Calories Burned - why so different?

pixiechick8321

I see some people who workout for like 30 minutes and burn over 300 calories on the elliptical or swimming or whatever. And some people even more (600+). When I walk full blast (ie, 4.5mph) for 30 minutes, I get maybe 180 calories net.

How do people get such crazy high numbers? Is it because they weigh more? Are they just working so much harder than me?

I don't belong to a gym anymore so it has to be something I can do from home, but what kinds of things can I do to burn 300+ in half an hour?? I do tone stuff too, but that doesn't get counted as a "workout" so for days when I know I'll be going over, what can I do (quickly) to get some extra buffer?

Thanks!

eemorton

Are you wearing a HRM?

Try HIIT. Steady state cardio at a walking pace won't burn calories fast.

healthynotthin

It's the difference in weight and height. I'm not sure if MFP has a difference for men and women (taking into account the difference in default BFP and muscle mass) but it's almost entirely the height and weight with which you carry yourself during exercise.

Hellbent_Heidi

Is it because they weigh more? Are they just working so much harder than me?

Probably a little of both. You should consider getting a HRM to track it a little more accurately (although its all just an estimate really).

TeaBea

Calories burned depends upon several factors: height, weight, gender, age and "exertion" level.

Your exertion level and mine .... may be 2 different things .... for the exact SAME workout. A heart rate monitor that measures your heart rate ... attempts to measure this. It's more accurate than a lot of other "guesstimates" in my opinion.

Machines may exaggerate too. True, you may be running on an incline ....but maybe it's easy for you. Also, basic machines don't ask your gender .... the default setting is MALE .... generally men have more muscle mass & burn more caloires.

PonyTailedLoser

20 minutes on the adaptive motion trainer burns over 200 calories for me (155lbs). 20 minutes walking/light jog 3.5 mph on the tread burns 80 calories. The AMT and Ellipticals have resistence you can add, in the case of the AMT you can use your arms and I tend to daydream on them thus staying on longer whereas the treadmill is just slow torture.

TeaBea

Are you wearing a HRM?

Try HIIT. Steady state cardio at a walking pace won't burn calories fast.

I second this .... high impact is the way to go for higher calorie burns in a short amount of time. You can burn the same calories walking .... but it's going to take longer. Just like running a mile is faster than walking a mile.

MinnieInMaine

Yes, weight (as well as height, gender and fitness level) is/are factors in your calorie burn. Also, it all depends on where these folks are getting their calories from. If someone is using what the machines or MFP says, a lot of times they are overestimated (sometimes even underestimated). Whereas using a good quality HRM would give you a more accurate calorie burn.

Effort also comes in to effect. Just because someone says they're on the elliptical doesn't tell you what speed or what level of resistance they were using. This is one of the reasons why MFP calorie calculations are inaccurate. Two identical people could do a 20 minute workout on the elliptical but get different burns depending on how they used the machine. Typically, I find a higher resistance level and a moderate speed provide a good burn.

The more intense the exercise, the higher burn you'll get. I can walk 4 miles in an hour and burn 350-400 caloires or I can run those same 4 miles and get over 500 calories in 42 minutes. (5'7", 38 year old female 171 lbs) It's pretty difficult for someone who isn't obese/very overweight to burn more than 10 calories per minute unless they're doing intense cardio like running fast.