Any 300cal burn, indoor workout, quick effective efficient?

Kaysmile012015

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Kaysmile012015 wrote: »

Dogmom1978 wrote: »

springlering62 wrote: »

I would humbly submit, if it’s that easy, it probably won’t burn 300 calories.

If there was such a unicorn exercise, it’d
be all over social media with lots of awkwardly posing women and a bazillion knockoff devices by hard-to-pronounce sellers on amazon.

^^^

THIS! If it’s easy and you only do it for 30 min, there is no possible way you would burn 300 calories.

I would also submit that exercise is for health and CICO is for weight loss. It’s much easier for me to avoid eating 300 calories than it is for me to burn it off. That said, I enjoy exercising and do like getting the few extra calories that I can use to eat a treat 😊

I'm not sure who stated 30mins requirement, But it wasn't me. Also there are lots of easy body movements that with exertion or increased pace will burn lots of calories in a quicker amount of time, than others, That's why I asked for suggestions..I personally love exercise(endorphins;)but I dont want to do intense varied works for an hour I prefer steady state stuff.

You did say "quick" in your thread title, which may be why people started talking about half an hour. (Obviously, of course, your definition of "quick" may be different, but it isn't irrational for people to try to quantify IMO.)

There aren't many things that are going to burn 300 calories (accurately estimated) in half an hour for a smaller-sized person, especially once factoring in the fitness level that will be involved in reaching that intensity and holding it for that amount of time. Yiyara's comments about running - usually one of the better calorie-burners - are relevant in this regard. I just did a rowing machine workout - also regarded as generally a good calorie-burner, well power metered so better than average calorie estimates. That took 30:06, and (for me at 126 pounds) the weight-adjusted machine estimate was 285 calories. It wasn't super fast (it was 2:30.5 pace, for 6000m total) . . . but not superslow, either, and "cost" a heart rate that maxed a little above 75% reserve from someone fairly well conditioned to it.

I know you don't have access to a rowing machine, but I'm trying to support the idea that "300 calories" and "quick" are objectives that may interfere with each other a bit, depending on various factors. You may be a well-conditioned athlete, I'm not sure - that would make a difference, of course. So would being a larger person, if we're talking about activities that move the body through spaces as a bigger part of the work.

Intensity and steady state are not opposites - I hope that's what you're saying in the bolded? Yes, varied implies something sort of opposite to steady state, but something can be at any intensity level (low to ultra-high) and still be done as steady state. "Steady state" just means generally unvarying intensity across the workout length. By definition, no one does high intensity (for them) steady state for a long time period. High intensity limits calorie burn via exhaustion (physiologically, eventually, not just mentally). Low intensity limits calorie burn first via time limitations, mostly (or boredom).

Endorphins are more likely to kick in at relatively higher intensities, too, of course. So, if you don't want to do intense AND varied workouts for an hour, but you want to burn 300 calories without taking an hour . . . it might need to be higher intensity, especially if you like the endorphins.

I think most of us don't feel that "easy body movements" will get us to high exertion or increased pace, if "easy body movements" means low effort, rather than low complexity . . . but I'm not sure which you had in mind. We may just be talking past each other.

"Easy body movements" by that I meant little to no complexities i guess.. And mustn't one put in effort, and exert themself, in order to burn more calories, faster during exercise? I thought that was a given, and went without saying,sorry if it wasn't. However I've gotten good suggestions like stepper, rope jumping and rebounding, that i look fwd to trying but, thanks for your input:)

springlering62

Kaysmile012015 wrote: »

.. And mustn't one put in effort, and exert themself, in order to burn more calories, faster during exercise? I thought that was a given, and went without saying,sorry if it wasn't. However I've gotten good suggestions like stepper, rope jumping and rebounding, that i look fwd to trying but, thanks for your input:)

Oh Kay, Kay, Kay. Pardon us.

After you’ve been on MFP for a while, you will think the whole world wants in on your magic fat melting diet tea and 10-minute mega toning exercise plan.

I’m afraid us old-timers automatically go into bombastic defense mode!!!! 😂

Hoping you’ll hang around long enough to make “SMH” your official MFP necks-ercise.

barefootbridgey

I definitely second whatever poster above me that mentioned Youtube workouts. I'm a single mom, no gym membership and no free time and I used Youtube workouts last year and dropped 30 lbs in a few months. I used to do a ton of Popsugar workouts - they're free, they have just about any kind of workout youd be interested in and they have a wide range in length. Some of them (to me) aren't even worth doing, but there are a few instructors I really liked- Christa DePaulo has some workouts on there called "The Cut" that I did for a long time and loved. Jeannette Jenkins also had some great ones.

The magic happened though when I realized that Les Mills offers some free workouts on Youtube. eventually I purchased Les Mills on Demand for like, $100 a year or something, and that's been WELL worth it, but if you're not interested in purchasing, its definitely worth looking into on Youtube. I'm about 209 at the moment and a 30-35 minute Body Combat workout (when I REALLY put in the effort) puts me at about a 400 calorie burn per heart rate monitor (and yes, I know that's not exact....).They offer modications and you can really make it as hard as you want. I think they offer all (or most?) of their programs (Body Pump, Body Combat, etc etc) in sort of "trial" versions on youtube. LMOD is totally worth it - but if you're looking for just free stuff, definitely look up the Popsugar channel on Youtube.

AnnPT77

Kaysmile012015 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Kaysmile012015 wrote: »

Dogmom1978 wrote: »

springlering62 wrote: »

I would humbly submit, if it’s that easy, it probably won’t burn 300 calories.

If there was such a unicorn exercise, it’d
be all over social media with lots of awkwardly posing women and a bazillion knockoff devices by hard-to-pronounce sellers on amazon.

^^^

THIS! If it’s easy and you only do it for 30 min, there is no possible way you would burn 300 calories.

I would also submit that exercise is for health and CICO is for weight loss. It’s much easier for me to avoid eating 300 calories than it is for me to burn it off. That said, I enjoy exercising and do like getting the few extra calories that I can use to eat a treat 😊

I'm not sure who stated 30mins requirement, But it wasn't me. Also there are lots of easy body movements that with exertion or increased pace will burn lots of calories in a quicker amount of time, than others, That's why I asked for suggestions..I personally love exercise(endorphins;)but I dont want to do intense varied works for an hour I prefer steady state stuff.

You did say "quick" in your thread title, which may be why people started talking about half an hour. (Obviously, of course, your definition of "quick" may be different, but it isn't irrational for people to try to quantify IMO.)

There aren't many things that are going to burn 300 calories (accurately estimated) in half an hour for a smaller-sized person, especially once factoring in the fitness level that will be involved in reaching that intensity and holding it for that amount of time. Yiyara's comments about running - usually one of the better calorie-burners - are relevant in this regard. I just did a rowing machine workout - also regarded as generally a good calorie-burner, well power metered so better than average calorie estimates. That took 30:06, and (for me at 126 pounds) the weight-adjusted machine estimate was 285 calories. It wasn't super fast (it was 2:30.5 pace, for 6000m total) . . . but not superslow, either, and "cost" a heart rate that maxed a little above 75% reserve from someone fairly well conditioned to it.

I know you don't have access to a rowing machine, but I'm trying to support the idea that "300 calories" and "quick" are objectives that may interfere with each other a bit, depending on various factors. You may be a well-conditioned athlete, I'm not sure - that would make a difference, of course. So would being a larger person, if we're talking about activities that move the body through spaces as a bigger part of the work.

Intensity and steady state are not opposites - I hope that's what you're saying in the bolded? Yes, varied implies something sort of opposite to steady state, but something can be at any intensity level (low to ultra-high) and still be done as steady state. "Steady state" just means generally unvarying intensity across the workout length. By definition, no one does high intensity (for them) steady state for a long time period. High intensity limits calorie burn via exhaustion (physiologically, eventually, not just mentally). Low intensity limits calorie burn first via time limitations, mostly (or boredom).

Endorphins are more likely to kick in at relatively higher intensities, too, of course. So, if you don't want to do intense AND varied workouts for an hour, but you want to burn 300 calories without taking an hour . . . it might need to be higher intensity, especially if you like the endorphins.

I think most of us don't feel that "easy body movements" will get us to high exertion or increased pace, if "easy body movements" means low effort, rather than low complexity . . . but I'm not sure which you had in mind. We may just be talking past each other.

"Easy body movements" by that I meant little to no complexities i guess.. And mustn't one put in effort, and exert themself, in order to burn more calories, faster during exercise? I thought that was a given, and went without saying,sorry if it wasn't. However I've gotten good suggestions like stepper, rope jumping and rebounding, that i look fwd to trying but, thanks for your input:)

Absolutely.

I don't, in fact, assume that people mean what I'd mean if I used the same words, if those words have multiple interpretations. 😉 Long history on MFP has led me to believe that not everyone shares the same assumptions, even when they seem like common sense (not that I have the slightest reason to doubt your common sense 🙂!). I'm also not assuming you're the only one reading the thread, y'know?

I think I was one of the people who gave you some of those suggestions, waaay up at the top of the thread, BTW.

No offense intended, truly. 😊

shehry

Les Mills app! So many variety of workouts, 30/40/55 mins. You can chose your level of fitness but most of their workouts burn 300 cals in 30 mins.