400 Calories in 4 Minutes - WDYT?

1235»

Replies

  • pikselinka
    pikselinka Posts: 154 Member
    400 cals in 4 mins? Not a chance, it's just impossible and unrealistic. Period.
  • MemphisKitten
    MemphisKitten Posts: 878 Member
    Sounds like an Insanity workout to me.
  • Jxnsmma
    Jxnsmma Posts: 919 Member
    I can EAT 400 calories in about 10 seconds....
  • jennifer52484
    jennifer52484 Posts: 888 Member
    I'll test this with my HRM.. see how close I get.
  • mcpherson4
    mcpherson4 Posts: 287 Member
    Bump
  • cglode
    cglode Posts: 4 Member
    great work!!!!
  • joecollins9385
    joecollins9385 Posts: 355 Member
    im gonna try a few sets of this later
  • brutalbaby
    brutalbaby Posts: 87 Member
    I do HIIT workouts and burn about 200 calories in 15mins... This will probably be the result for the after burn!
  • crystalflame
    crystalflame Posts: 1,049 Member
    I've done this workout when I've been too lazy to go to the gym. It gets my heart rate way up, and I usually repeat it 2-3 times with a 2 minute rest between each set. Haven't used an HRM, but taking my pulse and plugging it into a calculator puts me at ~200 calories for 3 sets.
  • amyhoss
    amyhoss Posts: 414 Member
    Eat? Yes. Burn? No.
  • portalm
    portalm Posts: 201 Member
    The Journal of Sports Sciences provides a calorie expenditure formula for each gender. Men use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) -- (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184. Women use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.074) -- (Weight x 0.05741) + (Heart Rate x 0.4472) -- 20.4022] x Time / 4.184.

    (28x0.2017)= 5.6476- (224x0.09036)=20.24064+(192x0.6309)121.1328-55.0969=51.44264x4=205.77056/4.184=


    FOR a whomping total of 49.1803442 calories burned in 4 min at a maximum heart rate of 85% Ya pretty sure its a no.
  • Meganalva
    Meganalva Posts: 282 Member
    lol no way!
  • I downloaded the LWR Workout to my iPhone to try it. I didn't think a 4 min workout would be worth it as I'm usually in the gym every other day and have competed in triathlons so I thought it would be too easy - wrong! The level 3 workouts had me wheezing and sweating like I'd just done a full blown workout to start with.

    Whilst I don't believe it's a huge calorie burner on its own, or would substitute other more prolonged forms of exercise, it's certainly a great way to get some fat burning exercise in when time is tight. I do it whilst I'm waiting for dinner to cook or during an ad break :)

    I'm trying to do one a day - 4 minutes is better than nothing however many calories its burning, and who hasn't got time for 4 minutes a day? ;)
  • Mighty_Rabite
    Mighty_Rabite Posts: 581 Member
    I think this would be a good way to burn about 40 calories.

    Maybe.
  • Lies.

    And not everyone will burn the same amount depending on the intensity the person does it at, their weight, etc.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Where did that number come from?...coz no.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    THIS^^ But what the thing means is that you do it 10 times over!!! Instead of running for 40 minutes...i.e is as good even though you don't "work" the entire time. Tabata protocol is a form of interval training where you work max effort for 20 seconds, rest 10 and repeat. Normally 8 sets of each exercise which will take you 40 minutes per block of 8 (20secs+10secs = 30secs x 8 = 4mins)
    Disagree here. If you can go 40 minutes and do that much, the you're doing HIIT training and not Tabata. Tabata is ALL out 100% effort for 4 minutes. In those 4 minutes you should be spent and done. If not, then it wasn't Tabata training.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    I do what I think is Tabata. Its 12 exercises, each for 4minutes(20/10) with a one minute break and then onto the next one. That tabata?

    No, that is "Faux-bata"

    Actually, it's just interval training, using an arbitrary time scale that you borrowed from something completely unrelated. Which is fine. There is nothing magic about either the 4 min duration or the 20/10 intervals. But there is nothing wrong with them either.
  • Misift
    Misift Posts: 4 Member
    The "easiest" way to burn quick calories is through kettlebell excercises. A decent routine should burn about 300 calories in 15 minutes.
  • childrenrus
    childrenrus Posts: 55 Member
    They forgot to include a zero after the four, should be 40 minutes not 4!!
  • littlekitty3
    littlekitty3 Posts: 265 Member
    if it's tabata/HIIT style and you really go all out the possibility is out there (maybe it was 130 lb woman, which is the mean for exercises like this), just consider the after burn effect you will have as opposed to doping steady cardio. But 400 in 4 min?...eh....I want to believe they are referring to addition of after burn as well....eh
  • wigglypeaches
    wigglypeaches Posts: 146 Member
    if it's tabata/HIIT style and you really go all out the possibility is out there (maybe it was 130 lb woman, which is the mean for exercises like this), just consider the after burn effect you will have as opposed to doping steady cardio. But 400 in 4 min?...eh....I want to believe they are referring to addition of after burn as well....eh

    It's a tabata with rotating exercises. The four minute tabata has been shown to be incredibly effective, especially when paired with and compared to traditional cardio workouts. The number of calories you burn is going to depend on your current weight and level of fitness, as with any workout. To get a real picture of the number of calories you're burning, you'll need to be measuring your progress with something like a heart rate monitor. But forget the number for a moment; the point is that tabatas are a condensed, high-intensity workout with benefits comparable to a traditional, moderate-intensity routine.

    More information can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392
  • 40mins
This discussion has been closed.