How are you guys burning 500+ calories

Mich4871

I can burn 500 calories with one hour of super intense exercise,
or in two hours of moderate exercise.

Unless you're only doing 5 minutes of exercise, you must be burning more than 30 cals.

Same here. I'm 5'1" and 147

I did 45 min strength training today and 35 min of cardio - total burn was 555.

I don't trust the calorie counts on the machines at the gym. I only go by my HRM. Which is usually close to 100 cal LOWER then what the machines show. 30 minutes on the eliptical for me is usually about a 250 burn.

I burn over 600 when I run outdoors for an hour.

SymphonynSonata

Thank you for all of the advice and information, really helpful! I was being a bit dramatic with my 30cals. I honestly don't know how much I really do burn, my exercises go something like this:

20 squats (no weight)
80 leg kicks on each leg (I think that's what they're called, you get in doggy style position and kick your leg back, then pump it up, to the side, etc)
60 sit-ups
This weird pilates move I seen on Youtube (You lay on your side and lift your leg into the air)
A few stretches (??Don't know if this burns calories)
This other thing I seen on Youtube where you lay on the ground, bring your knees up (with your feet still on the ground firmly) and hip thrust (lol)
And this other thing I seen on Youtube where you take the same position as above, but make one leg go out straight and hip thrust.

By the end I'm pretty much a panting wreck, but if I eat even 200-300 calories more over a few exercise days, I gain a few ounces, which quickly turn into pounds. So I guess my efforts aren't as strenuous as my mind and body seem to think they are! Kudos to yall with your super endurance!

So, okay, next question (bare with me here, I'm totally new to this exercise thing):

If my TDEE is ~1,500 calories a day (sedentary), and then I do 500 calories worth of exercise but for whatever reason don't eat it back, will I enter starvation mode and start LOSING muscle mass? Do I have to eat more than my TDEE to build muscle? I know I won't get a big butt or abs overnight (lol) but it would be super awesome to tone and lift things. I hope this makes sense. Thanks again everyone!

tycho_mx

A big part of the machine / HRM discrepancy is that often the algorithm includes the "basal" burn.

In other words, the inflated estimate adds the sedentary burn (say, 1800 cal/day, or 75 cal/hour doing nothing) plus whatever exercise you're doing.

If you're curious, wear your HRM while you're resting. If it says it burns ANY calories it is either considering your basal burn rate (and so you should ideally deduct that from your total) or it is overestimating the exercise burn. The best HRM estimators make an estimate based on a resting HR and maximal/threshold harte to calibrate zero to maximum burn - in other words, it only starts recording calorie burn at a certain point, not when you're just patzing around.

Anonycatgirl

If you ever see me reporting that kind of burn, it's because I did a long hike. This means I spent a few hours in the woods to burn those calories, because I enjoy the activity. I'm sure I could burn that much going a shorter time on an elliptical--except I'd rather shoot myself in the foot.

And if I shot myself in the foot, it would be hard to get any exercise at all.

1princesswarrior

I always use a hrm. I work at a barn, ride my horse 30-45 min almost everyday plus either lift three times a week or do some kind of additional cardio depending on the weather. Now that I've lost a significant amount of weight it is getting harder though.

Dosway

i bike at least 13 miles everyday and burn anywhere from 506 to 570 calories then i do the stair climber on level 4 for 30 minutes and get 200 calories burned followed by mild strength training. I suggest biking i love it with the right music you dont even notice the burn

carliekitty

This is not true...who told you that being obese makes you burn more then a thin person??? smh

I'm a little bit embarrassed for you that you actually just said that, and with attitude. Pick up 80 pound weights and go for a run - let me know how your burn is afterward.

A fitter person can burn the same as an overweight person in the same amount of time - it's about the amount of effort and getting the heartrate up - A heavier person even though they may only be walking 3 mph might burn the same as a fitter person say running 5.5 mph for the same amount of time - it's about the energy exerted not the amount a person weighs - A fitter person seems like they are working harder but they actually CAN work harder than someone who is not as fit - just my opinion - not an expert

walking @ 3mph is NOT the same activity as walking 5.5mph. Doing the SAME activity (i.e. same intensity, same speed, same distance, etc), the larger person WILL burn more calories than the other because of the increased mass being moved, resulting in more energy being exerted to move the greater mass = increased calorie burn.

Where in my response did I say it was the same activity? Maybe I worded it wrong? A heavier person walking 3 mph (which could take a lot of effort on their part) and a fitter person running 5.5 miles per hour (possibly the same amount of effort as the heavier person's walk) could burn the same amount of calories. A fitter person would have to increase their effort to get to the same heartrate as a heavier person whose heartrate would increase at a slower pace.

The premiss you responded to contains the implied assumption of the same activity. But you are right, of course a fit person will burn more calories in the same about of time running than an overweight person will burn walking. But for that matter, an overweight 240lb person will burn more calories in the same about of time running @ 5mph than another overweight 240lb person walking at 3.5mph. Therefore comparison with all variables being equal except weight is necessary for an accurate analysis.

Ahhh, but both people will burn the same calories (respectively) for the mile regardless of whether they walk or run.

My brain likes to point out the unfairness of that during the first mile of my runs when my muscles are warming up and protesting the abuse.

carliekitty

Are you saying you burn the same amount of calories per mile for walking and running?

SymphonynSonata

I think what she's saying is (these are not accurate measurements, just for the sake of an example):

If a 200 pound person runs 3 miles, they burn 500 calories.
If a 100 pound person runs 3 miles, they burn 300 calories.
If a 100 pound person runs 5 miles, they burn 500 calories.

For the sake of pointing out that weight (whether added by carrying a weighted back pack, or by having more body weight) contributes to the overall calories burned. A person my size will not burn the same amount of calories doing an equal exercise to someone two times my body weight, so therefore I have to do MORE exercise to equal the same amount as a heavier person would have to, because of the additional body weight. Now, I think what she's saying is that if I were to carry around 100 pound weights and run that same 3 miles, I would burn a closer amount of calories to the person who weighs 200 pounds. Which (to me) makes logical sense.

I can only loosely assume that running burns more calories than walking, mile by mile.

patriciapowerswilliamson

I hear you. I am using a FITBIT that I bought two months ago and I use Map My Run or Walk. It is an eye opening experience let me tell you because MFP was estimating my calorie burn a lot higher than my device and my apps were. I have had to double my efforts and I still don't hit 500 calories. I will today because i spin and will walk two miles. For my Fitbit, I am tracking my steps. I set a goal to go 15K steps per day and that includes a run. To your point I think it takes a LOT more effort to burn 500 calories as I am finding out.

Anyone with a desk job has to work a little harder to do so.

BTW, 45 minutes of Interval training on the treadmill does it for me.

technorodent

I bore easily and don't care for calisthenics, plus my objective is to hike up and climb mountains this summer, so for me walking is the solution. Luckily I live in a city that has numerous hiking trails, and the trails go up bluffs and follow ridge-lines and run down valleys and up again. There is no shortage of "ups and down" on the walks.

I have been working my way up to 8 miles per day, with a goal of 10 to 12 miles per day, which I hope to achieve in several more weeks or a month at most. I do have the benefit of being able to walk 3 hours per day, though I noticed that people like Peytonyoumans split their exercise into more manageable chunks--like half in the morning, half after work.

I have an HRM and activity monitor (SyncBurn), plus I used another pedometer for double-checking, and I've recently downloaded the "My Track" app (free) for Android, which doesn't use paces but instead uses GPS to track my walks/hikes. HRM/Activity Monitor runs a little short, as it doesn't take into account altitude gain or loss.

My bottom line, however, is "qualitative" and not "quantitative". Sure, I keep track of the numbers, but that is just double-entry bookkeeping that helps me keep in focus. My small improvements on my walks/hikes and appearance, however, are the real reward. When I first started my walks going up the first hill was a killer. I had to stop 6 or 7 or 10 times to catch my breath. Now, I just walk to the top, take a small breather, then do the next part. I listen to music on my Android, notice there were 25 robins (spring?) and 1 bluebird, a half-dozen rabbits, and a weeping willow is starting to bud out. Every day the landscape changes in small ways.

When I started this the light at the end of the tunnel looked like the tiniest star at night. Now, I can see it getting nearer and bigger. That's my big reward, and the numbers themselves are just a sideshow.

The_1_Who_Knocks

Are you saying you burn the same amount of calories per mile for walking and running?

Yeah I think that is approximately true. The benefit of running is you get it done twice as fast.

I hate running though, it hurts. I like walking. So it is an easy decision for me which to do.

Edit - Ok, found articles that say you burn 20-25% more calories running a mile. Yeah still not worth it for me lol.

knra_grl

lol okay for argument's sake a fitter person will not burn as many calories doing he SAME level of activity as a heavier person - my point was that a fitter person's intensity level would be higher in order to achieve the same caloric burn in the same amount of time because it would take a higher level of activity to get to the same heartrate.

I know it's clear as mud :ohwell:

Edit - myself for example - I know that if I want to burn the same amount of calories as I get fitter - I will have to work harder as I lose weight because it will take longer to get my heartrate up to the level needed. But I won't feel that it is actually harder to do as I should be in better shape - as we improve with our fitness - things that are hard now are easier later even though it is a higher level of intensity it might feel like the same effort I put forth doing the less strenuous exercise 3 months ago. I guess I should have used myself as an example earlier - I think this made more sense? Even though it appears I will be worker harder - I actually won't because my ability to do it has improved.

princessblanquisima

An easy one os walking...i walk 2 hours everyday and thats like 300 kcal burned

fairestthings

I have never been obese and started MFP with 25lbs to lose. Using a HRM is MUCH BETTER than just logging your activities on MFP and letting them assume the caloric burn. A burn doing a Jillian Michaels DVD for me (which is only 30-45 minutes) will put me at 350-375 if I work my hardest (I'm not in horrible shape, but I am not in athletic shape either). This caloric burn has remained the same even before baby when I was lean and athletic.

When I am in good shape I require an hour's worth of activity. So I will do strength (a DVD usually, HIIT) and then cardio (running, fast walking uphill) for the rest of the time to make it an hour. I almost always burned 500 or more calories when I was in better shape because I had energy and power to do more.

sometimesirunwithscissors

I only burn that much if I'm going for one of my extended walks- around 3mph and walking 2-4 miles on average. It is a simple matter of physics for a heavier person to burn more; you will also need more calories to stay at a heavier weight hence creating a caloric deficit to lose if that's your goal. I have to recuse myself here as I'm a human biology major and tend to think in terms of science ( hey, 50K spent I ought to have learned SOMEtHING.)
So, HIIT at a lower weight plus strength training might be a great option; lots of good suggestions from others here as well. I have a LOT of weight to lose- I'm 15 lbs in towards a 112 lb weight loss goal. I'm limited with a spine that's seen better days ( post car accident, surgery, scar tissue) and rheumatoid arthritis. Walking is an attainable exercise for me now; as I lose more I will incorporate more activity and strength training again. For me finding something I like and staying with it is important- walking clears my head and makes my back feel better. It's also a small victory as there was a time my back spasms were so bad and my balance off I couldn't get around without a cane. That may change again, so I'm enjoying mobility for now. I hope that somewhat answers the question; getting a heart rate monitor is a great idea ( some folks mentioned that.) Get your heart rate up, break a sweat and add resistance/ weights and that should help your burn. Oh, I also only use the " extra" calories allotted if I want something a bit more caloric that day.

janicelo1971

I joined this site with 15 pounds to lose....I only burn that extreme number when I play 3 or 4 hours of tennis...or crossfit and then 2 hours of tennis at times. I do use a HRM and use to eat all my exercise calories back...1225 calories a day plus exercise, however I have NOT lost any weight in 6 plus months doing this....just maintained...this week not eating them back and boy..its HARD! Clearly the larger you are and more intense workout the more you will burn

MeanderingMammal

Hey,

So, I see when people log or check random diaries and they have like 500+ calories they can eat back because of exercise. How??? What exercises are you doing? Whenever I do or log an exercise I burn about 30 calories, lol. Which is nice and everything, but that barely makes room for me to even have a cracker and I'm hungrier after than I was to start with in the first place. Any advice welcome!!

My shortest runs are 5Km so 300-400 cals, depending on what speed I do; 8, 9 or 10 minute mile
Tempo and interval runs are generally 8-10km and given that they're somewhat higher intensity generally 800-1000
Long slow runs are generally 13-20km and can be anything from 1200-2000 cals, depending on terrain and whether I'm ding 10, 11 or 12 minute miles

Burn is somewhat less if I'm cycling or rowing

rogerOb1

Thank you for all of the advice and information, really helpful! I was being a bit dramatic with my 30cals. I honestly don't know how much I really do burn, my exercises go something like this:

20 squats (no weight)
80 leg kicks on each leg (I think that's what they're called, you get in doggy style position and kick your leg back, then pump it up, to the side, etc)
60 sit-ups
This weird pilates move I seen on Youtube (You lay on your side and lift your leg into the air)
A few stretches (??Don't know if this burns calories)
This other thing I seen on Youtube where you lay on the ground, bring your knees up (with your feet still on the ground firmly) and hip thrust (lol)
And this other thing I seen on Youtube where you take the same position as above, but make one leg go out straight and hip thrust.

By the end I'm pretty much a panting wreck, but if I eat even 200-300 calories more over a few exercise days, I gain a few ounces, which quickly turn into pounds. So I guess my efforts aren't as strenuous as my mind and body seem to think they are! Kudos to yall with your super endurance!

So, okay, next question (bare with me here, I'm totally new to this exercise thing):

If my TDEE is ~1,500 calories a day (sedentary), and then I do 500 calories worth of exercise but for whatever reason don't eat it back, will I enter starvation mode and start LOSING muscle mass? Do I have to eat more than my TDEE to build muscle? I know I won't get a big butt or abs overnight (lol) but it would be super awesome to tone and lift things. I hope this makes sense. Thanks again everyone!

Apart from the squats, a lot of your excercise routine seems to be on your back or on all fours. If you add something simple like a circuit of jumping jacks or other full body exercises for a few minutes (e.g. 1 min on, 1 min rest), you should see an increase in the amount of cals you burn.
Typically people need to eat above maintenance to build muscle AND do some exercises which encourage hypertrophy.

malibu927

Mine isn't necessarily from working out...I wear a Fitbit at work and spend a lot of time walking around. 10,000 steps in a shift can put me at a 500 calorie difference from what MFP says, though I have to be careful as it then adjusts as it lowers my TDEE later when I'm not doing anything. Doing actual cardio doesn't get me anywhere near that number.

golfmonk

Hey,

So, I see when people log or check random diaries and they have like 500+ calories...

That is nothing. I have some people in my friends list log 2000+ calories for 60 minutes of exercise.

I mean, is this *even* possible?

Really???

cmcmillan81

I'm doing Zumba and I'm wearing a HRM which gives me acurate calories burn....I've tried to go by what the calories burn by mfp but sometimes it's way off. Also depends on the exercise you are doing you can burn a lot of calories. I also like to use my elliptical.

Macstraw

Swimming, I'm in the water for around 2 hrs., 15 minutes but my actual set times work out to 114 minutes of actual swimming (which is what I log).....

Chelz2013

ZUMBA!

Everyone else is right though, calories burned is best to figure out with HRM and age & weight play a factor. MFP says I burn 946 calories in an hour of Zumba but I don't take that number to heart. It depends on the instructor and if I'm all in with total energy or if I'm slacking, I obviously won't burn that much. And I don't eat back all of my exercise calories.

Phaedra2014

I rarely get those high burns. When I run for an hour I burn about 500 to 550 but I don't run for an hour every day or every week. i can't stand the elliptical or the stationary bike so maybe that's why I miss out.

My daily workouts are generally 35 to 45 minutes long and are intense and fast paced. I also strength train but rarely go above 60 minutes. Walking and running are closer to 60 minutes for me.

My average burn is between 220 and 350. I'm about 18 pounds away from goal weight and the days when just walking 30 minutes would give me a 400 calorie burn are long gone. Thank goodness. I don't want to be that weight again.

michellemybelll

by working really ****ing hard, for extended periods of time.

thegilly6

For me at 173 lbs, a 3 mile run or 50 minutes on the staionary bike or 4 miles on the eliptical all hit 500 cals easily. I generally try to go beyond that in my current condition.

Catlady87

Running roughly burns 100 calorie per mile, and as I'm training for a 10K my long run is in excess of 5 miles, and regularly run 2-3miles 3/4 days a week. I also have a very active job, and when I do a long shift I add the calorie burn from my pedometer (minus about 10-20%) and I can walk over 20,0000 steps at work.

Veganvibesss

i do zumba everyday until i burn about 800 calories. Did you mean you burn 300? cause you can burn 30 calories just sitting there pretty much lol.
Try going for a run for an hour you will also burn alot and you dont need anything but yourself

lucasmoten

MFP so grossly overestimates calorie burn that I'm surprised when people who exercise and track here are successful. It usually requires some modifications to keep things on track.. For example, here's my exercise from this morning..

For a 13.1 mile run, at a weight of about 185 .... The calorie burn of 2378 is what MFP puts. Runkeeper says 1881, and my Garmin claims 1922. By a rough calculation for NET LOSS (weight * .63 * miles) that works out to 1526. I'll be rounding it to 1500.