Here's a cool graphic of my heart rate I obtained during a 40 minute treadmill run while wearing my Garmin Forerunner 405 GPS watch with a heart rate monitor hooked up.
0-9 minutes: 6.6 mph zero incline9-18 minutes: 6.7 mph 0.5 incline
18-27 minutes: 6.8 mph 1.0 incline
27-36 minutes: 6.9 mph zero incline
36-40 minutes: 7.0 mph zero incline
40-45 minutes: cool down.
Average HR 160
Max HR 180
750 calories burned. Feels incredible
You should consider picking up the footpod for the FR405 -- it'll give you speed & distance data indoors. You can also set the FR405 to automatically count every mile as a "lap" so you get good splits... most useful.
ReplyDeleteMax HR 180? 220 - 35= 184 good, I get to 195 at most.
ReplyDelete6.6-7.0 averages out to about 8:45 pace x 40 minutes--that is less than 5 miles.
ReplyDeleteNo way you burned anywhere near 700 calories--probably much closer to 450.
Calories burned dependent on:
Body size-you look to be about average
Running Economy-unless you were flipping all over the place, in 40 minutes this won't have much effect
Terrain-on a treadmill with no wind, negligible incline, even surface.
This will,being very generous, =out to about 100 calories per mile, probably less.
That's about a nice turkey sandwich (w/o mayo).
Yeah, you didn't burn 750 calories. Don't even look at the machine as they're notoriously inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteYou believe the numbers,uh-huh...
ReplyDeleteFirst,think of calories burned as a net, not a gross number.
You burn your BMR typing this blog--it is the difference between your resting BMR and your exercise activity that constitutes your real calories "burned".
The numbers:
Total calories burned per mile running:
(.63 x your weight)
Total calories per mile walking: (.30 x wt per mile net)
Caveats:Again, this varies due to terrain and conditions--a 9% grade hill with a 10mph headwind is obviously more taxing than a treadmill indoors set at 0 degrees.
Also, running economy, ie efficiency of form--a champion marathoner burns fewer calories per mile due to lack of wasted motion.
Those factors aside, here are the numbers:
Assumption:weight, about 170?
If you weigh less, calories burned will be fewer.
workout #1, treadie:
4.5 miles *(170x .63)=481
Second workout run-walk hybrid:
Run:2.5 x above=268
Walk:2.5 miles x above=128
268+128=396
so your Garmin and treadmill say 1450; in reality, you burned much closer to 877.
RE:Treadie workout:I would again accurately say even fewer,as your conditions were close to ideal, ie no gradient, no wind, smooth surface, etc.
So if you still believe the numbers, go ahead and pound those extra 573 calories every workout for a few weeks and let us know how the waistline is doing.
Adapted from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004.
I could be wrong, happy, but isn't the HR not trying to keep up with energy demand but rather the oxygen demand of the body? (unless the extra bpm adds to energy consumption, but I can't imagine it's significant)
ReplyDeleteHH_
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you are interested in this.
And I am not being adversarial, I am simply showing you the very common inaccuracy of the treadmills.
I won't even get into the lack of calibration of the belt speeds :)
Just like food diaries tend to underestimate the supply side of the equation...
First, those are not "my" formulas-I have a cited reference.
And I can get you many more if you would like--if you really want to dig in deep, read one of the bibles of running physiology,The Lore of Running by Tim Noakes PHD--he'll take you down to the molecular level.
Running and walking are 2 totally different movements-
when you walk slow,"you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs."
In running, "we actually jump from one foot to the other.This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force (fighting gravity) on both takeoff and landing."
Not so fast...walking fast is more akin to running, probably at about 5.0 mph, the movements become more similar and burns calories closer to our .63x body wt number.
So to your question, put simply, 2 runners running 4.5 miles would have different caloric expenditures based upon:
1.Body weight-this is the most important;ever read about Lance measuring his food,the bikes weighing under 20 pounds?
How about runners using "racing flats" as shoes, weighing less than 4 ounces?
The bikers and triathletes are often called "weight weanies" due to their obsessing over every ounce.
2.Respective levels of fitness and running economy.
3.Ambient conditions.
To be absolutely spot on accurate, you would need to go to an exercise physiology lab and have your exact parameters tested.
If runner #1 in your example is running 4.5 miles at a HR of 100,he is most likely walking;hence he would be burning fewer calories, ie .3 x BW per mile.
As for Runner #2, it would be tough for anyone to hold a HR of 200 for 4.5 miles--they are most likely very young or are in a tachyarrythmia.
Even for a young person, that would be > 95% of max HR for 4.5 miles--indeed a difficult feat.
Assuming this could be done,that would be close to an all out sprint and therefore .63 x wt/mile.
So yes runner #2 would burn more calories,.63 x body weight
So of course, it is a continuum--between the slow walking .3*wt/mile and the running .63*wt/mile, there is the brisk walk/slower runner somewhere in between.
I have been to the lab and know I burn about 102 (101.4 the day I did it) calories per mile; this compares favorably with the equation--I weigh between 165-169.
This varies a little depending on my level of fitness, but we are splitting hairs.
But as I weigh 165 and you state > 170, than you will burn more calories per mile,assuming we are both running.
(wt@HH minus 165) x .63 to be exact.
the heart issues:
The metabolic needs of the working muscles consume far greater energy than the heart.
Heart Rate:
Another entirely new discussion.
Suffice it to say,HR monitors, while still having a place, have fallen out of favor due to multiple issues.
A much simpler and more useful piece of information is a race time, aka time trial.
Run a mile, or preferably a 5K, as fast as you can.
From that number, there are excellent calculations to predict other race distance times and give you your various training zones.
You then have a baseline from which to chart your fitness improvements.
So go get your VO2max,lactate threshold,maximum and submax heart rate done in the exercise phys lab--you will then have the exact data necessary to calculate your caloric consumption.
If yours turns out anything like mine, you will be running a little farther each time you are out there!
And one last thing:
Runners never,ever use the word "jog".
(Joggers tend to be the ones who gather marathon morning,despite being in their late 20s/early 30s wearing some type of senior class high school tee shirt, often with bilateral knee braces and one ankle brace, a bat belt with 3 days of supplies,a camera, cell phone, eating a cherry pastry washed down with 2 liters of Gatorade with two power bars for dessert-- asking how far is this again?)
RUN long, HH, run long.
That was a great discussion. Thank you for that.
ReplyDeleteI had better stop wearing my old tees,huh?