Things that make you go...Hmmmm....(outrageous calorie burn)

1234579

Replies

  • snowbike
    snowbike Posts: 153 Member
    From this morning.

    IMG_20121129_135542.jpg

    I should note that I only ran for 56 minutes. The rest was just walking.

    Seeing your height and weight, taking average v02 you would need to be pushing 100% MHR to do this. <not worthy>

    Have you set your vo2 on the polar? if so what to?
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    I burned over a thousand calories before 7:30 this morning.

    haters14.jpg
  • _Wits_
    _Wits_ Posts: 1,286 Member
    Yeah I don't care what people log...
  • Bob314159
    Bob314159 Posts: 1,178 Member
    I burned 287 calories scrolling down this thread
  • _Wits_
    _Wits_ Posts: 1,286 Member
    I burned 287 calories scrolling down this thread

    I burned 289. I win.
  • Bob314159
    Bob314159 Posts: 1,178 Member
    I burned 287 calories scrolling down this thread

    I burned 289. I win.

    Only if you eat your calories - or you enter starvation mode and die
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    I delete those people who log checking the mail, washing the dishes, house cleaning, ironing, playing an instrument, kneading bread....... ok I have to stop

    Kneading bread is in the database? I wish I had known that last week. About ten minutes in and my forearms were on fire.

    That's what I was thinking. I logged my Thanksgiving food prep as cooking. I guess if someone were to delete me for that, then I would be like, "I didn't want you anyway!" or "Take this friendship and shove it!" :laugh:

    Ditto. I log it. It makes sense to log it if you're doing something for longer than usual or something completely out of the ordinary.
    sigh, not this again.

    As long as you all logged it with the understanding that 90% of that calorie burn was your BMR then I suppose go ahead. but understand that the prep work was prob like 100cal/hour tops.

    uum no it's not actually. you do what works for YOU but don't assume you know what went into the activities that people choose to log.
    your BMR is 150-180cal/hour from existing. Let me guess, did the calculator you use give a number like 200-250cal/hour for this kitchen prep work and kneading bread? Congrats, you just discovered how to disillusion yourself cause you actually only burn like 50-80cal for that hour.

    I don't need to know what went into the activities, I just have an understanding of how the bodies work. And noone is that individual. Sorry, but you're not the special calorie burning snowflake you seem to think you are.



    Just FTR, MFP gave me a burn of 187 for one hour. That's pretty much the same burn as simply standing for an hour. It's about 2/3 of the burn for walking at a slow pace. I don't believe that I burn fewer calories doing something than I would by *not* doing anything. I'll burn 74 calories an hour by simply being alive and breathing. My BMR is 1780. Divide that by 24 and you get about 74 calories an hour by simply doing nothing at all.

    ETA: Also, this was from preparing Thanksgiving dinner, which was actually closer to 3 hours of work. I normally spend about 15-20 minutes preparing dinner and do not normally log food prep or cleaning.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    To get an idea from the maths...

    To burn over 1000 cals an hour weighing under 180lbs you would need to be pushing over 87% MHR for the whole 60 mins.
    to burn over 1000 cals an hour weighing at 100lbs you would need to be pushing over 95% MHR for the whole 60 mins.

    I'm a competitive cyclist, I train VERY VERY hard. There is no way I could sustain 95% MHR for 60 mins. 10 - 25mins max!

    I'd be interested to know what formula you're using for this.

    I don't believe there's a direct relationship between heart rate and calories burned. They're indirectly correlated. If you do some amount of work, you will burn calories and your heart rate may increase. For certain ranges, there are formula that can fairly accurately estimate your caloric burn based on your heart rate, but there's no direct relationship.

    I've experienced some aerobic fitness gains this year. I can now run for an hour with my heart rate around 132 at a pace that kept my heart rate around 170 earlier this year. That doesn't mean I'm burning less calories. Well, I am, but it's because I've also lost some weight. If I had eaten at a small surplus during this time, I would be burning more calories at a lower heart rate.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    The other night, I heard something about laughing burning something like 1.3 calories per second.

    That's more than 60 calories a minute.

    I doubted that figure very much.
  • michelle1973nc
    michelle1973nc Posts: 26 Member
    That's awesome.

    I am by no means an expert. I try to figure out my cals on MFP but there isn't a place for the elevation of the treadmill. I was told once that jogging on the treadmill needs to be above incline of 1 to be the same as being outside on a flat surface. I try to never have it less than 2. I have walked/jogged through a full movie with the incline at no less than 4 and burned over 1000 cals (per treadmill) but MFP is way off.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    The other night, I heard something about laughing burning something like 1.3 calories per second.

    That's more than 60 calories a minute.

    I doubted that figure very much.

    You've never seen me laugh! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    You gotta put your *ALL* into it. No pain; no gain! :tongue:
  • footiechick82
    footiechick82 Posts: 1,203 Member
    The best way to do it - get a heart rate monitor. I've asked for one for Christmas. Right now, I use the 'calorie counter' on the machines I use.

    If it's not there, I will research and see what the "average calorie burn" is for a class I take or exercise I do and base it on how hard I worked - not very efficient, but I usually log the lower end of what I burn so I don't over eat.
  • Graceious1
    Graceious1 Posts: 716 Member
    I have an HRM and burn around 900 cal with 45 minutes of running and and doing martial arts for an hour and a half I burn over a 1000. Would you consider that outrageous?
  • terrymbradley
    terrymbradley Posts: 52
    Sometimes, I blame the MFP calculator. I use rock-climbing as my main exercise of choice. Usually, I am at the gym for at least 2 hours rock climbing. If I log those 2 hours though, MFP says I burned between 1500 calories or more. Doubting this, I usually shave off 30 minutes to account for the time I spend on the ground, but it still seems too much.

    If I were to assume that MFP was giving me a completely accurate burn, I would be eating a lot. I'm looking into buying a HRM so that I can get a better idea of what I burned during a workout.

    I guess, what I'm saying is that they may just be taking MFP's numbers for face value and assume they are spot on.

    Here is another calculator that I use...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wt824D1Bqg
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    The other night, I heard something about laughing burning something like 1.3 calories per second.

    That's more than 60 calories a minute.

    I doubted that figure very much.

    You've never seen me laugh! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    You gotta put your *ALL* into it. No pain; no gain! :tongue:

    lol

    I might buy it if it didn't take 10 minutes at full speed on the elliptical to burn 10 calories a minute!
  • snowbike
    snowbike Posts: 153 Member


    I'd be interested to know what formula you're using for this.

    I don't believe there's a direct relationship between heart rate and calories burned. They're indirectly correlated. If you do some amount of work, you will burn calories and your heart rate may increase. For certain ranges, there are formula that can fairly accurately estimate your caloric burn based on your heart rate, but there's no direct relationship.

    I've experienced some aerobic fitness gains this year. I can now run for an hour with my heart rate around 132 at a pace that kept my heart rate around 170 earlier this year. That doesn't mean I'm burning less calories. Well, I am, but it's because I've also lost some weight. If I had eaten at a small surplus during this time, I would be burning more calories at a lower heart rate.

    This is the one ...

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

    This closely matches my HRM.

    IM now wondering if this is right! I am currently trying to gain a few pounds and am struggling. If a 130 avg heart rate can burn a 1000 cals I would be burning nearly double on my cycle rides that my HRM.

    I assumed that as you become more fitter you get more efficient with the same calories... This looks (from what you say) wrong.

    This also might be the reason Im not gain as MFP says I should be.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    IM now wondering if this is right! I am currently trying to gain a few pounds and am struggling. If a 130 avg heart rate can burn a 1000 cals I would be burning nearly double on my cycle rides that my HRM.

    Maybe someone else can weigh in here?
    I'm afraid I can't really give advice about gaining weight, since all I have to do is eat what I want and I gain (mostly fat and water) very fast.

    There are a lot of people on here that can advise you on that, though. I'd recommend looking for someone who's shirtless in their profile pic.
    I assumed that as you become more fitter you get more efficient with the same calories... This looks (from what you say) wrong.

    I think there is some increase in efficiency, but not a big one relative to total burn, especially with long sessions. I believe that most of the people that think they're burning less as they get more fit are basing that on their HRMs. My weight loss has been steady, just using the MFP database to estimate my burns, even though my heart rate is rarely over 140 now.

    I estimated my 6 mile run yesterday at 741 calories for just under an hour. To be sure, if I had pushed myself and run it in under 50 minutes I would have burned those calories faster, but it would have been about the same total, since I did the same amount of work.

    I plugged my run into the website you provided and it gave me 691, which is fairly consistent with what the database gave me. I then plugged in what my PR for that distance would be and what my heart rate would be at that effort level (based on previous runs with a HRM) and it gave me 848, which seems a little high to me (almost 18 calories per minute).

    So, if you've gotten more fit, it's certainly possible that you're underestimating your calorie burns. As I said before, though, if you want advice on bulking up, I would seek out someone that enjoys photographing his abdomen.
  • RobynLB
    RobynLB Posts: 617 Member
    I'm just started manually setting my calorie and entering all my exercise calories as "1" because I think the numbers set by MFP for both my target and my calorie burns are messing up my perception, even though I know they are wrong.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    or this, maybe:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain
  • AmberJo1984
    AmberJo1984 Posts: 1,067 Member
    I go by what my HRM says. It always seems high to me... but, I still put it down. The thing is... I almost NEVER eat back those calories.... so, I shouldn't be hurting my chances of really losing weight.
  • allifantastical
    allifantastical Posts: 946 Member
    I go by what MFP tells me. I am in the market for a HRM but don't have it yet, unfortunately, at this point, that's all I can go by.
  • RobynLB
    RobynLB Posts: 617 Member
    I have an HRM and burn around 900 cal with 45 minutes of running and and doing martial arts for an hour and a half I burn over a 1000. Would you consider that outrageous?

    Are you running a six minute mile? If not, it's probably outrageous. Martial arts for an hour an a half sounds right to me though, if it's a challenging conditioning class.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Apparently I burned over 2600 calories driving for 12 hours.
    When I went shopping with the girlfriend for 9 hours (in one shopping centre...) I had supposedly burned over 3000 calories.

    No, I did not eat those calories back.
  • sug_plum
    sug_plum Posts: 34
    There have been times that MFP has logged some ridiculous calories burned for me. I just don't eat them back, or I only eat a small portion of them back. I only log the exercise that I do to log the exercise, not to get more calories to eat.
    I have asked for an HRM for Christmas (which given that I suffer from SVT) would be the best thing for me so I can track my heart rate anyhow.

    This ^^
  • MyM0wM0w
    MyM0wM0w Posts: 2,008 Member
    People who add Cleaning, heavy, vigorous effort for 2 hours for a 500+ calorie burn and posted under it comments like "At least cleaning my house burned calories!"
  • kscott2008
    kscott2008 Posts: 8 Member
    I weigh 165.

    According to MFP if I run at 6mph for 80 minutes (which is nothing, and excluding my warm up and cool down and the calisthenics I do here and there along the path) I will burn 1003 calories.

    Now, when I weighed 220 pounds and I ran 6 mph for 60 minutes (which I did), I burned 1003 calories.

    So I lost 55 pounds and according to MFP I now have to run 20 minutes longer to get the same burn.

    I underestimate my burns on MFP so that the judgmental btches who would rather critique how I exercise and what I do or do not do with my body than actually exercise and go do something positive and active - will leave me the hell alone :)

    Or I just put "1 calorie".

    I sincerely feel that getting in shape is something that is forever and undeniably my own business.

    And defining what is your own business is part of falling in love with yourself, which more people should do instead of pick each other apart instead.

    ^ Thread over. Boom.

    Amen. No ones business.
  • iWaffle
    iWaffle Posts: 2,208 Member
    From this morning.

    IMG_20121129_135542.jpg

    I should note that I only ran for 56 minutes. The rest was just walking.

    Seeing your height and weight, taking average v02 you would need to be pushing 100% MHR to do this. <not worthy>

    Have you set your vo2 on the polar? if so what to?

    You can't set the VO2 on the Polar FT7 and no I wasn't pushing 100% MHR. I think I was in the low 170s a few times when I glanced at the watch but probably was averaging around 165 for the entire run. I've hit 184 before a few times running uphill but I don't run at that level normally. I'm doing distance not total speed. These HRMs aren't 100% accurate. They're just supposed to give you a general idea. Don't get hung up on the exact specific total of calories burned. It's just a tool to help you calculate what you need to eat. During my runs I keep an eye on the heart rate to see what zone I'm running in. You don't always "feel" your pace but the heart rate lets you know if you're there or should be pushing yourself more.

    By the way I'm not tracking calories to lose weight. I'm tracking to make sure I eat enough to make up for what I burn running. I know it's not perfect but it seems to be fairly accurate. If I don't eat back all of these calories I start dropping weight.
  • weird_me2
    weird_me2 Posts: 716 Member
    I'm not defensive. I just don't think a 1,000 calories an hour constitutes a big burn unless you weigh 100-120 lbs.It just AMAZES me every time I see a discussion about this lame subject. I will defend anyone who actually is doing the work. I have also caught people lying about their workouts.

    Maybe you are missing my point which is WHO REALLY CARES OR KNOWS WHAT SOMEONE ACTUALLY DOES? We can't tell by pics hell we don't even know if it's actually THEIR PICS!!

    I have no reason to be defensive. I teach 6 days a week mornings and evenings. When I post a burn I could care less what anyone else thinks. In fact I encourage anyone to come to my class and see how you feel afterwards..lol

    And it wasn't being defensive
    This is so BS. Marathon runners and tour de france rider top out at UNDER 1k/hour. And they are going at an intensity you can not even laughably approach. The idea of calling them out an not being intense enough just speaks at how truly uneducated you are on this subject and how invalid your opinion is.

    16cal/min is around the max effort someone can give sustained. Sure bigger guys can potentially burn more from their larger mass, but they will be slower and less intense to compensate. And will even out in the end. For short durations of say 1 hour max and trained for it, then possibly you can see some larger burns of 20cal/min+. I sure haven't seen any measured though.

    Long story short, until you have proof of you in a metabolic chamber of this mythical 1k+ burn you're blathering about, I'm calling serious BS.

    I know you think it's got to be almost impossible for people to burn 1000+ calories per hour without working out intensely or being a super athlete, but it's probably actually easier for non-conditioned athletes to achieve this than for conditioned athletes. If a person is out of shape or not conditioned for the activity they are doing, that person will often expend more energy with unnecessary movements and have a higher heart rate. An athlete who has trained for the activity and knows how to achieve the maximum results with the minimum effort (not saying they put in minimum effort, just that they minimize the work they do so that they can perform better and/or longer) will often expend less energy and have a lower heart rate even though they may go much further and faster. If you have two people the same age, height, weight and sex with different fitness levels, the more fit one is likely to burn less calories even if they work out harder.

    I found this calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx which calculates calories burned based weight, age, sex and heart rate. I put in F, 35, 175 lbs once with heart rate of 160 and once with average rate of 190. The person with the average heart rate of 190 would theoretically burn 200 calories more in an hour than the other.

    As for the 16 cal/minute being the maximum calories a person can give sustained, then why is it unreasonable to see someone burn 1000 calories in an hour? If a person can sustain this effort as you say, then they should be able to achieve that type of burn over the course of an hour as 16*60 =960 calories per hour.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

    This closely matches my HRM.

    IM now wondering if this is right! I am currently trying to gain a few pounds and am struggling. If a 130 avg heart rate can burn a 1000 cals I would be burning nearly double on my cycle rides that my HRM.

    I assumed that as you become more fitter you get more efficient with the same calories... This looks (from what you say) wrong.

    This also might be the reason Im not gain as MFP says I should be.

    Ah the grand realiziation that most people that lose and then try to gain have that they are undercounting exercise calories....

    Pretty rare to hear the "people way overestimate exercise cals" song and dance from people experienced at gaining.
  • weird_me2
    weird_me2 Posts: 716 Member
    To get an idea from the maths...

    To burn over 1000 cals an hour weighing under 180lbs you would need to be pushing over 87% MHR for the whole 60 mins.
    to burn over 1000 cals an hour weighing at 100lbs you would need to be pushing over 95% MHR for the whole 60 mins.

    I'm a competitive cyclist, I train VERY VERY hard. There is no way I could sustain 95% MHR for 60 mins. 10 - 25mins max!


    I am over 270 and I can easily maintain 90% of my MHR for an hour or more. Most of the time I can do that by walking. Granted, I walk at a faster than 4 mph pace and even can maintain a 4 mph pace walking at a very steep incline (20%), but I have no problem sustaining that for an hour. Last time I did the elliptical, I did a hills workout and maintained an average heartrate of 165, which was 88% MHR for 1/2 an hour and didn't feel like I had exercised much at all and still did weights and circuits for another 1/2 hour and treadmill for a few minutes, too. I have a 115 lb friend who is usually about 100% MHR within her first 5 minutes doing the elliptical at 4 mph with low resistance. The reason I can maintain my heart rate that high without going all out is becuase I'm somewhat conditioned, but nowhere near to being an elite athlete. The reason my friends HR gets so high and stays so high is because she has no conditioning at all. After 30 years of inactivity, she's started working out for the first time in her life. A walk at 2mph is brisk for her when 2 mph is ridiculously slow for me and 4 mph is brisk for me. For a conditioned race walker, 4 mph may be super easy and 6 mph may be brisk for them. She could walk 2 miles in an hour, I could walk 4 miles in an hour, and a conditioned walker could walk 6 miles in an hour and if we all weighed the same, we could all theoretically burn the same number of calories if we all kept our heart rates in the same range.

Categories