People who are burning 1000+ calories a day

spicegeek

an hour of hard kettle bell training ( by hard I mean training for competition so around 300 snatches with a 35lb - 50 lb kettle bell, plus swings ) and 3 -5 mile run afterward - that would put me in the 1000 cal region

michellemybelll

running 11.3 miles or more.

hermann341

Depends a lot on your weight and fitness level. My one hour run for 6 miles burned 1000 calories according to my HRM. Next year, I expect to weigh 30 pounds less with a lower lactate heart threshold, in which case I will be burning fewer calories at the same speed.

bluefox9er

Run for about 90 minutes at 8:30 pace.

BOOM

Itskaleena

Go on YouTube and search Fitnessblender "1000 calorie work out"

Flab2Fab27

I walk, A LOT. Between 1-2 hours a day and throw in some weight lifting and extra cardio and/or HIIT and I can reach 1000.

Keepcalmanddontblink

Are you wearing a HRM when you're getting these numbers? MFP exercise estimates are not correct, in fact, they measure much higher than a HRM. I realize an HRM is also an estimate, however I trust that number over what MFP says a general burn is.

Agreed. Just remember also, the bigger you are and harder you work, the more calories you will burn. My HRM shows a higher number when I am really working hard, and on days where I am barely putting forth an effort, my HRM will either be equal to or lower than the MFP database.

RUNNING_AMOK_1958

Run for about 90 minutes at 8:30 pace.

^Yep. That'll do it!

Becky_LaBelle

I do Bikram yoga and I can easily burn 1000 cals in one hour if I do every posture and put a good bit of effort into it. I am using my HRM. During my most recent work out of strength training I burned about 700 cals in about 45 min. But I'm pretty heavy. So as I lose weight, I have to workout harder or longer to get big numbers.

SingingSingleTracker

Please tell me, what ARE you doing? I've been snooping in a few food diaries for ideas and ideal macro ratios and I see "you have 123924397334239 extra calories today". I maybe burn about 300 extra a day now, when I was doing p90x maybe around 700 extra...I'm really curious?

Cycling!

If I keep my HR average around 140-144 bpm on a ride (52 years old), I find I ride most of the ride in what is known as Zone 2, I can easily top 1000 calories on a 90 minute bike ride (17.9 - 18.1 mph).

If I do a 60+ mile gravel race, now we are talking about some serious calories burned in the 4000+ range. ;-)

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Be heavy, do hours of exercise such as hiking up elevation with weight: Daily Total / Goal 295 / 30 3,080 / 246

Yes, 3,000 cals in a day is far from typical, only for me from hiking up/down a mountain plus lifting.

fatcity66

Bikram (yoga in a 105 degree room) can burn a ton of calories in a 90 min sesh. I weigh 118 lbs and burn aprox. 950 cals per sesh. If you weigh more you burn more. Be warned this is not deep breathing yoga, this is cardio and strength yoga.

THIS. I am a beginner, so I only do 60 min at a time, but research says I burn over 600 calories in that time, and I believe it, my HR goes through the roof and I am out of breath during most of the class! I am always starving afterward, and I lose much more weight on weeks I practice (not just water weight, either, it stays off!)

That being said, most of the calorie counts on MFP are almost double what they should be, not sure why that is...I put in my own values for Bikram yoga. On SparkPeople it says I burn about 280 cal per 30 min on the elliptical, on MFP it says 430, and the machine says 370-400 depending on the level.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

thedietpilot

Looking at MFP and also Googling other websites, it appears that (on average), if you were to just do a normal to brisk walk for about 100 minutes, you would lose 500 calories... So about 50 calories every 10 minutes.

Would anyone else concur with this estimate?

MzChristyLove

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

brianpperkins

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

Something seems amiss in your HRM readings. Walking is not a high caloric burn event. Your HRM tells you how fast your heart beats ... nothing more, nothing less. For certain events there are established relationships between heart rate. VO2 max, and caloric burn which is what every HRM uses to base their calorie burn estimates on ... but it is still an estimate and still depends on proper user input (i.e. selecting the right activity). For a 200lb human to burn 1000 net calories from walking requires covering somewhere in the neighborhood of 15+ miles .... around 10 miles to burn 1000 total calories.

Think about it ... a person taking 4000 steps in a day (not a high number if you actually measure those types of things) with 30 inches each step walks nearly two miles.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

CarsonRuns

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

8 laps is 2 miles. Running, the average burn per mile is around 100 calories and walking that far is just slightly less. There is no way that walking 8 laps is going to burn 1000 calories unless you weigh like a 1000 pounds.

_Waffle_

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

8 laps is 2 miles. Running, the average burn per mile is around 100 calories and walking that far is just slightly less. There is no way that walking 8 laps is going to burn 1000 calories unless you weigh like a 1000 pounds.

Nope. I weigh in around 220 right now and 6 miles @ 9:00 - 9:30 pace burns around 1000 calories. 2 miles won't get you that kind of calorie burn. Thanks goodness or I'd have to bring a taco truck with me on longer runs.

weird_me2

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

Unless each lap is well over a mile, I'd have to say that this is very seriously off. Even for a very large person (300 pounds) walking 4 mph for an hour, you won't even see a burn like that - it's more in the 600-700 calorie range. HRMs can be "fooled", especially if you are doing more movement in your upper body (such as moving your arms while carrying dumb bells) and they are only as good as their formulas and your inputs.

Walking has actually been studied and there are good calculators for calculating calories burned regardless of heart rate. To move a certain mass (say 200 pounds) with the amount of force required to walk at a certain rate (say 3 mph) on a certain surface (say flat), the amount of energy (calories) required is going to be relatively the same regardless of heart rate. You could have a 200 pound marathoner walk 3 miles an hour or a 200 pound couch potato walk the same distance and, all other things being equal (body composition), they will burn roughly the same number of calories even if the couch potato's heart rate is 50 bpm faster. There's actually a very real possibility that the marathoner would burn MORE calories simply because they would likely have more muscle mass, but that's another thing altogether, and then you have to account for RMR and determine net burn, etc.

mboromom

Zumba for an hour is 500+ calories burned
Elliptical/Stairmaster on a high level burns about 700 calories for me in about 45 minutes

fooninie

When I do my long runs, like 8 miles or more, I burn well over a thousand calories I use those days as my "I get to eat barbecue and drink beer" days!

^^^ This. For the long run caloric burns and for the BBQ and beers... :drinker:

4daluvof_candice

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

8 laps is 2 miles. Running, the average burn per mile is around 100 calories and walking that far is just slightly less. There is no way that walking 8 laps is going to burn 1000 calories unless you weigh like a 1000 pounds.

How are you calculating that 8 laps is 2miles? All tracks have different lengths so...:huh:

Nope. I weigh in around 220 right now and 6 miles @ 9:00 - 9:30 pace burns around 1000 calories. 2 miles won't get you that kind of calorie burn. Thanks goodness or I'd have to bring a taco truck with me on longer runs.

Makes sense....I believe pace/weight/time is what determines a persons burn. An individual can do the same exercise starting at 200lbs and burn a certain amount but that same exercise at 150lbs, the burn would be less even at the same pace and time.

runner475

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

8 laps is 2 miles. Running, the average burn per mile is around 100 calories and walking that far is just slightly less. There is no way that walking 8 laps is going to burn 1000 calories unless you weigh like a 1000 pounds.

How are you calculating that 8 laps is 2miles? All tracks have different lengths so...:huh:

Nope. I weigh in around 220 right now and 6 miles @ 9:00 - 9:30 pace burns around 1000 calories. 2 miles won't get you that kind of calorie burn. Thanks goodness or I'd have to bring a taco truck with me on longer runs.

Makes sense....I believe pace/weight/time is what determines a persons burn. An individual can do the same exercise starting at 200lbs and burn a certain amount but that same exercise at 150lbs, the burn would be less even at the same pace and time.

Add Gender to it. Please, Please add gender to it.

I jus' had a meltdown today. I'm heading out to eat German Chocolate cake. I can't take this discrimination no more.
:drinker:

4daluvof_candice

You could have a 200 pound marathoner walk 3 miles an hour or a 200 pound couch potato walk the same distance and, all other things being equal (body composition), they will burn roughly the same number of calories even if the couch potato's heart rate is 50 bpm faster. There's actually a very real possibility that the marathoner would burn MORE calories simply because they would likely have more muscle mass, but that's another thing altogether, and then you have to account for RMR and determine net burn, etc.

So why have a HRM in the first place?

4daluvof_candice

I wear a heart rate monitor, it includes a wrist watch and a chest strap. I walk laps on the track behind my house. Each lap burns 200 calories...I also use 2lb dumbells also while listening to the workout radio on pandora. 8 laps are 1000 calories. remember your heartrate is what tells how many calories your burning. MFP is not accurate at all.

also, ive used various brands of hrm and they've all calculated similar calculations. each person is different.

8 laps is 2 miles. Running, the average burn per mile is around 100 calories and walking that far is just slightly less. There is no way that walking 8 laps is going to burn 1000 calories unless you weigh like a 1000 pounds.

How are you calculating that 8 laps is 2miles? All tracks have different lengths so...:huh:

Nope. I weigh in around 220 right now and 6 miles @ 9:00 - 9:30 pace burns around 1000 calories. 2 miles won't get you that kind of calorie burn. Thanks goodness or I'd have to bring a taco truck with me on longer runs.

Makes sense....I believe pace/weight/time is what determines a persons burn. An individual can do the same exercise starting at 200lbs and burn a certain amount but that same exercise at 150lbs, the burn would be less even at the same pace and time.

Add Gender to it. Please, Please add gender to it.

I jus' had a meltdown today. I'm heading out to eat German Chocolate cake. I can't take this discrimination no more.
:drinker:

OMG its all my fault!! just for you..
It does matter of gender as well. LOL!

DianeinCA

For walking and running I find a very easy rule of thumb is 90 calories per mile (women) and 110 calories per mile (men). This will vary somewhat depending on weight/height/muscle mass/fat mass, but not terribly much.

If you're doing 2 miles, you're doing 180-200 calories, not 1000.

CarsonRuns

How are you calculating that 8 laps is 2miles? All tracks have different lengths so...:huh:

If this is indeed a "track", not a multi-purpose path around a local park and located outdoors, then there is about a 99% chance that it is either one of two distances. It's either 400 meters or 440 yards, the latter very less likely as they haven't constructed tracks that size in a dogs age. So, either way, the track is about 1/4 mile around, so 4 laps to a mile (actually about 8 meters short of a mile, if memory serves me correctly).

CarsonRuns

You could have a 200 pound marathoner walk 3 miles an hour or a 200 pound couch potato walk the same distance and, all other things being equal (body composition), they will burn roughly the same number of calories even if the couch potato's heart rate is 50 bpm faster. There's actually a very real possibility that the marathoner would burn MORE calories simply because they would likely have more muscle mass, but that's another thing altogether, and then you have to account for RMR and determine net burn, etc.

So why have a HRM in the first place?

For walking or running, I don't really think it's necessary. It when you engage in other activities that it's much hard to get an accurate estimation of calorie burn without heart rate data.

brianpperkins

You could have a 200 pound marathoner walk 3 miles an hour or a 200 pound couch potato walk the same distance and, all other things being equal (body composition), they will burn roughly the same number of calories even if the couch potato's heart rate is 50 bpm faster. There's actually a very real possibility that the marathoner would burn MORE calories simply because they would likely have more muscle mass, but that's another thing altogether, and then you have to account for RMR and determine net burn, etc.

So why have a HRM in the first place?

To track heart rate.

Many people here don't differentiate between gross and net calories burned during exercise, depend on a HRM when they don't know which number is reported, and simply use HRM based calorie estimations for events that they cannot possibly come close to accuracy during because of the formulae used. The result is the stream of threads where people can't figure out why they aren't losing as hoped because they don't recognize the highly inflated burn numbers.

Lauren8239

You guys do realize this is a dead thread from 2012 that got revived a couple of times? Nobody from back then is going to answer your questions no matter how many times it's quoted........just say'n.