Effort to burn 500 calories 60 min

3dogsrunning

I don't workout in an effort to hit a calories burned number. It's an extremely inefficient way to plan exercise. And when you combine it with the mfp plan of eating your calories back to net zero, you're putting yourself on a hamster wheel for no reason at all

I agree but I do judge my calories estimates by how hard I feel I worked.
The average for running is about 100 calories per mile. Smaller people will be under, heavier over.
So for me, 500 calories in 1 hour would be about a 5 mile run. A decent effort, but not all out.

The issue with comparing your burns to others is calorie burns depend on weight and intensity. So someone who weight more can burn more calories during a walk than I would and vice versa.

Sweat for me is not an indicator. I joke I sweat if I think to hard. In reality, I sweat more than others who are doing the same thing. I am not burning more.
ETA - a hour on the elliptical for me is not the same as an hour of running if the elliptical tells me 500 or more, I don't believe it.

scottb81

500 cal is about 40 minutes of pretty easy running if you are in decent shape. (male - 173 lbs).

billsica

I can burn that much running. Sweating and wanting to vomit at the end. .. walking not so sure unless your really obese.
What about burning 1200 calories, or 2000+ that's like 2 dozen chicken wings.

In the end, why does it bother you?

Sincere24

I have to agree with everyone, it takes quite a bit of effort for me, maybe a 7 if I pace myself while running. But usually it's more like 70 mins ( tend to take breaks in between). This i think is merely due to my size, don't have much to loose and really near target, so that can definitely account for variations as some have mentioned

If anything if you're looking to meet a 500 calories burned exercise routine you could try breaking it down through out the day so it's not a tedious effort. I can't imagine burning 500 everyday though tbh. So 20-30 minute intervals if you have the time might work.

RunningMannn

My treadmill display reads 1100 calories burned in one hour. I've done this twice. I'm drenched in sweat. Now this is an incline treadmill that goes up to a 40% incline..I mix it up with high incline walking and low incline jogging and 0 to -3% decline running. It probably is an exaggeration of the calories burned..But the number motivates me and that's all that matters.

effort level..9-10

michellekicks

I don't workout in an effort to hit a calories burned number. It's an extremely inefficient way to plan exercise. And when you combine it with the mfp plan of eating your calories back to net zero, you're putting yourself on a hamster wheel for no reason at all

Truth.

Please explain the better way.

By simply eating at a deficit to whatever activity you do. MFP will set your calorie target so you have a caloric deficit and will lose weight even without exercise. Rather than kill yourself with cardio (remember, MFP will add those calories for you to eat back since you already have a built-in deficit), most people who have been here for some time will tell you to eat at a modest deficit and lift heavy weights. The strain on your body of lifting heavy weights will at the very least allow you to retain lean muscle mass during a deficit and, if you have high days i.e. over maintenance/free days/binge days etc. your body will use those days to build muscle tissue if you're lifting. The more muscle mass you can build, the more calories you'll burn just doing nothing. Cardio is, in essence, inconsequential.

I'm a runner and I love to compete... so I run anyway. But weight loss is certainly harder when you add mass amounts of endurance cardio to your life. It's easier to just eat less.

SnazzyTraveller

If I put in a 9 for effort, in 60min I could burn ~750 cals running

ashlinmarie

I walk at 4 MPH up and down hill and burn about 600 calories in an hour. I don't really sweat, but I will be a little damp after that. Of course, the burn might be a bit high but my HRM will finally be here on Tuesday and then I'll know how accurate that is.

Zumaria1

I can burn that in 60 min of Zumba Core on my Wii. Effort prob an 8, my headband is soaking wet, and I am tired, but not excessively so. It feels good afterwards. Depends on the level of intensity of the class, one class was 630 cal for 60 min workout for me. I'm 5'2" and 149 lbs.

Jessb1985

I burnt 587 calories in just over an hour this morning when I walked the dog to the dog wash in town, it was 32'c (89'F) however and I needed a bath as much as the dog when I was finished! My average heart rate was 142 beats per minute.

Jillian Michaels workouts also do it for me, I burnt 480 calories yesterday in 40 minutes with her intense workouts!

Xiaolongbao

Rather than kill yourself with cardio (remember, MFP will add those calories for you to eat back since you already have a built-in deficit), most people who have been here for some time will tell you to eat at a modest deficit and lift heavy weights.

Really. There are thousands of people who use this site and you somehow know what "most" of them will tell the OP?

I don't plan exercise to hit a certain number of calories but I'm always interested in knowing how many I've burned. And that's all that was asked.

To answer the original question I burn around 500 calories in 45 minutes of running. I think a lot of the burns posted on MFP are way too high but that's just my opinion and none of my business so I don't tell people that unless they ask.

michellekicks

Rather than kill yourself with cardio (remember, MFP will add those calories for you to eat back since you already have a built-in deficit), most people who have been here for some time will tell you to eat at a modest deficit and lift heavy weights.

Really. There are thousands of people who use this site and you somehow know what "most" of them will tell the OP?

I don't plan exercise to hit a certain number of calories but I'm always interested in knowing how many I've burned. And that's all that was asked.

Actually, that's not true. See, DavPul posted this:

"I don't workout in an effort to hit a calories burned number. It's an extremely inefficient way to plan exercise. And when you combine it with the mfp plan of eating your calories back to net zero, you're putting yourself on a hamster wheel for no reason at all

So then I said:

Truth.

And then mockchoc said:

Please explain the better way.

To which I then replied. My reply included the part you quoted above. So, I was just answering the question posed to me... since the "Please explain the better way" was directed to me... or, perhaps DavPul.

I'm not asking for your opinion in any way. I also don't care how you do it. I'm just explaining the better way as I see it. By better I mean more efficient i.e. requiring less time in the gym, requiring less effort physically.

And, yes, there are thousands of people who use this site. I've been around these forums enough to confidently say that the majority of people who are successful and who are helping others find their way around here will advocate a modest deficit and weight training with or without cardio as you like.

I just answered the question posed to me. No need to get your undies all twisted up about it.

DavPul

I don't workout in an effort to hit a calories burned number. It's an extremely inefficient way to plan exercise. And when you combine it with the mfp plan of eating your calories back to net zero, you're putting yourself on a hamster wheel for no reason at all

Truth.

Please explain the better way.

Happy to. But I'm on a phone and out and about right now. Check back in the morning and I'll respond to your post.

SweetSailor

not what I asked, and not even why I was wondering, dont like hamsters THX!

If you are referring to my response by calling me a hamster, you can GFO and I don't care if you like me.

I go at level 10 (sweating, beet red, not wasting my time or giving a damn what the guy next to me is burning) if I'm lifting, working with my trainer, or I'm injured and working through it on a "hamster wheel".

How long does it take me to burn 500 calories? Depends on the activity. You should be more specific and it still won't make a difference to you.

SweetSailor

And before you run around calling other people hamsters, you should reevaluate the 80 minutes you spend per day on an elliptical and treadmill.

Pot, meet kettle.

DavPul

Rather than kill yourself with cardio (remember, MFP will add those calories for you to eat back since you already have a built-in deficit), most people who have been here for some time will tell you to eat at a modest deficit and lift heavy weights.

Really. There are thousands of people who use this site and you somehow know what "most" of them will tell the OP?

I don't plan exercise to hit a certain number of calories but I'm always interested in knowing how many I've burned. And that's all that was asked.

To answer the original question I burn around 500 calories in 45 minutes of running. I think a lot of the burns posted on MFP are way too high but that's just my opinion and none of my business so I don't tell people that unless they ask.

Well aren't you a treat to have around. Thank heavens you finally got here. We can't have members that have successfully lost weight giving advice on how to meet your goals the most efficient way.

poohpoohpeapod

I have lost 80lbs before MFP so go to bed.

MoreBean13

I don't workout in an effort to hit a calories burned number. It's an extremely inefficient way to plan exercise. And when you combine it with the mfp plan of eating your calories back to net zero, you're putting yourself on a hamster wheel for no reason at all

Truth.

Please explain the better way.

By simply eating at a deficit to whatever activity you do. MFP will set your calorie target so you have a caloric deficit and will lose weight even without exercise. Rather than kill yourself with cardio (remember, MFP will add those calories for you to eat back since you already have a built-in deficit), most people who have been here for some time will tell you to eat at a modest deficit and lift heavy weights. The strain on your body of lifting heavy weights will at the very least allow you to retain lean muscle mass during a deficit and, if you have high days i.e. over maintenance/free days/binge days etc. your body will use those days to build muscle tissue if you're lifting. The more muscle mass you can build, the more calories you'll burn just doing nothing. Cardio is, in essence, inconsequential.

I'm a runner and I love to compete... so I run anyway. But weight loss is certainly harder when you add mass amounts of endurance cardio to your life. It's easier to just eat less.

Agree 100% with everything here.

Exercise for fitness- to get stronger and faster and more badass- not for calories. Its equivalent to working because you're mentally stimulated and love your job and just clocking in and out for a paycheck. Exercising for fitness becomes a part of your life that you value, exercising for calories is a chore and you will quit eventually. The really great part is- you don't sacrifice the calorie burn by focusing on fitness.

To answer the OP, I run for an hour once a week and burn about 700 calories at 6.5-7.0 mph. I am sweaty and tired at the end. The rest of the week I only do shorter runs and lift weights, for all the reasons mrsbigmack described. There's no benefit to doing that much cardio everyday unless it's low intensity.

DavPul

I don't workout in an effort to hit a calories burned number. It's an extremely inefficient way to plan exercise. And when you combine it with the mfp plan of eating your calories back to net zero, you're putting yourself on a hamster wheel for no reason at all

Truth.

Please explain the better way.

By simply eating at a deficit to whatever activity you do. MFP will set your calorie target so you have a caloric deficit and will lose weight even without exercise. Rather than kill yourself with cardio (remember, MFP will add those calories for you to eat back since you already have a built-in deficit), most people who have been here for some time will tell you to eat at a modest deficit and lift heavy weights. The strain on your body of lifting heavy weights will at the very least allow you to retain lean muscle mass during a deficit and, if you have high days i.e. over maintenance/free days/binge days etc. your body will use those days to build muscle tissue if you're lifting. The more muscle mass you can build, the more calories you'll burn just doing nothing. Cardio is, in essence, inconsequential.

I'm a runner and I love to compete... so I run anyway. But weight loss is certainly harder when you add mass amounts of endurance cardio to your life. It's easier to just eat less.

Well look. Someone has already posted what I would have said.

I would add that doing cardio is perfectly fine, but you'll be more productive if you set time or distance goals, instead of arbitrary calorie goals. Much more functional that way.

Azdak

I don't workout in an effort to hit a calories burned number. It's an extremely inefficient way to plan exercise. And when you combine it with the mfp plan of eating your calories back to net zero, you're putting yourself on a hamster wheel for no reason at all

Truth.

Please explain the better way.

By simply eating at a deficit to whatever activity you do. MFP will set your calorie target so you have a caloric deficit and will lose weight even without exercise. Rather than kill yourself with cardio (remember, MFP will add those calories for you to eat back since you already have a built-in deficit), most people who have been here for some time will tell you to eat at a modest deficit and lift heavy weights. The strain on your body of lifting heavy weights will at the very least allow you to retain lean muscle mass during a deficit and, if you have high days i.e. over maintenance/free days/binge days etc. your body will use those days to build muscle tissue if you're lifting. The more muscle mass you can build, the more calories you'll burn just doing nothing. Cardio is, in essence, inconsequential.

I'm a runner and I love to compete... so I run anyway. But weight loss is certainly harder when you add mass amounts of endurance cardio to your life. It's easier to just eat less.

Well look. Someone has already posted what I would have said.

I would add that doing cardio is perfectly fine, but you'll be more productive if you set time or distance goals, instead of arbitrary calorie goals. Much more functional that way.

A calorie goal is, in essence, a time or distance goal. Not sure how you are differentiating them.