how in the hell are these people getting 900 calorie burns
Replies
-
I was simply asking what kind of workout gets those burns. I guess I am either not heavy enough or working hard enough to burn like that. And yes, I consider being so fat that I have skipped going to swimming pools, the lake, and any activity that involves wearing shorts or a bathing suit for the last two years a serious issue. I try not to even look at myself in my undergarments in mirrors.
Any kind of workout burns calories.
The "sit on your butt" workout burns calories. It takes an average woman about 12 hours of sitting on her butt to burn 900 calories. Or if she can maintain a 6 mph pace long enough she can do it by running that speed for around an hour and a half.0 -
Because everyone's body is different and Insanity focuses on strength which is just as good (some even say its better) as cardio.0
-
I burnt just under 1000cals (garmin watch) in 66mins yesterday with an 8.5mile run and I'm 150lbs so there's so many variances that come into play when burning calories. You can't compare yourself to others.
Does it really matter though, surely the important things is that you're exercising and burning calories don't stress about it.0 -
I don't think that's true. I go on long bike rides in the summer. Biking 30-40 miles will burn easily over 1000 calories at a 15mph average.2 hours running gets me >1000 calories burned (long runs)
This. Long runs are the only way I'm going to get even close to 1000 cal. (and even then, I wonder)0 -
Absolutely agree. The approach I am taking is to record what I eat as accurately as possible (using a food scale at home to increase the precision of that measurement), and then compare my actual weight lost vs. calories eaten over a period of time. That tells me what my TDEE is (on average). Then I compare that with what my BodyMedia Fit claims my TDEE was on average during that period, and I determine the error of my individual device. Of course, my weight fluctuates a lot due to factors like sodium, glycogen storage/food still in digestive process, hormones, and training, so that's not exact either. But on any given day, my own armband seems to be somewhere between 92 and 95% accurate. They claim 90% accuracy, so that's well within that margin.The basis makes no bones about not being an exercise monitor, and i didn't expect it to be. I totally figured i'd continue using the polar for that purpose.
It really has been eye opening for me, to be able to see the metrics day to day. They continually fine tune and update the algorythyms too, which is a plus.
So, like I said, i average. But wrist HRM's are notoriously inaccurate at tracking exertion HR anyway.
They'll ping an average, then compare it with distance judged by steps, and kinda munge it that way.
What it boils down to, is it's ALL guesswork. Just pick consistant metrics of guesswork, and stick with em.
All we can do is keep measuring, comparing results with expected results, adjusting, and measuring again. I wish all this gadgetry would make fat loss as simple and precise as a computer program, but the human body is not a turn-crank machine.0 -
How are people getting 900 calries burned in a workout. I do insanity etc and still burn no where close to that.
Incorrect use of HRM.
Outright delusion.
Etc.
A 200-pounder has to run over 7miles to net a 900 calorie burn - but people are going to believe what they want to believe. And then they'll stall on weight loss and call the advice-givers rude meanies...
And so it goes, this thing of ours....
EDIT: There is the 5% or so of MFP who is fit enough and active enough to do it, but the vast majority here are completely out to lunch on their burns.
General rule of thumb 1 mile=100 calories walking or running; I am about 200 pounds and have run a couple 10k distances(6 plus miles); not sure of actual burn but I'd take 900 or less.
Fat burning zone(zone meaning a range) 220(for men) - age say 40 = 180 times 60-80% or 105 to 144 BPM; for women start with 226 and subtract age. You will find variables but usually 80% is the top of the range. Folks burning 1200-1300 daily congrats, great dedication, continued success.0 -
heybales has a really informative post on the forums about how to set up your HRM to give a more accurate burnFor all those using HRMs, do you deduct your BMR from the gross cal burn your gadget gives you? For example, my BMR is 1676 which works out at approx 1.2 cals per min to keep me alive. So if I walk for 58 mins and my Polar H7 gives me a cals burned reading of 368, I deduct 58 mins x 1.2 from the total. Giving me a net figure of 298 or so to put in my diary.
i do. for every hour i workout, i deduct the 125 calories i would be burning anyway by virtue of being alive.0 -
I was simply asking what kind of workout gets those burns. I guess I am either not heavy enough or working hard enough to burn like that.
I burn the most when using the elliptical machine on a high resistance. My personal best is like 1315 calories in 60 minutes, and that's including the first two minutes spent at very low resistance as a warm-up.
I put it on 10 resistance and listen to military cadence on my headphones so I'm sure my pace doesn't slow down. If 10 resistance starts feeling too hard, instead of dropping it a few points, I actually raise it to 12 for about 30 seconds. When I drop it back down to 10 afterward, it doesn't feel hard anymore.0 -
*sigh*0
-
That 220 minus age thing is really a horrible estimate of max HR. For example, I did a Tabata protocol workout on the treadmill a while back, and my max heart rate was 217 during that. I'm pretty sure I'm not 9 years old. :laugh:Fat burning zone(zone meaning a range) 220(for men) - age say 40 = 180 times 60-80% or 105 to 144 BPM; for women start with 226 and subtract age. You will find variables but usually 80% is the top of the range. Folks burning 1200-1300 daily congrats, great dedication, continued success.
I think I read that about 30% of people fall outside that 220 minus age thing for max HR. So, sure it's a good rule of thumb, but really not very good to apply to any given individual at all.0 -
*sigh*
Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.0 -
That 220 minus age thing is really a horrible estimate of max HR. For example, I did a Tabata protocol workout on the treadmill a while back, and my max heart rate was 217 during that. I'm pretty sure I'm not 9 years old. :laugh:Fat burning zone(zone meaning a range) 220(for men) - age say 40 = 180 times 60-80% or 105 to 144 BPM; for women start with 226 and subtract age. You will find variables but usually 80% is the top of the range. Folks burning 1200-1300 daily congrats, great dedication, continued success.
I think I read that about 30% of people fall outside that 220 minus age thing for max HR. So, sure it's a good rule of thumb, but really not very good to apply to any given individual at all.
Yep.. I found a site that had a bunch of different info on "zones" as well as methods for figuring V02max and going from there, and cited a few studies, which tossed the "this is CORRECT FOR YOU" mantra into a cocked hat.
They monitored a competition rowing team.. so these are all guys of the same age, physical condition, and roughly the same size, and found heart rates at "equal exertion" of anywhere from 160 to over 200..
One thing I have noticed, through careful logging, as that how high I'm getting at the same pace and time, is dropping steadily the more I do it.. so clearly SOMETHING is changing, and it's a much more rapid change than my weight. 0 -
Absolutely agree. The approach I am taking is to record what I eat as accurately as possible (using a food scale at home to increase the precision of that measurement), and then compare my actual weight lost vs. calories eaten over a period of time. That tells me what my TDEE is (on average). Then I compare that with what my BodyMedia Fit claims my TDEE was on average during that period, and I determine the error of my individual device. Of course, my weight fluctuates a lot due to factors like sodium, glycogen storage/food still in digestive process, hormones, and training, so that's not exact either. But on any given day, my own armband seems to be somewhere between 92 and 95% accurate. They claim 90% accuracy, so that's well within that margin.The basis makes no bones about not being an exercise monitor, and i didn't expect it to be. I totally figured i'd continue using the polar for that purpose.
It really has been eye opening for me, to be able to see the metrics day to day. They continually fine tune and update the algorythyms too, which is a plus.
So, like I said, i average. But wrist HRM's are notoriously inaccurate at tracking exertion HR anyway.
They'll ping an average, then compare it with distance judged by steps, and kinda munge it that way.
What it boils down to, is it's ALL guesswork. Just pick consistant metrics of guesswork, and stick with em.
All we can do is keep measuring, comparing results with expected results, adjusting, and measuring again. I wish all this gadgetry would make fat loss as simple and precise as a computer program, but the human body is not a turn-crank machine.
Hmm. I wonder if it work (or if anyone would be crazy enough) to do a self test.
Eat exactly the same known quantity of food and water, at exactly the same times of day, with a known quantity of exercise, for a period, and monitor weight (a period long enough to level out water weight changes due to beginning exercise, etc). That should give you a baseline on the weight (using maths and science and stuff), then increase the exercise according to a HRM, and do that consistantly, still doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING food and water wise, and see if the change reflected in weight reflects the change burned in calories.
In fact, I'll bet someone has actually done a controlled study like that. I'd probably have to pay to read it though.0 -
Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:*sigh*
Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.0 -
Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:*sigh*
Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
BRB, gonna go do some "lawn work and light cleaning" in! The cheesecake I want this evening is 1400 calories so I gotta get some calories burned!0 -
Would you weigh them before and after each exercise session to make sure that they drink more water by exactly the amount that they sweat out? You'd have to keep them in constant temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, day length, sleep length/quality too. And if you wanted to run the test with a woman (I can't see how you could do it for a man and then apply it to a woman), you would have to find a woman with a perfectly regular menstrual cycle, then run the test for two cycles, one to establish the baseline and one to do the exercise/HR test. And those are just the variables I thought of to control for off the top of my head!
Absolutely agree. The approach I am taking is to record what I eat as accurately as possible (using a food scale at home to increase the precision of that measurement), and then compare my actual weight lost vs. calories eaten over a period of time. That tells me what my TDEE is (on average). Then I compare that with what my BodyMedia Fit claims my TDEE was on average during that period, and I determine the error of my individual device. Of course, my weight fluctuates a lot due to factors like sodium, glycogen storage/food still in digestive process, hormones, and training, so that's not exact either. But on any given day, my own armband seems to be somewhere between 92 and 95% accurate. They claim 90% accuracy, so that's well within that margin.The basis makes no bones about not being an exercise monitor, and i didn't expect it to be. I totally figured i'd continue using the polar for that purpose.
It really has been eye opening for me, to be able to see the metrics day to day. They continually fine tune and update the algorythyms too, which is a plus.
So, like I said, i average. But wrist HRM's are notoriously inaccurate at tracking exertion HR anyway.
They'll ping an average, then compare it with distance judged by steps, and kinda munge it that way.
What it boils down to, is it's ALL guesswork. Just pick consistant metrics of guesswork, and stick with em.
All we can do is keep measuring, comparing results with expected results, adjusting, and measuring again. I wish all this gadgetry would make fat loss as simple and precise as a computer program, but the human body is not a turn-crank machine.
Hmm. I wonder if it work (or if anyone would be crazy enough) to do a self test.
Eat exactly the same known quantity of food and water, at exactly the same times of day, with a known quantity of exercise, for a period, and monitor weight (a period long enough to level out water weight changes due to beginning exercise, etc). That should give you a baseline on the weight (using maths and science and stuff), then increase the exercise according to a HRM, and do that consistantly, still doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING food and water wise, and see if the change reflected in weight reflects the change burned in calories.
In fact, I'll bet someone has actually done a controlled study like that. I'd probably have to pay to read it though.
I ain't taking that test on. I would hate to be forced to drink more if I wasn't thirsty or not be able to drink more if I was more thirsty, or not be able to eat more if I was extra hungry!0 -
If you need to burn more calories, please come visit me. I have loads of lawn work and light cleaning for you to do! :laugh:
Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:*sigh*
Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
BRB, gonna go do some "lawn work and light cleaning" in! The cheesecake I want this evening is 1400 calories so I gotta get some calories burned!0 -
How are people getting 900 calries burned in a workout. I do insanity etc and still burn no where close to that.
:laugh: Insanity is normally something I do as a warm up, before I head down to the Gym and do an hour of weights and a couple hours of running/cycling and/or swimming
:flowerforyou:
i'd typically go to the gym 3 days a week on insanity. but certainly didn't get a more intense work out at the gym.
most people don't have that much time to dedicate to exercise
and that's why they burn less than 900 calories
0 -
Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:*sigh*
Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
BRB, gonna go do some "lawn work and light cleaning" in! The cheesecake I want this evening is 1400 calories so I gotta get some calories burned!
About 45 minutes, right?
If you're using a HRM to calculate, maybe watch a horror movie too.0 -
If you need to burn more calories, please come visit me. I have loads of lawn work and light cleaning for you to do! :laugh:
Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:*sigh*
Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
BRB, gonna go do some "lawn work and light cleaning" in! The cheesecake I want this evening is 1400 calories so I gotta get some calories burned!
I was kidding. I would never actually do lawn work I will come and pet your kitties though....wait, what? 0 -
I don't know your height or weight, but being overweight actually makes it easier to burn more. As you progress, you will find that your lower weight means you burn fewer calories for the same exercise. It takes more energy to move 300 lbs one mile than it does 100 lbs. So, your reward for losing weight is eating less. You can eat more if you exercise more.
However, if you are in good condition, it is easier to do the exercise, so easier to burn the calories because you CAN do it.
I am 125 lbs. I burn about 400 calories running 5 miles. I would have to run over 10 miles to burn 900 calories.
When I first started I was 155 lbs and couldn't run to the corner. There was no way I could burn 900 calories easily without working out at low intensity for hours and hours. I simply wasn't in good enough cardiovascular condition to do so.
What can you do to burn that much? Hard to say without knowing your cardiovascular condition and your weight. Build up to it. It is worth it.
Examples of workouts that burn high calories: running, hiking, cycling (hills especially), insanity, cardio strength classes, elliptical at high resistance and incline. Don't discount heavy weight lifting--it is harder to determine calories burned but it does so much for your physique!I was simply asking what kind of workout gets those burns. I guess I am either not heavy enough or working hard enough to burn like that. And yes, I consider being so fat that I have skipped going to swimming pools, the lake, and any activity that involves wearing shorts or a bathing suit for the last two years a serious issue. I try not to even look at myself in my undergarments in mirrors.0 -
Oh, whew. Me neither! :laugh: And please do so! When I go to Iceland later this year to hoist rocks (and eat back all the calories, and then some!) they will be lonely and need company.I was kidding. I would never actually do lawn work I will come and pet your kitties though....wait, what?0 -
That 220 minus age thing is really a horrible estimate of max HR. For example, I did a Tabata protocol workout on the treadmill a while back, and my max heart rate was 217 during that. I'm pretty sure I'm not 9 years old. :laugh:Fat burning zone(zone meaning a range) 220(for men) - age say 40 = 180 times 60-80% or 105 to 144 BPM; for women start with 226 and subtract age. You will find variables but usually 80% is the top of the range. Folks burning 1200-1300 daily congrats, great dedication, continued success.
I think I read that about 30% of people fall outside that 220 minus age thing for max HR. So, sure it's a good rule of thumb, but really not very good to apply to any given individual at all.
If you could provide where you read 30% fall outside of 220 I think it would be beneficial to folks. Any idea how long your heart rate was 217? How many minutes? I'd agree you aren't 9 years old 0 -
That 220 minus age thing is really a horrible estimate of max HR. For example, I did a Tabata protocol workout on the treadmill a while back, and my max heart rate was 217 during that. I'm pretty sure I'm not 9 years old. :laugh:Fat burning zone(zone meaning a range) 220(for men) - age say 40 = 180 times 60-80% or 105 to 144 BPM; for women start with 226 and subtract age. You will find variables but usually 80% is the top of the range. Folks burning 1200-1300 daily congrats, great dedication, continued success.
I think I read that about 30% of people fall outside that 220 minus age thing for max HR. So, sure it's a good rule of thumb, but really not very good to apply to any given individual at all.
If you could provide where you read 30% fall outside of 220 I think it would be beneficial to folks. Any idea how long your heart rate was 217? How many minutes? I'd agree you aren't 9 years old
Well, considering it's a statistical average, it's pretty guaranteed about 30%, if not more, fall outside that.
not trying to be condescending, but that's what "average" means.
It's the same with BMI, "ideal weight for size", daily caloric intake estimation, etc etc and so forth.
All are based on averages. As such, they will serve a lot of people fairly well, a few people REALLY well, and a few people not well at all.0 -
I think you should stop being so negative and complaining so much. Just focus on eating right and exercise. It's probably a good idea if you were to get some type of counseling. Positive words and thoughts are the way to go.
This response carries way more negativity than the actual post. :indifferent:0 -
I don't know your height or weight, but being overweight actually makes it easier to burn more. As you progress, you will find that your lower weight means you burn fewer calories for the same exercise. It takes more energy to move 300 lbs one mile than it does 100 lbs. So, your reward for losing weight is eating less. You can eat more if you exercise more.
However, if you are in good condition, it is easier to do the exercise, so easier to burn the calories because you CAN do it.
I am 125 lbs. I burn about 400 calories running 5 miles. I would have to run over 10 miles to burn 900 calories.
When I first started I was 155 lbs and couldn't run to the corner. There was no way I could burn 900 calories easily without working out at low intensity for hours and hours. I simply wasn't in good enough cardiovascular condition to do so.
What can you do to burn that much? Hard to say without knowing your cardiovascular condition and your weight. Build up to it. It is worth it.
Examples of workouts that burn high calories: running, hiking, cycling (hills especially), insanity, cardio strength classes, elliptical at high resistance and incline. Don't discount heavy weight lifting--it is harder to determine calories burned but it does so much for your physique!I was simply asking what kind of workout gets those burns. I guess I am either not heavy enough or working hard enough to burn like that. And yes, I consider being so fat that I have skipped going to swimming pools, the lake, and any activity that involves wearing shorts or a bathing suit for the last two years a serious issue. I try not to even look at myself in my undergarments in mirrors.
THIS!!! All great suggestions and good points. Build up to stuff. You have to start with small steps. When I got back into running after several years away, I couldn't run 0.25 mile. Now, I'm able to regularly run a 5k with no problems again and I'm considering training for and building up to a 10k for a new goal. 0 -
Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:*sigh*
Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
BRB, gonna go do some "lawn work and light cleaning" in! The cheesecake I want this evening is 1400 calories so I gotta get some calories burned!
About 45 minutes, right?
If you're using a HRM to calculate, maybe watch a horror movie too.
My husband showed me that article! I told him I knew there was a reason I liked horror movies. It's what got me to goal weight (jk).0 -
I get a little over 600 for a whole hour of swimming to include sprints. I eat like a maniac those days!0
-
A half hour walk/run for me burns 300 - 400 calories depending on my pace (tracked by Endomondo, which I gather is fairly good). So, long runs of 1.5 - 2 hours probably gets 900 burn.
P.S. I average around 4 km in my walk/run.0 -
Tabata intervals call for 20 seconds of absolute, flat out, maximal effort followed by 10 seconds of rest for four minutes, so I imagine it was an instantaneous thing. I don't have the data anymore to do the calculus to figure out the average heart rate for the 4 minutes of hell, and my HRM would only report the average of the whole workout, which would have included steady-state warm-up and cool-down.If you could provide where you read 30% fall outside of 220 I think it would be beneficial to folks. Any idea how long your heart rate was 217? How many minutes? I'd agree you aren't 9 years old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Haskell_and_FoxWhile it is the most common (and easy to remember and calculate), this particular formula is not considered by reputable health and fitness professionals to be a good predictor of HRmax. Despite the widespread publication of this formula, research spanning two decades reveals its large inherent error, Sxy = 7–11 bpm. Consequently, the estimation calculated by HRmax = 220 − age has neither the accuracy nor the scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields.[12]
http://www.builtlean.com/2010/05/25/how-to-calculate-your-max-heart-rate/The 220-Age calculation is very popular because it’s easy and reasonably accurate for most people, while the other calculation was created in 2007 and is more accurate.
There’s a drawback, however, of these widely used calculations that few people understand. The standard deviation of the 220-age formula is + or – 12 bpm, and the other calculation has a standard deviation of + or – 7 bpm.
In case you never took calculus, or statistics, a standard deviation of + or – 12 bpm means that 66% of people are within 1 standard deviation of the max heart rate predicted by this 220-age formula, 90% of people are within 2 standard deviations (+ or – 24 bpm), and 95% of people are within 3 standard deviations (+ or – 36 bpm).
So it looks like I just managed to squeak in to the 3 standard deviations.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions