Anyone help?

ashleyboyes
ashleyboyes Posts: 19 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I purchased a watch which records my heart rate while exercising. Last night I used it for the first time after I ran on the treadmill for 42 mins covering 7K at 6.2mph. The treadmill monitor stated I had burned 560 calories however when I used the watch it said I had burned 116 calories. do you think this is correct or have I maybe not used it properly? I thought it was rather low.

Replies

  • happyfeetrebel1
    happyfeetrebel1 Posts: 1,005 Member
    Heart rate monitors tend to be WAY more accurate than the treadmill ones, but 116 for 7k seems really low. I'd try it again today and see what the results are..
  • awesomejdad
    awesomejdad Posts: 493 Member
    The one on the treadmill would say the same thing if you turned it on and then walked away. The one measuring your heart rate by gauging your pulse is bound to be more accurate.

    That being said if you were on a treadmill at an average of 6.2 MPH for 42 minutes it is unlikely that you burned only 116 calories. My guess is that there may be an issue with the settings on your monitor.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    116 for 7k is WAY LOW. I myself would burn about 450-500 at that distance, depending on pace. (I'm 130 lbs for reference.) Looks like your treadmill is closer to the truth. It's all a bit of guesstimation anyway...:drinker:
  • alska
    alska Posts: 300 Member
    Listen to your Heart Rate Monitor. MFP is way way off on calories. Depressing :( but true!!
  • alska
    alska Posts: 300 Member
    Everyone burns differently ...
    116 for 7k is WAY LOW. I myself would burn about 450-500 at that distance, depending on pace. (I'm 130 lbs for reference.) Looks like your treadmill is closer to the truth. It's all a bit of guesstimation anyway...:drinker:
  • ashleyboyes
    ashleyboyes Posts: 19 Member
    Thanks for your responses. I agree that 116 is way low for 42 mins running, I maybe didnt do it properly, I'll persevere with it or I may have to invest in a more expensive one.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member

    116 for 7k is WAY LOW. I myself would burn about 450-500 at that distance, depending on pace. (I'm 130 lbs for reference.) Looks like your treadmill is closer to the truth. It's all a bit of guesstimation anyway...:drinker:

    Everyone burns differently ...

    That's like 27 calories burned PER MILE running at a 6.2 mph pace. Nobody burns THAT low. :noway:
  • AllieGeorge2014
    AllieGeorge2014 Posts: 2
    Check that you've put your correct weight into the HRM.
  • ashleyboyes
    ashleyboyes Posts: 19 Member
    Yeah I agree, it definitely wasnt right. I used again to climb Bennachie (A Large hill IN aberdeenshire (518 m, 1699 feet) then ran down it which took 1hr 15 mins and the heart rate monitor said I had burned 96 cals. I am now certai it cant be right!!!!

    116 for 7k is WAY LOW. I myself would burn about 450-500 at that distance, depending on pace. (I'm 130 lbs for reference.) Looks like your treadmill is closer to the truth. It's all a bit of guesstimation anyway...:drinker:

    Everyone burns differently ...

    That's like 27 calories burned PER MILE running at a 6.2 mph pace. Nobody burns THAT low. :noway:
  • dammitjanet0161
    dammitjanet0161 Posts: 319 Member
    As a general rule, I've read that most people burn about 10 cals a minute when running. My HRM usually shows I burn about 11 calories per minute when running (but I'm about 180lbs at the moment for reference, and have quite a high resting heart rate so I've had to mess with the default settings on my HRM to get it closer to accurate).
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    10 cals a minute, or 100 cals per mile, is a good rough and ready "ballpark" figure.

Categories