Excercise that burns 200 calories in 2.5 mins.

Options
2»

Replies

  • sophie9492015
    sophie9492015 Posts: 204 Member
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »

    They do do it either indirectly by measuring oxygen uptake, or more directly by using metabolic chambers. So the calorie burns reported in the study are accurate.

    So these excercise really can burn 200 calories?
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,139 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »

    They do do it either indirectly by measuring oxygen uptake, or more directly by using metabolic chambers. So the calorie burns reported in the study are accurate.

    So these excercise really can burn 200 calories?

    Not in 2.5 minutes. Nope.
  • sophie9492015
    sophie9492015 Posts: 204 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone so much! So helpful!
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Options
    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.
  • canary_girl
    canary_girl Posts: 366 Member
    Options
    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.
  • fjmartini
    fjmartini Posts: 1,149 Member
    Options
    I think the rules of thermodynamics don't allow it.
  • edlanglais5
    edlanglais5 Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Tabbycat00
    Tabbycat00 Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,517 Member
    Options
    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 :D 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
    Machka9 Posts: 25,139 Member
    Options
    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
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    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
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    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
    yirara Posts: 9,517 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight 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
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    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
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    robertw486 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
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    robertw486 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.