What is happening?! UGH!

Mr_Knight

Wouldn't it be obvious that highly trained athletes would burn less?

They actually burn more, as they cover far greater distance in far less time, even adjusted for weight. Being fit doesn't mean burning less, it means being able to burn *more*, in a shorter period of time. It's similar to the reason a Ferrari gets worse mileage than a Honda Civic.

Look at it this way - a typical TdF rider is 165 lbs. A typical MFPers is (let's just say) 250 lbs. Unless the typical MFPer can travel 2 miles for every 3 miles the TdF rider can travel, the TdFer is burning at a higher rate.

phjorg1

Oh, I sweat like crazy. It is literally DRIPPING off me within the first 20 min.....

Unfortunately, that doesn't really correlate to calorie burn.

As a point of comparison, someone of approximately your size would need to run approximately 5 miles in one hour to burn 1000 calories in that one hour.

BTW, two thumbs up on working out that hard! It ain't easy, as some of us know from experience!

Thats the first thing I said too. And prob the whole point of contention. the the OP. Are you able to do this? If so then 1000 in an hour sounds about right.

JewelsinBigD

Way high - I wear a heart rate monitor, and a fitbit flex - my zumba class where I jump and go crazy has a hard time hitting 400 most days - I am lighter than you are by 25 pounds but even when I was at your weight I was not going much over 430 EVER! You are probably overeating those days.

ami5000psu

OP, I would go with your HRM. I am over 200lbs and found when I got my HRM, it was actually pretty close to what MFP was saying.

If I were 150lbs, My burns would probably be significantly less.

Lots of people have found that MFP vastly overestimates their calorie burns.

rml_16

Oh, I sweat like crazy. It is literally DRIPPING off me within the first 20 min.....

Unfortunately, that doesn't really correlate to calorie burn.

As a point of comparison, someone of approximately your size would need to run approximately 5 miles in one hour to burn 1000 calories in that one hour.

BTW, two thumbs up on working out that hard! It ain't easy, as some of us know from experience!

Thats the first thing I said too. And prob the whole point of contention. the the OP. Are you able to do this? If so then 1000 in an hour sounds about right.

I cannot run 5 miles in one hour. My body doesn't like to run. But my HR is the same for Zumba or the elliptical as it is when I DO run (for the short period I run). I can handle that level of exertion if I'm doing specific activities. Running is something I have trouble with. I actually walk faster than I run most of the time. I can climb a 30% incline for a mile at 4 mph easier than I can run a mile on a flat surface.

So saying she can't possibly burn that much in Zumba if she can't run that fast isn't really an accurate way to make a distinction. Zumba is a hell of a workout. Have you ever tried it?

Mguilmot

That's why I never ate my exercise calories back. Did not need to, did not lose all the muscle as everyone always say :-)

llbennett74

I average about 340 - 360 on HRM during Zumba for a 45 minute class. So I would say yours is probably fairly accurate.

Hornsby

Meh, I can burn 1000 calories in an hour on a bicycle if I am going hard and I'm 5'11 - 187lbs. I don't think it's all that overestimated for the OP.

then you burn 300 calories more than tour de france riders max.

also, no you don't burn that much. These is zero chance your VO2MAX is 30% greater than the elitist of the elite endurance athletes on earth.

Wouldn't it be obvious that highly trained athletes would burn less? That would be my assumption as my calories burned get less and less the more weight I lose the more trained I get. And 1000 was a bit of stretch so I apologize. I usually burn between 650 and 750 doing a 50-55 minute ride.

I don't know what this VO2MAX stuff is so I can't comment.

Just telling you what my HRM tells me, which is usually about 1/2 of what MFP estimates.

If you know what VO2MAx is, then you would understand why it's impossible for someone who is untrained to possible burn as much as someone who is trained. That's the whole point. Untrained people show increased calorie burns on HRM's BECAUSE they are inaccurate to untrained people because HRM's generally do not know someones VO2MAX.

Vo2MAX is a measure of oxygen. The more oxygen the body can use, the more potential calorie burn it's able to do. Trained people can pump far more oxygen than untrained. Thus their calorie burn potential is greater.

Please understand that I am not being argumentative. Just trying to understand. FWIW as well, just so you know how I get my estimates, I use an iPhone App (Runtastic Pro), that syncs with MFP. It uses HR and Cadence to determine calories burned. That is where my totals come from. These are usually lower than the HRM by maybe 5-10%, and about 50% lower than MFP calculates.

Anyway, so how do I determine by VO2MAX or whatever it was? I want my counts to be accurate, although it doesn't really matter these days as I ride for enjoyment and competition.

I am just trying to figure out why my HRM and App are so wrong if that is the case. I have posted on here numerous times that I have a hard time believing I burn as much as it says it does, but have kinda just went with it.

How many calories would you guess for a session like below? My resting heart rate is around 45. (Not sure if that matters). Taking my last sessions stats, I did 15.2 miles in 50 minutes in 20 seconds with 436' of elevation. Average speed 18.2mph. Average HR for the session 156, max 175.

Greenrun99

I put in my age, weight, and average bpm and it said I only burned a measly (in comparison) 300 calories!! WTF! Which is right?! If I am only burning 300 calories, it means I've been WAYYYYYYYY over eating on all my exercise days.

Does anyone know how to figure out which is correct?!?!?!?!?!?!? HELP ME!!! PLEASE!!!!


If it helps, my average heart rate was 127bpm with a peak of 170bpm. I am 28yrs old and am currently at 299lbs.

Now for 55 minutes if your avg HR was 127, I have read that HRM are very inaccurate at low heart rates.. which that would be.. how long do you think your HR was at 170? This is where you would burn the most calories.. but since your average was 127 you need to pick it up.. I know its a class but I wouldn't estimate you burning 1000 calories even though you are bigger (which helps with your calorie burn number).. now remember most HR's don't subtract your BMR from that hour either so your burn is even less... I wouldn't log 1000 though if your average was 160+ for the whole hour, yes 1000 is probably really close.