Video Fitness Forum  

Go Back   Video Fitness Forum > Video Fitness Reader Forum > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-16-09, 07:17 PM  
lreidgreen
VF Supporter
 
lreidgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Jersey
Yes I would expect to burn more especially since my HR got up to my theoretical maximum during that session with Lauren's workout. I am surprised at the relatively low calorie burn during the kettlebell workouts. However that is probably just me -others report more calories burned than I do on the kickboxing workouts. I can assure you I am not "phoning it in" as Jillian would say.

I have been curious about this since starting to use this particular HRM in March-my previous one did not have calories burned info. It seems like in terms of calorie burn walking with running sprints gives me a better calorie burn, even taking into consideration that these are longer workouts.

Last edited by lreidgreen; 06-16-09 at 07:19 PM. Reason: clarifying post
lreidgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-09, 07:18 PM  
ddj
VF Supporter
 
ddj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Leslie, I don't burn as many calories as others here either. I have a Polar and I always thought they were supposed to be pretty accurate. It does show a slightly lower calorie burn than the Pilot on my Revmaster, but I don't burn much on the bike either unless I ride for a long time. It's rather disheartening for me to see how much others are burning and how little I'm burning when I work so hard.
ddj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 05:18 AM  
Kellie
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Judy, I too log my exercise and food intake on Livestrong-Daily Plate. It's great, isn't it? However, I have noticed on their forums that a lot of discussion revolves around the fact that the calorie expenditures on the workouts are too high. When I bike or run sometimes I compare what my monitor says to their site and my monitor is always lower by about 20 to 30 percent on most things. I use a polar with all the variables, so I tend to trust my monitor. If you haven't had a chance to read some forums, you should do that. Some of them are very informative...much like VF of course!
Kellie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 05:33 AM  
kat_b
 
kat_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, VA
I'm always on the lighter side of calorie burn, too: I'm petite. But, I do burn a ton with Kickboxing (and most spin sessions). Far more than with step or kettlebells. [ETA: I rarely go beyond one riser for step these days--that's definitely a factor for me]

Of my HRMs, I believe my Polar is most accurate--in addition to HR it uses your age/height/weight/typical activity level in it's calculations. I have a Garmin Forerunner, and even though you plug in that same info, they admit it doesn't take all that into account. But I like that it maps my rides and runs and records it all on my computer. :/

My treadmill literature says it is calculating based on 150# (I'm not near that), and using nothing else, so I know that is off.
kat_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 09:00 AM  
Gardengirl
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellie View Post
However, I have noticed on their forums that a lot of discussion revolves around the fact that the calorie expenditures on the workouts are too high.
I don't frequent the forum, but I did think that was high so I checked some other places and they all indicated that there is a very high caloric burn for kickboxing. Thus, my question here!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kat_b View Post
I'm always on the lighter side of calorie burn, too: I'm petite. But, I do burn a ton with Kickboxing (and most spin sessions). Far more than with step or kettlebells.

Of my HRMs, I believe my Polar is most accurate--in addition to HR it uses your age/height/weight/typical activity level in it's calculations.
I too am petite and realize that I'd probably be on the lower end of the calorie burn, but it looks like this is a really high calorie burner! Which Polar do you have? I'm thinking I might need a Polar! I have an older Sigma and it's been giving me some trouble, and I'm not sure how accurate it is so I haven't used it in quite a while!
__________________
Judy
Gardengirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 09:18 AM  
frogribbit
VF Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kansas
Quote:
I am surprised at the relatively low calorie burn during the kettlebell workouts.

I am too! I've always gotten a pretty low calorie burn with kettlebell workouts and can't figure out why because I'm working really hard!
frogribbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 09:53 AM  
kat_b
 
kat_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardengirl View Post
Which Polar do you have? I'm thinking I might need a Polar! I have an older Sigma and it's been giving me some trouble, and I'm not sure how accurate it is so I haven't used it in quite a while!
Mine is the M52. They've upgraded and expanded the line pretty substantially since I got mine. The geek in me would like to replace it with a new one, but it is still going strong and giving me the numbers I like to track.
kat_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 11:55 AM  
roleez
VF Supporter
 
roleez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Suffolk, VA
That's so strange that your monitor only shows 249 calories with Lauren's, seems very low to me. It's been a while since I've done it in full because I'm doing a CLX rotation right now but it seems to me like when I was doing the 40 minute workout, I was burning around 450-500 calories and my HR average was around 160 or so. I weight about 128 so not particularly heavy or light and I consider myself to be fairly fit.
__________________
DISCLOSURE: I have a professional relationship with a seller or producer of fitness videos or products. For details, please see my profile.
roleez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 12:41 PM  
Gardengirl
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgia
Quote:
Originally Posted by roleez View Post
That's so strange that your monitor only shows 249 calories with Lauren's, seems very low to me. It's been a while since I've done it in full because I'm doing a CLX rotation right now but it seems to me like when I was doing the 40 minute workout, I was burning around 450-500 calories and my HR average was around 160 or so. I weight about 128 so not particularly heavy or light and I consider myself to be fairly fit.
I think so too! In fact, I thought I posted that yesterday, but I must not have hit "submit". Damned menopause! In my lost post, I suggesting borrowing another HRM if possible and rechecking your figures because they ALL sound really low to me! Newport/Firepower/Keith Weber/KCM - less than 300 calories? No way!!!
__________________
Judy
Gardengirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-09, 12:56 PM  
beth22
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CT
Leslie-
I really think your heart rate monitor is not calculating your calories burned correctly. I have all the workouts you mentioned and I burn FAR more calories than what you posted. (I'm 5'3 and 112 lbs).

Have you double checked the settings on your HRM to make sure they're correct (such as your height, weight, age, etc)????
beth22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
body bar, bodybar, cardio combat surge, heartrate monitor, kickboxing, weighted bar

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2009 Video Fitness