Excercise that burns 200 calories in 2.5 mins.

yirara

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!

Machka9

ninerbuff wrote: »

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.

TimothyFish

What you should take from the article is that exercise is good for you and even a little exercise is better than none.

Mr_Knight

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.

Mr_Knight

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....

yirara

Mr_Knight wrote: »

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.

robertw486

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?

Azdak

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.

robertw486

Azdak wrote: »

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.