I'm working on this new speedwork plan and I implemented it tonight at the gym. The trouble is, we had high winds (that means slightly sub tornado in intensity) over the weekend - read Sweet Baboo's post about his Saturday ride, which isn't up yet, but should be - and whenever that happens, a bunch of stuff gets to swirling around in the air that doesn't agree with me, and my throat gets sore, and my chest gets tight and my heartrate stays elevated for a couple days. This is something that I inheirited from my mother (Thanks, Mom). But anyway.
So I started this speedwork thing today, ducking out of work early to go to Sam's Club to get cracker/peanutbutter package snacks and apple juice because we're starting the first of SIX DAYS of mandatory federal/state testing (thanks, George) and you'd be astonished how many people don't care of their kids eat breakfast.
ANYWAY as I said I headed for the gym where I was hoping also to hit the Monday night spin class, but as I said, the heartrate thing, and so I did my speedwork, spent some time on a trainer and headed home. I'm working on bringing my speed, at least per the treadmill, up to a stead 9:13 or so. I'd so love to break the ten minute barrier. Not that it's a barrier for everyone. It's just a barrier for me. I'd like to break it.
I have to alter my trianing plan a bit for this week because I have yet another dental appointment on Thursday - something you don't already know about me if that I have dental enamel that's about the consistency of bread, and I've had nine root canals and nine of my teeth are capped and all the others have had multiple fillings in them, something that I got through the gene pool from my Dad along with my nearsightedness and alarming tolerance for alcohol (thanks, Dad) . But I'm rambling.
SOOOO, ANYhoo, here's my question.
According to the treadmill, et al., I burned about 450 calories.
According to my Timex IM heartrate monitor watch, I burned 888 calories.
I'd like to know who's right? Do any of you know? Are either of them right?
...
-
So, I've got this thing in my left ankle that I felt the first stirrings of when I was running downhill from the La Luz trailhead. Then ... -
Okay. Well, I'm not going to know how things went until my classes start at 9 am. It appears that the substitutes haven't followed ... -
“ Silver strands tend to be coarse and unruly and they have a habit of sprouting straight up. I’m cultivating a new kind of plant, more wis...
based on my limited knowledge, they're both just guidelines. However: Did you program in your data on the Timex (age, weight, sex, max HR)? If so, that tends to be a little closer to reality.
ReplyDeleteTreadmills generally base their info on your heartrates - did your treadmill read from your HR monitor? In treadmill terms, the higher the HR the more the calories.
If you were doing HR work, chances are the Timex is closer to reality.
...or you could just average the two and call it good...
ReplyDeleteI usually believe my HRM over the machines. And I generally subtract 10% just for good measure. I figure that should cover just about everything.
ReplyDeleteGo with the watch so you can eat more, of course!!!
ReplyDeleteBoo to your teeth and the men in black too
take care
I've found that my Timex IM HRM notoriously overestimated my calorie burn, when compared to my Polar. The Timex only uses weight and age, not gender, so its probably configured for a man. Reduce the calorie burn by 75%, and you'll probably be closer.
ReplyDeleteThe calorie burn on machines are also usually calibrated for men. Odd that they are so different.
I tend to never believe my treadmill for anything, including calories. I can't get mine to stop tracking carbs burned, and by the end of a 45 minute run you'd think I could eat a box of pancakes and still come out ahead.
ReplyDeleteBut, then again, I'm also convinced that my treadmill is bad about things like distance and pace.
I may just have issues.
My Polar HRM is a lot closer with calories than general timeXpace calculators. Polar actually published 2 small studies on the accuracy of their calorie estimates that said women's calories could vary from 10-20%. I subtract 15% from the HRM and call it a day. It helped me lose 20 pounds in 2005 so it can't be too far off.
ReplyDeleteKLN warned that Timex was way off so it could be related to brand.
I like the averaging part. My times thingy is set up with my weight and all, but not the treadmill at the gym, so I supposed to should trust it more. I didn't know that about it being set for men, though. I bought the woman's version so I thought it would be set up for us girly types.
ReplyDeleteI hope you mean 75% OF my estimate, and not 75% off! That would reduce it to a fourth of what it was.