Zumba calories burned

Marianna93637

So I just got a Fitbit Charge HR on Monday (4 days ago) and I have been taking Zumba for a little over a year, pretty regularly (on average 2-3 times / week).
MFP always estimate over 500 calories burned in an hour, I always just entered 350-400 if I wasn't sweating that much, didn't feel that much out of breath, and 500 if I was, but that hasn't happened lately.

So my Fitbit registered a little over 400 calories, and I was jumping around and putting more effort into it than normal.
I was stunned. So I did my research, took 4 Zumba classes by 3 instructors in 4 days and this is what I found:
(the classes are normally 55 minutes, some started late, etc, I calculated each one how much it would be for 60 minutes)

Monday, instructor A. (not as high intensity for me): 446 calories. (didn't tell me heartrate)
Tuesday instructor A (same thing) : 425 calories. 92 % of it was in the fat burn zone, 8 % cardio
Wednesday, instructor B (super high intensity, sides hurt, out of breath): 460 calories, 72 % cardio, 17 % peak, 11 % fat burn
Thursday instructor C (high intensity, between A and B ): 410 calories, 70 % cardio, 23 % fat burn, 7 % peak.

So based on what I've seen, I will burn about the same in each Zumba class, but the high intensity doesn't mean much more calories. Lower intensity (I'd say average) classes will burn more fat, higher intensity is better for the heart, better for performance, etc. Either way it's calories out. By the way I've been taking instructor A's classes for over a year, so I pretty much know all her routines, even though she does change it.

Now the interesting thing is: when I go for a walk with my two German shepherds, it's a simple walk, although pretty fast. But I'm not out of breath, not exerting that much energy, etc. However, calculating my 13 minutes walk to be 60, I would burn about 400 calories (maybe more if it really were 60 minutes not just calculation). and about 64-70 % was in the fat burn one.

So walking does the same thing as a Zumba class?

Anyone has similar or different findings? I was told my Fitbit will adjust over the first week weeks, but to me 4 different classes have similar data. Is this going to change?
By the way I'm still stunned that it's not 5-600 calories burned.

Syneea

Hey, I average between 400-500 for my Zumba classes and I have a Fitbit HR as well. When I'm literally staying on my toes and hopping into every spin and turn then I make it to 500+.

Sued0nim

Marianna93637 wrote: »

So I just got a Fitbit Charge HR on Monday (4 days ago) and I have been taking Zumba for a little over a year, pretty regularly (on average 2-3 times / week).
MFP always estimate over 500 calories burned in an hour, I always just entered 350-400 if I wasn't sweating that much, didn't feel that much out of breath, and 500 if I was, but that hasn't happened lately.

So my Fitbit registered a little over 400 calories, and I was jumping around and putting more effort into it than normal.
I was stunned. So I did my research, took 4 Zumba classes by 3 instructors in 4 days and this is what I found:
(the classes are normally 55 minutes, some started late, etc, I calculated each one how much it would be for 60 minutes)

Monday, instructor A. (not as high intensity for me): 446 calories. (didn't tell me heartrate)
Tuesday instructor A (same thing) : 425 calories. 92 % of it was in the fat burn zone, 8 % cardio
Wednesday, instructor B (super high intensity, sides hurt, out of breath): 460 calories, 72 % cardio, 17 % peak, 11 % fat burn
Thursday instructor C (high intensity, between A and B ): 410 calories, 70 % cardio, 23 % fat burn, 7 % peak.

So based on what I've seen, I will burn about the same in each Zumba class, but the high intensity doesn't mean much more calories. Lower intensity (I'd say average) classes will burn more fat, higher intensity is better for the heart, better for performance, etc. Either way it's calories out. By the way I've been taking instructor A's classes for over a year, so I pretty much know all her routines, even though she does change it.

Now the interesting thing is: when I go for a walk with my two German shepherds, it's a simple walk, although pretty fast. But I'm not out of breath, not exerting that much energy, etc. However, calculating my 13 minutes walk to be 60, I would burn about 400 calories (maybe more if it really were 60 minutes not just calculation). and about 64-70 % was in the fat burn one.

So walking does the same thing as a Zumba class?

Anyone has similar or different findings? I was told my Fitbit will adjust over the first week weeks, but to me 4 different classes have similar data. Is this going to change?
By the way I'm still stunned that it's not 5-600 calories burned.

Hi that's interesting but not really accurate a heart rate to calorie calculation has an underpinning formula that converts heart rate to oxygen uptake and hence calorie benefit under specific steady state cardio over specific intensities for minimum times. I think it's a good enough guideline but also judge by your weight over 6 weeks and adjust how many calories you eat back accordingly

Also Heart rate zones for "fat burning" isn't true ...that was debunked

heart rate zones are useful for training goals eg working on endurance,aerobic fitness etc

Sued0nim

This is a decent read http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/01/fat-burning-zone-myth/

Asher_Ethan

Hrm aren't accurate enough when doing zumba because there's usually a rest in-between songs and hrm are more accurate for constant cardio like running or walking.

jlahorn

Asher_Ethan wrote: »

Hrm aren't accurate enough when doing zumba because there's usually a rest in-between songs and hrm are more accurate for constant cardio like running or walking.

That's definitely not a universal truth - my instructors roll straight from song to song with no breaks 95% of the time. Some of them even do an audio fade.

Regardless, the main point is true - Zumba is not steady-state cardio, which is what HRMs were designed for. I still think my FitBit Charge does a better job of estimating calories burned than a generic MFP entry.