Burning 1,000 + calories during a workout

devinpantess

I cycle for about 1.5 hours at 16+ MPH average pace and I try to hit around 1,000 ft of climbing on my ride. This gives me a ~1,000 calorie burn per Strava and 1,100 calories per MFP. I input the lower number from Strava.

Or, I run for approx. 6 miles (10k) at a 9:30-10:00/mile pace.

I prefer the cycling to the running. Sometimes, I'll brick the two workouts (cycling, then running)

Kris0109

I go hard for an hour at Zumba (full-out, big movements, lots of hips and arms) and consistently burn about 800 per my HRM. Add another 45 minutes of strength training, and most workout days for me are 1000+

BigDave1050

I'm 6'7 and burn over 1000 calories during most of my workouts. I have to work hard to do this, but I do get there ( I also use a Heart Rate Monitor to get a better Calories burned count)

alirani

Insanity is your answer!

colettedeann

training for marathons makes burning in excess of 1000 calories in a workout quite simple - but not for every run - or injury risk or burnout would be a risk - complementing shorter runs with brisk walks in excess of an hour helps to make up the burn numbers for the day - but rest days are a big part of my training schedule

FromHereOnOut

I am a runner, and I totally messed up by doing low heart rate training all last fall. According to various calculators, at my weight and speed I should be burning about 120-130 calories per mile. Instead, I now burn under 100. Damn this cardiovascular fitness! I used to burn 1650-1800 calories for a half-marathon--I'll be lucky to break 1200 in my race on Saturday.

"low heart rate training " -- translation?

redheaddee

I question the validity of the numbers.

I second the question of validity & wonder how many of these "burns" are per MFP or per an actual monitor. Because MFP overestimates IMHO. I log my workouts at no more than 100 calories, which keeps me from eating back my exercise cals. I also am working at TDEE - 20%.

Proyecto_AN

According to my HRM (a month ago) I burned 4000+ calories doing 5 hours of intense cardio. I don't think it's accurate; but I tested my ketones levels before and after the training. Results: Direct ketosis (not due to hydration levels cause I drank 1 gallon of water during those 5 hours). This means I am sure I burned at least 1500 calories stored as glycogen.

johnnlinda

I can burn that in 70 to 80 min at the gym. I use a hrm and then I take 100 off it. I'm not "Big" But I do workout hard. That's the key. Also some of my workout dvd's will have me burn up to 1200 in an hour.

contingencyplan

After two and half months of wearing a body media monitor I have come to the conclusion that all those inflated calorie burns are bogus. I can do the Cardio 1 DVD from Body Revolution and it puts me at a 180+ burn for 30 minutes. I laugh to myself when people think they burned thousands of calories based on calculations from this site or even their HRM. I put 100% effort in and get that burn at 5'4" 154. I think Body monitors are the only true way to get a somewhat accurate number.

I am with ya!

Body Revolution isn't exactly a high calorie burn.

DedeeMarie

No liars here! Its definitely possible...my high-intensity Zumba class gets me anywere from 550-600 calories burned in an hour. Then if I do the elliptical that morning for 45-60 min thats almost another 400...Just depends on how intense you are working out.

I can do the same Zumba class with my friend and she burns less than me and thats because she's not moving as hard or jumping as high, squating as low, etc....Keep your heart rate up and you can burn more calories.

Scabrera012

If you use a HR monitor "belt" that you wear around your chest it gets a very accurate HR count. It is used in combination with a watch which, depending on the quality and price of the watch, can disply your HR during exercise, the HR you should aim for during exercise, and other information. The better watches like this are generally very accurate. When you buy it you enter in your age, weight, height, etc. then the watch is programmed to use formulas to calculate the HR range at which your HR should be in during exercise in order to burn more calories.
I have a POLAR watch and HR monitor set that I use daily for working out and based on calculations that I know being a personal trainer as well as an ecercise science student in college, the target HR range on my watch is spot on. I use it more now because I had surgery in December and was unable to workout for several months resulting in putting on about 10lbs. Honestly, you really don't have to be bigger to burn more calories easily. You just need to be sure you are training at a good healthy heart rate and doing something you like to do, that way your workouts can be fun and effective.

I hope this helps, sorry for such a long reply!!

SteveHunt113

Using a HRM, I've hit 1000+ calories. Intensity also plays a part in your burn. 65 minutes on the elliptical AT HIGH INTENSITY gets me a hair over 1000 calories. Two hours of Mountain Bike riding does it too. Or, 30 minutes swimming and 60 minutes in spinning class does it as well. But it's about intensity.

I think it's easier to burn more if you are in shape ... much more than just being large. Being fit means you can push yourself harder and longer.

BTW, I'm in pretty good shape, so my HR does not go up as high as it use to. Since a HRM uses your HR to determine caloric burn, and since I can workout harder at a lower HR, I know my HRM is reporting a lower number than what it would if I was doing the same effort while being out of shape (HR would go through the roof).

At any rate, I doubt most folks are lying to themselves about their burn when they exceed 1000 calories. If they claim to do it lifting weights, then I'd say they are lying to themselves ... and I've seen folks do that.

Nishi2013

If you use a HR monitor "belt" that you wear around your chest it gets a very accurate HR count. It is used in combination with a watch which, depending on the quality and price of the watch, can disply your HR during exercise, the HR you should aim for during exercise, and other information. The better watches like this are generally very accurate. When you buy it you enter in your age, weight, height, etc. then the watch is programmed to use formulas to calculate the HR range at which your HR should be in during exercise in order to burn more calories.

I have a POLAR watch and HR monitor set .......

LOVE MY POLAR FT4!!!!! When most of say calorie burnt HRM, I believe we are referencing the personal chest and watch set kind. Not the worn out ones on the gym machines. Those can grossly over or underestimate.

SpecialSundae

At any rate, I doubt most folks are lying to themselves about their burn when they exceed 1000 calories. If they claim to do it lifting weights, then I'd say they are lying to themselves ... and I've seen folks do that.

I'm always worried that people are thinking like you when I post high burns for workouts which include a weights workout, but over time my tracking is accurate to within 250g of weight lost over the course of the last three months (so that's around 2000 calories which could equally be water weight). It may be that I'm overestimating calories eaten as well but overall it seems to work for me.

majope

I am a runner, and I totally messed up by doing low heart rate training all last fall. According to various calculators, at my weight and speed I should be burning about 120-130 calories per mile. Instead, I now burn under 100. Damn this cardiovascular fitness! I used to burn 1650-1800 calories for a half-marathon--I'll be lucky to break 1200 in my race on Saturday.

"low heart rate training " -- translation?

There are various types--I used the Maffetone method. To get target heart rate, subtract your age from 180, then add or subtract another 5 beats depending on various factors (I got to add 5 because I'd been running and showing consistent improvement for 2 years). Then do all your runs below that heart rate while you're building your aerobic base--this will take 3 to 6 months for most people, up to a year for others. My target heart rate was 136. It was extremely hard for me to keep below this at first--I had to take walk breaks, and teach myself to run with little baby steps so I could keep running at a pace that was slower than I usually walk.

I kept at it for over 3 months, then went back to training with my old training group (I'd been away for several months) at my old paces. At first I thought the low HR training had been a failed experiment--when I started resuming my previous paces, it was hard, and at first my HR was right where it was before. Then, after I'd been home for a few weeks I did a 5K. Without any speed work at all, I cut 2 minutes off my previous personal record. Then I noticed my HR dropping on regular runs once I'd spent a few weeks--it used to be in the upper 150s to 160s on similar runs last year, and now tends to be in the mid 140s to lower 150s. I breathe easier, and when I do push myself I'm considerably faster than I used to be. The only drawback is, of course, the lower calorie burn!

I don't know if it will work for everyone, but it sure seems to have worked for me.

JewelE77

At my 1/2 marathon I ran last weekend, I burned 2917 calories by running for 2:59:16. I'm a pretty big girl so I know that's part of it but it's definitely doable.

JewelE77

I am a runner, and I totally messed up by doing low heart rate training all last fall. According to various calculators, at my weight and speed I should be burning about 120-130 calories per mile. Instead, I now burn under 100. Damn this cardiovascular fitness! I used to burn 1650-1800 calories for a half-marathon--I'll be lucky to break 1200 in my race on Saturday.

"low heart rate training " -- translation?

There are various types--I used the Maffetone method. To get target heart rate, subtract your age from 180, then add or subtract another 5 beats depending on various factors (I got to add 5 because I'd been running and showing consistent improvement for 2 years). Then do all your runs below that heart rate while you're building your aerobic base--this will take 3 to 6 months for most people, up to a year for others. My target heart rate was 136. It was extremely hard for me to keep below this at first--I had to take walk breaks, and teach myself to run with little baby steps so I could keep running at a pace that was slower than I usually walk.

I kept at it for over 3 months, then went back to training with my old training group (I'd been away for several months) at my old paces. At first I thought the low HR training had been a failed experiment--when I started resuming my previous paces, it was hard, and at first my HR was right where it was before. Then, after I'd been home for a few weeks I did a 5K. Without any speed work at all, I cut 2 minutes off my previous personal record. Then I noticed my HR dropping on regular runs once I'd spent a few weeks--it used to be in the upper 150s to 160s on similar runs last year, and now tends to be in the mid 140s to lower 150s. I breathe easier, and when I do push myself I'm considerably faster than I used to be. The only drawback is, of course, the lower calorie burn!

I don't know if it will work for everyone, but it sure seems to have worked for me.

I've seriously been considering doing this method, thank you for your thoughts/experience with it! :flowerforyou:

bluebear_74

I usually burn 300 in a 40 minute workout. The only way I think I can get higher is if I push myself to the point where I feel like passing out.

FromHereOnOut

I had to take walk breaks, and teach myself to run with little baby steps so I could keep running at a pace that was slower than I usually walk.

^^Well, I'm already doing this! lol!

I'm just now starting to learn to run, but thanks for the lowdown. I hope I can become so advanced as to need this kind of training some day.