Burned 900 calories in 30 mins?!?!

iplayoutside19

I would need see their height, weight, age and the intensity of their heart rate. I am 6' 1" 210 and I burn about 1100-1200 per hour based on a 10 minute mile. The heart rate hangs out at about 140. When I run sprints the heart rate gets to 180-190, but I can't maintain that for 30 minutes. I do have a friend that is 6' 4" 255, and runs a 45 minute 10K. But still 900 for 30 sounds too high even for him.

then you should get yourself tested. As you would be burning more than any tested elite athlete on the planet. you're a miracle of biology my friend. you're outworking tour de france riders.

TLDR: you and your friend are deluding yourself if you think you're outworking tour de france riders...

Calories are not a measurement of fitness, they're a measure of energy. Energy is mass * speed * time. Even an oaf like me can burn calories, we just can't go fast.

phjorg1

I would need see their height, weight, age and the intensity of their heart rate. I am 6' 1" 210 and I burn about 1100-1200 per hour based on a 10 minute mile. The heart rate hangs out at about 140. When I run sprints the heart rate gets to 180-190, but I can't maintain that for 30 minutes. I do have a friend that is 6' 4" 255, and runs a 45 minute 10K. But still 900 for 30 sounds too high even for him.

then you should get yourself tested. As you would be burning more than any tested elite athlete on the planet. you're a miracle of biology my friend. you're outworking tour de france riders.

TLDR: you and your friend are deluding yourself if you think you're outworking tour de france riders...

Calories are not a measurement of fitness, they're a measure of energy. Energy is mass * speed * time. Even an oaf like me can burn calories, we just can't go fast.

whats your point in this? I'm just saying he is claiming a calorie burn thats higher than what humans have been tested at. So his testing might be valuable as apparently he is able to do things that most anyone else on the planet is unable to do...

DesignGuy

whats your point in this? I'm just saying he is claiming a calorie burn thats higher than what humans have been tested at. So his testing might be valuable as apparently he is able to do things that most anyone else on the planet is unable to do...

I believe his point was simply that you're misunderstanding what "calorie burn" means and how it works.

Here, this will help. Go to the MayoClinic's site on calorie burns:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109

Scroll down and look at the table. Notice how the calorie burns go UP as weight goes UP? While this is only part of the picture, it will help illustrate what we're saying.

For example, running @5 mph burns 606 cals per hour for a 140 lbs person BUT 905 cals per hour for a 240 lbs person.

teamstanish

When I run for 30 minutes I burn 250-300 no where near 900! I would say that is NOT accurate.

SoDamnHungry

There are many ways to burn calories.

His outfit kind of looks like it's made of bacon.

Chieflrg

I use to burn about 600 half hour or 1100 for one hour sprinting up and down ice hills at 240lbs. But that was all out Rambo style near puking and only did it that high a few times and I'm a athlete. Unless he/she is 300+ or wearing a weighted vest of some sort is the only off the wall possibility and would have to be running uphill with a sled near the whole time. Too many ifs...I call bs.

YoungDoc2B

The only way it's possible to burn 900 calories in 30 minutes...

3dogsrunning

The highest tested burns I've seen from marathon pace runs and tour de france rides are in the 14cal/min area from exercise. Now think about that. They are going at elite world intensity. Thats a pace that basically noone on here could hope to match. so if they are topping out at 840cal/hour range, then there is noone on this forum who is coming anywhere near to that. Thats why I always get amused when people are posting their similar burn amounts for their afternoon jog. It's straight up delusion.

As for 900 in 30min, that's straight up 100% impossible.

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

How do the calories burned cycling compare to those burned running?
I agree 900 calories in 30 minutes is pretty unreachable, but from what I have read the average calories per mile is about 100, a little higher for men on average, lower for women (due to the general difference in weight).

emmavalablitt

It is possible if you run at a pace on treadmill of about 8.8-9.4 but also run with a gradient(hill) of 7 at least you can burn 900 cals considering walking at speed of 6 and a gradient of 15 burns 798 per hour and thats walking!

Synapze

Sprinting on a treadmill, while doing high reps, being chased by a Chainsaw. Totally possible.

HisKathy

Was that on a newsfeed? I ask because I used to log breastfeeding at 500 calories and not put a time and it would add to my exercise total. So I could burn 400 running and it would be added to the 500 to get 900. Otherwise - sprinting uphill from zombies might be the only way that would be possible

jwdieter

Elite regular-sized athletes can't do that, but a jacked 260+ might be able to.

Azdak

The highest tested burns I've seen from marathon pace runs and tour de france rides are in the 14cal/min area from exercise. Now think about that. They are going at elite world intensity. Thats a pace that basically noone on here could hope to match. so if they are topping out at 840cal/hour range, then there is noone on this forum who is coming anywhere near to that. Thats why I always get amused when people are posting their similar burn amounts for their afternoon jog. It's straight up delusion.

As for 900 in 30min, that's straight up 100% impossible.

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

I think your data is somewhat limited. I have been metabolically tested at 17 cal/hr at a workload I could maintain for 60-90 min.

jghauk

Are you sure it didn't say "so and so burned 900 calories today including running for 30 min." Where as in reality it was 7 or 8 different events that led to the 900 calorie total.

Azdak

It is possible if you run at a pace on treadmill of about 8.8-9.4 but also run with a gradient(hill) of 7 at least you can burn 900 cals considering walking at speed of 6 and a gradient of 15 burns 798 per hour and thats walking!

I did the calculations but my connection was disrupted and the comment disappeared. Suffice to say that those workloads are impossible for all but 2% or so of the human population and those elite runners who could possibly sustain those workloads for 30 min do not weigh anywhere close enough to burn 900 kcal in 30 min--even they could only do 620-660.

rlinaresv

Interesting post.

Today I ran 11 Km in roughly 70 minutes. My hr monitor gave 900 cal. The treadmill gave me 1050 cal.
My weight is 214 and I'm just 5'8" so I guess burning 900 cal in half an hour is gotta be really difficult.

Cheers

sugaree1202

If I'm really trying, i can maintain my heart rate at 85% of max doing TurboFire and burn 450 in 30 minutes or 300 in a 20 min HIIT class with my heart rate at 87-90% percent max. I couldn't imagine what I would have to do to double that number - it's tough to even beat my previous burn by 10. (I'm 5', 187)

Cp731

Doing Kettlebells a person can burn 15-17 cals per min. 450-500 in 30 mins. I believe its possible sure. Depending on the Exercise.

But I love to Imagine and daydream, so ....

Azdak

I know you guys are going to disagree with me, but I think it could be possible; however, this person would have to be in insane shape. On one of my high intensity workout days I do a hill interval workout.

I toggle between 3.5 and 6.0 with the incline at 10 and go up to 15. I do 3.5 for 2 minutes then 6.0 for 3 minutes and repeat for 30 minutes. I burn at least 400 calories. So if someone actually ran the entire 30 minutes at a very high incline it is possible.

The more athletic you are, the less energy is needed for your body to perform tasks, so logic would dictate that an in-shape person would actually burn fewer calories doing such a workout than someone who is carrying extra weight and would have to exert themselves more. I would think the less athletic person would have a hard time burning 900 +/- calories in that time frame without pushing their heart rate to an unsafe level for that amount of time. Is it possible? Maybe... would it be healthy? Probably not.

If weight is the same and workload is the same, then conditioning has little to no effect on calorie burn. If an out of shape person and conditioned person who weigh the same run at 6.0 mph, they will burn calories at roughly the same rate. The effort may be extremely hard for the unfit person and only a moderate effort for the trained one, but they will both burn the same number of calories.


Most people don't understand how HRMs work, and so the widespread use of those devices has generated a lot of misinformation about exercise and calorie burning.

lulumontego

Maybe it could be possible? I'm not sure where those number are coming from because it's difficult to figure out how many calories you've actually burned especially since MFP doesn't allow you to enter the specifics needed to get an accurate estimate: stride length, RPM, etc. however, most elliptical a are pre-set for a 150lb person, which is what MFP could be estimating these calories are based on. M-F I'm on the elliptical every morning, about 60RPM, give or take 5 RPMs. My elliptical specifies that I burn over 400 calories, if that were based on a 150lb person but I am 330lbs so when I log it in to MFP, it says that I've burned over 600 calories. So they could be burning 900 calories...if they were like 400lbs, I guess. IDK. I'm not a math wiz. But ya, 900 calories is a bit much. It's just hard to actually calculate the amount of calories burnt on the elliptical so most of the time it's an estimate.

glevinso

It is not possible with actual humans. Someone who is truly obese but still able to run 6 minute miles, maybe. How many actual people can do that?

As for those who report massive calorie burns for obviously easy activity, I assume they enjoy being fat since they are only deluding themselves.

JTick

BrianSharpe

GIAngel222 wrote: »

Someone posted that they burned 900 calories in 30 minutes (running). I am curious, is this actually possible?

Highly improbable. Runners World has an article about actual (net) calorie burns running and walking and their formula is (for running) .63 x weight in lbs x distance in miles. So, if someone ran 10 minute miles they'd run 3 miles in 30 minutes. If they weighed anything less than 467 lbs they would not burn 900 cals in 30 minutes running.

Azdak

Still not liking the new website.

Azdak

Azdak

uconnwinsnc1

Maybe you could burn 900 calories in 30 minutes of a deinonychus was chasing you.

splashtree5

Yes it is possible with insanity or running.

MeanderingMammal

GIAngel222 wrote: »

Someone posted that they burned 900 calories in 30 minutes (running). I am curious, is this actually possible?

Mo Farah uses this?????

That would be 9-10 miles at world class paces

fwiw it'd take me about 90 minutes, so 10 miles.

Mr_Knight

GIAngel222 wrote: »

Someone posted that they burned 900 calories in 30 minutes (running). I am curious, is this actually possible?

No. Human body can't even get close to that kind of burn.

It would require a 150 pound human to run 10 miles in 30 minutes, which is 3 minutes/mile and far faster than the single mile world record. The closest a human gets is the 10k world record of 26 minutes, run by a 123 pounder, burning ~500 calories.

PS Your HRM is also overestimating YOUR burn. Divide your number by 3.