Ppl burning 1000+ cal per workout: WHAT IS YOUR SECRET!?
Replies
-
Machines are super inaccurate, end of story.0
-
It's all assumed guesses based on Heart Rate being the deciding factor on how much calories you burn but it seems to be a reasonably good guide.
If you are overweight you burn more doing the same exercise then a lighter person. I was burning over 1300 an hour when i started 3 weeks ago at 111 Kilo's but my heart rate was averaging over 160 which is not good and was mostly doing cardio, atleast thats what my Heart Rate Monitor was saying which is a hell of alot more accurate then the machines. Now i've lost 6 kilo's and aerobically have more stamina plus i'm on blood pressure medicine and doing only 3/4's of the same cardio and added in resistance training and core training the average heart rate is 140 and i burn around 700.
There's no secret you just have to keep your heart rate as high as possible for as long as possible. Helps being overweight
atm in my 60min workouts burning 700+ an hour i'm only in the zone for 30mins. so i could get 1400 if i stayed in the zone for that hour, but that would be pushing my heart too much now
If you want to break that down even further, on the cross trainer i burn around 130calories every 10mins. and on the treadmill about 115. Weights register just as much as cardio so please yourself if you go with what meters say on that front, personally exercise is exercise I just go with what the HR monitor sais and so far it's been pretty close with the weight loss i've had.0 -
Zumba!! 550-700 kcals/hr about 175-185 bpm heart rate throughout. I'm 5'4" 162#0
-
My highest burns are when I do two different exercises - HIIT with jump rope followed by elliptical or running. Usually running outdoors nets me the most calorie burn. I'll jump rope for about 20 minutes then go on a run or use the elliptical. I'm usually done in under an hour with about an 800 calorie burn. I'm 5' 9'' and 213 lbs and I keep the pace up, so that might be the reason.
similar mine i'm 5' 8 and 105Kg's my cardio circuit goes like this
Cross Trainer - 10-15mins at a 6 degree incline and 15 step length (only using legs the last 15seconds of every 2 mins to let the heart recoup)
Treadmill - 15-20mins Interval training at an average of 5.7mph and an incline average of 5 degrees. incorporating jogging every few mins for 1-3 minutes at 7-8 mph,
Static Bike - 8-12mins (around 2-3miles)
doing that and i have over 600 calories burned. in 40mins. then go do core training/weights or add 500meters of Rowing machine too which adds another 100-200 depending on the intensity''
Conversely my father weighs around 90kilos, is also on blood pressure medicine and he sweats more then i do he works harder then me and in the same hour his HR would barely push 140 and he only burns around 400.0 -
How inaccurate are the MFP calculations, exactly? I want to eat back most of my exercise calories, but I'm new to fitness and am still wading through the HRM information and how calories are burned and things like that, so for now I'm relying on MFP estimates. But then, I've never even come close to 500 calories in a single workout, due to recovering from pneumonia and taking it slow (because breathing hard still doesn't feel great). My treadmill recorded me at 3.0 mph today for an hour and MFP said that was about a 230 calorie burn, how far off is that? (I was pretty happy with that, haha, I am mostly vegan and have no idea how I'd eat back an extra 1000 calories in one day.)0
-
The more weight you have to lose the easier it is to burn 1000 calories. For someone in fairly good shape, burning 1000 calories in a session would be a difficult task, unless you're in the gym for 2 or 3 hours at a time.0
-
the last time i burned 1000 calories a workout (according to my HRM) i did the following 110 minutes worth of back squats, front squats, OH squats, good mornings, bb row, half cleans, power cleans, push ups, KB swings, turkish gets ups, walking, running..
i was pretty much crawling on my hands and knees to get back home afterwards
Sadly, your HRM is not going to give correct estimate when used with anaerobic non-steady state HR workout like weight lifting.
Totally inflated.
You probably burned 1/4 to 1/3 on the lifting part of that workout.
HRM formula's is based on relationship between HR and supplying O2 for burning fuel. Which is totally not what anaerobic (without oxygen) workouts are doing.
when I weight lift I keep my heart rate over 110 beats per minute and I turn the HRM off if I drop below 110 beats per minute. I also subtract my basic metabolic rate and come up with a figure that is still pretty high. I end up burning about 9 calories a minute weight lifting.
IF the HRM is inaccurate, it has not stopped me from losing inches around my waist despite the weight gain from the muscle gain. I have definitely lost fat. regardless of the shortcomings an HRM may have, it is a better tool than nothing or conjecture.
I find that The HRM when used in the way I explained, falls right in line with the MFP calculation which, I THINK, takes the total time weight lifting and calculates into it rest periods.0 -
How inaccurate are the MFP calculations, exactly? I want to eat back most of my exercise calories, but I'm new to fitness and am still wading through the HRM information and how calories are burned and things like that, so for now I'm relying on MFP estimates. But then, I've never even come close to 500 calories in a single workout, due to recovering from pneumonia and taking it slow (because breathing hard still doesn't feel great). My treadmill recorded me at 3.0 mph today for an hour and MFP said that was about a 230 calorie burn, how far off is that? (I was pretty happy with that, haha, I am mostly vegan and have no idea how I'd eat back an extra 1000 calories in one day.)
Treadmill if you did the same speed in the description with no incline, is more accurate than HRM will be.
Would likely match the machines that allow weight input.
Anything else is very highly variable because the descriptions have no intensity or pace to them you might say, except biking outside. And that is bad because a slow avg could be because you fought wind and hills the whole way and actually burned a ton of calories, or fast speed because of mostly downhill and tail wind or followed in pace line and really didn't burn that much.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
Stats in there from studies as to how accurate.0 -
easy.. they probably weigh more than you.. my husband can burn that many calories in an hr.. but he's 120 lbs heavier than i am. .. the smaller you get the harder it is to burn that many0
-
when I weight lift I keep my heart rate over 110 beats per minute and I turn the HRM off if I drop below 110 beats per minute. I also subtract my basic metabolic rate and come up with a figure that is still pretty high. I end up burning about 9 calories a minute weight lifting.
IF the HRM is inaccurate, it has not stopped me from losing inches around my waist despite the weight gain from the muscle gain. I have definitely lost fat. regardless of the shortcomings an HRM may have, it is a better tool than nothing or conjecture.
I find that The HRM when used in the way I explained, falls right in line with the MFP calculation which, I THINK, takes the total time weight lifting and calculates into it rest periods.
The way the energy system works, reverse would be more accurate.
There are some Garmin and Suunto HRM's that use a FirstBeat algorithm in them that looks for variable heart beats to determine your breathing - there is a difference, Polar uses it on their VO2max test too.
Well, if you can see the breathing rate doesn't match the HR going up, then it's anaerobic. And it basically ignores computing calories for the anaerobic effort.
You could match that by actually turning off the timer right as you start your lift, and for about 15-20 sec after turn it back on - then you'd be at least more likely to log the stuff that is more aerobic like - though not really. It would be decent down to about 90 BPM.
And actually, is a tool that is not really doing what you think it is doing really better than nothing. Grabbing that socket that seems to fit close enough and rounding the edges of a bolt or nut was not better than nothing, because now even the proper tool isn't going to work.
And why is it when you need a hammer the closest tool you grab and use isn't a hammer but kinda works, until something breaks.0 -
when I weight lift I keep my heart rate over 110 beats per minute and I turn the HRM off if I drop below 110 beats per minute. I also subtract my basic metabolic rate and come up with a figure that is still pretty high. I end up burning about 9 calories a minute weight lifting.
IF the HRM is inaccurate, it has not stopped me from losing inches around my waist despite the weight gain from the muscle gain. I have definitely lost fat. regardless of the shortcomings an HRM may have, it is a better tool than nothing or conjecture.
I find that The HRM when used in the way I explained, falls right in line with the MFP calculation which, I THINK, takes the total time weight lifting and calculates into it rest periods.
The way the energy system works, reverse would be more accurate.
There are some Garmin and Suunto HRM's that use a FirstBeat algorithm in them that looks for variable heart beats to determine your breathing - there is a difference, Polar uses it on their VO2max test too.
Well, if you can see the breathing rate doesn't match the HR going up, then it's anaerobic. And it basically ignores computing calories for the anaerobic effort.
You could match that by actually turning off the timer right as you start your lift, and for about 15-20 sec after turn it back on - then you'd be at least more likely to log the stuff that is more aerobic like - though not really. It would be decent down to about 90 BPM.
And actually, is a tool that is not really doing what you think it is doing really better than nothing. Grabbing that socket that seems to fit close enough and rounding the edges of a bolt or nut was not better than nothing, because now even the proper tool isn't going to work.
And why is it when you need a hammer the closest tool you grab and use isn't a hammer but kinda works, until something breaks.
Why change what works? I am losing inches and weight and gaining muscle from my hrm monitored work outs; never felt or looked better.0 -
when i do one hour on the elliptical the app says 1062 for one hour but the machine says 800-840 depending on what day and how hard i push it, i always log it in using the machine's number.0
-
when i do one hour on the elliptical the app says 1062 for one hour but the machine says 800-840 depending on what day and how hard i push it, i always log it in using the machine's number.
i trust the machines more, but i understand there is some issue with elliptical burn mathematics. I don't know what it is but it should be simple enough to calculate the burn on a machine like an elliptical or a stationary.
F= MA. force equals mass times acceleration.0 -
How inaccurate are the MFP calculations, exactly? I want to eat back most of my exercise calories, but I'm new to fitness and am still wading through the HRM information and how calories are burned and things like that, so for now I'm relying on MFP estimates. But then, I've never even come close to 500 calories in a single workout, due to recovering from pneumonia and taking it slow (because breathing hard still doesn't feel great). My treadmill recorded me at 3.0 mph today for an hour and MFP said that was about a 230 calorie burn, how far off is that? (I was pretty happy with that, haha, I am mostly vegan and have no idea how I'd eat back an extra 1000 calories in one day.)
well, 3.5 mph seems to be the speed at which you start to get a good burn while walking. a little speed makes a big difference in the energy output when walking, running or cycling. the relationship between speed and energy seems to be geometrical rather than linear.
I don't know how accurate anything is. I just try to get results.
try not to eat back all your calories. I generally try not to eat back any calories, unless I got a really good burn over 500 or 600. Even then I prefer not to eat them back. I definitely eat maybe 20 or 30 % back when nearing 1000. you need extra protein, and stuff.0 -
As others have said: they/we probably weigh more.
When heavier, according to my HRM I could sometimes break 1000cal during Zumba when I pushed hard.
Now, I do about 650-700 when pushing hard.
I'm sure as I get smaller, that will continue to drop.0 -
I normally am at, or over 1,000 calories an hour. I check my HR using the machine, and my average (when checking) is 163. I am right at 220 lbs and have been going 5.6-6.0 mph for an hour at an incline of 2-3 on the treadmill. I am working very hard and doing calculations using hr vs what machine says, they are normally within 100 kcals of each other.
It is possible to do it, but as has been stated many times, you'll need to be a bit heavier and pushing yourself.0 -
To answer @3dogsrunning: it is Heart Rate Monitor...
To OP:
It is possible, but it all depends on what others have said, size, fitness level, intensity, speed, endurance, etc., etc. accuracy of tracking.. I only burn more than 1000 in one activity when I'm biking long distances or running more than an hour... I'm a big guy and while I'm in decent shape, I have overheating issues and asthma issues... my body just has to work harder. The days I do more than one workout, it is easy to log almost 2,000 by my accurate HRM as each of my workouts will be an hour at a higher intensity. I find MFP always has me burning WAY more calories than my HRM does. That's why when I've notice a particularly out of wack number, I check it with a couple different apps I use and average them for tracking purposes.
Just one question: If you are consistently working out at 180bpm, what is your max? have you checked it lately?
I try to stay at between 75-80% of my max, and when I go too long over that (and I can tell before I even look at the HRM), I notice my hrm is not tracking as many calories burned... when I don't over work I burn more calories. Only doing Intervals or speed training do I not care too much if I'm working at more than my 75-80% of max. My runs I frequently run at 175 bpm and burn 800-900 calories in a 45 minute run at between 9:30/10 minute miles.
Sorry for all the stats, it's how I track my progress more so than weight.:laugh:
I'm confused, I was answering the person who asked what a HRM was.
Haha, sorry, I did the reply and saw you as the most recent person....at this point I don't even know who asked the question! 0 -
I burned 1,000 calories today, but I also did a 90 minute, 10-mile trail run that had me soaked in sweat by the end.
Normally people over-estimate. I don't burn that every day.0 -
No secret. I can run at 9-10 mph in the hills with ease for at least an hour. That's over 1000 cal. as measured by my HRM.
And I'm only 5'2" and weigh 94 lbs...0 -
I'm fat..... Very fat. That's my secret....lol. :laugh:0
-
Going off my Mio Active Connect I can burn 2100-2500 in a good cardio workout. I do 35-40 min on the elliptical, 30-40 min on the recumbent bike 15-30 min on the treadmill and 20-40 min of weight lifting. Then figure in my daily activity, and I have hit 2800 for a total daily burn. Keep in mind I am 300 pounds The bigger you are the easier it is to burn large #s. I do not use the MFP estimates at all.0
-
The treadmill I work out on at the gym asks for weight, age and tracks heart rate and I do a 3.5 incline at 3.8 mph and in 60 minutes it says I burn 623 calories typically. Now if I use a calculator online it tells me about 510 calories, but it does not ask me what incline was used, so I guess I like to use the numbers off the machine, If I go for 90 minutes at a 4 incline at 4 mph then I typically can burn 1,000 calories. I am now wondering if these numbers sound "off" to anyone. I am very overweight however and I know I will burn more calories than a person who is not overweight. Typically the machines base the calories burned in a 150 pound person (which I am a ways from). The MFP estimates are much lower than the machine or the website I use (healthstatus.com).0
-
The treadmill I work out on at the gym asks for weight, age and tracks heart rate and I do a 3.5 incline at 3.8 mph and in 60 minutes it says I burn 623 calories typically. Now if I use a calculator online it tells me about 510 calories, but it does not ask me what incline was used, so I guess I like to use the numbers off the machine, If I go for 90 minutes at a 4 incline at 4 mph then I typically can burn 1,000 calories. I am now wondering if these numbers sound "off" to anyone. I am very overweight however and I know I will burn more calories than a person who is not overweight. Typically the machines base the calories burned in a 150 pound person (which I am a ways from). The MFP estimates are much lower than the machine or the website I use (healthstatus.com).
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
Should be the formula's the treadmill is using, it's what MFP's database uses, which is actually a public database that many use.
As long as treadmill has weight, that's enough. The study formula's are public domain, so they usually use them.
And no, that sounds right on.0 -
Or their treadmill tells them they burned 8,000 calories and decided to believe it...
I have a Polar H7 Bluetooth heart rate monitor. I do 30-35 mins on a treadmill then 4-6 miles on a Recumbent Bike. I usually burn 800-975 cal total with the 2 workouts back to back. I move from the Treadmill directly to the Recumbent Bike. Then start a little weight trainning.
Are you saying my HR monitor is incorrect? Any input is welcome.0 -
Sorry im new n just learning how to loose weight what's hrm?
HRM= Heart Rate Monitor0 -
I have a Polar H7 Bluetooth heart rate monitor. I do 30-35 mins on a treadmill then 4-6 miles on a Recumbent Bike. I usually burn 800-975 cal total with the 2 workouts back to back. I move from the Treadmill directly to the Recumbent Bike. Then start a little weight trainning.
Are you saying my HR monitor is incorrect? Any input is welcome.
For the lifting yes.
For the other really depends on how you set it up.
Is HRmax correct as can be?
If it's set to default 220-age and says your HRmax is 180, but your real HRmax is 160 (genetics, nothing with fitness level except keeping it high as you age), then where you work out would make a big difference.
If you were hitting 150 during your cardio, the HRM with 180 will see that as not that intense, decent aerobic level, and X calories.
But if your real HRmax is 160, than 150 was one intense effort for you, anaerobic level almost, and should have been a much bigger burn.
That can go the other direction too.
Also, the stat the FT7 is missing, VO2max, is calculated off your BMI - it's assumed your fitness level, or VO2max, is low if you have a high BMI. Which is a bad assumption. Doesn't take long to make initial big improvements to VO2max when you start working out, faster than the weight would come down.
So a HR of say 150 for a cardio session with high BMI is seen as X calories burned.
But say you are actually fit with better VO2max than assumed but BMI is still high, that 150 HR is actually a harder effort and should give you more calories burned.
You can confirm it using this method.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is0 -
the last time i burned 1000 calories a workout (according to my HRM) i did the following 110 minutes worth of back squats, front squats, OH squats, good mornings, bb row, half cleans, power cleans, push ups, KB swings, turkish gets ups, walking, running..
i was pretty much crawling on my hands and knees to get back home afterwards
Sadly, your HRM is not going to give correct estimate when used with anaerobic non-steady state HR workout like weight lifting.
Totally inflated.
You probably burned 1/4 to 1/3 on the lifting part of that workout.
HRM formula's is based on relationship between HR and supplying O2 for burning fuel. Which is totally not what anaerobic (without oxygen) workouts are doing.
what do you work out besides me or something? because if you did you'd know that your post was incorrect. i keep my heart rate between 130-150 ALL THE TIME when i lift because i dont really take breaks besides racking and unracking which is still pretty much a workout . also,130-150 to me is not anaerobic since it's a heart rate that i can sustain for more than an hour.
besides that since i eat my calories back if i were that incorrect i'd be gaining weight.0 -
what do you work out besides me or something? because if you did you'd know that your post was incorrect. i keep my heart rate between 130-150 ALL THE TIME when i lift because i dont really take breaks besides racking and unracking which is still pretty much a workout . also,130-150 to me is not anaerobic since it's a heart rate that i can sustain for more than an hour.
besides that since i eat my calories back if i were that incorrect i'd be gaining weight.
That's totally valid then.
And nothing in my post was wrong then was it. is your workout steady-state aerobic, or non-steady state anaerobic. You didn't meet the conditions of what I was talking about. Don't get offended so quickly on something that obviously doesn't even apply.
And that is not weight lifting - which is anaerobic, and a fully loaded muscle workout. The body's response to that overload is microtears, the response to that is repairing stronger.
If you never rest, you can't do that because your muscle is tired. The body's response to that is some strength increase, though not as much as true lifting would give you, and increasing glucose stores for better handling the endurance aspect you are asking for.
You are doing a cardio workout with a strength training component to it. Like a whole lot of classes do.
You will get stronger from it, and better endurance. It's a good workout.
But it is not weight lifting with the same effects on the body.
The facts still stand as to HRM formula for calorie burn not being valid for weight lifting. You just had the wrong thought as to what weight lifting means, that's all.0 -
I seriously doubt that anything is exact when it comes to losing weight. Calories are estimated on machines and on this site and HRM's aren't always precise either. Everyone burns differently depending on numerous factors. I have lost over 1000 calories in a single work out in the gym on plenty of occasions but it was a lot (2 hrs +) of intense non-stop working.0
-
I seriously doubt that anything is exact when it comes to losing weight. Calories are estimated on machines and on this site and HRM's aren't always precise either. Everyone burns differently depending on numerous factors. I have lost over 1000 calories in a single work out in the gym on plenty of occasions but it was a lot (2 hrs +) of intense non-stop working.
^^^ very true.
there is no need to be anal about all of this. It is all guess work. Basically, just get the results (weight loss if tjhat is your goal) and enjoy. If you calculated a 3500 calories burned and and you don't eat them back and you lost a pound, then you may have calculated right, but whio gives a flying rats ...... You lost the weight is all that really matters. forget all these anal people on here doubting everything and everyone and assuming everyone does every thing wrong except them.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions