Is there a correlation between weight and cardio calories burned

jameschappell1

I'm curious to weather there is a correlation between somebodys weight and there calories burnt doing cardio.
For example if an average weight guy ran the exact same distance on a treadmill at the same pace as someone who is 100 pounds over weight, would the person who is 100 pounds overweight have burned more calories than the average person since he is carrying more weight whilst doing the excersize?

janejellyroll

Yes. Your weight has an impact on the number of calories that you burn.

lynn_glenmont

yes

amusedmonkey

Yes. It takes more energy to move something heavier at the same speed. Since a calorie is a unit of energy, you express "takes more energy" as "burns more calories".

lgfrie

Definitely. MFP's own online calculator for cardio shows an hour of a male at 320 lbs as a 619 calorie burn and at 249 pounds as 483 calories. Huge difference. My various cardio machines show a similar drop in calories per hour -- the absolute numbers are a bit different between MFP and my machines but the percentage drop is approximately the same.

AnnPT77

Yes. But the true differential is going to vary by exercise. In some exercises, you're moving your body through space in a very major way. In others, less so. Think running vs. stationary cycle, for example. (For clarity: I'm not saying there's no weight influence on indoor biking whatsoever, I'm saying it's a less significant factor when compared to running outdoors.)

Including bodyweight as a factor in exercise estimates - directly or indirectly - is quite common (MFP does it, other MET-based systems do it, fitness trackers do it, etc.). It's still all just estimates, and imperfect. In most cases, it would be even less perfect without the bodyweight factor.

It seems mean, though, in a cosmic sense, that as we attain a healthy (lower) bodyweight, we burn fewer calories doing the exercises we do, compared to when overweight. Bummer. On the bright side, as we get fitter we can - if we choose - do them longer, more often, or at higher intensity to compensate, without becoming materially more exhausted than the easier exercise made us at the start.

Best wishes!

amusedmonkey

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Yes. But the true differential is going to vary by exercise. In some exercises, you're moving your body through space in a very major way. In others, less so. Think running vs. stationary cycle, for example. (For clarity: I'm not saying there's no weight influence on indoor biking whatsoever, I'm saying it's a less significant factor when compared to running outdoors.)

Including bodyweight as a factor in exercise estimates - directly or indirectly - is quite common (MFP does it, other MET-based systems do it, fitness trackers do it, etc.). It's still all just estimates, and imperfect. In most cases, it would be even less perfect without the bodyweight factor.

It seems mean, though, in a cosmic sense, that as we attain a healthy (lower) bodyweight, we burn fewer calories doing the exercises we do, compared to when overweight. Bummer. On the bright side, as we get fitter we can - if we choose - do them longer, more often, or at higher intensity to compensate, without becoming materially more exhausted than the easier exercise made us at the start.

Best wishes!

Trust me, it's fair. A few weeks ago on my way to the grocery store I remembered myself barely breathing trying to brisk walk to the store at my highest weight and thought "wow, I was so unfit". Then realized that I was some sort of superhero back then. If I carry 140 lb now and attempt to walk briskly I doubt I'll be able to take more than a few steps.

sijomial

AnnPT77 wrote: »

It seems mean, though, in a cosmic sense, that as we attain a healthy (lower) bodyweight, we burn fewer calories doing the exercises we do, compared to when overweight. Bummer. On the bright side, as we get fitter we can - if we choose - do them longer, more often, or at higher intensity to compensate, without becoming materially more exhausted than the easier exercise made us at the start.

Best wishes!

Just to pick up on the bolded part - I can now burn about a third more net calories for a given duration than I could before I lost weight.
But my sport is cycling where weight matters for performance (more accurately power to weight ratio matters) but not for calorie burns. I didn't just get smaller I got a lot fitter and produce a third more power. What was my upper limit is now quite mundane.

For cycling there's a remarkably poor correlation between the ability to produce a lot of power / high calorie burn rate and physical size. There's small riders producing huge amounts of power and there's large riders who only produce small amounts of power - the range is extreme if you add in elite riders.
Fitness and endurance are the big factors for cycling, not size.