So How Does This All Work Anyways?…
Current Mood:
Happy
I must admit I’ve been a bit perplexed. I’ve had a couple people mention to me that they were surprised how few calories I burned in something like a spin class… That class markets itself as able to burn 700-1100 calories in an hour. My old HRM would put me in the 700 range, but I knew that damn thing was off. It was constantly saying my max HRM was 240… I think not.
Now the people who have said this to me outweigh me buy 50+ lbs. I’m guessing they are just basing this on what they lose and not considering my weight compared to theirs. I weigh less, therefore I require less calories in my day, which in my mind means I will burn less. True?
The new Polar F6 HRM that I got the other week gives me results much closer to what I was expecting. It said I burnt around 489 calories in the hour session, keep in mind that only about 50 minutes of this are actually hard spinning. The rest is warm up and cool down. Also in my 6 mile run that I did in 64 minutes (which is by no means a slacking pace in my book) I got around 670 calories. All numbers I am happy with, all numbers that are having a positive impact on me both physically and mentally.
But I’ve been curious to see how many calories the fitness sites say I should be burning based on my weight, age, etc. They for the most part all seem consistent in saying that:
- Running, 6.7 mph (9 min mile) for 60 minutes = ~640 calories
- Bicycling, 12-13.9mph, moderate effort for 60 minutes = ~470 calories
Now to me that’s freaky in line with what I’ve actually been burning which makes me feel a little better. I could probably get an additional 50-75 calories in spin if I wanted to push it harder but I go home feeling tired and like I had a good workout so there is no reason to kill myself for that slight increase.
Anyways, the numbers thing is more of a game I am playing, I don’t stress over them. Just interesting to watch and see what directly affects what.
Oh Wednesday, half way thru! San Diego weather is being weird. Looks like shit out today, the past 2 days were hot as hell. I just want it to be like mid 70′s. I thought that’s what San Diego was supposed to be!!! The brochure lied, I want my money back…
MG rocks.
I guess I should go make some audio now!
Posted: April 22nd, 2009 under Fitness.
Comments
Comment from thehappycat
Time April 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Ah, yeah that too! I should have mentioned the new rates from the more accurate Polar. Max is somewhere around 180s, average running is like high 160s – low 170s, and for spin is around 140s to 150s. From looking online those look respectable and I shouldn’t fall over dead. 
I have definitely noticed lower weights with the addition of longer runs. That’s another reason I won’t bother pushing spin harder because everything seems to point at longer workouts being more beneficial than harder workouts (within reason).
I’m probably gonna go pick up a health for dummies book this week because this stuff is kinda interesting.
The other thing the HRM pointed out was even tho spin burnt less calories it seemed to burn more a significant amount more fat. I’ll assume because of the more interval style workout? I know people do that while running too, with like 2 minute sprints every so often. I think I’ll try adding that in once I get more comfortable with the distance.
Comment from rao
Time April 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm
If you are interested in reading some fitnesse books, you should pick up Body for Life by Bill Phillips. He is pretty much the premier exercise physiologist on the planet right now and he has a gift for breaking through all of the technical crap and just telling you what you care about knowing. It is one of the better reads out there in my opinion.
Comment from thehappycat
Time April 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Cool, thanks for the recommendation! I’ll look for it this week.
Comment from quixotique
Time April 22, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Yep, if you’re smaller, you burn less. Totally not fair, huh? Then again, I’m really happy with all the online calculators telling me that I should be cutting down to 2000 calories a day to lose 1 lb per week. Sure beats the hell outta 1300-1500 calories per day!
Comment from thehappycat
Time April 22, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hehe I’m fine with burning less, I am just happy now that I have a better way of tracking it! They were freaking me out when they were like I should be burning WAY more. When I put in their weights and ages tho their numbers were more correct, for them.
Comment from Illuminator
Time April 23, 2009 at 9:13 am
Don’t forget to leave some cushion for the pushin.
Comment from thehappycat
Time April 23, 2009 at 9:23 am
Haha, definitely. I have been told several times that’s a fav feature I apparently am in possession of so I plan on keeping that. 
I’m more interested in overall fitness, not much weight loss.
Write a comment
You need to login to post comments!
Comment from rao
Time April 22, 2009 at 12:04 pm
It all gets a little confusing some times. How many calories you burn is directly proportional to how much time you spend exercising with your heart rate at a particular level. Being in better shape than a lot of people, it is going to take your heart a bit longer to reach that level as it is much more used to physical exertion whereas someone who is in worse shape is “feeling the burn” much sooner and, as a result, for longer.