Calories Burned- I question the calculation

Seminolegirl97

I keep seeing that people have burned 750 calories doing 45 mins of high impact aerobics for example. I have to call Bull*it on this. I just do not believe that someone can maintain a heart rate in the highest zone possible for 45 mins to burn that many calories. 345 I believe but in the 700's?

I have gone to respectable Health/Medical Websites and I would have do approximatley 120 mins of High Impact aerobics to burn 700 calories. Does anyone else think these calculations are wrong? Logic should tell you you can not burn 1000 calories in 70 mins! If you can I want to see your heart rate results.

Thoughts anyone.

UsedToBeHusky

The number of calories burned depends on the individual's BMI. The bigger you are, the greater the calorie burn.

vikesfanmb

It's possible that the individual used a heart rate monitor and depending on their weight and what their heart rate maxed out at, I suppose it COULD be possible to burn that many. Does seem like a lot though.

I personally have an HRM I use every time I exercise . . and I love it. It is sooooo much more accurate than trusting the machines at the gym and the other great thing is, I can use it in the pool when I'm swimming and doing water aerobics.

lawtechie

It may be, but do I care? No. Does it affect me? No. Does it possibly hurt them if it's wrong? Yes -- but hopefully they learn and are able to maintain their goals.

That's what MFP is about. No exercise on MFP is going to be 100% accurate unless you use a HRM and even then -- it's an educated guess as to calories burned.

My advice to you is to not stress over others' numbers.

mallorybriann

I've burned almost 900 calories in one hour running stadiums...
The bigger you are the more you usually burn.
Normal not too strenuous exercise I usually burn 100 calories per 10 minutes.

Codefox

I think the MFP calorie numbers, based on what I've seen, are WAY off. I went for a run yesterday for 62 minutes. When I logged it in my diary, MFP autofilled in something like 1400 calories burned. My Polar HRM recorded 560 which, while calories burned is no exact science, I trust Polar to be fairly accurate.

During my runs I burn 550 - 650 per hour depending on the intensity of my run. Burning 1,000 calories in an hour would be really hard and I can't imagine it. I've never even seen my watch say I'm burning at that rate. The highest I've ever seen is like 700 - 750 per hour but I've never maintained that for an entire hour either.

katheern

It's possible depending on someone's height and weight. If you are heavier you will burn more. Also men burn more than women (BOO! :P) I personally find teh estimates on MFP to be way off (usually double what I actually burn according to my HRM, which even then I don't trust to be completely accurate).

jocraw66

I use a HRM each time I exercise.

When I take spin class I can burn 700 plus calories in 50 minutes. Last week I ran a 10k and in the 1:16 it took me to run it I burned 1055 calories. I also do crossfit and in just 20 minutes there are times when I burn over 300 calories in that short time.

Each person is different and one persons level of intensity may be different than anothers.

Personally I don't care what others are doing or saying. I only care about my workout.

whouwannab

I personally could never burn that much because of my size. Which does suck on a small level because I could easily consume that many calories in one sitting. lol

Seminolegirl97

Lawtechie,
I do not feel that I am concered about others! I am concerned that the numbers on MFP are not accurate.

Twins2007

You are right!

Not just the MFP calculations are wrong...My elliptical is off by A LOT...When I work out for 55 minutes it says 803 calories and I just log 30% of that to be safe...

I was so bummed out!!!

DrG3n3

I use a HRM and when I logged my info yesterday, MFP estimated I burned the same amount of calories that the HRM registered. Ive been doing that for a few days now with no difference. But like someone said, the bigger you are the more you burn in a shorter time usually. I dunno, I trust the numbers but if you wanna trust diff. thatsup to you.

Seminolegirl97

I have a medical science education background and completely agree with the people saying the heartrate monitor is more accurate. I am questioning the math here people NOT THE INDIVIDUAL DOING THE EXERCISE!

Just1forMe

When I check MFP for high impact aerobics, it gives me 424 for 45 minutes. In actuality, I burn about 320-420 in that amount of time per my Body Media Fit armband (90% accuracy), depending on my intensity & metabolism for that particular day. MFP's calculations are estimates based on the average person of your age, height & weight. It cannot take into consideration body fat %, true intensity, metabolism issues, etc. If you want the most accurate calculations for your exercise & 24 hour calorie burns, I highly recommend getting a Body Media Fit or Body Bugg, or at the very least (for intentional exercise only) a HRM. MFP does the best job possible with the info we give them, but we are individuals with a lot of variables in that area.

hnewett

I always underestimate my calories burned for that reason... or if I go for an hour run, and travel 6 miles... I will put that 40 minutes were at 5.2mph and only 20 were at 6... to kind of try to balance it out.

Loraxe

Not sure about High Impact aerobics, but I know one of the most efficient forms of burning calories is running. So, I assume an average weight of 190 male, running a 9 minute mile for 6.5 miles (roughly 60 minutes) would burn around 950 calories. That is about the highest amount of calories that you can burn an hour. So, I would think 750 for high impact aerobics in 45 minutes would be high.

Running is roughly 15 calories per minute and that comes out to 16.5 per minute.

_SusieQ_

I wear an HRM every time I work out. Depending on the class I take I can burn 700-900 calories in an hour pretty consistently per my HRM. I also weigh over 250 pounds right now, so I'm sure that is why I can get a higher calorie burn than someone smaller.

I have even started subtracting off a portion of those, considering them to be normal everyday calorie burn by living, and I still can get an 800 calorie burn doing an hour of Turbo Kick. And yes, I am sweating buckets and am totally wiped out, but it's possible. I don't use the counts on MFP anymore b/c they actually ARE higher than my HRM on most things. Some are close, like for Walking. But for Kickboxing, MFP is higher than my HRM for my weight and intensity.

jocraw66

I should clarify that the run I did last weekend was not only a 10k but an obstacle course as well and it was a trail run with lots of hills versus a traditional 10k race.

Normally I can finish a 10k race and burn around 600 calories. It takes me on overage 1:05 usually to run a traditional 10k.

_SusieQ_

Lawtechie,
I do not feel that I am concered about others! I am concerned that the numbers on MFP are not accurate.

I have to say that I was a bit offended by the "I call Bullsh*t" part of your statement, thinking you meant it to the people posting those burns. As I read further I realized you meant (hopefully) the counts on MFP. Not attacking you, just letting you know how it may have come across to some.

♥_Ellybean_♥

First of your weight versus someone else's is completely different! ... I did a 60 minute step class wearing an HRM and burned about 800 calories!! Ia m also 280lbs... and my heart rate was between 160-180 he whole time!!

With that said, MFP #'s are usually way out of whack.. which is why I use an HRM

_SusieQ_

Yep....exactly

UsedToBeHusky

To the OP, I'm not trying to criticize here, but according to your diary, you don't exercise very often. Its hard to imagine that people could get really big burns when you aren't making any attempts at it yourself.

Seminolegirl97

I do not exercise now because I am getting a second degree. My prior life I was a runner & an aerobics instructor. To put down that I exercise a lot now would be a lie. I study a lot. I am questioning a math problem here, not an individual.

shaj316

I also questioned the calcs and would use other sites to figure out my cals burned. Then I got the HRM and that combined with the idea that you should subtract calories you would have burned sitting around got me numbers I feel much more confident about. Yes, I know the HRM is not measureing cals burned but rather estimating them based on how hard your heart is working, BUT that is way better than guessing from a website.

As for how other people burn that many cals...bigger people work harder just because of their size, so maybe that is a factor you are not considering...

mrmanmeat

I keep seeing that people have burned 750 calories doing 45 mins of high impact aerobics for example. I have to call Bull*it on this. I just do not believe that someone can maintain a heart rate in the highest zone possible for 45 mins to burn that many calories. 345 I believe but in the 700's?

I have gone to respectable Health/Medical Websites and I would have do approximatley 120 mins of High Impact aerobics to burn 700 calories. Does anyone else think these calculations are wrong? Logic should tell you you can not burn 1000 calories in 70 mins! If you can I want to see your heart rate results.

Thoughts anyone.

Come do p90x w/ me. Maintain the level of intensity through out the program, and you'll be up there. I believe the people at Polor are better at judging calories burned than you are.

How about instead you question why people count things such as "taking out the trash... cleaning the house.... walked to the office from the parking deck"


Also, on my road bike, I can burn 2200 calories in 120 mins.

Seminolegirl97

I keep seeing that people have burned 750 calories doing 45 mins of high impact aerobics for example. I have to call Bull*it on this. I just do not believe that someone can maintain a heart rate in the highest zone possible for 45 mins to burn that many calories. 345 I believe but in the 700's?

I have gone to respectable Health/Medical Websites and I would have do approximatley 120 mins of High Impact aerobics to burn 700 calories. Does anyone else think these calculations are wrong? Logic should tell you you can not burn 1000 calories in 70 mins! If you can I want to see your heart rate results.

Thoughts anyone.

Come do p90x w/ me. Maintain the level of intensity through out the program, and you'll be up there. I believe the people at Polor are better at judging calories burned than you are.

How about instead you question why people count things such as "taking out the trash... cleaning the house.... walked to the office"

p90X I believe you maintain the heart rate needed! No doubt! HAHA, I have yet to see someone "take out the trash" calories burned, But I will be looking for it now!

mrmanmeat

I keep seeing that people have burned 750 calories doing 45 mins of high impact aerobics for example. I have to call Bull*it on this. I just do not believe that someone can maintain a heart rate in the highest zone possible for 45 mins to burn that many calories. 345 I believe but in the 700's?

I have gone to respectable Health/Medical Websites and I would have do approximatley 120 mins of High Impact aerobics to burn 700 calories. Does anyone else think these calculations are wrong? Logic should tell you you can not burn 1000 calories in 70 mins! If you can I want to see your heart rate results.

Thoughts anyone.

Come do p90x w/ me. Maintain the level of intensity through out the program, and you'll be up there. I believe the people at Polor are better at judging calories burned than you are.

How about instead you question why people count things such as "taking out the trash... cleaning the house.... walked to the office"

p90X I believe you maintain the heart rate needed! No doubt! HAHA, I have yet to see someone "take out the trash" calories burned, But I will be looking for it now!

You also have to consider that some people put some workouts into a general category because they don't 1) know how to make a new exercise 2) care to make a new one - so they might be doing something a little different.

And as said, people will more to lose will burn more based on their bmi

Wilmingtonbelle

I agree, let's be supportive of each other not tear each other down!

mrmanmeat

I agree, let's be supportive of each other not tear each other down!

Even when people are only hurting themselves? Let's not be so sensitive and lovey-dovey.

Hellbent_Heidi

I also have my doubts about the math and calories burned as well.....I'm assuming when I plug in X number of minutes doing X workout, I get the same number that someone either much larger or much smaller might get. I have a HRM watch and workout in a gym, where I put my weight and age into the machine, so I try to use those numbers instead, and find MFP a little high.

It should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if you plan to eat all of those exercise calories back (most days, I eat half of them, if any). My mantra is always "when it doubt, estimate calories high and calories burned low"

fitjunk

I have to log that I "walk" @ 4.0 . Infact I actually jog at this pace(29' legs!) and the cals for this are way off for me because I also have my treadmill on a 7% to 9% incline. I can't input that I'm on an incline anywhere in the data base that i have seen. So if someone were to see the cals I input for 30 or 40mins they would have to call bull. I have a treadmill from a women's fitness club and it is very accurate. I guess what Im saying is this system isn't perfect so we may need to input our real cal burned numbers under something close to what we have just done or just as a label for it! Why worry about someone else's numbers when your not there to see what they are actually doing.