Things that make you go...Hmmmm....(outrageous calorie burn)

That's awesome.

I am by no means an expert. I try to figure out my cals on MFP but there isn't a place for the elevation of the treadmill. I was told once that jogging on the treadmill needs to be above incline of 1 to be the same as being outside on a flat surface. I try to never have it less than 2. I have walked/jogged through a full movie with the incline at no less than 4 and burned over 1000 cals (per treadmill) but MFP is way off.

Try this website to see what it comes up with. It has treadmill at various speeds and inclines:

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/calories_burned_list.asp

I do my met calculations myself then shave off the time on MFP's exercise entries to have them come out at the real caloric burn totals for my current weight.

I know you think it's got to be almost impossible for people to burn 1000+ calories per hour without working out intensely or being a super athlete, but it's probably actually easier for non-conditioned athletes to achieve this than for conditioned athletes. If a person is out of shape or not conditioned for the activity they are doing, that person will often expend more energy with unnecessary movements and have a higher heart rate. An athlete who has trained for the activity and knows how to achieve the maximum results with the minimum effort (not saying they put in minimum effort, just that they minimize the work they do so that they can perform better and/or longer) will often expend less energy and have a lower heart rate even though they may go much further and faster. If you have two people the same age, height, weight and sex with different fitness levels, the more fit one is likely to burn less calories even if they work out harder.

It's about work performed. And the more fit you are, the better you're able to perform work, thus expend more calories. I know it seems counter intuitive to you, but when you're unfit, you're just utterly unable to maximally exert yourself for any length of time like a trained person can. This is again seen in tour de france riders, they can reach maximal heart rates while competeing that are IMPOSSIBLE for non trained people to reach, and do it for extended peroids of time. More bmp = more calories burned. http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/staging-your-personal-tour-de-france

"The typical Tour de France contestant reaches a maximum heart rate of above 200 beats per minute on a regular basis, compared to almost never for any other segment of the population, says Roll."

I found this calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx which calculates calories burned based weight, age, sex and heart rate. I put in F, 35, 175 lbs once with heart rate of 160 and once with average rate of 190. The person with the average heart rate of 190 would theoretically burn 200 calories more in an hour than the other.

Yes, I know that higher heartrate means the body has a higher oxygen demand to meet it's cardio energy system needs, thus more calories burned. But the counterpoint is this, good luck any female being able to go for any length of time at 190bpm. Unless they ARE TRAINED. Thats why the better trained you are, the better calorie burns you have,.

As for the 16 cal/minute being the maximum calories a person can give sustained, then why is it unreasonable to see someone burn 1000 calories in an hour? If a person can sustain this effort as you say, then they should be able to achieve that type of burn over the course of an hour as 16*60 =960 calories per hour.

Because thats the tops out level. As in you need to train for it. For untrained, you're unable to exert yourself hard enough to reach that sort of level. Without question the VAST MAJORITY of claims of 1000 calories an hour on this forum are straight up false. (not all, just most)

edit: As an aside, it's interesting that the utter levels of denial people have in order to get overweight are the same demons they seem to have to fight in order to fix their weight. There is prob a good psychological study in there somewhere.

I can burn 1,000 in an hour and I usually do it once a week as a tempo/steady state run by running 8 miles @ ~ 7:30 pace. That is pretty much my half marathon pace. It is a tough workout for sure.

Here is the trick, you have to be pretty heavy and pretty fast. I'm probably ~ 175 lbs (or so) right now, I think a burn of 125 per mile is reasonable for somebody my size - HRM & MFP agree.

You can call BS if you want, but the race results don't lie. http://athlinks.com/racer/results/35543525

you're prob forgetting to subtract your BMR. your actual number would be closer to 800.

I know you think it's got to be almost impossible for people to burn 1000+ calories per hour without working out intensely or being a super athlete, but it's probably actually easier for non-conditioned athletes to achieve this than for conditioned athletes. If a person is out of shape or not conditioned for the activity they are doing, that person will often expend more energy with unnecessary movements and have a higher heart rate. An athlete who has trained for the activity and knows how to achieve the maximum results with the minimum effort (not saying they put in minimum effort, just that they minimize the work they do so that they can perform better and/or longer) will often expend less energy and have a lower heart rate even though they may go much further and faster. If you have two people the same age, height, weight and sex with different fitness levels, the more fit one is likely to burn less calories even if they work out harder.

It's about work performed. And the more fit you are, the better you're able to perform work, thus expend more calories. I know it seems counter intuitive to you, but when you're unfit, you're just utterly unable to maximally exert yourself for any length of time like a trained person can. This is again seen in tour de france riders, they can reach maximal heart rates while competeing that are IMPOSSIBLE for non trained people to reach, and do it for extended peroids of time. More bmp = more calories burned. http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/staging-your-personal-tour-de-france

"The typical Tour de France contestant reaches a maximum heart rate of above 200 beats per minute on a regular basis, compared to almost never for any other segment of the population, says Roll."

I found this calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx which calculates calories burned based weight, age, sex and heart rate. I put in F, 35, 175 lbs once with heart rate of 160 and once with average rate of 190. The person with the average heart rate of 190 would theoretically burn 200 calories more in an hour than the other.

Yes, I know that higher heartrate means the body has a higher oxygen demand to meet it's cardio energy system needs, thus more calories burned. But the counterpoint is this, good luck any female being able to go for any length of time at 190bpm. Unless they ARE TRAINED. Thats why the better trained you are, the better calorie burns you have,.

As for the 16 cal/minute being the maximum calories a person can give sustained, then why is it unreasonable to see someone burn 1000 calories in an hour? If a person can sustain this effort as you say, then they should be able to achieve that type of burn over the course of an hour as 16*60 =960 calories per hour.

Because thats the tops out level. As in you need to train for it. For untrained, you're unable to exert yourself hard enough to reach that sort of level. Without question the VAST MAJORITY of claims of 1000 calories an hour on this forum are straight up false. (not all, just most)

edit: As an aside, it's interesting that the utter levels of denial people have in order to get overweight are the same demons they seem to have to fight in order to fix their weight. There is prob a good psychological study in there somewhere.

I don't think that to say that people are in denial and that the VAST MAJORITY of 1000 calories an hour entries are wrong is accurate. I did not have to live in denial to get as overweight as I did. I knew exactly what I was doing, I just had no motivation to change it at the time. Many other people are the same. You don't have to be in denial to be apathetic to your situation.

As for the VAST MAJORITY being wrong, you really have no way to know. There were many, many days over the summer where I logged 1000 calories for 1 hour of exercise and maybe my status said I burned this doing exercise including "walking 4 mph". What it doesn't show is that I spent 3 hours in the pool and spent the whole time treading water and also did some intervals of "swimming, vigorously", so I logged that as 30 minutes of vigorous swimming , and that I also walked 1 mile at 4 mph and then jogged for 15 minutes on the treadmill at an average incline of 5%. No, I didn't log or believe that I burned 1000 calories by taking a brisk walk for an hour, and no I didn't do 1 hour of continuous exercise at a high intensity level, but I did several intervals of exercise that got me there and those intervals added up, as did the little movements that burned an extra hundred or two hundred calories an hour to get my total calorie burn up for the day. This wasn't me being in denial; this was me logging my exercise conservatively and it worked for me. This in fact worked very well and my average calories in vs. my average calories out using the activities I logged went right in line with the amount of weight I lost.

Yes, some people may just be in denial, and some people may just be unaware of what's truly accurate for them, but many other people are aware and know what they are doing. We are not dumb, in denial, or unaware just because we logged that we burned 1000 calories in an hour. Maybe they jogged for 15 minutes at 4 different times throughout the day and simply logged it and trusted MFP. Maybe they did 6 highly intense 10 minute workouts throughout the day and really burned 1000 calories and logged that. Maybe they did 3 hours of moderate intensity exercise but logged it as 1 for personal reasons. Maybe they worked out with a HRM and used it's calculations. Just because you don't agree with or believe a person's inputs into a personal diary does not mean that they are dumb or lying to themselves.

I get scolded and reprimanded here if I log that I burned 1099 calories in 3 HOURS of some activity. The problem as I see it..........NO one here knows what I weigh or what my fitness level is...or how intense what Im doing is for ME..........FOR ME.

NOT someone else. Not someone maybe half my weight or height or someone more fit than I am.

Im the first to admit Im not fit. I have horrendous physical limitations and most days I give this healthy lifestyle journey and activity level / workout every single damn thing I have. I cant work out like most of you but please, dont dis me for what I can do just because it's different than you. Im trying. Im losing. Im determined. Im motivated. Im progressing. Im learning. Judging me wont help me, Ridiculing or teasing or tormenting wont help either.

Better to help me learn, or to encourage me, or offer solid advice, advice I can implement or learn from. Im open to it, I really am. At the very least...just ignore me and get on with your badself and let others be what they will.

Im not necessarily speaking JUST FOR ME BUT FOR ALL OF US who have the physical limitations that I do and cant do the intense work outs the majority of you do. And for gawd sake DONT PITY ME

I can burn 1,000 in an hour and I usually do it once a week as a tempo/steady state run by running 8 miles @ ~ 7:30 pace. That is pretty much my half marathon pace. It is a tough workout for sure.

Here is the trick, you have to be pretty heavy and pretty fast. I'm probably ~ 175 lbs (or so) right now, I think a burn of 125 per mile is reasonable for somebody my size - HRM & MFP agree.

You can call BS if you want, but the race results don't lie. http://athlinks.com/racer/results/35543525

A 7:30 pace is pretty freakin' fast, and you've got almost 50 lbs on me, I buy it. I wish I could sustain 7:30 for 8 miles! That's killer.

This is all pretty subjective... There are many factors that come into play for calorie burning... It's all best guess based on some criteria. Like age, weight, basic lifestyle, muscle mass, current fitness level, and most importantly, what percentage of your maximum HR you're utilizing and for how long etc... Sometimes people with really high calorie burns stop losing because they don't eat enough... And even high burn people can plateau because their bodies become accustomed to what they're doing.....so they need to change up their routines and "trick" their bodies through the plateau!!! While I don't know BigCed personally, I know of him here on MFP... I can promise you that he is Mr. Intensity himself... I have people who are pretty good road runners who completely fall apart and can't hang with me on my very hilly trail runs... The intensity demand for the distance run is greatly increased! We each need to be as accurate as we can be when reporting what we do... Then, tweak our own lifestyles based on whether or not we're achieving our desired goals...
Anyone is welcome to come on one of my 5 hour to all day workouts to see how many calories you burn... (think Ironman triathlon)

I think i just burn 1550 calories just reading this CRAP!!!!

Sometimes. But you gotta remember that someone who is 350lbs or more is going to burn a metric craptonne of calories even just walking on a treadmill for half an hour.

I'm 245 and if I go 4.0mph on a slightly inclined treadmill for 30 mins my HRM registers a near 400 cal burn. So if I had the time to just walk and watch a movie I could feasibly hit 1200 cals or more.

Wow, your HRM is actually registering about right for calorie burn. At current fitness level anyway.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Many don't at all.

I only go with either the readings of the machines in the gym or the calculations from the app. but swimming appears to burn huge calories, apparently due to the resistance of the water and the fact you are using the whole of your core. I do however take it with a pinch of salt and am very careful of my calorie intake. I would eat an extra 1000 calories cause it says I have burned that many. so far the weight loss going well so we'll see how accurate the predictions are.

I don't pay much attention to mine either... I stopped logging burns months ago because the numbers almost seemed like bragging....and all that's important to me is performance... And i tweak what i eat based on how i feel and how i perform...

I use what the Strava run app gives me for my burns. i know it's not 100% accurate but I don't eat back calories. My calorie intake is set to 500 below my TDEE. i just log my workouts to keep track.

Hopefully i get a HRM for Xmas

This is all pretty subjective... There are many factors that come into play for calorie burning... It's all best guess based on some criteria. Like age, weight, basic lifestyle, muscle mass, current fitness level, and most importantly, what percentage of your maximum HR you're utilizing and for how long etc... Sometimes people with really high calorie burns stop losing because they don't eat enough... And even high burn people can plateau because their bodies become accustomed to what they're doing.....so they need to change up their routines and "trick" their bodies through the plateau!!! While I don't know BigCed personally, I know of him here on MFP... I can promise you that he is Mr. Intensity himself... I have people who are pretty good road runners who completely fall apart and can't hang with me on my very hilly trail runs... The intensity demand for the distance run is greatly increased! We each need to be as accurate as we can be when reporting what we do... Then, tweak our own lifestyles based on whether or not we're achieving our desired goals...
Anyone is welcome to come on one of my 5 hour to all day workouts to see how many calories you burn... (think Ironman triathlon)

There are primarily two factors--intensity(VO2) x weight--that determine calories burned during a workout. What happens afterwards (afterburn) depends on different factors and is not really quantifiable on a consistent basis.

This only appears complicated because of the imperfect and imprecise methods we have commonly available to estimate calorie expenditure during exercise. People put way too much faith in the accuracy of HRMs and data tables--and the plethora of inconsistent and inaccurate data that comes from these sources does more to obfuscate than to illuminate.

So I would disagree--it's not subjective at all. It only appears "subjective" because of all of the BS.

I can program my weight into my treadmill and it was telling me I would burn like 600 calories walking 3.5 - 4.0 on different inclines in 35 minutes. I got all excited. Then I got a HRM and found out it wasn't even close to that. You never know how many calories you are burning unless you use a HRM. Those outrageous numbers could be coming from the machine that doesn't know Jack from Jane. IMO.