How do increase calories burned during cardio

onikonor

I see some people here logging upwards of 800 in calories burned per hour and some 400. Why is there such a large difference? What can you do to increase calories burned?

ccpace4

I'm not sure how to increase it...but I do want to point out many people don't accurately keep track of actual calories burned. I've seen the automatic ones giving by MFP be way off whether too many calories burned or too little...and some weight loss machines can even be way off on telling you you've burned a lot more than you have. The best way to determine is by having your own Heart Rate Monitor...800 per hour does seem a bit extreme but it could just be an extreme cardio session

onikonor

I'm in the process of getting one, for now i'm just going with general circuit training.

Some of my MFP friends that are doing the same program and using HRM calories burned seem to vary quite a bit.

scottb81

As you get in better shape you can work your body harder for longer at the same or lower perceived effort. This equates to a higher calorie burn.

At 175 lbs, 800 calories in an hour is a moderate run of a little under 7 miles.

BackTatJIM

some people have a hrm some just use MFP estimates for calories burned which are very high in my case. All depends on how hard people push themselves and how high they keep there heart rate while doing cardio. if I run for 30 mins and my heart rate is at 160 I may burn 500 calories but if i jog slow and stay around 140 I may only burn 300 calories, hopes this helps a lil

onikonor

As you get in better shape you can work your body harder for longer at the same or lower perceived effort. This equates to a higher calorie burn.

At 175 lbs, 800 calories in an hour is a moderate run of a little under 7 miles.

So the more fit you are the more you burn? I thought it was the other way around the heavier you are the more you burn and the more fit you are the more you need to work for the same burn.

onikonor

I did about 30 minutes of pure cardio I think my heart rate was about 180 and resting is 90 (manually taken) does 350 calories burned make sense?

BackTatJIM

As you get in better shape you can work your body harder for longer at the same or lower perceived effort. This equates to a higher calorie burn.

At 175 lbs, 800 calories in an hour is a moderate run of a little under 7 miles.

So the more fit you are the more you burn? I thought it was the other way around the heavier you are the more you burn and the more fit you are the more you need to work for the same burn.

The higher your heart rate is during a workout the more calories you will burn, weight has nothing to do with how fast you can burn calories

BackTatJIM

I did about 30 minutes of pure cardio I think my heart rate was about 180 and resting is 90 (manually taken) does 350 calories burned make sense?

the best way to get a accurate reading is to wear a HRM, you can put your height, weight, age, and sex in it and it will give you a more accurate reading on how many calories you burn

onikonor

the best way to get a accurate reading is to wear a HRM, you can put your height, weight, age, and sex in it and it will give you a more accurate reading on how many calories you burn

It will be another couple of weeks before I get the one I ordered in the mail. For the time being I don't want to eat back too many calories lol

I guess it makes sense then, the more fit you are the longer you can maintain peak heart rate and the more you burn.

PS Pantera rocks!

BackTatJIM

well once you get one here is a great link I keep saved to keep track of my target heart rate






http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/jfa002/view/finding-an-accurate-thr-275069

onikonor

Great! Thanks.

scottb81

As you get in better shape you can work your body harder for longer at the same or lower perceived effort. This equates to a higher calorie burn.

At 175 lbs, 800 calories in an hour is a moderate run of a little under 7 miles.

So the more fit you are the more you burn? I thought it was the other way around the heavier you are the more you burn and the more fit you are the more you need to work for the same burn.

You will burn less as you lose weight. However, that is offset by being able to work harder for longer. As you get in shape the amount of work your body can do will increase greatly at the same or less perceived effort level.

When I first started last year 3 miles in 36 minutes felt much harder than 7 miles in 60 minutes feels now. But even though the workload feels easier, I am burning many more calories, even accounting for a 35 lb weight loss.

Jynus

You burn more calories the faster and more intense you go.

And 350 seems about right if thats including your BMR. Which would be -60 calories aprox. So 290 burned from exercise. For 188 heartrate for average guys it was metabolic chamber tested at 430 calories for 45min not including BMR.

BackTatJIM

You burn more calories the faster and more intense you go.

And 350 seems about right if thats including your BMR. Which would be -60 calories aprox. So 290 burned from exercise. For 188 heartrate for average guys it was metabolic chamber tested at 430 calories for 45min not including BMR.

talk about confusing people lol

onikonor

You burn more calories the faster and more intense you go.

And 350 seems about right if thats including your BMR. Which would be -60 calories aprox. So 290 burned from exercise. For 188 heartrate for average guys it was metabolic chamber tested at 430 calories for 45min not including BMR.

No the 350 is on top of BMR since my BMR is already in my goals.
I'm guessing you are referring to net calories burned vs gross calories burned.

gomisskellygo

I did about 30 minutes of pure cardio I think my heart rate was about 180 and resting is 90 (manually taken) does 350 calories burned make sense?

That sounds about right if your HR was that high.

onikonor

Thanks everyone, the suggestions were very helpful.

tappae

The higher your heart rate is during a workout the more calories you will burn, weight has nothing to do with how fast you can burn calories

I would love to read a study that establishes the link between heart rate and calories burned. Do you know of one that you could point me to? I don't believe that there is any sort of causal relationship between the two, but only a sort of secondary correlation. In other words, if I do something that causes me to burn more calories than usual, it will probably also cause my heart rate to rise, and someone has figured out a formula based on my stats and averages to estimate what that burn is, but there really isn't a direct connection, right?

A lot of people on here report that the MFP calculations are way high compared to their HRMs. I see just the opposite with mine. For instance, I ran 9.5 miles on trails yesterday. My HRM reported just about 2000 calories burned in 102 minutes, or 1200 an hour. The MFP calculator says around 1300 for that workout, or 800 or so per hour, which is a little more believable. Because the course was so rough, I might have burned more than that, but I don't really believe 2000. That number is skewed high because my heart was in the "red zone" for that whole run. When my fitness improves, my heart won't have to work hard for that run. Assuming that I'm the same weight, I'll burn the same number of calories, but the HRM will give a lower number because it will be an easier workout.

tappae

To answer the original question:

You have to do more during that hour. If you ran 7 or 8 miles in an hour, you'd probably burn at least 800.

vfnmoody

The higher your heart rate is during a workout the more calories you will burn, weight has nothing to do with how fast you can burn calories

I would love to read a study that establishes the link between heart rate and calories burned. Do you know of one that you could point me to? I don't believe that there is any sort of causal relationship between the two, but only a sort of secondary correlation. In other words, if I do something that causes me to burn more calories than usual, it will probably also cause my heart rate to rise, and someone has figured out a formula based on my stats and averages to estimate what that burn is, but there really isn't a direct connection, right?

A lot of people on here report that the MFP calculations are way high compared to their HRMs. I see just the opposite with mine. For instance, I ran 9.5 miles on trails yesterday. My HRM reported just about 2000 calories burned in 102 minutes, or 1200 an hour. The MFP calculator says around 1300 for that workout, or 800 or so per hour, which is a little more believable. Because the course was so rough, I might have burned more than that, but I don't really believe 2000. That number is skewed high because my heart was in the "red zone" for that whole run. When my fitness improves, my heart won't have to work hard for that run. Assuming that I'm the same weight, I'll burn the same number of calories, but the HRM will give a lower number because it will be an easier workout.

I have to agree HR is a by product of how hard you work not how many cals you burn. When I was 290lbs it took more cals to go four miles in an hour. With weight loss I now have to go a longer distance to to burn the same amount of cals. . The calories are related to moving the mass across the distance not how fast your heart beats.
If yo need to increase your calories burned from walking or running a distance carry some weight in a back pack.

onikonor

Yeah I see a lot of truth in that. Many people in great shape add resistance when they are training to get a better burn.

This is why heavier people get a harder workout in a shorter period. However, as you get in better shape your endurance would increase.

I've seen people who roller blade with a parachute behind them. My guess is they would have to roller blade for a long time before they would get the same burn as with the parachute.

onikonor

I have to agree HR is a by product of how hard you work not how many cals you burn. When I was 290lbs it took more cals to go four miles in an hour. With weight loss I now have to go a longer distance to to burn the same amount of cals. . The calories are related to moving the mass across the distance not how fast your heart beats.
If yo need to increase your calories burned from walking or running a distance carry some weight in a back pack.

I expect the harder you work the higher your heart rate would be the more calories you would burn. So I guess this applies to all fitness levels as long as you are pushing your body to do more.

Is HRM generally fairly accurate?

tappae

I expect the harder you work the higher your heart rate would be the more calories you would burn. So I guess this applies to all fitness levels as long as you are pushing your body to do more.

Again, I haven't read any good studies on this, but I don't think that's how it works at all. If you work harder, you'll burn more calories in the same time period because you'll be doing more activity. Your heart rate will probably increase and maybe even in a predictably correlated way, but the extra burn is from the extra work, not the increased heart rate. For instance, if I do push-ups for 1 minute and I take it kind of easy and only do 10 I will have burned a certain amount of calories. If I really push myself and do 50 push-ups in that minute, I will have burned roughly 5 times the amount of calories, because I did 5 times the amount of work. My heart rate will probably increase as well, if I'm pushing harder. On the other hand, if I was really super fit there might not be a big difference between my heart rate in these two situations, but the difference in calorie burn would still be there.

Is HRM generally fairly accurate?

For calorie burn estimates? A lot of people say so. For me, it tends to overestimate my calories burned because I tend to have a very elevated heart rate the entire time I'm exercising. I've read that they're the most accurate within the target heart rate zone (maybe around 70% of maximum heart rate), but less accurate when your heart rate is slower or faster than that. For instance, I put mine on while meditating and it told me I burned 7 calories in 30 minutes. That translates to 336 per day. Since my BMR is more like 1700 to 1800, that's extremely inaccurate.

Sheila_Ann

As you get in better shape you can work your body harder for longer at the same or lower perceived effort. This equates to a higher calorie burn.

At 175 lbs, 800 calories in an hour is a moderate run of a little under 7 miles.

So the more fit you are the more you burn? I thought it was the other way around the heavier you are the more you burn and the more fit you are the more you need to work for the same burn.

The higher your heart rate is during a workout the more calories you will burn, weight has nothing to do with how fast you can burn calories

^^ this...I use an HRM for my zumba classes and if my HR is up in the 170-180 I burn a lot more calories then when I'm in my 140's.

thetrishwarp

For me...

if I do 45 mins on the elliptical at level 16, I will burn just over 400.
if I do 45 mins at level 12, I'll burn about 350.

So...to burn more calories...push harder? Some people may also do different classes at the gym, or, if it's the 30 Day Shred for exampe, if person a and person b both have heart rate monitors, but person a does the badass moves with 10 lbs weights and person b does the modified moves with 5 lb weights, person a will presumably burn more.

egarcia83

On my elliptical it keeps count of calories burned for me, if I do a lighter resistance or less minutes its usually I usually burn about 300-500 calories. I try to stick with doing the 45 minute high resistance workout and burn up to 1000 calories. I think it has to do with the high resistance but at the end of the workout I am sweating bullets and out of breath.

markymarrkk

I weigh 199 and easily burn 500 calories in 30 minutes of running at 7mph, I can't maintain 7mph for an hour, so I have hit 800 or so calories in an hour with running and stairs combined, usually keeping my heart rate up above 160 or even 170 bpm.

rmhand

People that weight more will burn more calories.

The other option is to increase your effort. Push harder, do more. In my step aerobic class there were easy versions and harder version of the exercises. You could walk up the step, run up the step, or run up the step with high knees. The high knees burns more calories.

belgerian

I mainly run and I burn about 1200 Cal in a run thats a 9 mile run takes me about 70-75 minutes. I average around a 8 minute mile with my HR around 165 average.

TeaBea

I have to agree HR is a by product of how hard you work not how many cals you burn. When I was 290lbs it took more cals to go four miles in an hour. With weight loss I now have to go a longer distance to to burn the same amount of cals. . The calories are related to moving the mass across the distance not how fast your heart beats.
If yo need to increase your calories burned from walking or running a distance carry some weight in a back pack.

I expect the harder you work the higher your heart rate would be the more calories you would burn. So I guess this applies to all fitness levels as long as you are pushing your body to do more.

Is HRM generally fairly accurate?

HRMs with chest straps are more accurate than the wrist only ones. Chest straps measure your heart rate constantly ... wrist only models measure it periodically.