Calories Burn't?

[[old] mv1169]

Hi,<br />On an average for 30mins i burn around 1000calories is this normal/ right?<br />Cheers,<br />Mat

[[old] BobD]

<!--quoteo(post=57770:date=Mar 1 2006, 03:18 AM:name=mat)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mat @ Mar 1 2006, 03:18 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi,<br />On an average for 30mins i burn around 1000calories is this normal/ right?<br />Cheers,<br />Mat<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How are you measuring the calories burned? For instance when my PM3 says 460 my Polar 725x says 538. I trust the Polar more than the PM3 because it knows my height, weight, age, sex, fitness level, etc. and the PM3 doesn't. 8)

[[old] Brendo]

Interesting, I have a polar too but I trust the PM3 I work on the basis that the machine knows exactly how much energy has been used to spin the fan. <br /><br />Though the Polar is supposed to be the most accurate calorie counter around I know. It would seem to me that for running especially the Polar would be very accurate for the reasons you mention knowing your height and weight etc. Nonetheless, does it really matter how tall you are or how heavy you are for indoor rowing. The machine is supporting your weight for instance.<br /><br />Definitely not saying that you are wron, just a different opinion<br /><br />on the 1000 in 30 mins - wow you must be rowing with a huge amount more energy than me. I did the rugby test this morning which is 3250 (1000+750+500+250+750) at intervals and the total was 230 in just over 12 mins average was about 1:50something. You are rowing at about twice my power<br /><br />Brendin

[[old] DIESEL]

<!--quoteo(post=57770:date=Mar 1 2006, 03:18 AM:name=mat)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mat @ Mar 1 2006, 03:18 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi,<br />On an average for 30mins i burn around 1000calories is this normal/ right?<br />Cheers,<br />Mat<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />what was your split time? Jeez. That sounds awfully high. <br />

[[old] Ray79]

I think the calories on the PM3 are only correct in certain cases due to the way it calculates calories burned. Unless you happen to weigh 75Kg, have a 4:1 metabolic ratio and use 300 cal/hr just for ticking over/breathing/doing nothing then its calorie burning count is not eniterly accurate.

[[old] whp4]

<!--quoteo(post=57776:date=Mar 1 2006, 01:42 AM:name=BobD)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(BobD @ Mar 1 2006, 01:42 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />How are you measuring the calories burned? For instance when my PM3 says 460 my Polar 725x says 538. I trust the Polar more than the PM3 because it knows my height, weight, age, sex, fitness level, etc. and the PM3 doesn't. 8)<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><!--quoteo(post=57790:date=Mar 1 2006, 04:17 AM:name=Brendo)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Brendo @ Mar 1 2006, 04:17 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Interesting, I have a polar too but I trust the PM3 I work on the basis that the machine knows exactly how much energy has been used to spin the fan. <br /><br />Though the Polar is supposed to be the most accurate calorie counter around I know. It would seem to me that for running especially the Polar would be very accurate for the reasons you mention knowing your height and weight etc. Nonetheless, does it really matter how tall you are or how heavy you are for indoor rowing. The machine is supporting your weight for instance. </td></tr></table><br /><br />You really can't trust either computation (PM3 or Polar) to give you anything but a rough estimate of the caloric expenditure during a workout. Yes, the PM3 knows how much mechanical work was done on the flywheel, but if you look at the formula they use to estimate caloric expenditure based on pace, you'll see that it assumes a certain rower weight (175 lbs) and also just guesses at the overall efficiency of the rower. Without knowing exactly what the Polar unit does with the additional information given to it (not to mention how "fitness level" is defined and measured) it is hard to just blindly accept that it is more accurate because it needs more configuration. HR at a given exertion level will vary depending on hydration level, ambient temperature, how rested the individual is, etc. and thus it seems unlikely that it can be relied on to exactly predict caloric expenditure for any athletic endeavor. Given the need to repeatedly lift your weight off the ground while running (not an issue with rowing for any but the most uncoordinated ) even if the Polar unit somehow accurately determines your caloric expenditure for running at a given HR that isn't going to be the same answer as rowing at that same HR. <br /><br />That you can't find out to a tenth of a calorie how much that 5k workout burned off isn't really a problem unless for some reason you find you need to exactly balance your exercise load against your food intake. Most people probably don't know their caloric intake all that precisely, either! If you're just trying to figure out roughly how much rowing you should do to counterbalance the effect of that Big Mac you ate, it will give you a ballpark figure. It will also let you make a rough comparison of the relative benefit of a shorter, more intense workout vs. a longer, more relaxed workout, in terms of calories burned while rowing. Note that such a comparison may not give the whole picture, as the two workouts may have different residual effects on your metabolism that day.<br /><br />To the original poster, wondering whether 1000 calories for a half hour workout was normal, I have good news and bad news. Good news is that if you're really burning 1000 calories in half an hour on the C2, you should have a glorious future in rowing, as that translates to about 500 W or a 1:28.5/500m pace - just a hair slower than the pace set by the winner in the Men's open heavyweight class this past weekend! Bad news is that a more likely explanation is that you've misunderstood the log card display: if you look closely, you'll see the column is labeled "cal/hr" - it is showing you the rate of calories expended, not the total count. 1000 calories/hr * 30 minutes * 1 hr/60 minutes gives you 500 calories expended, which works out to a much more reasonable 200 W or a 2:00.5/500m pace - certainly nothing to sneeze at, but I wouldn't start spending that future endorsement income quite yet! The calorie display during a workout does show the number of calories burned, however.<br /><br /><a href="http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/ ... #section11" target="_blank">Formula for computing calories</a>

[[old] Brendo]

whp4<br /><br />Good enough for me - nice reply<br /><br />I must admit that I do log the calories shown on the PM3 as just another motivator eg so far 42,000 cals is about 5.5Kg (at 7,700 cals per Kg of body fat - another generalisation I know) and I've actually lost about 4Kg. So if it gets me to round up to the nearest 10Cals on a just row programme it works for me<br /><br />I need to get out more <br /><br />Brendin