Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

TOPIC: Is this even possible? 1000 calories burned in 65 min?

« Prev 1 3
« Prev 1 3
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
March 7, 2012 3:31 PM
I just got a new heart rate monitor (Timex) and am not sure I believe the results. I just ran 6.3 miles in about 65 minutes (that includes a 5 minute cooldown) and it said I burned 1033 calories. I'm 27, 149 lbs. Is that possible? I always thought it was approx 100 calories per mile. Thanks!
March 7, 2012 3:33 PM
That seems a bit high - 15.9 calories burned per minute...however I suppose it could be possible. I generally burn 10 cals per minute when I run.
March 7, 2012 4:29 PM
I just got a Timex as well. Strap and watch. Used it for the first time today. It said I burned 1300 in an hour running/walking. I weigh much more than you. IDK.....I posted almost this exact same thing a bit ago. Hope to get some answers!
March 7, 2012 4:33 PM
Look for the settings part in the manual. If you didn't enter your weight, it may calculate incorrectly. Also, check all the units. Make sure they're in pounds if that's what you're entering.
March 7, 2012 4:34 PM
It certainly is possible! I burn just over 1000 in a 55 minute Turbo Fire workout everytime and it's about the same as running when I compare.
  14521082
March 7, 2012 4:34 PM
Possible but you have to be motoring the entire time. I think it is slightly off. I prefer Polar series. More accurate.
  13342200
March 7, 2012 4:34 PM
I don't know about your monitor but I burned 1200 Saturday doing two classes (Metabolic Effect and Zumba) back to back - this was 75 minutes. So, based on that logic, I'd say it's possible you burned close to 100 in 65. Yes, I realize it's different types of exercise but in a general way.
  18277623
March 7, 2012 4:34 PM
Yes!
  9708265
March 7, 2012 4:35 PM
I'm not totally up to speed with HRMs, but I believe you may need to adjust some settings. Such as your age and your high/low HR. Have you already done this?
  9466504
March 7, 2012 4:35 PM
I use a Garmin heart rate monitor and burned 1024 calories in 1hr 44 minutes at avg rate of 148 bpm. You could always recalculate to see if its correct.


I'm female so I dont lose as many calories as males (ripped off! haha).
Edited by chloeuhoh On March 7, 2012 4:37 PM
March 7, 2012 4:35 PM
It seems high to me. Possible?? Yes. Probable?? I doubt it.
March 7, 2012 4:36 PM
It is high but that could be correct if you really hustled and especially if there was change of terrain or elevation involved. I burn at least 700 in less than 50 minutes on a treadmill that goes up and down.
March 7, 2012 4:36 PM
I think it's very possible. When you are running you are using the entire body and it's in motion. So you will burn more calories doing this vice doing any other cardio workout. Running is the fastest way to drop the weight quickly, but it is also tough on your back and knees.
  8805293
March 7, 2012 4:37 PM
I think it is possible.... I have used three different GPS running apps [ runstar, mapmyrun, runkeeper] and gym treadmills with more or less similar calories burnt for an hour. I usually get around 1000-1035 calories per hour of running 6.8-7 miles [ treadmill or outdoor]. I am 33 yrs, male, 171lbs. Hope this helps at least little bit!
March 7, 2012 4:38 PM
I am currently 257 lbs. and in 65 minutes I can burn right at 1200 calories on the elliptical. That is going at around 70-80% of my max HR.... I have very bad knee's so i don't run on the treadmill... I wear an Polar FT60 HRM......
  12269569
March 7, 2012 4:38 PM
I do it almost every time I do cardio. When you're doing intervals it works wonders but then again I purposely try to make my hr get to around 180, but mostly I average around 170.
  13722519
March 7, 2012 4:39 PM
I have that HRM....it says I burn 1600 calories in 60 min on the elliptical. Now, I do weigh 280, keep my heart rate at 155ish and keep the resistance rather high...15 (20 is max). But I go by MFP, which gives me credit for about 1100. Always go with the lower number if you're not sure. I know it's tempting to want to put up those numbers, but don't do it. You'll get better results and lose more weight if you try to underestimate your calories burned consistently and overestimate the food you eat. There is no way you can be completely accurate with this so give yourself a buffer.
  13483352
March 7, 2012 4:40 PM
On bikes with power meters where we can measure the actual amount of work done we do that all the time, but we are always going bat**** fast or climbing a mountain when it happens. So if you did not feel like your lungs were on fire or your eyes and heart were trying to pop out of your body I would say that you have something set wrong or the algorithm for the monitor is faulty.
March 7, 2012 4:41 PM
Sounds right to me and I burn more than 100 calories a mile for sure!
  14036305
March 7, 2012 4:43 PM
I have a Timex zone Trainer and Ive had Polar HRMs. BOTH are accurate. I believe that you can burn 1,000 calories in 65 minutes because I have done it. It depends on your speed, incline, fitness level, etc. I am 5'3, 125 lbs and can easily burn 1000 calories while running but I have to be running between a 6.5-6.7mph on atleast a 1% incline. Also if I can doing speed intervals, I can definitely burn 1,000 calories in 65 minutes.
March 7, 2012 4:46 PM
I recently got the Timex as well. 67 minutes of zumba gave me 1400calories. My cousin had her HRM on (she weighs close to the same, but her heart rate was lower during the workout) and hers said just over 950. Is it possible that I burned that much more than her?
  6756184
March 7, 2012 4:47 PM
Yes it is
March 7, 2012 4:51 PM
It's possible. Just make sure you set it up for your weight, height, and VO2 max. My husband had set it up for him a while back so after I reset it for me it said I burned less calories (naturally).
  14560235
March 7, 2012 4:54 PM
QUOTE:

I recently got the Timex as well. 67 minutes of zumba gave me 1400calories. My cousin had her HRM on (she weighs close to the same, but her heart rate was lower during the workout) and hers said just over 950. Is it possible that I burned that much more than her?


If her heart rate was much lower than yours during the workout, then yes you would burn more calories than she did. Yes you might weigh about the same but if you are working out harder than she is, you will burn more calories than her.
March 7, 2012 4:56 PM
I've gotten similar numbers with an HRM and also very different ones (closer to 700) for the same time/distance, being 30 pounds heavier. I put your stats into the database on this site and it said closer to 700, too. I would make sure all your data in the HRM is right. Mine asks me to qualify my fitness level. I initially said "moderate" but had to change it to "very fit" to get the numbers closer to what seemed right.
  13798430

Reply

Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.