You burned how much?!

I think she's concerned for the same reason that I am. If those numbers don't make sense, then her (and my) numbers don't either. It calls into question the validity of MFP's calorie burn system.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see that people are working out or doing some sort of activity, but....I do hate when people say, "I just cleaned HARDCORE" or "I just went on a walk for an hour" and they burned almost 600 calories? I mean, I'm not a beast or anything, when I work out it's only for a half hour at a pop right now and I only burn about 250-270 cals depending. How is it that these people are burning so much? Is it all just too over-exaggerated like I'm assuming it is? To tell the truth, it kinda' irritates me....BTW, please no negative comments, I've seen a lot of them lately. Thanks

I burned 900 + calories on a Thursday recently. I first did my Couch to 5 K training for twenty minutes and then I pushed a lawnmower for 70 minutes. Then another day it took me 2 hours to tear a sofa a part so I could get it out of my house (doors were not wide enough). One night at work(Walmart) it took me 45 minutes to download a pallet of bags each box weighs about 15-20 lbs. And there was probably about thirty boxes on the pallet. If you are only going to do an activity for 30 minutes than you are going to only burn 132 (yoga meltdown) calories to 270 calories(running). It is not necessarily the activity, but it is the amount of time that takes to get a certain project done. Sorry if this upsets you, but I am proud of everything that I do that gets me up and moving.

Agree. I weigh 138Ibs at 5'10, and at 92-95% of my max HR, running for 55 mins, I burnt 630, so I fail to see how someone your weight would burn that much walking that speed, no matter the incline. And I use a HRM for my burns. Gym machines and mfp are not reliable for exercise burns.

BS about running that hard that long!!! Sorry, i run

Agree. I weigh 138Ibs at 5'10, and at 92-95% of my max HR, running for 55 mins, I burnt 630, so I fail to see how someone your weight would burn that much walking that speed, no matter the incline. And I use a HRM for my burns. Gym machines and mfp are not reliable for exercise burns.

BS about running that hard that long!!! Sorry, i run

I know this was someone else... but I just wanted to put my 2c in for all it's worth (about 2 cents...) :-p

I have a pretty fast HR when running. I'm a 37 YO female. I don't usually disclose my HR because I think people will tell me to see a doctor and get nosy, but I'm cleared for exercise... but mine is anywhere from 178-195 (when I hit an incline on my run, it will go to 200 even O.o) when running... and I can maintain for about 45 minutes. So it's not necessarily BS. It may be someone with a faster HR like myself.

btw... my max HR is about 183.

the more you weigh the higher calories you burn.

Exactly. My husband outweighs me by 100 lbs. and he burns twice as many calories as I do...sometimes more.

My HRM has me burning just over 100 cals per 10 mins on elliptical and running.

Everything else is less. When I do jillian michaels I can go between 200 - 250 for 26/7 mins. Obviously it all depends on effort.

I think this is fairly normal for some one of my height/weight.

I'm with you OP. Unless you're doing crazy vigorous scrubbing for 2 hours straight, there's no way you're going to burn 1000+ cals in 2 hours of "cleaning". I don't count things like this in my daily "cardio" since it's a regular activity. I think the people that add this (I understand how it can make them feel good) are only really setting themselves up for failure because there's no way they're keeping accurate track of calories.

Agree. I weigh 138Ibs at 5'10, and at 92-95% of my max HR, running for 55 mins, I burnt 630, so I fail to see how someone your weight would burn that much walking that speed, no matter the incline. And I use a HRM for my burns. Gym machines and mfp are not reliable for exercise burns.

BS about running that hard that long!!! Sorry, i run

I know this was someone else... but I just wanted to put my 2c in for all it's worth (about 2 cents...) :-p

I have a pretty fast HR when running. I'm a 37 YO female. I don't usually disclose my HR because I think people will tell me to see a doctor and get nosy, but I'm cleared for exercise... but mine is anywhere from 178-195 (when I hit an incline on my run, it will go to 200 even O.o) when running... and I can maintain for about 45 minutes. So it's not necessarily BS. It may be someone with a faster HR like myself.

btw... my max HR is about 183.

that makes no sense. there's no way your max can be 183 if your heart rate has gone to 200. :laugh:

i think people dont understand what maximum means:huh: if your heart rate is faster, then obviously what ever arbitrary number you are using to determine you max heart rate is probably not correct


i think the moral of the story is that it should be obvious that the formula 220-age isnt going to be true for everyone. for instance, im close in age to dara torres but it would be ridiculous to think that my max heart rate would be identical to hers as she's an olympian

Um. I don't want to be rude, but there is no other way to do this. DUH! It isn't the fastest your heart DOES go; it's the fastest your heart SHOULD go. It doesn't mean that we lose a beat a minute per year during exercise. It means that it isn't recommended that our hearts beat that fast, MAX. Again... no other way around this than a giant facepalm.

ok but that still doesnt negate what i was saying. regardless of what definition of MAX is, someone can't say in one sentence say that their max is x yet they are able to easily sustain a number that's x+y. so logically that x number isnt their MAX. so stop hitting yourself with you face palm, mmmkay?

Maybe someone needs comprehension lessons. I was telling the other poster that the definition of [recommended] max hr isn't necessarily true, and using myself as an example to show that it isn't necessarily true; my max (by definition/calculation of 220-age), doesn't hold true for me. Comprende?

Buh bye.

If you're saying that your "max hr" should be 183, then I understand what you're saying... But the way you mention it in the post makes it look like "my heart rate will even jump to 200" but "my max hr is 183". It leaves a lot of room for confusion... I, as well, assumed you were trying to say that your hr is 200 with a max of 183... which would not make any sense...

And, you didn't "define" it specifically, so there is no need for "comprehension lessons". You kind of jumped around on the idea of what your HR is, no specifics(as recommended/actual) that can be noted. You should have said "My max hr by 220-age, is ___; obviously, it can be much higher" It would have been clearer...

But I do agree it is just a recommendation on how fast your HR should be at a MAX(of course, you and I alike may have Max that doesn't fit this)... But it's just a recommendation, it doesn't mean you can't have a max higher than this number...

Maybe someone needs comprehension lessons. I was telling the other poster that the definition of [recommended] max hr isn't necessarily true, and using myself as an example to show that it isn't necessarily true; my max (by definition/calculation of 220-age), doesn't hold true for me. Comprende?

Buh bye.

If you're saying that your "max hr" should be 183, then I understand what you're saying... But the way you mention it in the post makes it look like "my heart rate will even jump to 200" but "my max hr is 183". It leaves a lot of room for confusion... I, as well, assumed you were trying to say that your hr is 200 with a max of 183... which would not make any sense...

And, you didn't "define" it specifically, so there is no need for "comprehension lessons". You kind of jumped around on the idea of what your HR is, no specifics(as recommended/actual) that can be noted. You should have said "My max hr by 220-age, is ___; obviously, it can be much higher" It would have been clearer...

But I do agree, you can't always rely on the 220-age method... Mine doesn't follow through with this method, either.

We are on a fitness website, and I was talking to others who pretty much know that the "max hr" is 220-age and what it pertains to (because of their conversation) I was speaking specifically to the person who said that it was BS that the other poster was running with that particular % of "max hr" for an extended amount of time... and pointing out that the max hr for me (going by the method the other posters here use as well... general knowledge on this fitness board and others) doesn't hold true, as I have a faster heart rate and can maintain for a pretty good amount of time.