Excercise that burns 200 calories in 2.5 mins.
Options
Replies
-
-
-
While POSSIBLE, the INTENSITY you have to put in is 100%. And 95% of the people who try this CAN'T because they aren't fit enough nor capable anyway. Not to mention, this is something you only do a couple of times a week and likely no more than 3 because your CNS needs time to recover.
People will claim to do HIIT or Tabata for an hour...........................and that's BS. They are doing INTERVALS, but it's no where near HIIT or Tabata because if done right there's no way they last beyond the actual time of 15 or less.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
I typed this once this morning, but my internet has been messed up for a couple of days and it ate my reply, so I'll try a shorter version.
The article cited reveals the problems that come up when HIIT is discussed. The facts are accurate, but the application is full of hype and misinformation. That's the problem with HIIT in general.
No, you do not burn 200 cals in 2.5 min. As stated, it took 20-25 min to accumulate that 2.5 total min of all-out effort.
Next: the work intervals are HARD. Like 95-100% effort. Most people have no idea what that feels like--and most beginners can't do it. Even non-beginners who can push themselves often only go at 80-85%--and that's not hard enough to get the advertised benefits. And the exercises shown in the article? None of those will get you anywhere close to the intensity level described.
The 200 calories reported is the "afterburn" over 24 hrs, not what was burned during the workout itself. If you could repeat this workout in the same day (unlikely given the effort required), the "afterburn" total would not increase substantially. (It's worth noting that a 200 cal afterburn is notably higher than what most studies report for this type of workout--usually it's 75-125 calories).
I have read this study and the average MET level for the whole 20-25 min workout was 5-6 METs. That means the calorie burn for the workout is 100-160, depending on weight. So you are looking at a total calorie burn of 300-360 calories in a best-case scenario. For me at least, I can burn 300-360 calories in a 20-25 min workout without doing any HIIT whatsoever. And I can sustain that effort for 45-60 minutes, which will double/triple the calorie burn.
The fact is that the people who are most capable of doing HIIT training are the ones who need it the least for weight loss.
High-intensity exercise is a *powerful* stimulus and training tool. It can stimulate transformative changes that steady-state cannot. It is an important part of a workout plan. It is just not a superior weight loss tool.11 -
Thanks everyone so much! So helpful!1
-
sophie9492015 wrote: »Damn it .. i knew it was too good to be true! Hahah. Any suggestions for excercises that burn cals quickly? Because i walk all day at work i am so tired to workout alot.
Running and Nordic (aka cross country) skiing are exercises that people can do for long periods of time, that burn calories at a pretty quick rate - which is a good combination.
But they can make you tired, too. More than walking. It's not like you can take a day off work and run for 8 hours instead. You can try it if you don't believe me.
That's why people say that weight loss is more about diet than exercise.1 -
The men in the article did sprint intervals for 18.5 minutes and burned 200 calories.
That's about 10 calories a minute. Not really all that impressive.
I work out on a stationary bike and look for an average of 12 calories/minute. Although I work hard for most of the time.2 -
I think the rules of thermodynamics don't allow it.1
-
That's way too good to be true. HIIT is also incredibly difficult. I've been doing cardio and strength long term. Tried it for 1-2 minutes and felt like I was going to collapse. And from what I gather, it's not intended a a standalone workout, but to mix into a well balanced routine.
If you're looking for some high burning cardio, I might recommend the elliptical. I hop on for 20-25, set on interval, and bump up incline alternating with resistance on each interval and burn quite a bit.1 -
I think your body composition would also play a role. Even working to fatigue, at 40 years of age & 98 lbs. I'm not going to burn what a 150lb 18 year old will in the same amount of time.2
-
Bodyweight also plays a role of course. If you're heavier you burn more calories. Sad but true for us smaller women. Only thing you can do is to get yourself a good set of muscles and try to raise your BMI this way. The calorie burn gains will not be massive I guess (I think I read something that the calorie need for muscles is nearly twice that of bodyfat*) and it will take a long time to actually build some muscle for us ladies, but it's possible. Of course genetics also play a little role there. I guess I'm lucky. My sedentary TDEE is currently calculated at around 1620, but in reality is a bit more than 200 higher. Not bad for a 43 year old
Need to add that I build muscle fairly quickly though, and I'm very fidgetty.
*something like 6kcal/hr/lbs fat vs. 12kcal/hr/lbs muscle float around my brain, but I cannot verify this at the moment. Please debunk for the sake of correct info!1 -
While POSSIBLE, the INTENSITY you have to put in is 100%. And 95% of the people who try this CAN'T because they aren't fit enough nor capable anyway. Not to mention, this is something you only do a couple of times a week and likely no more than 3 because your CNS needs time to recover.
Sort of like when Mark Cavendish does a sprint on a Grand Tour and puts out thousands of watts. Not something the average person is remotely capable of doing. Not something he's even capable of doing for more than a few minutes now and then.
2 -
What you should take from the article is that exercise is good for you and even a little exercise is better than none.4
-
sophie9492015 wrote: »So i found this article online that says you can burn 200 calories in 2.5 minutes..
No. Not possible. Not even theoretically. Being able to metabolize calories that fast is roughly equivalent to running a 2 minute mile.
Whoever claimed that has no idea what they're talking about.
1 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »I really want to burn 500 calories per day. But dont want to spend an hour doing it..
It can be done in 30 minutes. But you need to be extremely cardiovascularly fit at a normal weight - or very fit at a heavy weight - to get there.
240 pounds running a 30 minute 5km will do it....2 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »I really want to burn 500 calories per day. But dont want to spend an hour doing it..
It can be done in 30 minutes. But you need to be extremely cardiovascularly fit at a normal weight - or very fit at a heavy weight - to get there.
240 pounds running a 30 minute 5km will do it....
Yep, sounds about right. If you're half that weight you need to run twice as far. Time doesn't matter too much though.0 -
canary_girl wrote: »The men in the article did sprint intervals for 18.5 minutes and burned 200 calories.
That's about 10 calories a minute. Not really all that impressive.
I work out on a stationary bike and look for an average of 12 calories/minute. Although I work hard for most of the time.
Liked for math skills and a reality check of how the article twisted the facts!
Broken down, what the article stated is no major feat of calorie burn. But I'd bet than anyone with some training would have ended up with a higher calorie burn by simply pushing for max effort for that 18 and a half minutes. The sprints simply eat glycogen faster and increase heart rate more, but most people will burn more calories in a steady state effort for a given amount of time.
As for 200 calories in 2.5 minutes? There are people who can output that kind of power, but for seconds. Unless I screwed up my quick math that's in the neighborhood of 1,333 watts. Almost 2 horsepower, which was a term derived from the power of (smaller than average) horses. But I would seriously doubt that even a pro level elite cyclist could approach doing it for 2.5 minutes in an 18.5 minute time frame. Maybe 10 seconds at a time or slightly longer.
It does bring up a curious question though... What is the max even an elite type could sustain for say 1 minute?2 -
robertw486 wrote: »canary_girl wrote: »The men in the article did sprint intervals for 18.5 minutes and burned 200 calories.
That's about 10 calories a minute. Not really all that impressive.
I work out on a stationary bike and look for an average of 12 calories/minute. Although I work hard for most of the time.
Liked for math skills and a reality check of how the article twisted the facts!
Broken down, what the article stated is no major feat of calorie burn. But I'd bet than anyone with some training would have ended up with a higher calorie burn by simply pushing for max effort for that 18 and a half minutes. The sprints simply eat glycogen faster and increase heart rate more, but most people will burn more calories in a steady state effort for a given amount of time.
As for 200 calories in 2.5 minutes? There are people who can output that kind of power, but for seconds. Unless I screwed up my quick math that's in the neighborhood of 1,333 watts. Almost 2 horsepower, which was a term derived from the power of (smaller than average) horses. But I would seriously doubt that even a pro level elite cyclist could approach doing it for 2.5 minutes in an 18.5 minute time frame. Maybe 10 seconds at a time or slightly longer.
It does bring up a curious question though... What is the max even an elite type could sustain for say 1 minute?
They did not do 2.5 min of min exercise continuously. It was 30 sec max effort, followed by 4 min recovery cycling, repeated 5 times.
And the 200 calories was not burned during the workout-it was the "afterburn" recorded during the 24hr after the workout.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »canary_girl wrote: »The men in the article did sprint intervals for 18.5 minutes and burned 200 calories.
That's about 10 calories a minute. Not really all that impressive.
I work out on a stationary bike and look for an average of 12 calories/minute. Although I work hard for most of the time.
Liked for math skills and a reality check of how the article twisted the facts!
Broken down, what the article stated is no major feat of calorie burn. But I'd bet than anyone with some training would have ended up with a higher calorie burn by simply pushing for max effort for that 18 and a half minutes. The sprints simply eat glycogen faster and increase heart rate more, but most people will burn more calories in a steady state effort for a given amount of time.
As for 200 calories in 2.5 minutes? There are people who can output that kind of power, but for seconds. Unless I screwed up my quick math that's in the neighborhood of 1,333 watts. Almost 2 horsepower, which was a term derived from the power of (smaller than average) horses. But I would seriously doubt that even a pro level elite cyclist could approach doing it for 2.5 minutes in an 18.5 minute time frame. Maybe 10 seconds at a time or slightly longer.
It does bring up a curious question though... What is the max even an elite type could sustain for say 1 minute?
They did not do 2.5 min of min exercise continuously. It was 30 sec max effort, followed by 4 min recovery cycling, repeated 5 times.
And the 200 calories was not burned during the workout-it was the "afterburn" recorded during the 24hr after the workout.
Those intervals x 5 equal the total workout time of 18.5 minutes.
I took it to read as workout plus EPOC was the calorie count given. Being that proven EPOC is small, any claim that EPOC alone burned that many calories is just bro science articles.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions