How are people burning such high calories

BeLightYear

Trust me they are not. Use your HRM or body media device and adjust your calls according to that. That is a flaw with the MFP app. If they were truly burning that much on a daily basis they would be very thin which in most cases is not the case.

I have learned from experience on this. I bought a Timex HRM with chest strap and was thrilled when it read over 1,000 calories for 60 minutes of TurboFire. Boy was I shocked when I got my BodyMedia armband, that I was actually burning around 500 per hour. Still a good burn, but I like knowing for sure.

714rah714

I'm 210 lbs and when I run for an hour outdoors thats 900 calories rounded down. That number comes from my Nike SportsWatch, MFP and other web-sites, so thats what I put down.

Sweet_Potato

Everyone says that MFP overestimates, but even the toughest cardio exercises that I log (like spinning) only have a burn estimate of about 300 calories/hour. Is this really that much more than what a HRM would say?

astral303

If you are running on a treadmill and it says you are burning 1000 calories per hour, just see how long you can sustain that. I bet not very long. It takes a lot of work to be able to sustain that kind of calorie burn for an hour.

Forget the HR recommendations!

*The only reason to keep your heart rate down is such that you can actually spend more time on the machine.* If your heart rate goes too high, you will run out of breath, which might limit the total calories you burn for the day. That is all.

For example, my max HR is 205. I can complete 1.5 hrs at an average of 160bpm and be pretty damn tired at the end. But I can do it. However, at 190bpm, I can only complete 10-15 minutes before I am pooped. An average of 186bpm for 25 minutes is a 5K race for me.

Furthermore, maxing out your HR now and again helps you become more cardio-fit. Interval training. Once you're more fit, you can go for longer and harder, burning more.

Remember that the fat burning vs carb burning zone doesn't matter for weight loss, as your body rebalances your carb and fat stores after. You're trying to burn calories to lose weight. You're not trying to fine-tune training for running or other such pursuits.

I found that HRM calorie estimates are ALL OVER the place. I find that most accurate calorie estimates are running and any machine that can measure your actual power output, such as a stationary bike (elliptical might also be OK).

Mr_Excitement

I think a lot of people overestimate their calorie expenditure, honestly-- and heart rate monitors aren't nearly precise measuring calories spent.

My personal feeling, after counting the number of calories my body always *wants* me to eat after working out regularly vs. what it wants when I don't is that an hour of fairly hard cardio work comes in at something like 400 calories for me. Something like HIIT (which just destroys me and all my dreams in 30 minutes) might be almost the same in half the time. But there's no way in hell I could do it for an hour.

I could certainly be wrong-- I mean I'm not being scientific here at all, but that's literally my gut feeling.

MikeyD1280

I tried the insanity workout on Monday, It was a 45 min video. In that time my HRM says I burned 771 calories, with my highest HR at 183(93%) I checked it constantly so it would read right (during each water break I checked). If I did an hour, I would have burned 1028 calories.

I push hard, I am an extremist. That is how I can do it...

carrieous

1 mile = approx 100 calories regardless if you walk or run. Of course if you have more muscles you will burn more and supposedly if you weigh more you will burn more but not really much more to make a difference.

i do think many people overestimate how many calories they are burning and underestimate how many calories they are consuming.

carrieous

I think a lot of people overestimate their calorie expenditure, honestly-- and heart rate monitors aren't nearly precise measuring calories spent.

My personal feeling, after counting the number of calories my body always *wants* me to eat after working out regularly vs. what it wants when I don't is that an hour of fairly hard cardio work comes in at something like 400 calories for me. Something like HIIT (which just destroys me and all my dreams in 30 minutes) might be almost the same in half the time. But there's no way in hell I could do it for an hour.

I could certainly be wrong-- I mean I'm not being scientific here at all, but that's literally my gut feeling.

Totally agree with everything you said. I ran 5 miles last weekend AND did weights. I was in the gym for over an hour and that was only about 600 calories- pushing myself as hard as I could

MikeyD1280

1 mile = approx 100 calories regardless if you walk or run. Of course if you have more muscles you will burn more and supposedly if you weigh more you will burn more but not really much more to make a difference.

i do think many people overestimate how many calories they are burning and underestimate how many calories they are consuming.

I strongly believe if you run 1 mile in under 6 minutes you will be burning more calories than if you walked that mile in 20 min.

Gracerrr

Basically you are saying you burn 600 calories a minute doing what you just described. I'm not shocked that someone who weighs 100lbs more than you could burn much more than that taking similar activities into consideration.

cwolfman13

There are a lot of variable that go into calorie burn...you can't simply compare yours to someone else's. Yes, they could be inflated estimates, but they could also be perfectly legit. Your overall size is going to be a huge factor...both weight and height. Also, your overall fitness level is going to play a pretty big role.

Someone who is 5'10" but grossly overweight and out of shape is going to burn far more calories doing far less than someone who is 5'10" with 15% BF and very fit. When I first started working back my fitness, all I could really do was walk...just walking my HR would get up to 135 - 140 because I was so out of shape. I don't remember my burn, but now my 3x weekly walks for 30 minutes only give me about 150 calories and my HR doesn't get above 110 because I've upped my fitness and lost 25 Lbs.

bostonwolf

I just got a heart rate monitor a couple of weeks ago.

the charts say my 80% should be 140, and my target range 140-156, max (100%) 175.

when I run I have been having to do intervals to keep it below 165, and still in 35 min I only burn 350 calories. swimming is much the same.

So my question is how are people burning 1,000 calories in an hour, without going over heart rate recommendations, an I missing something?

Simple answer for me is that I'm 6'3 and weight 295. When you are that big you burn a lot more calories than someone smaller.

Also, despite my size I'm in pretty decent cardiovascular shape. So for instance when I do an hour of elliptical, I'm on resistance level 10 or 11 the entire time. As I lose weight I will keep pushing up the speed and resistance which should keep the calorie burn high (thought not as high as before the weight came off.)

palmerar

1 mile = approx 100 calories regardless if you walk or run. Of course if you have more muscles you will burn more and supposedly if you weigh more you will burn more but not really much more to make a difference.

i do think many people overestimate how many calories they are burning and underestimate how many calories they are consuming.

I strongly believe if you run 1 mile in under 6 minutes you will be burning more calories than if you walked that mile in 20 min.

You are correct, and so is the post you quoted. Someone running a 6 min mile would burn (according to that theory) about 333 cals in 20 mins while the person walking would burn 100, that is more!

leigh0416

Trust me they are not. Use your HRM or body media device and adjust your calls according to that. That is a flaw with the MFP app. If they were truly burning that much on a daily basis they would be very thin which in most cases is not the case.

I have learned from experience on this. I bought a Timex HRM with chest strap and was thrilled when it read over 1,000 calories for 60 minutes of TurboFire. Boy was I shocked when I got my BodyMedia armband, that I was actually burning around 500 per hour. Still a good burn, but I like knowing for sure.

leigh0416

Trust me they are not. Use your HRM or body media device and adjust your calls according to that. That is a flaw with the MFP app. If they were truly burning that much on a daily basis they would be very thin which in most cases is not the case.

I have learned from experience on this. I bought a Timex HRM with chest strap and was thrilled when it read over 1,000 calories for 60 minuteo

I just started using a Bodybugg too. My TurboFire 60 burn has been between 550-600. My Les Mills Combat is generally between 450-550, but that is only for the 60 minute DVDs. I love my Bodybugg!!!

dewsmom78

I have a Polar watch and it tells me I burn about 230 calories in 30 minutes on the elliptical. And that is staying in my target heart rate zone. I'd have to work out for 2 hours straight to burn 1000 calories.

WDEvy

I burn +/- 700 cals per hour when I do high intensity workouts like Zumba. I don't stay within the "fat burning" zone. I normally average 168 and can go as high as 185ish. Obviously I expect this number to go down as I lose more weight...

PoshDinosaur

Very tall, reasonably heavy guy here - 6'9", 250lbs.

My heart rate strap regularly says 1000+ kcal per hour - I only use it for cardio, rather than strength training. So 20 minutes gets me easily 400, sometimes more. Which conflicts with what the app suggests.

I don't know the formulae used, so not sure which to follow. I often think heavier weights confuse things a little. I'm tempted to follow the strap rather than the app, as it seems to use my resting heart rate too.

now_or_never13

If could be that they are going off what MFP says or they weight more.

If I do intervals on either my treadmill or elliptical I can burn maybe 600 cals in an hour.

MinisterMichelleg

Have a wonderful day!