Does temp of air matter in terms of cals burned?

Sandytoes71

Hi, I was wondering if the same person would burn the same amount of cals doing the same exercise in cold weather as they would sweating in hot weather? Also, say we burned 30 cals exercising for 10 minutes; whereas, if we just sat still for 10 minutes, we would have burned 5 cals. Shouldn't we subtract 5 cals from the 30 cals to get the "true extra" cals burned during exercise?? Lol, don't laugh, I really have been wondering these things

3dogsrunning

No. Temperature does not. If anything, when it is colder we burn slightly more, but not enough to make a difference

People will tell you yes, that their HRM tells them a higher burn on warmer days but heat and humidity are two of many factors that affect the accuracy of a HRM. It may feel harder on warmer days but it is not actually burning more.

As for net calories - I assumed that MFP already accounted for that. I am unsure if other devices do or not.

MoJoPoe

Really? Cuz I was SO hoping as sweat pours off me in extreme heat that it is actually fat dripping onto the ground. :ohwell:

3dogsrunning

Really? Cuz I was SO hoping as sweat pours off me in extreme heat that it is actually fat dripping onto the ground. :ohwell:

It is. Just the same amount as on a cooler day. :drinker:

Sandytoes71

Ok so if I ride my stationary bike in front of a/c window unit with little sweating, im burning just as much as if I rode it outside in the heat and sweating?

3dogsrunning

Ok so if I ride my stationary bike in front of a/c window unit with little sweating, im burning just as much as if I rode it outside in the heat and sweating?

Yup. Calories burned are based on weight and intensity.

ETA - you may be able to go at a higher intensity in the cooler room and burn more but assuming the same intensity - same burn.

_Waffle_

Yes! It matters a great deal but only if you put in more effort. I can run much faster for far longer when it's cooler outside. Calories burned = heat and the warmer it is outside the harder it is to get rid of this heat which impedes your performance. If anything you can burn more calories at a cooler temperature.

For practical reasons you can just assume it's the same calorie burn. The extra effort needed to cool you down makes up for the less effort you put into the exercise.

CoderGal

Depends on circumstance? I would say for the most part it's very negligible. If you're in about to pass out from to hot or cold I'd guess that there's a point for both where the cals burned are lowered.

"With few exceptions our adult arctic and tropical mammals and birds have a basal metabolic rate that fits the standard mouse to elephant curve, i.e., the basal metabolic rate is determined by an exponential relation to size; evidently fundamental to most animals, warm-blooded or not. The basal metabolic rate is consequently not influenced by such factors as temperature gradient and insulation which largely determine the heat loss, and is hence inadaptive to climate." - ADAPTATION TO COLD IN ARCTIC AND TROPICAL MAMMALS AND BIRDS IN RELATION TO BODY TEMPERATURE, INSULATION, AND BASAL METABOLIC RATE* http://www.biolbull.org/content/99/2/259.short

jonnythan

It really is negligible but as Waffle noted, with his deliciously enticing avatar, my god that looks good, but anyway, temperature can affect performance.

If you run at the same speed for the same length of time in 40 degree weather you've burned the same calories as doing it in 90 degree weather. But you may well find that in 40 degree weather, at the same apparent level of effort, you can run faster and/or longer, thereby increasing your actual burn.

alexnguyen78665

I'm doing some rehab work right now at a hospital with a RN and a team of PT people. They make a habit of turning on the fans and ac for people on the treadmills and elliptical machines to keep things cool, and I asked them this exact same question. They said there was no real difference so you might as well be comfortable.

Sandytoes71

THX for all of your responses!!! I finally have my answers )

DopeItUp

A fitness and exercise thread that has nothing but solid information. Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone? Good work, folks.

CoderGal

A fitness and exercise thread that has nothing but solid information. Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone? Good work, folks.

quick, everyone edit their answers and we'll keep this secret forever

DopeItUp

A fitness and exercise thread that has nothing but solid information. Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone? Good work, folks.

You idiot, bikram yoga clearly burns three times as much calories as normal yoga. I read it on a website somewhere, duh.

That's better.

CoderGal

A fitness and exercise thread that has nothing but solid information. Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone? Good work, folks.

You idiot, bikram yoga clearly burns three times as much calories as normal yoga. I read it on a website somewhere, duh.

That's better.

LOL come to think of it I'm surprised none of the bikram people showed up...I'd like to hear their take on that. A good friend of mine stopped talking to me months ago because she tried to get me (someone who gets high heart rate spikes, who is flexible to the point of injury) in to bikram yoga because it is 'calming' and helps joints flexibility...She told me not to tell anyone that it could be dangerous for some people...

heybales

I'll comment on the other part of the question.

HRM, data tables, machines, indeed give total burn estimates for that time, which includes what you would have burned anyway - call it Gross calorie burn. They have no idea what you would have burned anyway, besides, should they use BMR because you gave up sleep, use RMR because you gave up watching TV playing on computer, or use higher figure because you gave up working on house or mowing yard.

Usually not a big deal, but since calories are being accounted for in a diet it can indeed be a big deal.

Because on MFP, you already have account for every hour of your day, what they call maintenance, say 2400. That's the BMR x activity factor. Non-exercise maintenance it's considered.

So that means for every hr, you are already expected to burn 100 cal / hr.
Of course, your eating goal is say 1800, so only taking back 75 cal / hr.
Making a deficit of 25 cal/hr - 600.

But your HRM, or machine, or MFP table says you did a slow walk and burned 300 cal in an hr. That is total for that time, but 100 was already accounted for.
So indeed, to be accurate, you'd log and eat back 200 calories.

With most people and most workouts though, that effect isn't any greater than inaccuracies in food and calories. Because their non-exercise maintenance level is lower, and they burn more per hr.

But if your primary workout is walking long hrs that doesn't burn much really in the first place, ya, that could impact you.

Say 2 hr daily for 600 calorie burn. Really only 400 though.
6 x weekly is now a difference of 1200 calories, that you at back.

If your deficit was only 3500 calories for the week, you ate into that by 1200 calories.
Or look at it on daily level, your 500 cal deficit daily, and you ate 200 extra calories than really needed - you only got 300 cal deficit.

It can add up, hence the reason many find logging and eating back 80% or whatever of their workout is better for them. Especially if walking a long time as main exercise.