Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Burn 500 calories in 30 minutes

Mexicangreensalsa
Mexicangreensalsa Posts: 296 Member
in Debate Club
https://www.shape.com/fitness/cardio/5-ways-burn-500-calories-30-minutes?utm_campaign=shp_trueanthem_evergreen&utm_content=5b4ce44704d3010e9c8c9112&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

I came across this article on social media and it got me thinking about how many of these "500 calories in 20/30 minute" gimmicks I see in magazines and all over social media. It takes me a good 1.5 HOURS to burn 500 calories because I am a small lady.

I hate how they advertise workouts like these because most people won't burn that many calories. My sister and daughter think anyone who does one of these will burn over 500. I think promoting "burn 500 calorie" workouts exacerbates the misknowledge about diet and fitness. Anyone else roll their eyes at things like these? Or do you think they are a good idea because the "high calorie burn" motivates people to be active anyways?
«1

Replies

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited August 2018
    Mexicangreensalsa wrote: »
    yukfoo wrote: »
    Takes me about 35 mins to run off 500 calories.

    How?! I only burn about 35-40 calories per mile.

    If you weigh less - just gotta go faster.

    I can do 500 in 30 min running - but it better be stopping right about then - and then i better walk for good cool down or achilles will be twanging for many days.

    Same on bike, but it better be flattish so no downhills, or just short moderate hills I can interval on - again short effort, though not as bad on tendons.

    Spin classes have been promoting "burn up to 1000 calories an hour" for years. Rare the person that can accomplish that - despite the sweat off.
  • Noreenmarie1234
    Noreenmarie1234 Posts: 7,492 Member
    I guess they use average weight of a woman which is 169lbs. They burn a lot more than smaller women. Men easily can burn 500 calories in that time if they work hard and are big enough.

    It is really annoying and deceiving for smaller people who don't know enough to realize a large person burns way more than them. I burn around 350 for 6 mile run at 7mph pace. I am also small so I burn less. When I walk I only burn like 30-35 per mile too.
  • MichelleWithMoxie
    MichelleWithMoxie Posts: 1,817 Member
    It takes me a12+ mike run to burn 1k calories. The pitfalls of being a small female :disappointed:
  • Noreenmarie1234
    Noreenmarie1234 Posts: 7,492 Member
    MichSmish wrote: »
    It takes me a12+ mike run to burn 1k calories. The pitfalls of being a small female :disappointed:

    Same here. 6 miles only burns 350 for me. I burn under 1000 for 12 mile.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    edited August 2018
    Yeah, I just roll my eyes at that. I just took a look at my Strava, and I see I got 1028 calories for a 3 hour ride involving 2100 feet elevation gain (and Strava tends to overestimate for me). I am also a smaller, lighter woman. I used to fall all the time for the "burn so many calories in a very short time doing X", but aside from the fact there's no way I was ever going to burn that many calories doing anything in that time frame, I could never keep up the activity for the required time.

    I agree that a disclaimer should be included, though all the article has to say is "you can burn UP TO 500 calories" and the authors can whistle innocently and point out that they never said "you will".

    edited to add: And if I could routinely burn that many calories in that short a time I would be down to skin and bones very quickly, because there's no way I could eat enough to fuel that kind of activity.

    edited again - I see NorthCascades beat me to it :p
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Takes me an hour at topical cruising speed to burn 500 calories. Can do it in 30 doing an FTP test or a fast 40 km, but not two days in a row.

    But I haven't been getting enough carbs lately, so I haven't been able to hot that intensity level, meaning I'm burning fewer calories.
  • Zodikosis
    Zodikosis Posts: 149 Member
    Alas, us small people are not the target audience for those types of headlines. An average sized man probably can burn 500 calories in 30 minutes if it were high intensity enough.

    We just have to accept that we burn less in the same amount of time doing the same type of exercise as other people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • SweatLikeDog
    SweatLikeDog Posts: 318 Member
    edited August 2018
    This is real, but you need to have good form or you'll hurt yourself: https://caloriebee.com/workout-routines/Burn-20-Calories-Per-Minute-with-the-Kettlebell-Snatch
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    edited August 2018
    yukfoo wrote: »
    Takes me about 35 mins to run off 500 calories.

    i'd need 55-60 minutes running... yay for being small
  • Stockholm_Andy
    Stockholm_Andy Posts: 803 Member
    Mexicangreensalsa wrote: »
    https://www.shape.com/fitness/cardio/5-ways-burn-500-calories-30-minutes?utm_campaign=shp_trueanthem_evergreen&utm_content=5b4ce44704d3010e9c8c9112&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    I came across this article on social media and it got me thinking about how many of these "500 calories in 20/30 minute" gimmicks I see in magazines and all over social media. It takes me a good 1.5 HOURS to burn 500 calories because I am a small lady.

    I hate how they advertise workouts like these because most people won't burn that many calories. My sister and daughter think anyone who does one of these will burn over 500. I think promoting "burn 500 calorie" workouts exacerbates the misknowledge about diet and fitness. Anyone else roll their eyes at things like these? Or do you think they are a good idea because the "high calorie burn" motivates people to be active anyways?

    These articles are just click bait. Some people may be able to burn 500 Cals in 30 minutes if they're big enough and fit enough but most won't.

    I'm rehabbing my knee so I'm not running at the moment but hitting it fairly hard on the cross trainer I can average 120-130 calories every 10 minutes over an hour according to my HRM (chest strap) sync'd with Strava. If I pre-elevate my HR by doing sled pushes first I will burn slightly more again according to the HRM.

    However, I read a study the other day some one posted on here saying most HRMs can over estimate calories burned by up to 30% even while being accurate on HR.

    I guess at least we've moved on from 8 minutes 3x per week is enough to burn all week long.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    RicoFit14 wrote: »
    Calories burned should never be calculated into your daily caloric intake. Remove that from your diary and you'll be much happier with your weight loss.

    Depending on how many calories you burn, your body does need fuel. Not everyone wants a greater than reasonable deficit, that will only lead to hunger and possible binging. If you have a reasonable (0.5 to 1lb loss per week) built into your NEAT on MFP, you do need to log your exercise. Your body burns more fuel during workouts, and you can give it more fuel and still lose the weight you have targeted.

    If you don't want to log exercise calories, go calculate your TDEE (which includes exercise) and use a custom goal, not the NEAT that MFP provides. The NEAT is designed for you to log exercise, so it doesn't include the fuel you need for that exercise.

    Some say the exercise calories are overstated, so I'd eat to what your body needs within the calories you burned during exercise. I eat back my exercise calories, but I'm very conservative with my exercise time estimates. Mine never seem overestimated, but I don't do a lot of LISS.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    RicoFit14 wrote: »
    Calories burned should never be calculated into your daily caloric intake. Remove that from your diary and you'll be much happier with your weight loss.

    all depends on the method you are using(TDEE,NEAT,) if a person eats 1200 calories and burns 1000 they shouldnt eat back any and net 200 calories? that would basically be undereating. not to mention what their body already burns by being alive so basically its like not eating at all.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member

    How?! I only burn about 35-40 calories per mile. [/quote]

    Running should be significantly more than that unless you're very underweight.
  • firef1y72
    firef1y72 Posts: 1,579 Member
    MichSmish wrote: »
    It takes me a12+ mike run to burn 1k calories. The pitfalls of being a small female :disappointed:

    I'm so slow I burn nearly 2000 Calories running a half (takes me around 2.5hrs),it takes a LOT of effort to get my hr up thanks to the amount I do, but I *can* burn around 450 in half hour going all out on the rower.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    Mexicangreensalsa wrote: »
    I think promoting "burn 500 calorie" workouts exacerbates the misknowledge about diet and fitness.

    Amen...
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Average size/average fitness male. It takes me just about 40 minutes of running to burn off 500 calories.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    for me: 500 calories of running would be ~6.94 miles, so ~1h 10m
    cycling: ~17ish miles, ~1h - 1h 15m
  • funjen1972
    funjen1972 Posts: 949 Member
    These ads do not say 'extra calories' so maybe they are including bmr calories???
  • chubbycatcorner
    chubbycatcorner Posts: 102 Member
    RicoFit14 wrote: »
    Calories burned should never be calculated into your daily caloric intake. Remove that from your diary and you'll be much happier with your weight loss.

    Hate to sound stupid. But why is That?

Categories