Ppl burning 1000+ cal per workout: WHAT IS YOUR SECRET!?

123457»

Replies

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    yeah the more weight you lose/better shape you're in, the fewer calories you burn at the same exercise intensity. however, i agree with most people in here. Get a hrm. when I use the treadmill at home, it always claims i burned an extra 100-200 calories that my hrm does not account for.....plus, the treadmill doesn't constantly monitor your heart rate....it just guesstimates. lol

    Not true. Increased fitness does not lower calories burned, unless you are in a class-type setting that is choreographed in such a way that you cannot work any harder at the movements.

    Losing weight will decrease calories burned if you are working at the same intensity.

    Can't speak for all home treadmills, but for commercial treadmills, the calorie estimates for walking (no handrail support) are more accurate than any HRM. At running speeds, treadmills will likely overestimate, but that is only because the ACSM formula seems to overestimate a little at faster running speeds. But the number is still as accurate as an HRM.

    For the most part, any given aerobic workload -- eg running 6 mph-- has a fixed energy cost that, along with body weight, determines both oxygen uptake and thus calories burned. Heart rate is irrelevant. HRMs require heart rate because they cannot measure actual work intensity, but that doesn't mean HRMs are more accurate.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    99% of them aren't, the ap tends to overestimate calories burned, as well as people tending to overestimate their exertion levels.


    Exactly. For example yesterday I ran on the tredmill for 40 min and burned 330 calories. When I put it into MFP it had the calories around 450. MFP is wonderful but it inflates calories on workouts so if you don't wear a HRM then I would suggest lowering their calories 25% or so to make sure you don't overeat too many calories. GOOD LUCK!

    Most people either have cheapo HRMs or don't have them set up properly, so the HRMs inflate calorie burn as well.
  • megabyt23
    megabyt23 Posts: 580 Member
    yeah the more weight you lose/better shape you're in, the fewer calories you burn at the same exercise intensity. however, i agree with most people in here. Get a hrm. when I use the treadmill at home, it always claims i burned an extra 100-200 calories that my hrm does not account for.....plus, the treadmill doesn't constantly monitor your heart rate....it just guesstimates. lol

    Not true. Increased fitness does not lower calories burned, unless you are in a class-type setting that is choreographed in such a way that you cannot work any harder at the movements.

    Losing weight will decrease calories burned if you are working at the same intensity.

    Can't speak for all home treadmills, but for commercial treadmills, the calorie estimates for walking (no handrail support) are more accurate than any HRM. At running speeds, treadmills will likely overestimate, but that is only because the ACSM formula seems to overestimate a little at faster running speeds. But the number is still as accurate as an HRM.

    For the most part, any given aerobic workload -- eg running 6 mph-- has a fixed energy cost that, along with body weight, determines both oxygen uptake and thus calories burned. Heart rate is irrelevant. HRMs require heart rate because they cannot measure actual work intensity, but that doesn't mean HRMs are more accurate.

    I did say that you will burn fewer calories if you're working "at the same exercise intensity." If you're in better shape and work harder, that's a different story. I didn't mean that you burn fewer calories when you're in good shape...just meant in terms of losing weight...my bad. haha

    As far as the treadmills working as accurately if not more than a HRM, I've seen a few posts like that. Pretty interesting! I don't think mine is as accurate though because I don't feel like I'm working as hard as it gives me credit for...lol
  • spmcavoy1
    spmcavoy1 Posts: 60 Member
    I don't normally log my day to day living activities, but I work at a grocery store on the weekends (in an office m-f) and I do log a 2.0 walk for a little less than half the time I'm there for the day because I'm on my feet and moving all day - a lot more than I do on a day to day basis (Say I work an 8 hour shift, I'll record about 3.5 hours of walking).

    I've never really gotten that high - I'm lucky if I get to 5-600!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Yesterday i was ECSTATIC for burning 650 cal in 75 minutes. And i PUSHED. I was at 180+ bpm heart rate almost the entire time and still only managed to burn 650 cal. I see people in my feed burning 1000-1200 cal in 65-75 minutes. HOW?!

    If you are able to do this, could you please tell me your work out regiment? Ex. Treadmill @ 5.5mph for 45 min, or jump roping, etc.

    I know everyone burns differently, but id like to get an idea of other peoples workouts who are able to produce such amazing numbers!!

    Thanks! :)

    Yesterday, I ate WAY too many sweets and was going out to eat that evening, and really wanted to have a meal that was at 1500 calories... ouch, what I eat in a day! Now, I follow a calorie calculator that I've found to be quite accurate on Runner's World - http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator. It does an intense breakdown for running/quick walking (4.0mph is a 15 minute mile walking), which doesn't pay attention to intensity or anything like that, basically whether you run 2 miles in 18 minutes or walk them in 30 minutes, it comes out to the same amount, because you burn X amount per mile, according to the calculator (which is supposedly "specially built for running"), so to make up for that bad food yesterday, I had to walk/run 12 miles. I did a lot of walking with some running at a fast pace thrown in (my regiment was like 2 songs quick walking at 4.0mph, 1 song running at 6.5mph or 7mph), and it took me TWO HOURS and 13 minutes. I don't see how there's a way to burn that many calories in an hour unless you're working hard and quite overweight.

    100kg body weight + running 10 min/mile pace = 1000 kcal/hr.

    See, but according to the calculator I use, pace is irrelevant! It's mileage that matters, according to Runner's World.

    It's just two different ways of solving the same equation--two different "units of scale" if you will. . Pace is less relevant if you are comparing different running speeds (faster than 5.0 mph). You still need to know body weight.

    I was just presenting a set of variables that would result in a calorie burn rate of 1000 calories per hour and showing that it did not require one to be super heavy or super fit. Also. that there was nothing "magical" about the 1000 calorie figure--if you can do it, it doesn't make you a better person or anything. OTOH I also wanted to counter the idea that anyone who says they are working at 1K/hr is grossly exaggerating their burn.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    yeah the more weight you lose/better shape you're in, the fewer calories you burn at the same exercise intensity. however, i agree with most people in here. Get a hrm. when I use the treadmill at home, it always claims i burned an extra 100-200 calories that my hrm does not account for.....plus, the treadmill doesn't constantly monitor your heart rate....it just guesstimates. lol

    Not true. Increased fitness does not lower calories burned, unless you are in a class-type setting that is choreographed in such a way that you cannot work any harder at the movements.

    Losing weight will decrease calories burned if you are working at the same intensity.

    Can't speak for all home treadmills, but for commercial treadmills, the calorie estimates for walking (no handrail support) are more accurate than any HRM. At running speeds, treadmills will likely overestimate, but that is only because the ACSM formula seems to overestimate a little at faster running speeds. But the number is still as accurate as an HRM.

    For the most part, any given aerobic workload -- eg running 6 mph-- has a fixed energy cost that, along with body weight, determines both oxygen uptake and thus calories burned. Heart rate is irrelevant. HRMs require heart rate because they cannot measure actual work intensity, but that doesn't mean HRMs are more accurate.

    I did say that you will burn fewer calories if you're working "at the same exercise intensity." If you're in better shape and work harder, that's a different story. I didn't mean that you burn fewer calories when you're in good shape...just meant in terms of losing weight...my bad. haha

    As far as the treadmills working as accurately if not more than a HRM, I've seen a few posts like that. Pretty interesting! I don't think mine is as accurate though because I don't feel like I'm working as hard as it gives me credit for...lol

    But you dont' "burn fewer calories if you're working at the same exercise intensity". Or at least not if you are working at the same exercise workload. Unless you have lost weight, you are burning the same calories. It just feels easier because the exercise workload is now a SMALLER percentage of your maximum than before. In other words, if your maximum fitness level is 12 and your are running at a 10 effort, that will feel pretty hard. (10 is 83% of twelve). If your training increases your maximum fitness level to 15, if will feel easier because you are now working at only 67% of your maximum. However the intensity/aerobic workload is still a "10", so you are burning the same number of calories.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Yesterday i was ECSTATIC for burning 650 cal in 75 minutes. And i PUSHED. I was at 180+ bpm heart rate almost the entire time and still only managed to burn 650 cal. I see people in my feed burning 1000-1200 cal in 65-75 minutes. HOW?!

    If you are able to do this, could you please tell me your work out regiment? Ex. Treadmill @ 5.5mph for 45 min, or jump roping, etc.

    I've been walking for 40 minutes @6-8%incline, between 3 and 3.5mph, max HR about 160, avg about 140.

    My Digifit with an HRM give me a burn of around 725-750 the last couple days. Digifit's a bit higher number than the treadmill's display, though they use the same HR feed.

    ETA: Interesting. Plugged in my numbers at http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html and that looks like what the treadmill showed me. So much for this being straightforward.

    Machines only display the heart rate, they don't base any calcs on it. They may base a program of pace on grade on it though.

    So your machine is using good formula's, trust it if it matters that finely.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Yesterday i was ECSTATIC for burning 650 cal in 75 minutes. And i PUSHED. I was at 180+ bpm heart rate almost the entire time and still only managed to burn 650 cal. I see people in my feed burning 1000-1200 cal in 65-75 minutes. HOW?!

    If you are able to do this, could you please tell me your work out regiment? Ex. Treadmill @ 5.5mph for 45 min, or jump roping, etc.

    I know everyone burns differently, but id like to get an idea of other peoples workouts who are able to produce such amazing numbers!!

    Thanks! :)

    Most people who do this are seriously overestimating their burn...
  • Mhaney
    Mhaney Posts: 467 Member
    If we have a hard hour of taekwondo, my HRM goes over 1000 cals
  • rassha01
    rassha01 Posts: 534 Member
    Yesterday i was ECSTATIC for burning 650 cal in 75 minutes. And i PUSHED. I was at 180+ bpm heart rate almost the entire time and still only managed to burn 650 cal. I see people in my feed burning 1000-1200 cal in 65-75 minutes. HOW?!

    If you are able to do this, could you please tell me your work out regiment? Ex. Treadmill @ 5.5mph for 45 min, or jump roping, etc.

    I know everyone burns differently, but id like to get an idea of other peoples workouts who are able to produce such amazing numbers!!

    Thanks! :)

    Most people who do this are seriously overestimating their burn...

    Hmm... My HRM tells me about 1019 while MFP tells me 1250 for the same hour of running at 7 mph, is this seriously overestimating? Along with the runners world calculator that says it should be aropund 1100. Now yes you have to subtract the 100 or so cals that would have been burned regardless of the workout but I don't think it is a great exagerration.

Categories