Quickest ways to burn 500 calories?
Replies
-
If you can get a resistance band to exercise at home, it'll help you lose a lot of weight in a short time.4
-
Ride a bike at 300 watts for thirty minutes...
Ride a bike at 200 watts for 45 minutes
Ride a bike at 150 watts for 60 minutes
Give or take 10% total calories burn due to mechanical efficiency of your muscles
If you are under 130 pounds and can do 300 watts for 30 minutes you could make a living biking (a crappy one...but a living wage)1 -
I weigh 223 lbs, so..an hour of jazzercise or zumba burns 500 calories0
-
purplebobkat wrote: »Try for 10000 steps. That should get you 500cals.
Or reduce cals by 250 and walk for an hour.
What would work best for you... More food or more movement?
This always shocks me. My Apple Watch gives me about 93 calories for 10,000 steps.
My cardio calorie burner is swimming. But while an hour swim will burn prob 500 cals for most adults (140 lb +) not everyone can or likes to swim.
For me, 10,000 steps wouldn't get me anywhere near 500 calories.
10,000 steps is about 7.6 km.
Walking at 5 km/h, I burn about 200 cal/hour. So walking 7.6 km, would give me about 300 calories.
Of course, when I count walking distance it is exercise walking distance, not walking back and forth to the photocopier etc.
If I wanted to burn 500 calories in an hour, I'd have to really pick up the pace!!2 -
Fastest burn is either running or swimming. Swimming burns more per mile, but you are so much slower, per minute is comparable.
At lunch tuesday, I burned about 500 Kcal in about 35 minutes. If you don't weigh 180 pounds and don't run sub 8:00 miles ymmv0 -
Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
I am short...5 5...light...130...47 yeas old...but with practice after about a year 600+ is easily possible on a bike in an hour. My best is right under 1000 for an hour. My wife is 48...5 6...124...she hits 600 an hour.1 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
I am short...5 5...light...130...47 yeas old...but with practice after about a year 600+ is easily possible on a bike in an hour. My best is right under 1000 for an hour. My wife is 48...5 6...124...she hits 600 an hour.
I wish I was 5 5
I don't think that is short. I'm 5 2 /48 / 126. I probably burn a bit more than 500 but its a good guesstimate. I average 29.5 kph. 0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
I am short...5 5...light...130...47 yeas old...but with practice after about a year 600+ is easily possible on a bike in an hour. My best is right under 1000 for an hour. My wife is 48...5 6...124...she hits 600 an hour.
wow, kudos to you. 1000 cals/hr on a bike. That's some serious effort.0 -
The best exercise is the one you like enough to keep doing it. Do you like walking, dancing, running, lifting weights?
Remember that although you can lose weight quickly, if you go back to your former habits, the weight will return. You have to keep up appropriate eating habits and exercise for life, or you will gain back the weight.
In my case, doing fifteen minutes of hard exercise at least once a day was the best thing when I started out. Fifteen minutes is easy to fit into your schedule, and if it's hard, vigorous exercise, that's long enough to earn at least a couple hundred calories, and enough to make real changes in your fitness level.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
But that hour on a bike is fun, and then after an hour it's over. If I eat 500 fewer calories, I'm gonna be hungry all day and tomorrow morning until I eat, too.2 -
purplebobkat wrote: »Try for 10000 steps. That should get you 500cals.
Or reduce cals by 250 and walk for an hour.
What would work best for you... More food or more movement?
This always shocks me. My Apple Watch gives me about 93 calories for 10,000 steps.
My cardio calorie burner is swimming. But while an hour swim will burn prob 500 cals for most adults (140 lb +) not everyone can or likes to swim.
For me, 10,000 steps wouldn't get me anywhere near 500 calories.
10,000 steps is about 7.6 km.
Walking at 5 km/h, I burn about 200 cal/hour. So walking 7.6 km, would give me about 300 calories.
Of course, when I count walking distance it is exercise walking distance, not walking back and forth to the photocopier etc.
If I wanted to burn 500 calories in an hour, I'd have to really pick up the pace!!
About the same for me.
My closest comparison would be a 10,286 step and 4.38 mile walk over rolling hills w/about a 300 ft elevation change that took me 1 hr & 48 mins at a casual pace of 2.4 miles/hr.
My pedometer (which assumes all walks are flat) rated this at 375 cals but my hiking cal calculator (which accounts for body & pack weight and slope) rated it at 666, which is probably closer to the truth. But, add on the prep and drive time, doing this hike took about 2.5 hrs in all.
So, there are definitely more efficient (but not necessarily more enjoyable) ways to burn calories.0 -
Swimming. Even am hour of leisurely swimming burns over 600 calories for me. It's super easy and my all time favorite activity.0
-
I can burn 500 in less than an hour on the elliptical. You gotta push but you can do it.0
-
So, there are definitely more efficient (but not necessarily more enjoyable) ways to burn calories.purplebobkat wrote: »Try for 10000 steps. That should get you 500cals.
Or reduce cals by 250 and walk for an hour.
What would work best for you... More food or more movement?
This always shocks me. My Apple Watch gives me about 93 calories for 10,000 steps.
My cardio calorie burner is swimming. But while an hour swim will burn prob 500 cals for most adults (140 lb +) not everyone can or likes to swim.
For me, 10,000 steps wouldn't get me anywhere near 500 calories.
10,000 steps is about 7.6 km.
Walking at 5 km/h, I burn about 200 cal/hour. So walking 7.6 km, would give me about 300 calories.
Of course, when I count walking distance it is exercise walking distance, not walking back and forth to the photocopier etc.
If I wanted to burn 500 calories in an hour, I'd have to really pick up the pace!!
I got a set of fancy wheels for my bike. They're light weight for going up hills, and areodynamic for flat ground. That's another way of saying they burn fewer calories than my old ones. Lot more fun to ride, though. You're spot on.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
I am short...5 5...light...130...47 yeas old...but with practice after about a year 600+ is easily possible on a bike in an hour. My best is right under 1000 for an hour. My wife is 48...5 6...124...she hits 600 an hour.
@jlklem
That's a great power to weight ratio, well done - would hate to ride hills with you!
5'9", 168lbs, 57 years old - best burn of 724 cals an hour.
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
I am short...5 5...light...130...47 yeas old...but with practice after about a year 600+ is easily possible on a bike in an hour. My best is right under 1000 for an hour. My wife is 48...5 6...124...she hits 600 an hour.
@jlklem
That's a great power to weight ratio, well done - would hate to ride hills with you!
5'9", 168lbs, 57 years old - best burn of 724 cals an hour.
Thanks...yeah I hurt people in the hills. The flats kill me with a few of the monsters I ride with.
How did you measure the number? Do you use a power meter? If so what type and how have you been cycling?
724 is solid for an hour...about 201 watts depending on efficiency. Longer you have been riding the higher the efficiency so less calories burned.
John0 -
An easy way is increase your incidental cardio by doing things like parking far from the store, taking the stairs instead of the elevator/escalator, walking to talk to a coworker instead of emailing them, a 15 minute walk on your lunch break, etc. You can add these in with very little impact to your daily schedule.1
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
I am short...5 5...light...130...47 yeas old...but with practice after about a year 600+ is easily possible on a bike in an hour. My best is right under 1000 for an hour. My wife is 48...5 6...124...she hits 600 an hour.
@jlklem
That's a great power to weight ratio, well done - would hate to ride hills with you!
5'9", 168lbs, 57 years old - best burn of 724 cals an hour.
Thanks...yeah I hurt people in the hills. The flats kill me with a few of the monsters I ride with.
How did you measure the number? Do you use a power meter? If so what type and how have you been cycling?
724 is solid for an hour...about 201 watts depending on efficiency. Longer you have been riding the higher the efficiency so less calories burned.
John
Flat? Give me a 1% decline and (on a good day) I can almost pretend to be a decent cyclist - I do have the aero of a brick outhouse though so people love being on my wheel.
I train on a WattbikePro, yep 201 watts for an hour and felt like dying!
I only started getting serious about cycling in my early 50's, first century at 53.
Funny enough when I started using a power meter I asked a friend who is a good endurance cyclist what a decent goal would be and he suggested 200w. I took that to mean 200w for an hour but he actually meant 200w sustained duration - he does it for four hours. Gulp!
His one hour training goal is 260w or 936 cals.
0 -
67 & 158# here. I just started doing a tabata style rowing routine (8 x 20 sec work x 10 sec rest) at 200 watts or about 1000 cal/hr) and that kills me. Totally anaerobic and can't breathe normally for at least a min or 2.
I can also row at 200 watts for 500m at just under 2 minutes but I'm pretty much toast after doing that too.
Biking is different than rowing but I can't imagine biking at 200 watts for an hour let alone 4 but I've got a LeMond spin bike w/a reasonably accurate HRM on it, so I think I'll give it a try.2 -
slimyslimgym wrote: »Swimming. Even am hour of leisurely swimming burns over 600 calories for me. It's super easy and my all time favorite activity.
Swimming is great exercise, but if it is “super easy” it’s probably not 600/hr.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
So, there are definitely more efficient (but not necessarily more enjoyable) ways to burn calories.purplebobkat wrote: »Try for 10000 steps. That should get you 500cals.
Or reduce cals by 250 and walk for an hour.
What would work best for you... More food or more movement?
This always shocks me. My Apple Watch gives me about 93 calories for 10,000 steps.
My cardio calorie burner is swimming. But while an hour swim will burn prob 500 cals for most adults (140 lb +) not everyone can or likes to swim.
For me, 10,000 steps wouldn't get me anywhere near 500 calories.
10,000 steps is about 7.6 km.
Walking at 5 km/h, I burn about 200 cal/hour. So walking 7.6 km, would give me about 300 calories.
Of course, when I count walking distance it is exercise walking distance, not walking back and forth to the photocopier etc.
If I wanted to burn 500 calories in an hour, I'd have to really pick up the pace!!
I got a set of fancy wheels for my bike. They're light weight for going up hills, and areodynamic for flat ground. That's another way of saying they burn fewer calories than my old ones. Lot more fun to ride, though. You're spot on.
But isn’t it a case where they allow you to just “go faster” and thus burn same calories as before? Wouldn’t you just pedal at the same effort?
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Its probably easier to just not eat those 500 calories... It would take me personally over an hour on my bike to burn 500 cals, but I'm short and light (and well over 40).
I am short...5 5...light...130...47 yeas old...but with practice after about a year 600+ is easily possible on a bike in an hour. My best is right under 1000 for an hour. My wife is 48...5 6...124...she hits 600 an hour.
@jlklem
That's a great power to weight ratio, well done - would hate to ride hills with you!
5'9", 168lbs, 57 years old - best burn of 724 cals an hour.
Thanks...yeah I hurt people in the hills. The flats kill me with a few of the monsters I ride with.
How did you measure the number? Do you use a power meter? If so what type and how have you been cycling?
724 is solid for an hour...about 201 watts depending on efficiency. Longer you have been riding the higher the efficiency so less calories burned.
John
Flat? Give me a 1% decline and (on a good day) I can almost pretend to be a decent cyclist - I do have the aero of a brick outhouse though so people love being on my wheel.
I train on a WattbikePro, yep 201 watts for an hour and felt like dying!
I only started getting serious about cycling in my early 50's, first century at 53.
Funny enough when I started using a power meter I asked a friend who is a good endurance cyclist what a decent goal would be and he suggested 200w. I took that to mean 200w for an hour but he actually meant 200w sustained duration - he does it for four hours. Gulp!
His one hour training goal is 260w or 936 cals.
My best ever was 236 watts for 4 hours...at 132 pounds. I averaged 21.1 over 88 miles with 5200 feet of climbing. It enjoyed being that fit. Last month did 272 for an hour which is around 1000 calories for the hour. I did hold 200 watts for 10 hours once....204 mile ride.
Just remember most power meters underestimate calories as they over estimate efficiency...for you efficiency is probably closer to 18 percent. Most Garmins measure estimate you at 23% efficiency which means the totals are higher...about 5-10%1 -
rodsteph777 wrote: »Hey I figured om order to get fitter and remain in calories i have to burn 500 cal a day. What are the quickest ways to do this
Nordic skiing. Speed skating. Butterfly in a pool at full speed.
Now if you can't do those, what exactly are you fit enough to do? And if you know what that is, that would be the quickest way FOR YOU.
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
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions