Does anyone else work their *kitten* off and still can't burn many calories?

jvaughn1031
jvaughn1031 Posts: 38 Member
edited November 13 in Fitness and Exercise
I'm 119 pounds (4' 10") . I'll go on the elliptical for 45 minutes and I'll be lucky to reach 200 calories. I wear a heart rate monitor and it's pretty accurate. It sucks because I burn calories to eat more. LOL

Anyone else in the same boat? I'm assuming it's because the more weight you lose and the more fit you become, it's harder to burn calories.

Replies

  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    edited February 2015
    The lighter you are the less calories you burn.
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    I don't burn a lot. 5-7 calories per minute at my most intense workout. I'm now at maintenance of ~125. Just a fact of life.

    I wonder sometimes at things in my feed, like burning 1000 calories doing x for 45 minutes. You'd need to be very heavy to get that burn, and I wonder if at 'very heavy' one can handle the intensity for that long?
  • jvaughn1031
    jvaughn1031 Posts: 38 Member
    That's a good question. Not really sure. Thanks for answering all. That's what I figured. Just wanted to know I wasn't alone. :)
  • Esterhase
    Esterhase Posts: 11 Member
    I'm male, at 183lb trying to get to 180. I do an hour of spin 3x week, if I really push it I can average 11+ calories/minute in that hour. Can't seem to break 12. (Polar FT-4)

    I can't imagine burning 1000 in 45 minutes. Tour de France, maybe?

    Someone who knows more about this?

  • BeLightYear
    BeLightYear Posts: 1,450 Member
    I had a Timex HRM that used to show I burned over 1,000 per hour. Then I bought my BodyMedia (accurate) and realized that Timex was more than doubling my actual burn. I think most people (and I am no expert) that show such high burns are incorrect.

    I am female, 43, 5'7", 179# and burn around 10 calories per minute if I am doing high intensity workouts.

    Every body is different.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Anything over 6 calories a minute and I start to get suspicious.
  • yesimpson
    yesimpson Posts: 1,372 Member
    edited February 2015
    I would take me over 100 minutes of running to burn 1000 :'( #slimaverageheightwomanproblems
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Esterhase wrote: »
    I'm male, at 183lb trying to get to 180. I do an hour of spin 3x week, if I really push it I can average 11+ calories/minute in that hour. Can't seem to break 12. (Polar FT-4)

    I can't imagine burning 1000 in 45 minutes. Tour de France, maybe?

    Someone who knows more about this?

    Nobody burns 1000 calories in 45 minutes. The TdF guys are likely even MORE efficient. They will blow through 4000 calories in a day of riding, no problem. But each stage lasts 5-6 hours. So they are really only going through about 600cal/hour like almost everyone here that is in reasonable shape.

    It is not uncommon for me to end up with a 2000-2500 burn on a weekend day, but that is because I spent 2-3 hours on my bike followed by a hard swim later in the day. Or a 2+ hour run followed by a recovery bike ride.
  • Roxiegirl2008
    Roxiegirl2008 Posts: 756 Member
    yesimpson wrote: »
    I would take me over 100 minutes of running to burn 1000 :'( #slimaverageheightwomanproblems

    Agree with this. I need to be doing a long run for me to get over 1000 calories burned.
  • laineybz
    laineybz Posts: 704 Member
    I'm 119 pounds (4' 10") . I'll go on the elliptical for 45 minutes and I'll be lucky to reach 200 calories. I wear a heart rate monitor and it's pretty accurate. It sucks because I burn calories to eat more. LOL

    Anyone else in the same boat? I'm assuming it's because the more weight you lose and the more fit you become, it's harder to burn calories.


    I'm around 110lbs and burn around 300 calories for 1 hour on the cross trainer. Used to burn 400 calories when I weighed more.
  • jvaughn1031
    jvaughn1031 Posts: 38 Member
    edited February 2015
    laineybz wrote: »
    I'm 119 pounds (4' 10") . I'll go on the elliptical for 45 minutes and I'll be lucky to reach 200 calories. I wear a heart rate monitor and it's pretty accurate. It sucks because I burn calories to eat more. LOL

    Anyone else in the same boat? I'm assuming it's because the more weight you lose and the more fit you become, it's harder to burn calories.


    I'm around 110lbs and burn around 300 calories for 1 hour on the cross trainer. Used to burn 400 calories when I weighed more.

    Maybe height has something to do with it? My zumba instructor was even surprised. I showed her that I burned 200 calories in 60 minutes of her class (which is intense) and I was sweating, panting, making big movements, giving it my all. Thanks for posting your example. I suppose it makes sense.
  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    Fitness makes you somewhat more efficient, but the big kicker is you don't weigh nothin'. Strap on a weight belt or throw some weight in a backpack if you really want to up your burn on an elliptical. Start slow, 'tho -- hard to burn calories if you're in bed with injuries.
  • Vailara
    Vailara Posts: 2,472 Member
    Size has got to have something to do with it - even just from the point that it takes less energy to shift a smaller, lighter body, as well as fuel it. Age as well. I'm shorter and older, and have piddly little calorie burns, even when I'm working really hard.
This discussion has been closed.