Effort to burn 500 calories 60 min

taso42

8.3

Capt_Apollo

yo_andi

I burn about 1100 calories in an hour long Aussie Rules football training which includes a lot of sprinting, interval running and bodyweight work. I never get too out of breath but I am pretty fit overall.

Therapist_mama

This has been an educational post! Thanks to everyone who posted here and especially the OP! I burn 500 cals in 60 min on the elliptical at a heart rate that is steady at around 125-130 beats per min. I am sweaty and ready to be done by the end of that hour. I have far more energy than I thought possible when I do this and my sleep is deep and restful! :happy:

altinker

I get sweaty, but I'm not completely soaked in sweat like in Bikram Yoga. You have to also look at height and weight. I can put forth the same level of effort as somebody who is larger and burn less calories doing a Zumba class because that is factored into it.

I am finding that putting in a solid hour of cardio is so much easier the better my fitness level is. When I started out, 4 minutes made me gasp for breath.

For me to burn 470 cals or so doing Zumba for one hour, I am working at 7 or a little higher.

altinker

I burned almost 500 calories the other night on a one hour walk, and I'm not very big. It is possible. I didn't believe it was possible, but I have some really steep hills in my neighborhood that require a lot of effort. I burned almost 500 cals in an hour, and I wear an HRM. It was as much effort as a high intensity Zumba class. I wouldn't discount walking; however, over a flat area, I burn about 150 cals per half hour.

DavPul

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.

If I say I want to run 5 miles today, I'm not setting a calorie goal. Whatever the calories are, they are. If I say I want to run 5 miles in 40 mins, I'm not setting a calorie goal, whatever the calories are, they are. If I say I'm going to increase my squat by 25 lbs by the end of March, I'm not setting a calorie goal, whatever they are, they are.

In each of these cases, I'm setting a tangible goal that won't just burn calories, it'll make me better at.....whatever it is that I'm trying to be better at. Set the goal, and the calories will come as they may. If I set calories burned goals, I'd end up doing an extra 12:46 on the elliptical even if I hated it, so I could hit some arbitrary, round number. (How come nobody ever sets a goal of 518 cals, or 926 cals?). If I set calories burned goals, I may choose to not waste my time deadlifting and squatting because the burn rates suck.

It might seem a slim difference, but it's a difference. Many high level athletes have the bodies we want. None of them train with a calories burned goal in mind. They all train for their sport, and in trying to improve they end up with outstanding physiques.

Distance is an artificial construct that we assign to a workout to make it more meaningful. The body only knows it has been exercising for x number of minutes at y intensity. Distance is just a mental picture we invent to give meaning to our workouts, so I disagree with the idea that one invented reality (distance) is more significant than any other.

There is no difference between setting a goal of running 5 miles in 40 minutes or setting a goal of, say, burning 670 calories on a cross trainer in 40 minutes. Or in trying to set a record for how quickly one can burn 1000 calories on a treadmill.

Given that there are specific recommendations from national health and professional organizations on weekly calorie expenditures, there is a case to be made for setting calorie-specific goals, especially on days where you might not quite be at your best, but still want to achieve something meaningful.

As always, having said that, we need to agree on terms. When I refer to using calories as a goal, I am primarily referring to machine calorie readings, not HRM readings. As you know, I have a generally low opinion of HRMs as calorie counters anyhow, and in this case they are particularly useless.

But machine calories, even if they are not accurate, are based on the actual workload being performed. As such, they represent a quantifiable measure of total aerobic work performed. Machine calories are actually one of the best ways to measure fitness progress. Machine calories can also help compare different types of workouts--running on the flat vs a random hill program, or different combinations of speed and resistance on a cross trainer, for example.

Just a different perspective.

Fair enough. I think we've interacted enough in the forums for you to know that I respect your opinions. My main point is trying to keep people from trying to match calorie burns from guys that weigh 100 lbs more than them while neglecting strength training because of its low burn.