Calories burnt during workout

Options
Hilauren
Hilauren Posts: 18
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey guys
I've brought a polar heart rate monitor so I can see how many calories I burnt while working out. I'm 21 years old, 5'1 and 135 pounds. I'm a little overweight for my height and age and it is noticeable as i'm so small. I've just done Jillian Michaels banish fat, boost metabolism workout which is non stop cardio and my monitor says i've burnt 369 calories in 53 minutes. I've seen people post that they've burnt 600 + calories during this workout, I do appreciate that they are of a different weight but I feel disappointed that I've only shed 369 calories basically in an hour! Any tips and tricks for more of a burn?

Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,249 Member
    Options
    I'm not familiar with the particular workouts but it's a pretty safe bet that some of the burns you're seeing posted may be overstated and there's no way of comparing the intensity of the workouts (just as it's impossible for me to gauge how hard you were working....)

    There's also a great deal of variability between HRMs as each company uses it's own algorithms (or,as in Garmin's case different algorithms on different models) - I'd much rather err on the conservative side especially if you're eating back some or all of your exercise calories.
  • jorasims
    jorasims Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    I have done a few of the Jillian Michael's workouts and found that I did not burn a lot of calories while doing them. It all really depends on the exercises involved, the intensity in which you are doing those exercises.....It definitely could be accurate.
  • KatyE213
    KatyE213 Posts: 446 Member
    Options
    I have that DVD and I weigh exactly the same as you at 135. I suspect that the burn you are seeing on your HRM is far more accurate than the other figures you have mentioned! That's a good burn for 53 minutes, I love Jillian's DVDs :smile:
  • Sharon_C
    Sharon_C Posts: 2,132 Member
    Options
    I used to do boot camp and circuit training and that was about the burn that I got too. I think it's pretty accurate. It's amazing how easy it is to eat 300+ calories but how hard it is to burn it.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    Hey guys
    I've brought a polar heart rate monitor so I can see how many calories I burnt while working out. I'm 21 years old, 5'1 and 135 pounds. I'm a little overweight for my height and age and it is noticeable as i'm so small. I've just done Jillian Michaels banish fat, boost metabolism workout which is non stop cardio and my monitor says i've burnt 369 calories in 53 minutes. I've seen people post that they've burnt 600 + calories during this workout, I do appreciate that they are of a different weight but I feel disappointed that I've only shed 369 calories basically in an hour! Any tips and tricks for more of a burn?

    You'll find that a lot of people overestimate calories burned during exercise. I've seen 2000 plus for 2 hours of light housework or 1000 plus for some other non intense activity. Then you see posts asking about weight loss plateaus and all because they are eating at maintenance due to overestimated calorie burns. I'd guess that the estimates of you monitor are more accurate. If you want more of a burn, put in more effort: jump higher, go lower, hold poses longer, do more reps, anything that makes it a harder workout will likely burn more calories.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    That sounds reasonable to me. 369 calories in 53 minutes is 417 calories an hour. I'm a 46-year-old, 157 pound guy, and to burn that many calories an hour on my bike I have to go 16 mph, which is a reasonably brisk speed.

    Most databases, including MFP's, that are based on the Compendium of Physical Activities tend to overestimate calories burned. The Compendium was really intended as a way to compare the relative exertion required in different activities, and it draws its data from many sources, not all of which are equally reliable.

    Keep in mind, too, that HRMs aren't all equal, and that the vast majority of them are accurate only for steady-state cardio, i.e. exercise where any changes in your exertion level are relatively gradual. They're practically useless for weight training and for low intensity exercise.
  • jenniferpark01
    jenniferpark01 Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    I love my HRM. My mother in law and I have the same Polar FT7. We do the same boot camp at our gym, I burn 400-600 and she burns 100 or 200. I am 35 and 260. She is 67 and 220. My max heart rate is about 180 and hers is 150 and my average is about 150 and hers is about 130. I am sure it has to do with the formulas the HRMs use and the persons fitness level and workout intensity.

    So keep it up and - I think 369 is a way better number then some of the ones MFP will give you ;)

Categories