Extreme environment burn rate

claresusan

Does anybody have any research that quantifies burn rates in extreme environments?

So, sitting still in deepest darkest Africa at 45 deg centigrade with no wind or shade clearly burns calories at a higher rate than sitting still in an air-conditioned office at 20 deg centigrade (so-call room temperature). Likewise, sitting still in a mountaineering tent in the Antarctic at minus 20 deg centigrade also burns more calories.

Logically, if you are in these kinds of environments, the calorie input/output calculations are different.

Does anybody have any input on this puzzling dillema?

erickirb

Does anybody have any research that quantifies burn rates in extreme environments?

So, sitting still in deepest darkest Africa at 45 deg centigrade with no wind or shade clearly burns calories at a higher rate than sitting still in an air-conditioned office at 20 deg centigrade (so-call room temperature). Likewise, sitting still in a mountaineering tent in the Antarctic at minus 20 deg centigrade also burns more calories.

Logically, if you are in these kinds of environments, the calorie input/output calculations are different.

Does anybody have any input on this puzzling dillema?

Sitting in the warm burns less calories then in cold. When you are cold your body shivers to help you keep warm, this shivering burns calories, to keep cool in heat your body sweats, but sweating itself burns minimal calories. In the case of just sitting in the extreme heat I am not sure, it would be less than the cold, but not sure by what amount but I beleive it would not be much more than at "room" temperature.

Now if you are exercising in those conditions you will probably burn less than at room temperature, or the cold, as you won't be able to push yourself as hard.

Swampstar

That's a really good question, I'm moving to Australia in a week and will be working in the outdoors hiking/climbing/kayaking etc. Compare that to sitting in a cold house not doing anything and I'm gonna need to change my calorific input!

MinnesotaManimal

AZdak just posted info on this yesterday...... let me see if I can find the link to the thread...


here it is

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475742-so-what-s-up-with-850-900-cals-burned-in-less-than-an-hour

Page 4

Strength training
Upper-body work
Thermal stress


Question for you Azdak, are you familiar with how much thermal stress may skew the results? Is it a minor discrepancy or can it be a major one?

It can be substantial.

Example: a yoga class might burn 300-400 calories. During hot yoga, people will get HRM counts double and triple that number. The extra number is due to the thermal stress (no extra calories are actually being burned).

That's probably an extreme example, but I would say that, for someone 170-200 pounds, thermal stress could make a difference of 2-5 calories a minute.

There is also something known as cardiovascular drift. During a longer workout, heart rate will steadily increase with no change in workload. When I do a 45 stairmaster workout, even a fairly easy one, my HRM calorie count for the 2nd half of the workout is easily 30% higher than the first half (sometimes 100+ calories difference in 22.5 min), even though neither my workload nor my breathing has changed.

It's one of the many reasons why I caution people about HRM calorie readings -- not to see them as precise measurements. The average HRM is set up to estimate calories only during steady-state aerobic exercise. If set up properly, it might reach about 85%-90% accuracy under those strict conditions.Every variation away from that "ideal" set of conditions diminishes the accuracy.

hikeout470

Yes, I believe warm also burns more based on my arm band that counts calories.

MaximalLife

Does anybody have any research that quantifies burn rates in extreme environments?

So, sitting still in deepest darkest Africa at 45 deg centigrade with no wind or shade clearly burns calories at a higher rate than sitting still in an air-conditioned office at 20 deg centigrade (so-call room temperature). Likewise, sitting still in a mountaineering tent in the Antarctic at minus 20 deg centigrade also burns more calories.

Logically, if you are in these kinds of environments, the calorie input/output calculations are different.

Does anybody have any input on this puzzling dillema?

Sitting in the warm burns less calories then in cold. When you are cold your body shivers to help you keep warm, this shivering burns calories, to keep cool in heat your body sweats, but sweating itself burns minimal calories. In the case of just sitting in the extreme heat I am not sure, it would be less than the cold, but not sure by what amount but I beleive it would not be much more than at "room" temperature.

Now if you are exercising in those conditions you will probably burn less than at room temperature, or the cold, as you won't be able to push yourself as hard.

^^^^
THIS
Which environment are YOU in.
Let's start there....

erickirb

AZdak just posted info on this yesterday...... let me see if I can find the link to the thread...


here it is

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475742-so-what-s-up-with-850-900-cals-burned-in-less-than-an-hour

Page 4

Strength training
Upper-body work
Thermal stress


Question for you Azdak, are you familiar with how much thermal stress may skew the results? Is it a minor discrepancy or can it be a major one?

It can be substantial.

Example: a yoga class might burn 300-400 calories. During hot yoga, people will get HRM counts double and triple that number. The extra number is due to the thermal stress (no extra calories are actually being burned).

That's probably an extreme example, but I would say that, for someone 170-200 pounds, thermal stress could make a difference of 2-5 calories a minute.

There is also something known as cardiovascular drift. During a longer workout, heart rate will steadily increase with no change in workload. When I do a 45 stairmaster workout, even a fairly easy one, my HRM calorie count for the 2nd half of the workout is easily 30% higher than the first half (sometimes 100+ calories difference in 22.5 min), even though neither my workload nor my breathing has changed.

It's one of the many reasons why I caution people about HRM calorie readings -- not to see them as precise measurements. The average HRM is set up to estimate calories only during steady-state aerobic exercise. If set up properly, it might reach about 85%-90% accuracy under those strict conditions.Every variation away from that "ideal" set of conditions diminishes the accuracy.

This,

the increase in heart rate in this case does not translate to calories burned. The HRM thinks your HR is up because you are working harder and hence are taking in more oxygen, but the reason for the elevated HR is not what you HRM thinks it is and thus the HRM will over estimate your burn in those conditions.