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

Bob314159

I've said numerous times that it's silly to rely on calorie burn estimates. They're simply too unreliable. You should focus on calories consumed and exercising. If there's no weight loss, exercise more and eat less.

Yes - but if you are one of the people who believes you have to eat your calories burned - then knowing the right value is important. My trainer says eat less to lose weight and don't exercise to lose weight. Exercise is for fitness and other benefits.

Jynus

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.

I know you weren't talking to me, but is there a study you're basing this on? I'm guessing some top athletes have been tested in labs and maybe you can link to this information? It seems like even a small marathon runner should be burning 1000K per hour if he was competitive. If I burned 3000 calories during my 5-hour marathon, the guy that won in around 3 hours (assuming he's about my size) would have been burning around 1000 calories an hour.

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.

According to the MFP database, I would burn about 1000 calories if I ran 8 miles in an hour, which I could probably just about do. I would have to run 10 miles in that hour to do 20 cal/min. I know there are people that run that far that fast. At least some of them are as big as me and presumable are burning that many calories. Why would you doubt that?

http://www.bicycling.co.za/race-news/tour-de-france/tour-features/eating-for-the-tour-de-france/

prob a better resource as the tour riders are quite a bit larger than runners. and you can't accuse the tour riders of not going all out.

the MFP database is bad and wrong. Most every database and HRM equivalent uses similar MET surveys for their calculations which are also wrong, AND include BMR. Being over estimated by 30% is not uncommon. Now that we have metabolic chambers, we're able to get a much more accurate breakdown of how calories are actually being burned. Things that didn't exist until not to long ago.

It is VERY hard to burn 1k calories in an hour. If tour riders can't do it, that says a lot.

Jynus

saw one yesterday that made me stop and think.... wow... I'll just go shopping for 3 hours instead of running for 1 hour and still burn 800 calories, ummm yeah right.

Depends what "go shopping for 3 hours" means - I actually went shopping for 3 hours today and burnt 600 - my HRM tells me that. But I walked at 3.5 MPH non-stop for at least an hour to get to the shopping plaza and back, actually walking around shopping would burn some, bot with much much less intensity - there is a lot of non-movement involved like standing in line.

Walking there 500 - shopping for 2 hours 100

HRM's are only effective in the cardio heart rate zone. Things like walking use the fatty acid energy system which is a LOT more effective than cardio so you burn FAR less than what a HRM says you do. Sorry, but you did not burn 600 calories from walking.

A much more reasonable estimate would be 250-350 total if you were purely walking for that entire 3 hours depenbding on your size. walking at that pace is about ~2cal/min above bmr for your average guy metabolic chamber tested.

tappae

http://www.bicycling.co.za/race-news/tour-de-france/tour-features/eating-for-the-tour-de-france/

Thanks! That's an interesting article.

prob a better resource as the tour riders are quite a bit larger than runners. and you can't accuse the tour riders of not going all out.

hmm...
I think "all out" has to be qualified within a framework of time. Tour stages average around 100 miles, right? So that will take at least several hours. The level of intensity that you can maintain for 3 hours is definitely less than the intensity you can maintain for a single hour. So if they're burning 600-900 calories per hour for an entire stage, surely they could burn over 1000 in a single hour's maximum effort, right?

the MFP database is bad and wrong. Most every database and HRM equivalent uses similar MET surveys for their calculations which are also wrong, AND include BMR. Being over estimated by 30% is not uncommon. Now that we have metabolic chambers, we're able to get a much more accurate breakdown of how calories are actually being burned. Things that didn't exist until not to long ago.

That sounds about right. I have MFP set to lose 1 pound per week, I use the database estimations for my burns and I eat back all of my exercise calories. Over a 4-month period, my loss was very consistent, averaging right about 3/4 of a pound per week, so there was definitely a 25% difference in there somewhere. I'm not sure all of it was from the burn estimates. Some of it would have to be in the margin of error for estimating what I was eating. Some would also have to come from the fact that I wasn't purely burning fat.

It is VERY hard to burn 1k calories in an hour. If tour riders can't do it, that says a lot.

I would argue that just because they don't do it doesn't mean they can't. I would like to see some data about elite riders going all out in a metabolic chamber for an hour. I would agree that 1000 calories in an hour is very hard. According to the MFP database, that would be very near the best I could do in one hour. My HRM routinely gave me burns of over 1000 calories in an hour (I think 1300 was the highest I saw). I stopped using it and started using the database because the database was lower. And, yes, it was set up correctly. The high burn estimates were based on the fact that I was keeping my heart rate in the red zone for that whole hour, so it was more a function of my lack of aerobic fitness than it was an indication of how much work I was actually doing.

tappae

<snip>
According to the MFP database, I would burn about 1000 calories if I ran 8 miles in an hour, which I could probably just about do. I would have to run 10 miles in that hour to do 20 cal/min. I know there are people that run that far that fast. At least some of them are as big as me and presumable are burning that many calories. Why would you doubt that?

The issue is there are very few big guys that can maintain that intensity for an hour. It's not that they can't get shorter, higher calorie burns, it's being able to keep it up. I don't think it's impossible, but I think it takes an exceptional person/effort to actually sustain it for an entire hour. I think it's pushing it even for marathon runners to get there because they're generally small- for a person of 130 lbs to burn 1000 cals in an hr, they would have to run 10.25mph for an hour.....which would be a 153 minute marathon pace. There just aren't that many people that run that fast- they do exist but they're not normal.

Well, I'm not that big and I'm certainly not elite. A 153 minute marathon is certainly faster than I will ever do, but it's not world class. There are plenty of athletes that size running that fast. They can run even faster for a shorter time span. There are also lots of people bigger than me that are faster than me. I know this because they pass me in races.

TheWinman

HIgh calorie burns are very possible by many of us.

Also, as already said. If you do one more than one exercise entry, the newsfeed entry will show the total exercise calorie burn and total time exercising for the day but only show the description of the last exercise inputted. This will make it sometimes look like 240 minutes of walking burned 1200 calories. THat person could have 90 minutes of cardio included in that number, but other people would not know that by looking at the newsfeed entry.

TheWinman

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

Thanks for your posts on this subject, I'm glad that someone understand that it's very possible to get high burns like this. I easily burn 900-1000 cals during a spin class (5 classes a week). I use a heart rate monitor and subtract 10% for good measure and still get my 900-1000. I work my *kitten* off to obtain that calorie burn and I have a good number of regulars in class mention to me how impressive it is on how hard I work in that class. Yes, I'm sure a good number of people post higher calories burn then what they actually burned for whatever reason, but many more are legit.

bcattoes

I cannot fathom how anyone could be burning in excess of 20k a week, I mean, I would have thought even if possible, that it would put a serious strain on the body, and how could you begin to keep adequate nutrition going in to cover it?

Most I burn at 126Ibs is 600 calories per hour thus far, and that is going at it hard, heart rate at 85% of max, on the elliptical, interval training setting. Most I ever burnt in one workout was about 1200 calories and that was for over 2 hours of cycling.

How do you know you burned that many calories?

waldo56

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.

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 weigh 210 pounds. I'm burning about 1000-1100 calories in an hour run. That's a little over 6 miles at around a 9:00 mile pace. Sometimes slower/faster depending on if I'm working anaerobic or just purely aerobic. I can assure you that the calorie burn is real. I'm eating around 3500 calories a day and I have to have the occasional 4000 day to keep weight on. If the burn was mythical then I'd be gaining weight.

I'm way too big to be a marathon runner. Those guys are probably 50 - 90 pounds lighter than me. I think for them a 1k per hour isn't real but it's pretty accurate for me. Just for reference I'm using a Polar HRM for the estimated calorie burn. The Runkeeper app on my phone has a similar estimate although it's a bit lower since it can't see my heart rate.

I'd be suspicious if someone under 140 pounds was getting that kind of burn but if you're over 200 like me it's totally reasonable.

Same.

I'm 200 lb; when my hour pace surpasses 6 mph I get into the 1000+ cal/hr territory.

Likewise, I've been at this a long time and know the #'s work perfectly to give results; losing, maintaining, and gaining.

snowbike

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!

waldo56

It also needs to be said that scaling burn rate on weight alone is not particularly accurate.

Notice that most women say MFP overestimates calories, men tend to say its right or that it underestimates (I think it slighly underestimates). At any given weight, chances are a man is at a lot lower BF% than a woman. Sure there are execptions, but your average 200 lb man carries a lot more muscle mass that your average 200 lb woman.

The more muscle mass you have, the more powerful your calorie burning engine, this applies both at rest and while exercising.

A 200 lb trim guy burns more calories while exercising than a 200 lb obese guy.

yoovie

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.

firstsip

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.

mogletdeluxe

I got accused of fabricating my calorie burns before. No biggie; it's between me and my Polar PT4. Not gospel, but it's good enough for me.

I work hard. Damn hard - blinded-by-sweat-ow-ow-ow hard. I take my burns with a pinch of salt in terms of eating back my calories, but in terms of what they display on MFP? Eh. I'm not burning anyone else's calories if you see what I mean.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

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.

I love your snarkiness. It's rather humorous. If I wasn't 10000% confident in my knowledge regarding human physiology I might be offended. Whew. Glad your ignorance amuses me instead.

fcp1234

When seeing my friends burns, I usually dont really look or care how many calories they burned. I am more interested in what they did. Who cares if they are logging some crazy cal burn.

iWaffle

From this morning.



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

Cwyman1

My theory is to over estimate on food and under estimate on calories burned for best results. You're only cheating yourself otherwise.

You're only a failure, when you quit trying.

gregarybrown72

@Cwyman that's a great rule of thumb. I over estimate the food by 10% and underestimate the excercise by 10%. Some of the PALS would have to be world class athlete's to burn the cals they claim

waldo56

My theory is to over estimate on food and under estimate on calories burned for best results. You're only cheating yourself otherwise.

You're only a failure, when you quit trying.

For best results you estimate both accurately, and lose or gain at exactly the rate you expect to lose or gain.....