the world but I push hard throughout the dvd, complete all the moves and I'm ready to die by the end. My HRM gives me a reading of around 770-800 ish for the whole workout I then subtract 50 cals from that to account for my BMR calories that MFP has counted. But as my HRM isn't an expensive one I don't know how accurate it is.

    The biggest issue is not necessarily the accuracy of the HRM (no way I can comment about that without more details). It is the accuracy of your setup information. It is very likely that your true max heart rate is notably higher than the "220-age" estimate that the HRM uses. So, the HRM is assuming that you are working at a much higher aerobic level than you are actually doing. At your weight (70kg) and your admittedly lower fitness level (although now it is improving, right!) would put you at about 400-450 for this 45 min workout.
  • flbeachbuddy
    flbeachbuddy Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    I have found some of MFP's calorie burn amounts to be much higher than my exercise bike... I usually go with the lower one, so that I underestimate... Not much advice, just a comment.

    Good luck!
  • cmw9696
    cmw9696 Posts: 123
    Options
    I guess, in my opinion, I would rather estimate low for calories burned than high...and, I always guess high on my food calories if there is a question about that too. It is difficult to be 100% on with everything...
  • Kate_UK
    Kate_UK Posts: 1,299 Member
    Options
    I've only just started doing this dvd, and my HRM is a cheap one with a chest strap. I weigh 155lbs and I'm 5ft 9.5. I'm not the fittest person in the world but I push hard throughout the dvd, complete all the moves and I'm ready to die by the end. My HRM gives me a reading of around 770-800 ish for the whole workout I then subtract 50 cals from that to account for my BMR calories that MFP has counted. But as my HRM isn't an expensive one I don't know how accurate it is.

    The biggest issue is not necessarily the accuracy of the HRM (no way I can comment about that without more details). It is the accuracy of your setup information. It is very likely that your true max heart rate is notably higher than the "220-age" estimate that the HRM uses. So, the HRM is assuming that you are working at a much higher aerobic level than you are actually doing. At your weight (70kg) and your admittedly lower fitness level (although now it is improving, right!) would put you at about 400-450 for this 45 min workout.

    Thanks, that's worth knowing.
  • bionicdiver
    bionicdiver Posts: 198 Member
    Options
    Bionic, what do u mean? If my hr is at 135 I burn more than at 165??????

    There are different heart rate zones to work out in. If you look at your HRM you should see 'Light', 'Moderate', and 'Hard'. Depending upon which zone you are in will determine how many fat calories you burn. Let me try to give you an example.

    I'm 43 and if I calculate my Max HR it would be around 178 bpm. My resting HR is about 60 bpm.
    The Polar HRM will calculate your Light, Moderate and Hard calorie zones for you.

    The Light zone is the one where you burn the highest percentage of fat calories (i.e. fat is burned for fuel first). For example, if I maintain my HR in the 106-123 bpm zone and burn 600 calories, 60% of the total calories burned will be fat calories. If I exercise in the Hard range of 142-159 bpm zone and burn 750 calories, then only 35% of the total calories burned will be fat calories.

    So while you are burning more calories by keeping your heart rate higher, you are not as effective at burning fat. At the higher heart rates, you burn more carbs and proteins. If you look at a person who is lifting weights to put on muscle, they tend to do very light cardio, if at all. They want to burn fat, but they don't want to burn carbs or proteins. If they start doing too much cardio, they burn the proteins they want to use for muscle growth.

    So, if your goals are to just lose weight, then the higher heart rate is ok. Just remember that you don't burn fat as efficiently at the higher heart rates.

    You should be able to use your user's manual for your heart rate monitor to calculate your zones. Then you set your HRM to the zone you want to work out in and stay in it when working out.

    Hope I helped and didn't confuse you. Please let me know if I can help (or confuse) you more.

    Have a great day!
  • bionicdiver
    bionicdiver Posts: 198 Member
    Options
    One last thing. Heart Rate Monitors give you an estimate of the total number of calories you burn during a workout. HRMs and calorie burns are not an exact science.

Categories