Maximum calorie burn per minute.

DangerousDUCK

What is the maximum calorie burn possible per minute?

Is there a point where a workout reaches a certain intensity where its counterproductive?

This feeds into the question if HIIT more anaerobic workouts are more beneficial to weight loss(or just improve the anaerobic threshold?) than more continuous workouts.

All bodies differ in shapes size etc and the answer would vary but at least people could see where they'd get the most bang for their buck?

Terry

DavPul

Let's pretend that each of your paragraphs are numbered bullet points

1. Can't give a flat out number, because size and fitness level of the person matter. My number would be higher than an average female's and an Olympic sprinter would have a higher number than me.
2. Counterproductive to what goal?
3. That's actually never been the correct question. The question isn't if HIIT is better for weight loss, it's is it better for FAT loss. Weight loss is simply CICO, so long slow cardio will win out every time over short bouts of HIIT. Additionally claimed benefits of HIIT are increased muscle retention and better recovery.
4. Bang for buck is entirely dependent on goals
5. DavPul

Delilahhhhhh

DavPul wrote: »

Let's pretend that each of your paragraphs are numbered bullet points

1. Can't give a flat out number, because size and fitness level of the person matter. My number would be higher than an average female's and an Olympic sprinter would have a higher number than me.
2. Counterproductive to what goal?
3. That's actually never been the correct question. The question isn't if HIIT is better for weight loss, it's is it better for FAT loss. Weight loss is simply CICO, so long slow cardio will win out over every time over short bouts of HIIT. Additionally claimed benefits of HIIT are increased muscle retention and better recovery.
4. Bang for buck is entirely dependent on goals
5. DavPul

THIS^^^^^^^

I really don't like seeing you locked up.

DangerousDUCK

Delilahhhhhh wrote: »

DavPul wrote: »

Let's pretend that each of your paragraphs are numbered bullet points

1. Can't give a flat out number, because size and fitness level of the person matter. My number would be higher than an average female's and an Olympic sprinter would have a higher number than me.
2. Counterproductive to what goal?
3. That's actually never been the correct question. The question isn't if HIIT is better for weight loss, it's is it better for FAT loss. Weight loss is simply CICO, so long slow cardio will win out over every time over short bouts of HIIT. Additionally claimed benefits of HIIT are increased muscle retention and better recovery.
4. Bang for buck is entirely dependent on goals
5. DavPul

THIS^^^^^^^

I really don't like seeing you locked up.

So use joe average gym goer just to get a figure, every number related to kcals burned etc is using a basic formula for someone of your height an weight etc. It would be interesting to have a ballpark figure for men/women etc.
- Counterproductive to performing the exercise ie high intensity is good but do we keep upping the levels until people collapse??
- weight or fat loss was just a wording mistake i mean fat loss
- bang for your buck clearly means max kcals per minute spent

Terry

DavPul

DangerousDUCK wrote: »

Delilahhhhhh wrote: »

DavPul wrote: »

Let's pretend that each of your paragraphs are numbered bullet points

1. Can't give a flat out number, because size and fitness level of the person matter. My number would be higher than an average female's and an Olympic sprinter would have a higher number than me.
2. Counterproductive to what goal?
3. That's actually never been the correct question. The question isn't if HIIT is better for weight loss, it's is it better for FAT loss. Weight loss is simply CICO, so long slow cardio will win out over every time over short bouts of HIIT. Additionally claimed benefits of HIIT are increased muscle retention and better recovery.
4. Bang for buck is entirely dependent on goals
5. DavPul

THIS^^^^^^^

I really don't like seeing you locked up.

So use joe average gym goer just to get a figure, every number related to kcals burned etc is using a basic formula for someone of your height an weight etc. It would be interesting to have a ballpark figure for men/women etc.
- Counterproductive to performing the exercise ie high intensity is good but do we keep upping the levels until people collapse??
- weight or fat loss was just a wording mistake i mean fat loss
- bang for your buck clearly means max kcals per minute spent

Terry

once again we'll pretend that we live in a fantasy world where you use numbered bullet points for multiple questions. from top to bottom...

1. why would that be interesting? it would be so inaccurate that we may as well pull it from the sky. after accounting for height, weight, and BF%, we still don't know what type of motor these people have. more explosive sprints. higher box jumps, quicker rope skipping, etc. even for me alone, max effort today will be different than max effort on some other day.
2. i don't understand the question. or perhaps you don't understand the question. either way.
3. cool
4. okay, it's clear that you don't understand the question. because if bang for buck only means kcals per minute spent, then higher effort is the only acceptable answer. clearly bang for buck must mean something different to other people. speaking for myself, that's not how i decide what exercise to do

tomatoey

DangerousDUCK wrote: »

Delilahhhhhh wrote: »

DavPul wrote: »

Let's pretend that each of your paragraphs are numbered bullet points

1. Can't give a flat out number, because size and fitness level of the person matter. My number would be higher than an average female's and an Olympic sprinter would have a higher number than me.
2. Counterproductive to what goal?
3. That's actually never been the correct question. The question isn't if HIIT is better for weight loss, it's is it better for FAT loss. Weight loss is simply CICO, so long slow cardio will win out over every time over short bouts of HIIT. Additionally claimed benefits of HIIT are increased muscle retention and better recovery.
4. Bang for buck is entirely dependent on goals
5. DavPul

THIS^^^^^^^

I really don't like seeing you locked up.

So use joe average gym goer just to get a figure, every number related to kcals burned etc is using a basic formula for someone of your height an weight etc. It would be interesting to have a ballpark figure for men/women etc.
- Counterproductive to performing the exercise ie high intensity is good but do we keep upping the levels until people collapse??
- weight or fat loss was just a wording mistake i mean fat loss
- bang for your buck clearly means max kcals per minute spent

Terry

I vote no to that! Stop before collapsing!

Exercise with more intensity will burn more calories for x minutes than less intense exercise, though.

DangerousDUCK

Davpaul your posts are locked so its a struggle to see your posts.

Terry

DavPul

DangerousDUCK wrote: »

Davpaul your posts are locked so its a struggle to see your posts.

Terry

McCloud33

Theoretically, every person will approach a limit, but it will be different for each person. The harder you work, the more calories you'll burn, but also, the more time you'll need to recover between exercising again at that same level.

If it were possible to train indefinitely at your anaerobic threshold, that would be your max per hour.