How many calories do you burn during Zumba? (especially someone around 200lbs?)
Replies
-
Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
At your weight you are only burning about 63 calories (net) per mile walking.
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
HRMs accurately measure heartbeats and there is no direct correlation between heartbeats and calories. They are a cardio training aid and not an energy measurement device.
If you are of roughly average fitness level and have an average exercise HR and are doing an appropriate exercise (steady state cardio of a decent intensity level) then yes you can get a reasonable estimate from a basic HRM.
I invested a bit of time and effort into buying a good standard configurable HRM, got my VO2 max and true max HR tested in a sports science lab and under perfect conditions it can be remarkably accurate compared to a power meter. Under imperfect conditions (but still steady state cardio) it can be out by 25%.
No I don't think there is any way to accurately estimate Zumba calories unless you are hooked up to a portable gas analyser to measure your oxygen uptake.
Where are you getting that walking information? I always get over 100 calories PER mile on every calculator I use. https://www.verywell.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
That chart estimates 106calories.
You're talking about "net" calories? Seems different.
Net calories means the extra calories you burn from exercise and excludes your RMR etc. that you would have burned anyway and are already accounted for.0 -
There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
Ok I got shot down a few weeks ago about how I couldn't possibly burn the 10 Cal/min (average, so higher for some of the class a little lower for some, but I don't stop moving for the whole 45 minutes) that my Fitbit Surge was telling me I did during my weekly Zumba class, but that calculator gives me the same ballpark figure and that's at medium intensity. But I put my all in to each and every move, I jump as high as I can (and there's a lot of jumping), I march on the spot in the couple of seconds between tracks, I certainly couldn't hold a conversation, I'm pretty much out of breath the whole time until the final cool down song. I do get that I would have burnt some Calories during that 45 minutes if I had just sat on my bum for 45 minutes, but I go by my Fitbit's calculations for the day when eating and find that works pretty well.
4 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
At your weight you are only burning about 63 calories (net) per mile walking.
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
HRMs accurately measure heartbeats and there is no direct correlation between heartbeats and calories. They are a cardio training aid and not an energy measurement device.
If you are of roughly average fitness level and have an average exercise HR and are doing an appropriate exercise (steady state cardio of a decent intensity level) then yes you can get a reasonable estimate from a basic HRM.
I invested a bit of time and effort into buying a good standard configurable HRM, got my VO2 max and true max HR tested in a sports science lab and under perfect conditions it can be remarkably accurate compared to a power meter. Under imperfect conditions (but still steady state cardio) it can be out by 25%.
No I don't think there is any way to accurately estimate Zumba calories unless you are hooked up to a portable gas analyser to measure your oxygen uptake.
Where are you getting that walking information? I always get over 100 calories PER mile on every calculator I use. https://www.verywell.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
That chart estimates 106calories.
You're talking about "net" calories? Seems different.
Net calories means the extra calories you burn from exercise and excludes your RMR etc. that you would have burned anyway and are already accounted for.
Ah. Do most calculators use net or gross calories? I read an article on the differences last night. I'm a quick study. Now with walking it wont make much difference for 1 mile since its like 40 calories and I only eat 1200 net anyway so that 40 isnt that big for me. but it is about 40% difference and with something like Zumba that is a big deal because if you think you burn 500 calories it brings it down to 300.0 -
Here's the thing. And I'm picking a totally exaggerated number so we don't get bogged down arguing the details. Say you feel like you're sweaty and tired so you feel like you burned 5,000 calories during Zumba. You log those calories, you eat the extra 5,000 calories and you still lose weight. Then great. Keep logging it that way. But on the other hand - you log 5,000 calories, you eat those calories and you notice after a period that you're either maintaining or gaining weight - then you might want to consider looking at those exercise calories and maybe logging a few less. It is really trial and error. If something is working for you - then keep it up, but if it stops working adjust accordingly.4
-
I use the mfp caculator seems to work for me im around 250 i usually burn around 400+ calories based on the time2
-
Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
At your weight you are only burning about 63 calories (net) per mile walking.
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
HRMs accurately measure heartbeats and there is no direct correlation between heartbeats and calories. They are a cardio training aid and not an energy measurement device.
If you are of roughly average fitness level and have an average exercise HR and are doing an appropriate exercise (steady state cardio of a decent intensity level) then yes you can get a reasonable estimate from a basic HRM.
I invested a bit of time and effort into buying a good standard configurable HRM, got my VO2 max and true max HR tested in a sports science lab and under perfect conditions it can be remarkably accurate compared to a power meter. Under imperfect conditions (but still steady state cardio) it can be out by 25%.
No I don't think there is any way to accurately estimate Zumba calories unless you are hooked up to a portable gas analyser to measure your oxygen uptake.
Where are you getting that walking information? I always get over 100 calories PER mile on every calculator I use. https://www.verywell.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
That chart estimates 106calories.
You're talking about "net" calories? Seems different.
Net calories means the extra calories you burn from exercise and excludes your RMR etc. that you would have burned anyway and are already accounted for.
Ah. Do most calculators use net or gross calories? I read an article on the differences last night. I'm a quick study. Now with walking it wont make much difference for 1 mile since its like 40 calories and I only eat 1200 net anyway so that 40 isnt that big for me. but it is about 40% difference and with something like Zumba that is a big deal because if you think you burn 500 calories it brings it down to 300.
RMR isn't a percentage though, it's a flat daily amount.
It's pretty inconsequential for short duration exercise but becomes more of a factor if you are doing multi hour exercise.
Think you are confusing yourself terribly for no good reason!
If you are walking dozens and dozens of miles a week it's maybe worth bothering about, if you aren't just a rough estimate in any way that's reasonable, convenient (and free!) is fine.
As I said much earlier consistency and adjusting based on results over time works.
For example I strength train x3 a week but that's a low calorie burn activity so I just use the rough estimate MFP provides, if it's out (probably is!) it's not really that significant and I'll pick up any deviation over an extended period and adjust base calories.
When I'm cycling 4000 miles a year (but in a very uneven pattern) I obviously need rather more precision so I put the work into getting a somewhat accurate estimate.
For your Zumba suggest you just have a stab in the dark but bear in mind your fitness level and your crocked ankle! (Be a little modest in other words.)
1 -
Verity1111 wrote: »
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
At your weight you are only burning about 63 calories (net) per mile walking.
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
HRMs accurately measure heartbeats and there is no direct correlation between heartbeats and calories. They are a cardio training aid and not an energy measurement device.
If you are of roughly average fitness level and have an average exercise HR and are doing an appropriate exercise (steady state cardio of a decent intensity level) then yes you can get a reasonable estimate from a basic HRM.
I invested a bit of time and effort into buying a good standard configurable HRM, got my VO2 max and true max HR tested in a sports science lab and under perfect conditions it can be remarkably accurate compared to a power meter. Under imperfect conditions (but still steady state cardio) it can be out by 25%.
No I don't think there is any way to accurately estimate Zumba calories unless you are hooked up to a portable gas analyser to measure your oxygen uptake.
For some people it might be a lot more actually! If I don't configure my HR meter befitting my fairly high maxHR then I easily get huge numbers. Taking perfectly weighted food into account, a good idea of what my maintenance calories are and more than 1.5 years of running data I can say that my energy expenditure for running is indeed very close to the weight(lbs) * distance(miles) * 0.6(4? 8?). Yet uncalibrated, the HR meter gives me nearly twice this amount.
I looked a bit into distribution of actual HR data relative to the 220-age equation. There are a couple of papers out there. One group of researchers suggest that more people have higher HR than the equation, and this seems to be true especially for women, contrary to what the gender-corrected version of this equation suggests. On the other hand, the researchers argued more people might actually go to a cardiologist because they are worried about a high HR when working out rather than a lower. Thus there might be some sampling bias. Another paper demonstrated that about 5% of all people are more than 30 bpm away from this equation, which suggests it's not quite a 'normal' normal distribution.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
At your weight you are only burning about 63 calories (net) per mile walking.
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
HRMs accurately measure heartbeats and there is no direct correlation between heartbeats and calories. They are a cardio training aid and not an energy measurement device.
If you are of roughly average fitness level and have an average exercise HR and are doing an appropriate exercise (steady state cardio of a decent intensity level) then yes you can get a reasonable estimate from a basic HRM.
I invested a bit of time and effort into buying a good standard configurable HRM, got my VO2 max and true max HR tested in a sports science lab and under perfect conditions it can be remarkably accurate compared to a power meter. Under imperfect conditions (but still steady state cardio) it can be out by 25%.
No I don't think there is any way to accurately estimate Zumba calories unless you are hooked up to a portable gas analyser to measure your oxygen uptake.
Where are you getting that walking information? I always get over 100 calories PER mile on every calculator I use. https://www.verywell.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
That chart estimates 106calories.
You're talking about "net" calories? Seems different.
Net calories means the extra calories you burn from exercise and excludes your RMR etc. that you would have burned anyway and are already accounted for.
Ah. Do most calculators use net or gross calories? I read an article on the differences last night. I'm a quick study. Now with walking it wont make much difference for 1 mile since its like 40 calories and I only eat 1200 net anyway so that 40 isnt that big for me. but it is about 40% difference and with something like Zumba that is a big deal because if you think you burn 500 calories it brings it down to 300.
RMR isn't a percentage though, it's a flat daily amount.
It's pretty inconsequential for short duration exercise but becomes more of a factor if you are doing multi hour exercise.
Think you are confusing yourself terribly for no good reason!
If you are walking dozens and dozens of miles a week it's maybe worth bothering about, if you aren't just a rough estimate in any way that's reasonable, convenient (and free!) is fine.
As I said much earlier consistency and adjusting based on results over time works.
For example I strength train x3 a week but that's a low calorie burn activity so I just use the rough estimate MFP provides, if it's out (probably is!) it's not really that significant and I'll pick up any deviation over an extended period and adjust base calories.
When I'm cycling 4000 miles a year (but in a very uneven pattern) I obviously need rather more precision so I put the work into getting a somewhat accurate estimate.
For your Zumba suggest you just have a stab in the dark but bear in mind your fitness level and your crocked ankle! (Be a little modest in other words.)
Not confused. What Im saying is if the calculator for Zumba says I burn 600 is that likely net or gross? And why be modest? I still work just as hard as I did before. Its just painful lol I move quicker than my kids when we play Lol and theyre young. The only move I cant do is mainly jumping jacks in "Jump Jive and Wail"
sad 0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »
Yes1 -
Around 700, and based on careful tracking over about 5 years, that is accurate for me.
I do an intense class and more than keep up with the instructor, as I have professional Latin dance experience--no breaks, no modifications, lots of slapping the ground and jumping up in the air.2 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »Around 700, and based on careful tracking over about 5 years, that is accurate for me.
I do an intense class and more than keep up with the instructor, as I have professional Latin dance experience--no breaks, no modifications, lots of slapping the ground and jumping up in the air.
How much do you weigh if I may ask? Thank you for the info! I've been logging 500calories when I do Zumba anywhere from 50-60 minutes. It's usually pretty intense, but there are maybe 2 low intensity songs.0 -
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Here's the thing. And I'm picking a totally exaggerated number so we don't get bogged down arguing the details. Say you feel like you're sweaty and tired so you feel like you burned 5,000 calories during Zumba. You log those calories, you eat the extra 5,000 calories and you still lose weight. Then great. Keep logging it that way. But on the other hand - you log 5,000 calories, you eat those calories and you notice after a period that you're either maintaining or gaining weight - then you might want to consider looking at those exercise calories and maybe logging a few less. It is really trial and error. If something is working for you - then keep it up, but if it stops working adjust accordingly.
5000 lol WOW that would be like 10 hrs of zumba! Thank you. Well I guess since I eat 1200calories Im more worried about under eating than over.0 -
Do you mind sharing your weight also? I just want to compare it to me lol I'm around 210.
Ok I got shot down a few weeks ago about how I couldn't possibly burn the 10 Cal/min (average, so higher for some of the class a little lower for some, but I don't stop moving for the whole 45 minutes) that my Fitbit Surge was telling me I did during my weekly Zumba class, but that calculator gives me the same ballpark figure and that's at medium intensity. But I put my all in to each and every move, I jump as high as I can (and there's a lot of jumping), I march on the spot in the couple of seconds between tracks, I certainly couldn't hold a conversation, I'm pretty much out of breath the whole time until the final cool down song. I do get that I would have burnt some Calories during that 45 minutes if I had just sat on my bum for 45 minutes, but I go by my Fitbit's calculations for the day when eating and find that works pretty well.
0 -
I'm 5'9" 160 and I log one hour as 300 and i lose perfectly well with that burn.1
-
Verity1111 wrote: »
Do you mind sharing your weight also? I just want to compare it to me lol I'm around 210.
Ok I got shot down a few weeks ago about how I couldn't possibly burn the 10 Cal/min (average, so higher for some of the class a little lower for some, but I don't stop moving for the whole 45 minutes) that my Fitbit Surge was telling me I did during my weekly Zumba class, but that calculator gives me the same ballpark figure and that's at medium intensity. But I put my all in to each and every move, I jump as high as I can (and there's a lot of jumping), I march on the spot in the couple of seconds between tracks, I certainly couldn't hold a conversation, I'm pretty much out of breath the whole time until the final cool down song. I do get that I would have burnt some Calories during that 45 minutes if I had just sat on my bum for 45 minutes, but I go by my Fitbit's calculations for the day when eating and find that works pretty well.
I'm 5'1", 44 and weigh 182lb1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions