You burnt how many calories?!

tiffanepiphany

I wear a HRM, which has my age, weight, sex profile saved to it. But I don't have the chest strap, so I shave about 100 cals off what it tells me. Tonight I did a crazy Zumba class (CRAAAZY!! I thought the instructor was on something-- but I love her!) and it said I burned 1057 in 56 mins. That honestly seemed reasonable, but I logged 957 to be on the safe side.

shellyamyethan

I acknowledge that people differ in the amount of energy they will exert during exercise, I generally like to be conservative in my estimates. Is it really possible to burn 2000 calories in 90 minutes? Here is a generic calculator I came across, and it seems to be more in the ball park of what I think is correct.

http://mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator

I keep seeing numbers like 1400 in 45minutes and the like. I think some people may be setting themselves up for disappointment when the numbers they get on MFP don't translate to weight loss.

My basic understanding is you burn around 900 calories running for 1 hour, note that is running, not jogging. Using this as a base you can estimate roughly other activities. But of course we are all different and we all have different bodies that will burn calories at different rates. The calculations are based on the study you can read here http://juststand.org/Portals/3/literature/compendium-of-physical-activities.pdf

What are peoples thoughts on this?

Funny part is, when I do this calculator it says i burned MORE than MFP, so i dont know. I usually don't eat my workout calories anyway, but my weightloss has seemed to have stalled. Hoping that i built some muscle. I took my measurements today and am going to check again in 2-3 weeks.

Countrymade

I acknowledge that people differ in the amount of energy they will exert during exercise, I generally like to be conservative in my estimates. Is it really possible to burn 2000 calories in 90 minutes? Here is a generic calculator I came across, and it seems to be more in the ball park of what I think is correct.

http://mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator

I keep seeing numbers like 1400 in 45minutes and the like. I think some people may be setting themselves up for disappointment when the numbers they get on MFP don't translate to weight loss.

My basic understanding is you burn around 900 calories running for 1 hour, note that is running, not jogging. Using this as a base you can estimate roughly other activities. But of course we are all different and we all have different bodies that will burn calories at different rates. The calculations are based on the study you can read here http://juststand.org/Portals/3/literature/compendium-of-physical-activities.pdf

What are peoples thoughts on this?


Here is another article I found on this subject. http://www.livestrong.com/article/526920-2-000-calorie-workouts/

ashjonnatp

I have always heard this too. Running burns about 100 calories per mile for men and about 87 for women, like you said, regardless of the pace or if their are hills. This is what I go by.

I use the 91-100 calories per mile model (runnersworld.com) no matter the speed or incline. I'd rather error on the side of entering too low calorie count than high for just the reason the original poster cited ... disappointed.

i dont see how that can be accurate everyone bodies work different you cant tell me that a person who runs 2 mil at 5.5mph at a incline of 3 that ways 170lbs is going to burn the same amount as a person who weighs 130.......the more speed and higher the incline the more your heart rate is up and the more your body has to push its self....i dont see how that works typical i run 3 miles in 33 minutes and i change my incline from 1-7 and my speed varies at 5.0-7.0 i burn about 440 calories when i run at pace. i find that pretty accurate. I the faster and the more incline the harder you push your self the more calories you will burn i dont see how someone joggine at 5 and sprinting at 8mph is burning the same amount of calories. I could be wrong.

ashjonnatp

I have always heard this too. Running burns about 100 calories per mile for men and about 87 for women, like you said, regardless of the pace or if their are hills. This is what I go by.

I use the 91-100 calories per mile model (runnersworld.com) no matter the speed or incline. I'd rather error on the side of enterforing too low calorie count than high for just the reason the original poster cited ... disappointed.

i dont see how that can be accurate everyone bodies work different you cant tell me that a person who runs 2 mil at 5.5mph at a incline of 3 that ways 170lbs is going to burn the same amount as a person who weighs 130.......the more speed and higher the incline the more your heart rate is up and the more your body has to push its self....i dont see how that works typical i run 3 miles in 33 minutes and i change my incline from 1-7 and my speed varies at 5.0-7.0 i burn about 440 calories when i run at pace. i find that pretty accurate. I the faster and the more incline the harder you push your self the more calories you will burn i dont see how someone joggine at 5 and sprinting at 8mph is burning the same amount of calories. I could be wrong.

sorry for typos!!

blueandigo

It depends on your Heart Rate, like mine is always high when I am on either machine and the machine pretty much gives me an accurate read.

blueandigo

My understanding has been that running at a fast jog burns more calories than just about any other aerobic activity. Treadmills tend to tell me I'm burning about 1100 calories. For some reason elliptical machines really like to lie. They sometimes tell me I'm burning 1200+ calories, but there is no way. They are too easy and so if my body doesn't feel the work, there's no way its burning calories like that.

It depends on how hard you're pushing it. If you've done it for a while, then it becomes easy and like an everyday thing, but if you're a newcomer you won't be able to just jump on there and burn 1200 calories a day like I do. The difference between running and on the elliptical is the fact that you're using more muscles and you have to build those muscles up. Before using the elliptical I was exposed to terrible hurting from being a newbie on the machine, now I make the machine my *****. Running on the treadmill doesn't give me the kick that the elliptical does. Different strokes for different folks.

grinch031

My understanding has been that running at a fast jog burns more calories than just about any other aerobic activity. Treadmills tend to tell me I'm burning about 1100 calories. For some reason elliptical machines really like to lie. They sometimes tell me I'm burning 1200+ calories, but there is no way. They are too easy and so if my body doesn't feel the work, there's no way its burning calories like that.

It depends on how hard you're pushing it. If you've done it for a while, then it becomes easy and like an everyday thing, but if you're a newcomer you won't be able to just jump on there and burn 1200 calories a day like I do. The difference between running and on the elliptical is the fact that you're using more muscles and you have to build those muscles up. Before using the elliptical I was exposed to terrible hurting from being a newbie on the machine, now I make the machine my *****. Running on the treadmill doesn't give me the kick that the elliptical does. Different strokes for different folks.

I barely ever run on ellipticals because I'm so accustomed to running. I will sometimes run to failure during an interval, so it can get pretty intense. On the elliptical though it always feels pretty easy and alot lower-intensity than running, despite the insanely high calorie readings. On a treadmill you don't have a choice as to how much energy you exert because if you don't keep up with the tread, you will fly right off, whereas on the elliptical you are in control of the energy you expend by how fast you choose to go. I have major doubts that I could ever out-burn on an elliptical what i burn on a treadmill.

sweet110

I guess its results that count. Some people get really motivated by seeing how many calories they can burn. And while, yes, I see 900 calories burned and I think...uh huh. Something is amiss here...like not taking into account that you would have burned 500 by just breathing. BUT, if they're losing weight, and they get a rush from logging 900 calories, what's the harm?

I personally don't log exercise. I just put in a slightly higher target calorie range. But I also do more strength training than cardio...which, supposedly, increases your calorie burn for longer periods of time, even though the actual calories burned during the exercise is low.

In summary, I think its all about folks finding what motivates them. Even if its technically wrong. As long as it works...its right!

grinch031

I guess its results that count. Some people get really motivated by seeing how many calories they can burn. And while, yes, I see 900 calories burned and I think...uh huh. Something is amiss here...like not taking into account that you would have burned 500 by just breathing. BUT, if they're losing weight, and they get a rush from logging 900 calories, what's the harm?

I personally don't log exercise. I just put in a slightly higher target calorie range. But I also do more strength training than cardio...which, supposedly, increases your calorie burn for longer periods of time, even though the actual calories burned during the exercise is low.

In summary, I think its all about folks finding what motivates them. Even if its technically wrong. As long as it works...its right!

Technically you are supposed to subtract the calories you would've burned doing nothing during that time frame, but its usually pretty small. For 1 hour its probably 100 calories or maybe less depending on the person.

ashtonvv

I totally agree...today I burned around 1200 calories based off what the machines told me, but I only put in 1090, I did this in 90 minutes and that was very hard running on the arc trainer and elliptical. I definitely think people WAY over estimate their exercise..and you see things like "burned 200 calories doing 45 minutes of cleaning"....I don't think you should log that, that's just general everyday stuff. Under estimating your caloric intake and over estimating your usage is a sure way to fail.

AGREE 100% I saw on someones profile "burned x number of calories DRIVING" I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Maybe those people haven't really gotten to that point where they realize what is going to work and what isn't.

End of rant.

blueandigo

My understanding has been that running at a fast jog burns more calories than just about any other aerobic activity. Treadmills tend to tell me I'm burning about 1100 calories. For some reason elliptical machines really like to lie. They sometimes tell me I'm burning 1200+ calories, but there is no way. They are too easy and so if my body doesn't feel the work, there's no way its burning calories like that.

It depends on how hard you're pushing it. If you've done it for a while, then it becomes easy and like an everyday thing, but if you're a newcomer you won't be able to just jump on there and burn 1200 calories a day like I do. The difference between running and on the elliptical is the fact that you're using more muscles and you have to build those muscles up. Before using the elliptical I was exposed to terrible hurting from being a newbie on the machine, now I make the machine my *****. Running on the treadmill doesn't give me the kick that the elliptical does. Different strokes for different folks.

I barely ever run on ellipticals because I'm so accustomed to running. I will sometimes run to failure during an interval, so it can get pretty intense. On the elliptical though it always feels pretty easy and alot lower-intensity than running, despite the insanely high calorie readings. On a treadmill you don't have a choice as to how much energy you exert because if you don't keep up with the tread, you will fly right off, whereas on the elliptical you are in control of the energy you expend by how fast you choose to go. I have major doubts that I could ever out-burn on an elliptical what i burn on a treadmill.

Raise the incline to 20 and the resistance to 15-17 and tell me how that works for you. That's what I do everyday.

FrostyBev

I used that calculator for swimming and it was within 100 of what MFP tells me. I don't eat back all my calories though so I'm not worried about the variance.

Anybody have a good suggestion for a HRM for swimming? Message me details please.

bherbie

I usually try to stay under my intended calories for the day and use the workout as extra weight i could be losing. I think that over logging calorie burns will set up some for failure.

pg1girl

I have a garmin 405cx. Love it. I also bought the footpod for indoor track and treadmill running and the bike cadence for biking on my trainer. So much more accurate!

NikkiP80

I've burnt over 2000 calories in a single workout before, mind you I was rowing and that seems to be the most calorie intensive thing for me to do because I can sustain a high heart rate for a long time when I do it.

I use a HR monitor though to keep track.

Marks281172

I think im lucky in that everyone i have as a friend is pretty dedicated and not looking to cheat themselves by claimimg every last bit of body movement as activity.

I did use to use MFP cals but realise now a lot of it was overestimating, especially on walking and static bike (for me at least, im around 250lbs), ive since got a HRM and tend to go by what that says in the absence of a truly accurate estimation, however, i deduct 2 cals per minute to allow for the cals i would have burned sitting around anyway as this is part of my daily allowance.
I tend to train 90mins to 2 hours a day so it does add up.

xMedullaOblongatax

I totally agree...today I burned around 1200 calories based off what the machines told me, but I only put in 1090, I did this in 90 minutes and that was very hard running on the arc trainer and elliptical. I definitely think people WAY over estimate their exercise..and you see things like "burned 200 calories doing 45 minutes of cleaning"....I don't think you should log that, that's just general everyday stuff. Under estimating your caloric intake and over estimating your usage is a sure way to fail.

AGREE 100% I saw on someones profile "burned x number of calories DRIVING" I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Maybe those people haven't really gotten to that point where they realize what is going to work and what isn't.

End of rant.

Maybe it was a riveting car chase through crowded city streets while they were under fire by enemy forces, followed by a daring roof-top martial arts battle atop a runaway train with their most hated nemesis that threatened the future of mankind as we know it... ;P

Oh wait. They left out the daring martial arts battle. Nevermind ;P

lacroyx

I acknowledge that people differ in the amount of energy they will exert during exercise, I generally like to be conservative in my estimates. Is it really possible to burn 2000 calories in 90 minutes? Here is a generic calculator I came across, and it seems to be more in the ball park of what I think is correct.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

I did it in 91 minutes...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lacroyx?month=201201

hmm but 90 minutes...... CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! next holiday weekend I'm doing it!

meltygarden

I've got my suspicions about the MFP calculator exaggerating a bit, too. But I read on the boards that it takes into account not only the calories burned during the actual workout, but the increased metabolic burn that lingers for a few hours afterwards, which makes it seem more reasonable.

Gotta say, too, that when I'm following the numbers on MFP I am losing weight...and when I go back to mental estimates, the weight stays the same. So there's that.