Burning 1000 calories at the gym?
Replies
-
I burnt around 9000 calories doing a 91km walk the other weekend. Took me 22 hrs though. 6972 over 40.69 miles and 3897 over 18.52 miles.0
-
-
In order for me to burn 1000 calories, I have to run about 15 miles, which takes me between two and a half and three hours. I could never do that on a daily basis, and I couldn't do on only 1200 calories. The day before a long-run (which for me is 10+ miles) I eat at maintenance, as I struggle with my energy levels on a deficit.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If you are burning 1000 calories per day, then yes, you would be on track for 2 lbs per week. But if you are basing that number off of the machines, you'll be disappointed. At your weight, burning 1000 calories is equivalent to riding a bicycle 50 miles (80km).
Nooooooo.... You do not burn 200 calories per hour of moderate exercise. For me, a 50 mile bike ride would take a solid 4-5 hours (yes, I'm slow. I'm out of shape, but I need to push myself pretty hard ot maintain a decent speed on the bike).
I find that, in general, I burn about 400-700 calories per hour on my bike, depending on how hard I'm pushing myself. To burn 1000 calories, I need to ride for 2 hours, or about 20-30 miles. Casual observations find that this is a pretty average burn for most cyclists. 2 hours = about 1000 calories. Distance covered is dependent on how hard the rider rides and how fit the individual is.
@chivalryder, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious what method you use to verify that you are burning 700 calories per hour. According to my HRM and MFP and the calculator on Bicycling.com, I burn over 1300 calories on my regular 21 mile ride. But according to bikecalculator.com and an Excel spreadsheet that does a calculation based on the physics of moving a body a distance on a bicycle, it is more like 500. Given the two very different estimations, I compared my weight loss with expected results and found that my weight loss is more consistent with 500 calorie burns than it is with 1300 calorie burns. So, either I'm burning only 500 or I'm eating 800 calories per day more than I'm logging. Some people will say that is possible, since I don't weigh my food, but it is highly unlikely, since I've been losing weight consistently, even when I don't exercise.
I use an HRM where I maintain my statistics (weight, resting heart rate and VO2 Max) regularly.
Back in the day when I was very active, I had a fairly consistent 500 calorie/hour burn and these days, though I severely lack the fitness, my VO2 Max is lower, my resting HR is higher, and my weight is a lot higher, my burns are still usually around 500 calories/hour. I'm a hell of a lot slower, but I'm exerting myself just as much. Both times, I've been riding at a fairly steady state in the aerobic heart rate zone with few intervals. The days I did intervals or generally pushed harder (yay, hills) my calorie burns were higher for obvious reasons.
I don't use my HRM to track calorie burn though. I use it for zone training. I use the TDEE method and trial and error to ensure I'm eating the right amount.
The problem with spreadsheet calculators and such is that they don't really take into account variables such as weather, constant changes in elevation, wind, traffic, etc., etc.. I could never trust such a thing to give me a calorie burn that is remotely accurate.
Disclaimer: My opinions are based off of personal experience and from the observations of fellow cyclists on MFP. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but you'll need to show me scientific evidence from a cyclist hooked up to a machine that measures caloric expenditure to justify that your argument is more valid to me than my own. Without such precise machinery, caloric expenditure will always be a rough estimate. Hence why I use TDEE.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If you are burning 1000 calories per day, then yes, you would be on track for 2 lbs per week. But if you are basing that number off of the machines, you'll be disappointed. At your weight, burning 1000 calories is equivalent to riding a bicycle 50 miles (80km).
Nooooooo.... You do not burn 200 calories per hour of moderate exercise. For me, a 50 mile bike ride would take a solid 4-5 hours (yes, I'm slow. I'm out of shape, but I need to push myself pretty hard ot maintain a decent speed on the bike).
I find that, in general, I burn about 400-700 calories per hour on my bike, depending on how hard I'm pushing myself. To burn 1000 calories, I need to ride for 2 hours, or about 20-30 miles. Casual observations find that this is a pretty average burn for most cyclists. 2 hours = about 1000 calories. Distance covered is dependent on how hard the rider rides and how fit the individual is.
@chivalryder, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious what method you use to verify that you are burning 700 calories per hour. According to my HRM and MFP and the calculator on Bicycling.com, I burn over 1300 calories on my regular 21 mile ride. But according to bikecalculator.com and an Excel spreadsheet that does a calculation based on the physics of moving a body a distance on a bicycle, it is more like 500. Given the two very different estimations, I compared my weight loss with expected results and found that my weight loss is more consistent with 500 calorie burns than it is with 1300 calorie burns. So, either I'm burning only 500 or I'm eating 800 calories per day more than I'm logging. Some people will say that is possible, since I don't weigh my food, but it is highly unlikely, since I've been losing weight consistently, even when I don't exercise.
I use an HRM where I maintain my statistics (weight, resting heart rate and VO2 Max) regularly.
Back in the day when I was very active, I had a fairly consistent 500 calorie/hour burn and these days, though I severely lack the fitness, my VO2 Max is lower, my resting HR is higher, and my weight is a lot higher, my burns are still usually around 500 calories/hour. I'm a hell of a lot slower, but I'm exerting myself just as much. Both times, I've been riding at a fairly steady state in the aerobic heart rate zone with few intervals. The days I did intervals or generally pushed harder (yay, hills) my calorie burns were higher for obvious reasons.
I don't use my HRM to track calorie burn though. I use it for zone training. I use the TDEE method and trial and error to ensure I'm eating the right amount.
The problem with spreadsheet calculators and such is that they don't really take into account variables such as weather, constant changes in elevation, wind, traffic, etc., etc.. I could never trust such a thing to give me a calorie burn that is remotely accurate.
Disclaimer: My opinions are based off of personal experience and from the observations of fellow cyclists on MFP. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but you'll need to show me scientific evidence from a cyclist hooked up to a machine that measures caloric expenditure to justify that your argument is more valid to me than my own. Without such precise machinery, caloric expenditure will always be a rough estimate. Hence why I use TDEE.
That's part of the problem. I see lots of people who say, "I'm burning this much" or "MFP is overestimating", but I haven't found anyone who has based that on the results they get by hooking people up to a machine and comparing their actual calorie burn to estimate. I don't have access to such a machine, so I can't do it. What I do have is a bathroom scale and the knowledge that a pound of fat has 3500 calories. With that information, I can find my calorie deficit and as long as I have a reasonable idea of how much I am eating, then I can calculate how many calories I am burning.0 -
It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.0
-
What is your weight loss rate? And how many calories do you eat?RunsUponATime wrote: »It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.
0 -
Why are people saying high intensity? Its perfectly possible to do 1000 calorie burns if you pace yourself and have time. Decreasing the intensity and taking a rest makes it much more achievable if thats what a person wnated to do. Heavier people burn at a significantly faster rate. Third time in recent months this issue has come up and it always full of machines are inaccurate, its dangerous, impossible etc.
Its possible and not that hard tbh, the more pertinent questions for those with the time or stamina to do it, would be why and to make sure you took rest days for your body to recover. Its easier to control your consumption than go for direct calorie burns, but they can be useful .0 -
RunsUponATime wrote: »It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.
No one is saying it's impossible to burn 1000 calories in the gym. What everyone is saying is that it takes more time than what most people believe it will take.
On top of that, it's not a good idea to burn 1000 calories from exercise every single day, especially as a beginner.
However, it's quite obvious the OP is completely ignoring all of the good advice that is being given in this thread and is focusing on the posts that seem to follow along her original idea of eating nothing and burning all of her calories away every single day.
Oh well, in the long term it will be her downfall. Ignorance often leads to that.0 -
I thought OP looked familiar.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10160666/1000-calorie-diet-for-2lb-loss/p10 -
Agree with your first 2 points. The OP did suggest she has the time to put in. If I was going to do it i'd take rest days and listen to my body, be careful to avoid overtraining, take it steady, hydrate and properly fuel any workout. I'd also need a lot of music. 3-4 hours it becomes easy, but do most people have 3 hours?0
-
SO one time I wore a HRM during a full non active 24 hours that shows how many calories you burn. It said I was burning over 3000 calories just for being alive. I threw that thing away so quick after that.0
-
bethany_h_xx wrote: »hi
If I was to burn 1000 calories every day at the gym do you think I would be on track for losing 2lbs per week?
How accurate are the gym machines?
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 2
Thanks
Technically, if you were eating at maintenance for calorie needs, and you did burn an additional 1000 calories per day above that that you did not eat back, yes. BUT...not likely going to happen, or be sustainable.
0 -
Agree with your first 2 points. The OP did suggest she has the time to put in. If I was going to do it i'd take rest days and listen to my body, be careful to avoid overtraining, take it steady, hydrate and properly fuel any workout. I'd also need a lot of music. 3-4 hours it becomes easy, but do most people have 3 hours?
The average American watches 5 hours of TV per day, so yeah, I think most people have 3 hours.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »SO one time I wore a HRM during a full non active 24 hours that shows how many calories you burn. It said I was burning over 3000 calories just for being alive. I threw that thing away so quick after that.
That's not how you use it. It isn't made to be worn 24 hours.
0 -
bethany_h_xx wrote: »hi
If I was to burn 1000 calories every day at the gym do you think I would be on track for losing 2lbs per week?
How accurate are the gym machines?
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 2
Thanks
diet for weight control; exercise for fitness. You don't have to burn any calories with exercise to lose weight, though it helps in that without exercise your calorie targets will be paltry at best. Weight control is most efficiently achieved through your diet....exercise is for fitness.
you would be hard pressed to burn 1,000 calories in the gym day in and day out. Even when I'm actively training for an event, I don't burn 1,000 calories everyday with my training. It's not impossible, it's just not really advisable, particularly as I doubt you have any clue as to how to actually feed your body appropriately for that kind of activity.0 -
RunsUponATime wrote: »It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.
The typical person cannot run 10 miles (for me it would be more like 11 or 12 miles for 1000 calories) per day, every day, so while it's possible, skepticism is reasonable when someone proposes that. So often they mean going from the couch to that level of activity, which clearly is 100% unrealistic. (On the other hand, some people also have lengthy bike commutes or active jobs, so there are a variety of ways people can routinely burn a lot.)
In any case, I agree it's possible, and I totally agree with your point about that level of activity requiring extra calories.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »SO one time I wore a HRM during a full non active 24 hours that shows how many calories you burn. It said I was burning over 3000 calories just for being alive. I threw that thing away so quick after that.
That's not how you use it. It isn't made to be worn 24 hours.
Well I trained long enough to know my difference in intensity levels.
0 -
RunsUponATime wrote: »It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.
Your average MFPer isn't going to be out running 10 miles per day, nor is that really advisable. From a fitness performance and recovery perspective, rest is just as important as the work. And given other posts from the OP, she really doesn't know what she's doing in the first place so advising 1000 calorie burns really isn't a very good idea.0 -
You can, but it will take you a while. I usually do this, but I take a break. I would burn 400- 600 calories, take a break, and then do the rest. I usually end up doing about 3 hours of cardio if I'm trying to burn 1000 calories in one gym session. It's much easier if I break it up: walk for 90 minutes in the morning, walking for 90 minutes after work. I go by 50% of whatever the machine reading gives me because exercise machines aren't accurate for most people. This method is tiring... but fun if you like this kind of thing, but it is better to focus on your diet than burning 7000 calories through exercise weekly.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »RunsUponATime wrote: »It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.
Your average MFPer isn't going to be out running 10 miles per day, nor is that really advisable. From a fitness performance and recovery perspective, rest is just as important as the work. And given other posts from the OP, she really doesn't know what she's doing in the first place so advising 1000 calorie burns really isn't a very good idea.
I will say it like if you question something to burn 1000 calories then more likely you don't need to be training that way.
0 -
llUndecidedll wrote: »You can, but it will take you a while. I usually do this, but I take a break. I would burn 400- 600 calories, take a break, and then do the rest. I usually end up doing about 3 hours of cardio if I'm trying to burn 1000 calories in one gym session. It's much easier if I break it up: walk for 90 minutes in the morning, walking for 90 minutes after work. I go by 50% of whatever the machine reading gives me because exercise machines aren't accurate for most people. This method is tiring... but fun if you like this kind of thing, but it is better to focus on your diet than burning 7000 calories through exercise weekly.
Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.
0 -
Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.
I usually walk with an incline of 9 to 15 % at 3 mph-ish. I can only sustain this for about an hour. I have done it for 100 minutes once, but it was a bit much... but I completed my little personal challenge.0 -
llUndecidedll wrote: »
Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.
I usually walk with an incline of 9 to 15 % at 3 mph-ish. I can only sustain this for about an hour. I have done it for 100 minutes once, but it was a bit much... but I completed my little personal challenge.
That amount of incline is enough to roughly double the burn of flat terrain ... assuming it is all up hill (rarly done in the real world) and no mechanical advantage provided if using a treadmill.0 -
llUndecidedll wrote: »
Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.
I usually walk with an incline of 9 to 15 % at 3 mph-ish. I can only sustain this for about an hour. I have done it for 100 minutes once, but it was a bit much... but I completed my little personal challenge.
Most people who do that hold the bar though, so you can remove 20% of the burn easily.
I did 9% at 3.5mph without holding to anything and was completely beat after an hour. Not sure what my burn was but the treadmill said 500 calories, so probably less. Can't even imagine doing that for over 2 hours to burn 1000 calories... just nope. I haven't even been able to do 9% without having my calves screaming at me since... but I'm not giving up!0 -
That amount of incline is enough to roughly double the burn of flat terrain ... assuming it is all up hill (rarly done in the real world) and no mechanical advantage provided if using a treadmill.
Yep, I'm sure the treadmill gives me some advantage. That's why I try to walk at a good incline. I know that I'm much better at higher inclines than brisk/speed walking, so I just increase the intensity of my cardio session by upping the incline. I keep it uphill the entire time or would that be half the time? I choose a mountain climbing program where it takes me from 9 to 15% incline, then reverses half way so it then goes from 15 to 9% incline. Either way I never go below 9% and never hold onto the rails. I think it's fun and challenging enough for me.
0 -
llUndecidedll wrote: »That amount of incline is enough to roughly double the burn of flat terrain ... assuming it is all up hill (rarly done in the real world) and no mechanical advantage provided if using a treadmill.
Yep, I'm sure the treadmill gives me some advantage. That's why I try to walk at a good incline. I know that I'm much better at higher inclines than brisk/speed walking, so I just increase the intensity of my cardio session by upping the incline. I keep it uphill the entire time or would that be half the time? I choose a mountain climbing program where it takes me from 9 to 15% incline, then reverses half way so it then goes from 15 to 9% incline. Either way I never go below 9% and never hold onto the rails. I think it's fun and challenging enough for me.
Now that's pretty awesome!0 -
This thread is herp and derp.0
-
Well....according to the MFP calculator, I burned 2005 calories playing racquetball for two hours yesterday. YMMV0
-
On overtraining: http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/overtraining.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions