How to burn more calories through exercise

deannalfisher

NorthCascades wrote: »

deannalfisher wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

A watt is a watt, but a bent should be much faster at the same power output because it's so areodynamic, like a missile.

A recumbent bike also lets you wear Birkenstocks and store emergency granola in your beard.

lemme rephrase - yes a watt is a watt - but looking at the body positioning on a recumbent bike vs. a road bike (or even a spin bike) - would lead me to question the plausibility of being able to put 3.35w/kg for an extended period of time

Oh, I see what you're getting at. Can't say, I don't meet the eager requirement to try one and find out.

ditto! doing an hour of intervals on my bike trainer in the basement is suck-tastic enough!

stanmann571

deannalfisher wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

A watt is a watt, but a bent should be much faster at the same power output because it's so areodynamic, like a missile.

A recumbent bike also lets you wear Birkenstocks and store emergency granola in your beard.

lemme rephrase - yes a watt is a watt - but looking at the body positioning on a recumbent bike vs. a road bike (or even a spin bike) - would lead me to question the plausibility of being able to put 3.35w/kg for an extended period of time

That's what I was getting at.

Road/spin bike is a whole body workout(or can be) recumb is quad dominant/exclusive... hard to get your hips in there.

rickdkitson

To get an idea of the upper limit of how many calories you can burn in an hour take a look at a world class marathon runner.

They will run 42 kms in just over two hours on a pretty level course.

At 70 kcal per km, that is a calorie burn rate of just under 1,500 kcal/hr. (A world class sprinter burns about 2,500 kcal per hour, but only for 10 seconds at a time.)

So unless you are a world class athlete, I find it very difficult to believe that any normal fitness person can burn anywhere close to that for a sustained period of time. I think that one to two thirds a world class athlete’s efforts would be a pretty good range for an average fitness person.

Sorry but that puts the maximum calorie burn rate for sustained exercise between 500 and 1,000 kcal per hour. The lower number would be achievable by most people and the higher level by an exceptionally fit non-athlete.

My Fitbit tracks about 500 per hour for a brisk walk over some pretty hilly ground, pace about 5 to 6 kms an hour so depending on up or down hill. (I have over 300 m of vertical both up and down in a 12 km route. The Fitbit stair counter shows 100 flights of stairs.) I think you would be in pretty good shape to run the same route at twice the pace or to burn 1,000 kcal per hour.

Rammer123

1,500 calories an hour running on the treadmill for me. Probably seems ridiculous for some people but I think it's fairly accurate for me

stanmann571

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

1,500 calories an hour running on the treadmill for me. Probably seems ridiculous for some people but I think it's fairly accurate for me

It's especially ridiculous for you.

But not surprising

Rammer123

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

1,500 calories an hour running on the treadmill for me. Probably seems ridiculous for some people but I think it's fairly accurate for me

It's especially ridiculous for you.

But not surprising

Whats that supposed to mean?

stanmann571

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

1,500 calories an hour running on the treadmill for me. Probably seems ridiculous for some people but I think it's fairly accurate for me

It's especially ridiculous for you.

But not surprising

Whats that supposed to mean?

That you're not running 15 miles in an hour. or even 12 or 10.

Rammer123

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

1,500 calories an hour running on the treadmill for me. Probably seems ridiculous for some people but I think it's fairly accurate for me

It's especially ridiculous for you.

But not surprising

Whats that supposed to mean?

That you're not running 15 miles in an hour. or even 12 or 10.

8mph at 225lbs on a 1-3% incline. Between 1400 and 1600 calories.

stanmann571

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

1,500 calories an hour running on the treadmill for me. Probably seems ridiculous for some people but I think it's fairly accurate for me

It's especially ridiculous for you.

But not surprising

Whats that supposed to mean?

That you're not running 15 miles in an hour. or even 12 or 10.

8mph at 225lbs on a 1-3% incline. Between 1400 and 1600 calories.

Closer to 1100-1200.

need2belean

lizholt326 wrote: »

I wear a chest strap heart rate monitor that gives me my heart rate and my calorie burn for my workout. If you saw how much I drip sweat during my workout, you'd understand how I'd burn over 500 calories in about 70-80 minutes. calorie burn also depends on your weight too. The heavier you are, the more you'll burn compared to that same workout for someone much smaller. On that note, just doing 30 minutes on the elliptical at say 5mph doesn't compare to doing 30 minutes sprinting at full speed. But, even though I burn roughly 500 calories most of my workouts, I still try not to eat back any of those calories just in case it is over estimated.

So since 600 is wrong you go with 0 instead of 200-300?

Put another way. What answer is most wrong? 500, 250, 0.

I just pay attention to my macros before the workouts and that's what I stick to for the day whether I workout or not. Even now while I'm maintaining, I'm slowly adding back in more macros (calories) but I'm still not eating back my exercise calories just to be on the safe side if it is over-estimated.

Rammer123

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

1,500 calories an hour running on the treadmill for me. Probably seems ridiculous for some people but I think it's fairly accurate for me

It's especially ridiculous for you.

But not surprising

Whats that supposed to mean?

That you're not running 15 miles in an hour. or even 12 or 10.

8mph at 225lbs on a 1-3% incline. Between 1400 and 1600 calories.

Closer to 1100-1200.

Based off what?

I can also show you some numbers from my metabolic assessment done a few months ago that shows calorie burning of 24.4 calories/min at zone 3, which is generally where I like to train. That test was done at a 1% incline and estimated my zone 3 to be at 7.8mph.

JeromeBarry1

lizholt326 wrote: »

My first post, but I've been reading the discussions (great inspiration here!) and using MFP for a while...

I see a lot of people saying they are burning 500 calories (or more) during their cardio sessions. What kind of workouts (and what duration) would burn that many calories? I've been doing between 30-60 minutes on the elliptical and I average 200 minutes per week. All my calculations for how much I'm burning are all over the place, so I generally just underestimate and usually don't eat the calories back, maybe 100 calories at the most.

A little about me: I'm 30yo, 5'6", and right now I'm down to about 163. My highest weight was around 190, and I very slowly lost some weight while in grad school. I graduated in May and have committed myself 100% to a lifestyle change and in the past 6 weeks have lost 8 lbs. My goal is 130 (though I may reassess for a lower number once I reach 140) and I'm eating 1400 calories per day.

Thanks everyone!

Skipping everything to respond to the OP. I'm close to your size at this time. If you were to use my treadmill and tell it your weight and then do the same hour-long program I recently did, it would tell you that you had burned 500+ calories. That's one way to burn more calories. Exercise a longer time. On that particular day I did three different cardio sessions for 2.5 hours of exercise and logged over 1700 calories of exercise. There is always the possibility that I'm logging wrongly. One week, and only one week, I compared my logged calorie deficit and the number of pounds it would have predicted I would have lost that week to my actual weight change that week. The two numbers agreed to within 0.1 lb. I thus am satisfied that for the exercises I did that week, and I'm still doing them, my logging is accurate.