sweet_tart Going For Fit!
sweet_tart's Journal
Jun 14 2007 22:10
Here is the result from Polar F6 doing Burn It Up. Keep in mind the result I got will and may be different from others. That is because of difference in each person's Heart Rate, Body Condition (age, height, fitness level, weight, etc). So, with those in mind, I am:
Female - 35 years - 5' 2" - 105 lbs - small built
consider myself fit enough, I haven't been doing BIU at least for 1 month
Starting HR when sitting down, motionless: 75-78
Total workout: 60min
Total calories burned: 285 cal, with estimated 45% burn fom Fat
Heart Rate: 164 max, 124 avg
In-Zone HR: 129-147, for 21min 14sec.
Now this may not seem much to you. (.."what??? 1 hour of muscle aching workout for only less than 300cal??...") :p
My logic to answer this is: SI6 incorpporates a lot of resistance training in the workout. Not merely cardio. You noticed how sore your muscles are from doing stand up crunches, squats, lunges, etc. And a lot of sets are slow pace. That forces the muscles to work harder. As other resistance training, you also reap the post-workout benefit.
I compared this with my Turbo Jam/Punch Kick & Jam workout. Fast pace high energy cardio. This one does have a resistance training in the end but not as much as SI6.
Here is the result:
Total workout time: 49min
Total calories: 317 cal, 35% burn from Fat
Heart rate: 171 (92%) max , 147 (79%) avg
In-Zone HR: 129-147 for 10min 44sec.
So in shorter time while I do burn more calories, my in-zone is only half the time of doing BIU, burn from fat is less, max HR is higher. This is due to different in activity. With Turbo Jam, it is more about cardio, heart rate is pumped up most of the time, with short intervals of breaks. And while achieving higher calories burn, it is less in building muscles.
Not saying one is better than other, it is really 2 different workouts with different objectives.
Suffice to say, I am happy I finally able to measure my workout :) YAY for HRM ^_^
"Now this may not seem much to you. (.."what??? 1 hour of muscle aching workout for only less than 300cal??...") :p" Glad you explained that because that's exactly what I was thinking when I read your post yesterday! lol Keeping your heart rate in the correct "zone" always confuses me. I know that to burn more "fat calories" you generally need to go slower. For getting a good cardio workout, it's faster. So, I guess a person would actually step up, or slow down, their workout accordingly, depending on what they wanted to achieve. Right? Or are YOU more interested in what's going on with the calorie burn and you don't care to adjust how fast your moving? I've REALLY got to get myself one of those things!!! My curiosity is SOOOO peaked. How reliable are they? |
as reliable as these things get I suppose. :o I have yet to test it repeatedly using the same workout. then I can compare the consistency. However, depending on one's physical and mental condition at the time of the workout, the total calorie burn will be slightly different. |
What a great present! I may have to get one for myself, because I want to know how many calories I'm burning when I do SI6 too. =) |
gosh, after reading the calories burned, in my head it doesn't seem worth it. I can do 30 minutes of elliptical (I do the #6 which is 2 minutes superfast and then 2 minutes slower) and burn minimum 300 calories and sometimes more. So for an hour of elliptical I'd burn twice as much as if I did the SI6 or TJ!!! Granted I don't check my heartrate and how long I'm in the fat burning zone. It's always been in my head that the more calories burned the better... maybe I need to change my way of thinking though because you are 105lbs and I'm almost 50lbs heavier! |
Join Calorie Count - it's easy and free!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Calorie Count Mobile
On the go andin the know.
Text food muffin to
HEALTH (432-584) for full calorie information. FREE!
Click here to start
