how in the hell are these people getting 900 calorie burns

Options
1…78101213…15

Replies

  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Southieface
    Southieface Posts: 8
    Options
    Because everyone's body is different and Insanity focuses on strength which is just as good (some even say its better) as cardio.
  • EdTheGinge
    EdTheGinge Posts: 1,616 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jstika
    jstika Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    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)
    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.
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    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. :)
    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.

    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.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    Options
    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.
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,326 Member
    Options
    heybales has a really informative post on the forums about how to set up your HRM to give a more accurate burn
    For 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.
  • christopherphillips1983
    christopherphillips1983 Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    *sigh*
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    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.
    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:

    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    *sigh*

    Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
  • Ctrum69
    Ctrum69 Posts: 308 Member
    Options
    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.
    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:

    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.

    :)
  • Ctrum69
    Ctrum69 Posts: 308 Member
    Options
    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. :)
    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.

    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.
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    *sigh*

    Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
    Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    *sigh*

    Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
    Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:

    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!
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    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. :)
    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.

    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.
    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!

    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!
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    *sigh*

    Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
    Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:

    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!
    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:
  • DPernet
    DPernet Posts: 481 Member
    Options
    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 :wink:
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    *sigh*

    Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
    Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:

    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    *sigh*

    Takes you back to page two where it is stated that people will continue to believe what they want to believe...lol.
    Hey, some of us are trying science! So stand back! :laugh:

    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!
    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:

    I was kidding. I would never actually do lawn work :) I will come and pet your kitties though....wait, what?

Categories