Calories burnt per minute of exercise

dianeellen2

Hi

Just thought i would share some surprising (well surprising to me) figures with you...

I recently got a HRM and wondered how my main activities stacked up against each other for calorie burn (bit geeky i know but...)

So i mainly do, Zumba, C25K (week 2 which is a 5 min walk followed by 6 x 90 second runs and 6 x 90 second walks (alternated) and then a 5 min cool down walk), 30 day shred (level 1) and general walking (its a bit hilly round me and i walk at about 3.5 mph)

When i got my HRM i measured each of the above, these are the figures

Zumba 45 min classe = 400 calories
30 day shred DVD 20 mins = 283 calories
C25K 28 mins = 220 calories
40 minute walk to the shops = 320 calories

I thought it was difficult to work out which of these was the most efficient use of my time so i calculated the calories burned per minute for each of the above

Zumba = 8.8
30 DS = 14.15
C25K = 7.8
Walk = 8

To my surprise, Zumba, walking and C25K all give about the same burn

30DS gives the best burn for the quickest time

What i can not work out is why both Zumba and C25K make me sweat but burn no more calories than walking?

Anyway, just thought i would share

Diane :flowerforyou:

JamesBurkes

Interesting I've just made a similar post. Doing an hour of panting, sweating, muscle aching Plyo X I burn around 800 cals. Doing an hour of walking at 3mph I burn 600. I can't believe this is right - the difference seems miniscule considering the difference in effort seemingly put in.

dianeellen2

Interesting I've just made a similar post. Doing an hour of panting, sweating, muscle aching Plyo X I burn around 800 cals. Doing an hour of walking at 3mph I burn 600. I can't believe this is right - the difference seems miniscule considering the difference in effort seemingly put in.

Thats just what i thought - i have measured the walk twice to make sure - it seems walking is just as good as running for calorie burning!

richelliott1

Its more to do with the "afterburn" effect. Zumba, Weight training ect will have a longer recovery rate than any moderate exercise.

I try and mix jogging and weights at a ratio of 60/40 at the minute which is working well.

BazAbroad

I normally do not watch the cals burned but having ups and downs with my weight and training about 6 times a week without getting the body I want then I have changed tactics.
There is muscle underneath all my flab and now I am watching the cals,
I do rower one day as my cardio and elliptical the next.
My thinking is, its not just the losing of cals thats important, but how u lose them to leave u with the body u want afterwards.
When your choosing your whats the best exercise's to lose cals,
don't forget, what u want to look like when your finished.
Some exercises should be done for the end result,,, not just those that get the fastest results...
:happy:

runnercheryl

Interesting stuff!

I burn 100 calories a mile when I'm walking. That means I can get up to 300 calories burned in an hour. When doing basic couch-to-5k type training my HRM said I burned 70 calories in ten minutes, covering 0.6 miles, which would get me up to 420 calories an hour if I could keep it up.

When mountain biking, which feels much more difficult, I burn around 100 calories over three miles, taking ten minutes to do each mile (on average). That's 200 calories in an hour. I've not yet tried road cycling with my HRM, but I just replace the effort of mud/hills with cycling faster to get my heart rate higher, so I guess they'd be similar.

General aerobics puts me at an average of 50 calories per 15 minutes. Again, 200 calories an hour.

So that's:

Walking - 300 calories
Couch to 5k - 420 calories
Cycling - 200 calories
Aerobics - 200 calories

If I could only keep jogging/running up for more than ten minutes!

LouCarr84

Interesting - thank you for posting.
Diane, I do very similar activities to you (that is when I am not working 14hr days - which seems to be a lot lately!).
Think I will focus on the 30DS for a bit!
Lou x

JamesBurkes

Actually, thinking about it I also know that just sitting on the exercise bike and pedalling away at a nice easy rate while watching TV I can burn around 550 cals an hour (that's from the HRM and from the bike). But if I do an hour of RPM on the same bike I'm literally sweating like I've been for swim, I'm gasping for air a lot of the time, my HR is over 90% for long stretches and my legs are burning and getting pumped. It can take a couple of days for my legs to get back to normal. And doing this I burn 850 cals per hour max. Okay, 300 cals is a noticeable difference in an hour of activity, but I'm happy with 550, especially since it's so non-draining I could easily do it every day and it's so much easier on the muscles and joints. As much as I love RPM and would LIKE to do it every day, there's just no way it's physiologically possible.

Admittedly, there's more to it than calorie burn - there's metabolic improvement, afterburn and muscle building from more intense activities. But now I've remembered a second activity that doesn't seem too bad in terms of calorie burn, I'm wondering if there's a point where that additional intensity doesn't really pay for itself, in terms of additional effort put in.

dianeellen2

Its more to do with the "afterburn" effect. Zumba, Weight training ect will have a longer recovery rate than any moderate exercise.

I try and mix jogging and weights at a ratio of 60/40 at the minute which is working well.

Good point - i do mix them all up - i manage to get most exercises in most weeks - i guess the reason i started to think about this is for the nights i get home from work and have limited time to exercise - i just wondered - if i had half an hour which would be the best thing to do

I think 'after burn' is interesting and worth thinking about

Diane

_VoV

Interesting numbers. Thanks for posting this. I will feel much better about walking now, which is my primary exercise.