Playing tennis= 1000 calories burned

[HunterST]

My tennis buddy has a heart rate monitor that calculates how many calories the wearer has burned. We played doubles for about an hour and 45 minutes one day, and the thing said he'd burned over 1000 calories.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that was probably wrong. Running a mile burns about 100 calories, and there's no way playing doubles for that amount of time is equal to running 10 miles.

Are HRMs known to be innaccurate at calculating calories burned?

 

[Qubax]

Yah, I'm with you. I can't imagine that, that was even remotely accurate.

I guess my question is, how many calories do you burn in an hour or two or three of intense hitting.

Like, I'm talking take a dozen balls to the court, don't officially play points, just start rallies - hit and the second a rally is over toss another ball in there and go, go, go.

That has to be a pretty good workout.

I could see that being around 500 calories an hour. A lot of anaerobic and aerobic there.

 

[kikiviva]

My tennis buddy has a heart rate monitor that calculates how many calories the wearer has burned. We played doubles for about an hour and 45 minutes one day, and the thing said he'd burned over 1000 calories.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that was probably wrong. Running a mile burns about 100 calories, and there's no way playing doubles for that amount of time is equal to running 10 miles.

Are HRMs known to be at calculating calories burned?

Here is the answer and learn.

it's called after effects.

i am lazy to answer hahaha here is video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFeb4CgBiE8

studied in nutrition specialist / trainer in tennis

 

[kikiviva]

Here is the answer and learn.

it's called after effects.

i am lazy to answer hahaha here is video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFeb4CgBiE8

studied in nutrition specialist / trainer in tennis

and YES, you can burn 1000 cal in an 1 hour and half playin tennis

 

[r2473]

The great thing about gadgets like HRM's and such is that the manufacturer can program it to say anything they want.

Not burning enough calories running with that $500 Garmin? Does it say you are a slow, lazy POS? Buy my HRM. It will say you are cruising at 5 min miles with an average heart rate of 185 and burning 2000 calories.

If that's not enough, I can make one that will say anything you want. Just let me know. Remember, we are all winners and you have the right to get mad at anyone that tells you differently. Me and my HRM will never tell you that you aren't a winner.

 

[Power Player]

Yah, I'm with you. I can't imagine that, that was even remotely accurate.

I guess my question is, how many calories do you burn in an hour or two or three of intense hitting.

Like, I'm talking take a dozen balls to the court, don't officially play points, just start rallies - hit and the second a rally is over toss another ball in there and go, go, go.

That has to be a pretty good workout.

I could see that being around 500 calories an hour. A lot of anaerobic and aerobic there.

It is. Some will argue but they are wrong. You will burn 5-600 calories an hour if you are playing intense singles tennis like how you described.

 

[CDestroyer]

It is. Some will argue but they are wrong. You will burn 5-600 calories an hour if you are playing intense singles tennis like how you described.

I bet a Ferrer or a Murray can burn much more. Bottom line if your game is running down a ton of balls, chasing drop shots left and right, long winded all court rallies you could easily burn 800 cals.

Destroyer out.

 

[maggmaster]

Everybody's body is different. At best it is an estimate. I have an Adidas micoach that I use for heart rate training. I have worn it playing singles and running distance. If I run at a 6 minute mile pace it says that I burn a little over 800 calories per hour. If I play tennis, singles, it says that I burn around 650 per hour. Hitting the ball machine is slightly higher if movement is included and the feed rate is high.

 

[r2473]

Everybody's body is different. At best it is an estimate. I have an Adidas micoach that I use for heart rate training. I have worn it playing singles and running distance. If I run at a 6 minute mile pace it says that I burn a little over 800 calories per hour. If I play tennis, singles, it says that I burn around 650 per hour. Hitting the ball machine is slightly higher if movement is included and the feed rate is high.

You can maintain 6 minute mile pace for an hour? That's impressive.

Or are you saying that is the estimate the watch gives IF you were to actually do that? That's how the watch was programmed.

 

[dman72]

I don't believe for a second that running a mile only burns 100 calories.

You probably only burn 100 calories WHILE running, but what is the long term caloric deficit from the bodies recovery period and ramped up metabolism, as a previous person said, the after-effects? That's why all these counters on treadmills and such are silly.

 

[r2473]

I don't believe for a second that running a mile only burns 100 calories.

You probably only burn 100 calories WHILE running, but what is the long term caloric deficit from the bodies recovery period and ramped up metabolism, as a previous person said, the after-effects? That's why all these counters on treadmills and such are silly.

Naturally, this will depend on if you are in your optimum fat burning zone, etc.

There has been a lot of ink spilled on this type of stuff. Do yourself a favor. If you are trying to burn calories for weight / fat loss, the true measure will be (get ready for it) how many fat pounds you shed.

If you are interested in this stuff because you want to properly recover from your workout, just eat / drink enough each day so you are ready to go tomorrow.

But, if you are interested in this stuff more for intellectual stimulation, a quick google search should more than keep you busy for a while with multiple contradictory articles (all backed up by studies and science of course).

 

[autumn_leaf]

I remember the heart monitors back in my track and field days. The long distance runners wore them and the coach would tell them how many times they died according the monitor on each run lol.

 

[Posture Guy]

I can absolutely run 6 minute miles, it's not a problem.

And I can sustain that pace for, oh, about .1 miles.

 

[HunterST]

I don't believe for a second that running a mile only burns 100 calories.

You probably only burn 100 calories WHILE running, but what is the long term caloric deficit from the bodies recovery period and ramped up metabolism, as a previous person said, the after-effects? That's why all these counters on treadmills and such are silly.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but "afterburn" is a myth.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/

The good news, though, is that the 100 calories per mile doesn't include the calories you would have burned anyway by just existing. So, that's 100 additional calories burned per one mile.

 

[CDestroyer]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but "afterburn" is a myth.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/

The good news, though, is that the 100 calories per mile doesn't include the calories you would have burned anyway by just existing. So, that's 100 additional calories burned per one mile.

Maybe for super light cardio but afterburn is absolutely true. A weight lifter will continue to burn many more calories after their workout compared to someone sitting on their ass.

Nice try.

 

[sportsfan1]

On the other hand, something as easy as a few cookies will add 1000 legit calories

 

[maggmaster]

No that is just how it was programmed. I can maintain slightly under that for 3.1 miles though... EDIT- Or I can if I train up to it, I couldn't do that right now because I have been biking as my primary form of cardio but last year I worked down to a 17:45 3.1

 

[rjw]

On the other hand, something as easy as a few cookies will add 1000 legit calories

Cookies....yummy....

 

[r2473]

On the other hand, something as easy as a few cookies will add 1000 legit calories

Right on. My 2 bags of "Famous Amos" cookies and glass of super yummy chocolate milk is supposedly exaclty 1,000 calories.

More than my run this morning. I'm "sure" to gain weight (......let's see, 1,000 calories X 7 days..........3,500 calories to a pound............2 lbs / week X 52..........holy ****, I'm going to be 100 pounds heavier this time next year).

 

[dman72]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but "afterburn" is a myth.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/

The good news, though, is that the 100 calories per mile doesn't include the calories you would have burned anyway by just existing. So, that's 100 additional calories burned per one mile.

Did you even read the article, "guy" (why do people have to be ***** instead of just trying to make an argument like a grown up)?

The study was on people that did low intensity exercise...and it indicated that there was no afterburn affect. I thought we we already knew this about the mythical "fat burning" zone.

The study did not have a third group that did high intensity work for any length of time. When I talk about running a mile, it's not jogging while carrying on a conversation, its doing it as fast as you can. I stand by my original statement in that case.

And from what I remember, there are studies that show high intensity interval training burns way more fat/calories however the hell you want to describe it than doing slow aerobic exercise.

Guy.

 

[r2473]

Did you even read the article, "guy" ......

And from what I remember, there are studies that show high intensity interval training burns way more fat/calories however the hell you want to describe it than doing slow aerobic exercise.

Sweet. Time for the battle of the articles / studies.

I'm still wondering how I'm going to lose those mathematically certain 100 lbs. I'm going to gain.

 

[dman72]

Sweet. Time for the battle of the articles / studies.

I'm still wondering how I'm going to lose those mathematically certain 100 lbs. I'm going to gain.

Nah, not worth anyones time. I think most people on this forum already acknowledge that high intensity interval training has beneifts beyond the 30 seconds you're actually sprinting. Maybe "guy" thought he had a point to make. :?

 

[r2473]

I think "afterburn" is a myth too, but I don't worry about it one way or the other.

 

[mikeler]

I think "afterburn" is a myth too, but I don't worry about it one way or the other.

 

[dman72]

I don't really know WTF afterburn means, but if what we are talking about is raising your metabolic rate so that you burn calories as a result of the exercise, after you stop actually doing the exercise, there is plenty of evidence that this can be achieved.

If you play tennis at a very high intensity level for a 2 hour stretch I have no doubt that your body can consume an additional 1000 calories in relative proximity in time that do not turn to fat, that a person of the exact same body composition could consume that would increase body fat.

 

[r2473]

Afterburn is the idea that you continue to burn calories at an accelerated rate after doing certain exercises (like high intensity training). Listen to coach Rylan:

http://afterburneffect.net/

 

[Posture Guy]

I thought it was smoking cigarettes after sex.

my mistake.

 

[maggmaster]

Meh, I don't believe in afterburn. I do believe in enhanced nutrient partitioning as a result of intense training. If you eat your famous amos after you workout, more of them will probably go where you want them to go.

 

[r2473]

No that is just how it was programmed. I can maintain slightly under that for 3.1 miles though... EDIT- Or I can if I train up to it, I couldn't do that right now because I have been biking as my primary form of cardio but last year I worked down to a 17:45 3.1

That's a strong 5K. Nice.

If you did 10 miles in 60 minutes, I'm thinking your increased calorie demand would be more than 800 calories. I used to do this for a workout (I went 8 miles). I couldn't do it very often. It showed up about twice every 8 weeks in my program.

 

[HunterST]

Did you even read the article, "guy" (why do people have to be ***** instead of just trying to make an argument like a grown up)?

The study was on people that did low intensity exercise...and it indicated that there was no afterburn affect. I thought we we already knew this about the mythical "fat burning" zone.

The study did not have a third group that did high intensity work for any length of time. When I talk about running a mile, it's not jogging while carrying on a conversation, its doing it as fast as you can. I stand by my original statement in that case.

And from what I remember, there are studies that show high intensity interval training burns way more fat/calories however the hell you want to describe it than doing slow aerobic exercise.

Guy.

Jesus man, calm down. You're the one being contentious, not me.

I was legitimately saying it was bad news. It'd be awesome if your metabolism kicked into high gear and made exercise twice as effective. But, it doesn't. The article doesn't make any distinction between high and low intensity exercise. It simply reports what type of exercise the particular study used. We can nitpick at the study and come up with reasons why it doesn't apply, but that's not getting us anywhere. We need an actual study showing that afterburn has a significant effect.

HIIT's effects have also been exaggerated. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/28/health/la-he-interval-training-20110228/2

I've never seen someone get so worked up about the word "guys." It was truly just meant as a way to address everyone.

 

[Posture Guy]

yeah, I didn't see any derogatory use of the word 'guy' there, at all.

someone needs a hug.

 

[kikiviva]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but "afterburn" is a myth.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/

The good news, though, is that the 100 calories per mile doesn't include the calories you would have burned anyway by just existing. So, that's 100 additional calories burned per one mile.

haha after burn effect is TRUE! and researched!

also, this article is just depend on person..

low intensity exercise burns fat. high intensity burns carb.

yes, its true. but whenever your out of carb, it starts burning fat.

1 gram of carb is around 4 cal,

so let's say you ate 50 grams of carb before an hour to play match.

50 x 4 = 200 kcal.

let's say an hour of tennis burns 600,

600 - 200 = 400 kcal.

which means you burnt 400 kcal of fat.

this is just burnt after an hour of tennis, you would burn more kcal after exercise .

imagine how long would you think will take to burn 400 kcal with low intensity exercise (walking , and jogging and others)

im pretty sure it will take more than an hour.

 

[HunterST]

haha after burn effect is TRUE! and researched!

also, this article is just depend on person..

low intensity exercise burns fat. high intensity burns carb.

yes, its true. but whenever your out of carb, it starts burning fat.

1 gram of carb is around 4 cal,

so let's say you ate 50 grams of carb before an hour to play match.

50 x 4 = 200 kcal.

let's say an hour of tennis burns 600,

600 - 200 = 400 kcal.

which means you burnt 400 kcal of fat.

this is just burnt after an hour of tennis, you would burn more kcal after exercise .

imagine how long would you think will take to burn 400 kcal with low intensity exercise (walking , and jogging and others)

im pretty sure it will take more than an hour.

I sincerely hope you guys are right about afterburn. It would be much more encouraging.

 

[Giannis]

The only time i had my calories measured while playing tennis was during a cardio tennis program, where we did several drills and exercises and we were always on the move, we were even picking up balls running. It was quite intense, my heart rate was over 180 during the whole time. The HRM said that i lost 553 calories in 30 minutes.

 

[dman72]

Jesus man, calm down. You're the one being contentious, not me.

I was legitimately saying it was bad news. It'd be awesome if your metabolism kicked into high gear and made exercise twice as effective. But, it doesn't. The article doesn't make any distinction between high and low intensity exercise. It simply reports what type of exercise the particular study used. We can nitpick at the study and come up with reasons why it doesn't apply, but that's not getting us anywhere. We need an actual study showing that afterburn has a significant effect.

HIIT's effects have also been exaggerated. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/28/health/la-he-interval-training-20110228/2

I've never seen someone get so worked up about the word "guys." It was truly just meant as a way to address everyone.

A humble apology, I did completely overeact to your post, don't know what the hell I was on yesterday, and I obviously couldn't see straight.

I think any study with an agenda might tend to exaggerate the effects of one pariticular exercise technique or theory. Anecdotally I'm convinced that the long term effects of intense exercise are much more pronounced than slow constant cardio, both in my own experience and watching other people. The people grinding out 45 minutes on an elliptical at a low intensity rate are in essence wasting 30 minutes if their goal is fat loss.

 

[HunterST]

A humble apology, I did completely overeact to your post, don't know what the hell I was on yesterday, and I obviously couldn't see straight.

I think any study with an agenda might tend to exaggerate the effects of one pariticular exercise technique or theory. Anecdotally I'm convinced that the long term effects of intense exercise are much more pronounced than slow constant cardio, both in my own experience and watching other people. The people grinding out 45 minutes on an elliptical at a low intensity rate are in essence wasting 30 minutes if their goal is fat loss.

Appreciate the apology. I think we've all read things the wrong way and been put off, so no big deal.

I agree about the studies not being very conclusive. I need to do some research in actual peer reviewed journals.

 

[r2473]

It was quite intense, my heart rate was over 180 during the whole time. The HRM said that i lost 553 calories in 30 minutes.

You stayed over 180 bpm for 30-minutes straight?

I've done runs at a ~7 min./mile pace and stayed in the 160-165 zone. And I'm "old".

You must have really been moving......and never stopping. Because heart rate decreases immediately upon resting.

 

[Giannis]

You stayed over 180 bpm for 30-minutes straight?

I've done runs at a ~7 min./mile pace and stayed in the 160-165 zone. And I'm "old".

You must have really been moving......and never stopping. Because heart rate decreases immediately upon resting.

I am 21 years old, 6'4" and 194 lbs. I did drop to around 175 bpm a few times, but i was near 180 most of the time. I was really putting big effort, i was moving more than anyone during that workout, just because i wanted to see what is my limit.

 

[GuyClinch]

singles I would believe it - doubles - not at all. And you have to be pretty decent singles players too - guys that can really hit out and have long rallies.

 

[Fugazi]

My tennis buddy has a heart rate monitor that calculates how many calories the wearer has burned. We played doubles for about an hour and 45 minutes one day, and the thing said he'd burned over 1000 calories.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that was probably wrong. Running a mile burns about 100 calories, and there's no way playing doubles for that amount of time is equal to running 10 miles.

Are HRMs known to be innaccurate at calculating calories burned?

I'm with you on this, seems exaggerated. I did hear however that 1 hour of squash = about 1000 calories, which I find realistic considering that squash is usually much more demanding in terms of movement than tennis, and with longer rallies. Squash also allows for less time between points. Of course it has to be relatively high level squash.

 

[r2473]

I am 21 years old, 6'4" and 194 lbs. I did drop to around 175 bpm a few times, but i was near 180 most of the time. I was really putting big effort, i was moving more than anyone during that workout, just because i wanted to see what is my limit.

Your max heart rate would be around 200 bpm. 100% intensity.

180 bpm = 90% intensity.

I find it hard to believe you were going at a constant 90% for a half hour straight.

You are basically doing better than the Oregon track team during their training (see page 2; Pulse Table):

http://www.teamoregon.com/publication/online/effort.pdf

And you were playing tennis, not running around a track. I can't even see how this is possible in theory, let alone in practice.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

I wore mine playing tennis once. During longish rallies with lots of running, the highest I ever got was in the 140's. Thing is, much of the time, even in intense rallies, you are taking recovery steps, not sprinting.

The rest of the time, I was around 110 when playing. This went down immediately between points.

Tennis just isn't a sport of constant moving at 100% intensity. That's called sprinting. I'd be very surprised if a soccer player was able to keep an elevated heart rate up for a half hour straight. You run a lot, but you also "rest" a lot. Running is about the only thing that you just keep a constant elevated heart rate (and most rec runners don't even do it, they walk or slow down a lot).

 

[Giannis]

Anyway, i wasnt constantly looking at the HRM, since i was focusing on the exercise, so i might have dropped lower and not noticed. The result though was 553 calories in 30 mins.

 

[Alejandro Lanza]

I've only recently started to do exercise, so i kind of took the intervals thing as true w/o thinking much about it. But reading this got me thinking. After i exercise my body remains overall warmer than usual, so i guess during that stage i can see how i'm burning more calories than usual. Then again i don't know how much of that is me actually being warmer or just feeling warmer, but my point is, other than being warmer (assuming that's true), then where do the suppossed afterburnt calories go to?
I understand that the body is a complex machine, so i can't just look for heat or motion as energy outputs, for example i imagine there may be metabolical processes that consume more energy than others, but has any of that been documented? Does anyone know where those extra calories go to?
Thanks!

 

[r2473]

I give my extra calories to poor.

That's why poor people are often fat.

 

[Alejandro Lanza]

Actually they're fat due to insufficient protein intake

Anyways, google is my friend, i think this article answers my question. http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/epocarticle.html