You burned how much?!

iwillbetinytea

I exercise for about 50 minutes, and I burn between 500 and 600 calories. I put the incline up to 18, and fast walk at about 3.7-3.9 mph. You can really start to feel it in that time, and I was surprised that by bumping the incline up ALL the way, it burns pretty much the same as I would if I was jogging the whole time.

(I'm 4"11, 118 lbs. )

Hope that helps!

This is good for your bum

tigerblood78

Don't get me wrong, I love to see that people are working out or doing some sort of activity, but....I do hate when people say, "I just cleaned HARDCORE" or "I just went on a walk for an hour" and they burned almost 600 calories? I mean, I'm not a beast or anything, when I work out it's only for a half hour at a pop right now and I only burn about 250-270 cals depending. How is it that these people are burning so much? Is it all just too over-exaggerated like I'm assuming it is? To tell the truth, it kinda' irritates me....BTW, please no negative comments, I've seen a lot of them lately. Thanks

Even if they are over exaggerating their burns....if its working for them, who cares?

khall86790

Some people choose the wrong settings for this kind of thing I think.
For example, they choose the wrong speed when walking as power walking vs. a gentle stroll will burn entirely different amounts of calories and be less/more of a strain on your heart rate and muscles.
As for cleaning, I think it's only really appropriate for someone who's job is a cleaner to log something like that as they to tend to go from object to object and I would imagine could get quite a burn on from cleaning. However, I do still think MFP are over generous with their estimations.
If I cleaned my house for 1 hour, I'd only log about 20 minutes because of all the stop starting and little bits you'd do (e.g. wiping down a surface) in between the heavy duty stuff (hoovering, mopping, etc.).

Azdak

I exercise for about 50 minutes, and I burn between 500 and 600 calories. I put the incline up to 18, and fast walk at about 3.7-3.9 mph. You can really start to feel it in that time, and I was surprised that by bumping the incline up ALL the way, it burns pretty much the same as I would if I was jogging the whole time.

(I'm 4"11, 118 lbs. )

Hope that helps!

you just proved the OP's point. sorry to break it to you, but you burned about half that...

Agree. I weigh 138Ibs at 5'10, and at 92-95% of my max HR, running for 55 mins, I burnt 630, so I fail to see how someone your weight would burn that much walking that speed, no matter the incline. And I use a HRM for my burns. Gym machines and mfp are not reliable for exercise burns.

Treadmills -- esp if you are walking and not holding on to the handrails--can be very accurate--much more accurate than an HRM.

Not only are HRMs guessing at calories burned twice removed, most people don't have them set up correctly. For example, it is highly unlikely that one could sustain a 92%-95% intensity effort continuously for 55 minutes. That would suggest that your actual HR max is higher than the number programmed into your HRM. Which means your HRM is overestimating your calories every time you work out.

As I pointed out, the calculated numbers reported by the person doing the incline walking are not wrong. And, yes, one can add enough incline, even at a speed like 3.0 mph, to create a workload level that is beyond the capacity of human physiology. In this case, the problem is likely not with the calculations, but with the fact that the person almost certainly held on to the handrails while walking at the steep incline. Handrail support at that speed and incline can reduce calorie burn by 40% or more.

Every method has positives and negatives, but HRMs are NOT the "gold standard" for calories estimates---not even close. They are the best option ("best" being a relative term) for some activities, but it's a fairly short list.

cwolfman13

I try not to worry too much about what other people are doing, but I think a lot of people both over estimate calorie burn and underestimate calorie intake. 9 times out of 10 when "it isn't working," that's why....

Azdak

I'm going to do all of you a favor. Read this. http://www.bicycling.co.za/race-news/tour-de-france/tour-features/eating-for-the-tour-de-france/

Here is the critical part

Most riders burn 600 to 900 calories an hour

Let that sink it. Tour de france riders are exercising at an intensity that 2-10x more than EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU.

So when you claim that your 6mph jog burned 1000calories, or your 4mph walk burned 700, or whatever the hell other BS amount you claim, you're basically saying that somehow you're burning more than elite athletes who are able to hit intensities that you can only dream about.

It's pure fiction. None on this board is able to out output and out calorie burn a tour de france rider except for maybe a handful of exceptions who are very large and very trained males. So stop getting so butthurt when you are called out on it and realize that you are just in total exercise denial about what you're actually doing for exercise activity...

If you have ever looked at data from riders in the peloton, the guys in the back and middle are often working at no more than a 50% effort on the flat. They crank it up in the last hour to catch the breakaway, but for much of the race, it's a steady effort, and guys are sheltered from wind resistance. And most of them weigh under 80 kg. I don't diminish the efforts for a second, but it's not like they are doing some superhuman efforts the entire time they are riding.

And if someone weighs more than about 210, yes, they will burn 1000 cals/hour running at 6.0 mph.

Azdak

I'm going to do all of you a favor. Read this. http://www.bicycling.co.za/race-news/tour-de-france/tour-features/eating-for-the-tour-de-france/

Here is the critical part

Most riders burn 600 to 900 calories an hour

Let that sink it. Tour de france riders are exercising at an intensity that 2-10x more than EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU.

So when you claim that your 6mph jog burned 1000calories, or your 4mph walk burned 700, or whatever the hell other BS amount you claim, you're basically saying that somehow you're burning more than elite athletes who are able to hit intensities that you can only dream about.

It's pure fiction. None on this board is able to out output and out calorie burn a tour de france rider except for maybe a handful of exceptions who are very large and very trained males. So stop getting so butthurt when you are called out on it and realize that you are just in total exercise denial about what you're actually doing for exercise activity...

They're in peak physical condition though. An overweight or obese person who is unfit will burn a whole lot more than them for that fact alone.

Not necessarily. Calorie burn is determined by weight x intensity. For simple exercises like walking or running, fitness level plays little role in determining calories burned.

bemoir

i've seen a lot of that too, i know exactly what you mean. "walked for an hour, burned 900 calories". that was a real post i saw haha

Azdak

I'm going to do all of you a favor. Read this. http://www.bicycling.co.za/race-news/tour-de-france/tour-features/eating-for-the-tour-de-france/

Here is the critical part

Most riders burn 600 to 900 calories an hour

Let that sink it. Tour de france riders are exercising at an intensity that 2-10x more than EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU.

So when you claim that your 6mph jog burned 1000calories, or your 4mph walk burned 700, or whatever the hell other BS amount you claim, you're basically saying that somehow you're burning more than elite athletes who are able to hit intensities that you can only dream about.

It's pure fiction. None on this board is able to out output and out calorie burn a tour de france rider except for maybe a handful of exceptions who are very large and very trained males. So stop getting so butthurt when you are called out on it and realize that you are just in total exercise denial about what you're actually doing for exercise activity...

They're in peak physical condition though. An overweight or obese person who is unfit will burn a whole lot more than them for that fact alone.

no... they do not.. they burn much the same at 4mph as anyone else of similar weight does at 4mph...

No they don't. I know from experience that when I was FAT, I burned a LOT more calories then when I became FIT. It's a hell of a lot harder to run or bike up a hill when you're 40lbs heavier, with less muscle. Common sense tells you that!!!

You are mistaking weight for fitness level. Yes, one who weighs 40 lb more will burn more calories. But two people doing the same workload who weigh the same will burn pretty much the same calories, regardless of fitness level.

wilsoje74

I exercise for about 50 minutes, and I burn between 500 and 600 calories. I put the incline up to 18, and fast walk at about 3.7-3.9 mph. You can really start to feel it in that time, and I was surprised that by bumping the incline up ALL the way, it burns pretty much the same as I would if I was jogging the whole time.

(I'm 4"11, 118 lbs. )

Hope that helps!

This even seems high for just walking. If I run for that amount of time I burn around this amount, maybe a little more.

Azdak

Medicines have alot to do with it too. I take beta blockers and it drops my heart rate and makes it hard to impossible to get the heart rate high and keep it there. I dont count my cals burned anyway but use it as a guide.

Even though your HR is lower, you are still burning roughly the same number of calories as someone not on medication. You just have a different heart rate "scale". For example, if before, you ran a 10 min mile and your heart rate was 170, and now on medication you run a 10 min mile but heart rate is only 120, you are still burning the same number of calories as before. And you are still working at the same % of your maximum as before--It's just now your HR "scale" goes from, say Rest-140 max, where before it might have been Rest-190 max.

wilsoje74

When I am on the treadmill at a brisk walk (4.0) and have the incline set at its highest (and no, I'm not one of those who holds on for dear life, I do it as though I am actually walking uphill), I burn 200 calories in 14.5 minutes. At the 22 minute mark, I have burned 300 calories, and when I am at the 30 min. mark I have burned almost 500 calories. I am currently 170lbs though, but even at 192lbs, I was burning the exact same number of calories - well, according to the treadmill anyways.

This is because the treadmill doesn't actually know... Get a HRM. You may be burning less. You may be burning more. I know when I pump up the incline and go a little faster, my heartrate gets up to my running heartrate pace--and I swing my arms and tighten my bottom just the way I do when I'm pushing the stroller up the hills on our walking trail (of course, with the stroller, I can only swing one arm at a time ).

500 calories seems very high for walking. If I run 30 min I only burn 200-something!!

Azdak

Depends on their weight, too. When I was over 300 pounds, I burned around 600 calories on the elliptical in 30 minutes. Now, I burn just under 300 calories in 30 minutes.

^^^ this, it makes a big difference to calorie burns

calorie burn during exercise is very difficult to calculate accurately, MFP is frequently inaccurate, but then so are the calorie burn things on treadmills etc, and online calorie burn calculators. This is why I, personally, prefer the TDEE -x% method, as you only have 1 number to deal with, and if you over or underestimate your activity factor, you can adjust that one number based on real world results, rather than messing around with calories percentages and over/underestimates for every workout or other physical activity.

Most registered dietitians agree with you.

Azdak

Some people choose the wrong settings for this kind of thing I think.
For example, they choose the wrong speed when walking as power walking vs. a gentle stroll will burn entirely different amounts of calories and be less/more of a strain on your heart rate and muscles.
As for cleaning, I think it's only really appropriate for someone who's job is a cleaner to log something like that as they to tend to go from object to object and I would imagine could get quite a burn on from cleaning. However, I do still think MFP are over generous with their estimations.
If I cleaned my house for 1 hour, I'd only log about 20 minutes because of all the stop starting and little bits you'd do (e.g. wiping down a surface) in between the heavy duty stuff (hoovering, mopping, etc.).

I always love the term "hoovering".

elvie64

I wear a fit zip tracker and it seems to over-estimate calories. What I do is put a 300 calorie entry on my food tracker each day to counter act the fact that a) I think the zip is a little over enthusiastic and b) the zip tracks every single step, I don't track every cup of coffee or breath mint.

Azdak

If anyone wants to read more detail about how databases such as MFP work and when they are accurate and when they are inaccurate, you can spend a few minutes here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

Tiff050709

My advice would be to not worry about what others are doing and focus on yourself and do your best.

collingmommy

Don't get me wrong, I love to see that people are working out or doing some sort of activity, but....I do hate when people say, "I just cleaned HARDCORE" or "I just went on a walk for an hour" and they burned almost 600 calories? I mean, I'm not a beast or anything, when I work out it's only for a half hour at a pop right now and I only burn about 250-270 cals depending. How is it that these people are burning so much? Is it all just too over-exaggerated like I'm assuming it is? To tell the truth, it kinda' irritates me....BTW, please no negative comments, I've seen a lot of them lately. Thanks

so wait, by your logic (math isnt hard) you're also complaining about yourself.

if they bum 600 calories in an hour and you're saying you burn 250-270 in half an hour then arithmetic dictates you would be burning 500-540 calories if you worked out for an hour.. there's not too much of a difference between what you are saying are other's inflated numbers and your supposed correct ones.

are you really getting your panties in a bunch over 60-100 calorie difference? :laugh:

and like others have noted, different bodies burn different rates of calories. don;t consider yourself as what should be the norm

Girl you know math and common sense is the devil!

lol.. love it

affacat

To those who commented negatively (I knew that was coming), it was an OPINION, not FACT. Please, relax. These forums are intended to post your opinions, comments, etc. It's not my business, I was just stumped, curious, etc. RELAX

I hate to break it to you, but if you decide to speak your 'opinion' on the net, other people can and will criticize you. that's how discussion and debate work. you don't have a 'no one can criticize my opinion' card... nobody does.

liptok

I wear a fitbit and set it to activity to time my workouts and calories burned so it gives me a accurate calorie burn based on my weight and my time I have been kickboxing and then alt running and walking on my treadmill and its working for me, and I am pleased and I feel the fitbit is accurate, If your concerned about your calorie burn no being accurate maybe you could get a fitbit Its a great investment.