how in the hell are these people getting 900 calorie burns

Options
1910111315

Replies

  • boxpunk
    boxpunk Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    How I got there is from personal experience.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    Options
    I think it depends on how much you weigh as to how many calories you will burn in a workout session. Or the calories are just overestimated, which does happen on MFP I've heard :)

    ^ This sounds about right. To burn 900 calories I personally have to run about 9 miles. My sister (who is taller and heavier than me) burns way more than I do during that same run. :flowerforyou:
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    I walked 9.2 miles yesterday. My hrm gave me 1116. I walk 3 to 5 miles a day and do a work out DVD. I go by my hrm, not MFP. ETA:,I use my hrm because MFP gives me way too many calories burned. For my walk yesterday, at 4.6 miles, hrm 558, MFP close to 900.
    Interesting, because for walking, MFP's calculations are usually about half of my HRM's.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    I burn about 900 calories sitting in my chair at work from 8 to 4.
  • MrsG31
    MrsG31 Posts: 364 Member
    Options
    They work their butt off!

    My sister teaches several classes of high intensity cardio at the Y so she has been able to get that high. Several people who are long distance runners regularly burn 1000 calories (they are LONG distance runners---10+ miles I typically see on their daily runs). Others are just very heavy, which requires more energy when they do work out. Others work out for several hours to burn 900 calories.

    I get it--I have never burned that much. But I don't exercise like some of these people and I am smaller.

    My sister teaches classes at the Y too! Sure wish I could get a sibling-discount...grrrrrr.....
  • mcspiffy88
    mcspiffy88 Posts: 90 Member
    Options
    Unless you are something close to a proffessional athlete you are not going to burn anything near that much. Period.
  • abickford82
    Options
    Sleep. With an hour commute each way to work, I'm gone 11 hours. Put in gym time of one and a half hours with drive time to and from home..then cooking and cleaning up every night because no one else does and my husband wants a fresh meal each night..no leftovers...it's nine when I'm done with that. Then bathing and relaxing and pet time...it's at least 11 before I get to bed. Then up at five to start over with breakfast etc....

    Maybe your husband should do some cooking and cleaning and maybe he should learn to love leftovers. Making a fresh meal EVERY night? That's insane and sounds expensive.

    Yes, this. I love cooking for my husband and taking care of our home, but if you're working, too -- he should be picking up some slack and share the responsibilities.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Unless you are something close to a proffessional athlete you are not going to burn anything near that much. Period.

    I burn over 2000 calories every day. What are you talking about?
  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    Options
    Sleep. With an hour commute each way to work, I'm gone 11 hours. Put in gym time of one and a half hours with drive time to and from home..then cooking and cleaning up every night because no one else does and my husband wants a fresh meal each night..no leftovers...it's nine when I'm done with that. Then bathing and relaxing and pet time...it's at least 11 before I get to bed. Then up at five to start over with breakfast etc....

    Speaking of old fashioned...

    Time to tell your man to man up and do his share of the cooking as well as cleaning up. Seriously - put your foot down on that and change your over-functioning ways ASAP. If he can read, he can cook. Food Network is on 24/7 and it's filled with guys cooking as well. And he can do the dishes and put things away just as easily as you can. And he can shop for the groceries to have his "fresh meal". And he can take care of "pet time".

    If he fights you on any of it, tell him how important it is for you and your health to get some exercise time. And tell him how far behind the times he is with other men out there that are married and sharing cooking/cleaning duties.

    And there are time management ways of cooking to have excellent meals. Crock pot, smoking meat on the weekends to use throughout the week, preparing most of a meal in the morning before going to work so you have time to exercise after work, etc... .

    Sorry....I couldn't resist responding to your post. I do wish you all the best in getting it balanced.

    Example: I smoked three smart range chickens last weekend. One we ate with a fresh spinach salad. Another went into a vat of white chicken chili I made which provided 2 evening meals for us. The third ended up on 2 smoked chicken pizzas that I made.

    12187637526_e4cc705629.jpg


    12166567504_f775a635d5.jpg
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Options
    I walked 9.2 miles yesterday. My hrm gave me 1116. I walk 3 to 5 miles a day and do a work out DVD. I go by my hrm, not MFP. ETA:,I use my hrm because MFP gives me way too many calories burned. For my walk yesterday, at 4.6 miles, hrm 558, MFP close to 900.
    Interesting, because for walking, MFP's calculations are usually about half of my HRM's.

    Walking 9.2 miles. 1116 seems very high. That is about as much as I would burn from running at around 9mph.
  • snugglein
    snugglein Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    Running more than an hour (not recommended if you haven't run before)
  • davemunger
    davemunger Posts: 1,139 Member
    Options
    I walked 9.2 miles yesterday. My hrm gave me 1116. I walk 3 to 5 miles a day and do a work out DVD. I go by my hrm, not MFP. ETA:,I use my hrm because MFP gives me way too many calories burned. For my walk yesterday, at 4.6 miles, hrm 558, MFP close to 900.
    Interesting, because for walking, MFP's calculations are usually about half of my HRM's.

    Walking 9.2 miles. 1116 seems very high. That is about as much as I would burn from running at around 9mph.

    You burn about as many calories walking versus running the same distance -- mainly because walking takes a lot longer!
  • BobcatGirl110
    BobcatGirl110 Posts: 364 Member
    Options
    anything at about 8 miles or over will get me between 900-1100 calorie burn so it's not that hard if you walk, run, or bike a significant number of miles and time. Most of us who reach that burn are not doing it in a one hour workout
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Options
    I walked 9.2 miles yesterday. My hrm gave me 1116. I walk 3 to 5 miles a day and do a work out DVD. I go by my hrm, not MFP. ETA:,I use my hrm because MFP gives me way too many calories burned. For my walk yesterday, at 4.6 miles, hrm 558, MFP close to 900.
    Interesting, because for walking, MFP's calculations are usually about half of my HRM's.

    Walking 9.2 miles. 1116 seems very high. That is about as much as I would burn from running at around 9mph.

    You burn about as many calories walking versus running the same distance -- mainly because walking takes a lot longer!

    I dont agree with this statement at all. Heart rate is important. Your heart rate doesnt beat as much walking.

    MFP calculates walking at 3mph for 3 hours at around 750 calories. It also calculates running for an hour at 9mph will burn 1,169 calories. From experience from the average burns stated on other run trackers I have used, this seems much more accurate than what the poster here is stating.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    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.

    You don't even have to keep the food exact. Eat your normal diet and count it as accurately as you reasonably can.

    Average out daily scale weights to correct for water changes.

    Continuously calculate your maintenance intake, both in total TDEE and in non-exercise TDEE.

    Subtract your maintenence in total TDEE from non-exercise TDEE and divide by your average daily workout minutes, and whallah, you now now how many calories you burn per minute of exercise.

    Do this over the course of a few weeks to get good data. For even stronger data, only strength train for a few weeks. Only do cardio for a few weeks.

    This is not very crazy you kow, many people do this, it is not particularly difficult to do.

    Contrary to popular belief, MFP's calorie burns in the exercise database are quite good.

    I used that method to figure out that MFP's "strength training" entry is an absolute joke, that "high effort calisthenics" or "circuit training" is far more appropriate for any sort of real strength training. MFP's strength training entry is only appropriate for old ladies lifting pink DB's, if you are actually trying is is a gross underestimation.

    MFP's running #'s are pretty much dead on.
  • davemunger
    davemunger Posts: 1,139 Member
    Options
    I walked 9.2 miles yesterday. My hrm gave me 1116. I walk 3 to 5 miles a day and do a work out DVD. I go by my hrm, not MFP. ETA:,I use my hrm because MFP gives me way too many calories burned. For my walk yesterday, at 4.6 miles, hrm 558, MFP close to 900.
    Interesting, because for walking, MFP's calculations are usually about half of my HRM's.

    Walking 9.2 miles. 1116 seems very high. That is about as much as I would burn from running at around 9mph.

    You burn about as many calories walking versus running the same distance -- mainly because walking takes a lot longer!

    I dont agree with this statement at all. Heart rate is important. Your heart rate doesnt beat as much walking.

    MFP calculates walking at 3mph for 3 hours at around 750 calories. It also calculates running for an hour at 9mph will burn 1,169 calories. From experience from the average burns stated on other run trackers I have used, this seems much more accurate than what the poster here is stating.

    Not many people can run 9 miles at 9mph!

    Every calculator is a little different: Straight up 3-mph walking versus running 6 mph for 9 miles I get a 150-calorie difference using this calculator. http://www.healthstatus.com/perl/calculator.cgi

    In reality it is going to depend on what the terrain is like, your fitness level, walking / running pace and a host of other details. In my experience the two are actually fairly similar -- within 15 percent.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    You burn about as many calories walking versus running the same distance -- mainly because walking takes a lot longer!

    No you don't.

    The up down motion of running, which walking lacks, adds a fair bit to the calorie burn. Running burns about 30% or so more per mile.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    You burn about as many calories walking versus running the same distance -- mainly because walking takes a lot longer!

    No you don't.

    The up down motion of running, which walking lacks, adds a fair bit to the calorie burn. Running burns about 30% or so more per mile.

    Science has no place here.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Options
    I walked 9.2 miles yesterday. My hrm gave me 1116. I walk 3 to 5 miles a day and do a work out DVD. I go by my hrm, not MFP. ETA:,I use my hrm because MFP gives me way too many calories burned. For my walk yesterday, at 4.6 miles, hrm 558, MFP close to 900.
    Interesting, because for walking, MFP's calculations are usually about half of my HRM's.

    Walking 9.2 miles. 1116 seems very high. That is about as much as I would burn from running at around 9mph.

    You burn about as many calories walking versus running the same distance -- mainly because walking takes a lot longer!

    I dont agree with this statement at all. Heart rate is important. Your heart rate doesnt beat as much walking.

    MFP calculates walking at 3mph for 3 hours at around 750 calories. It also calculates running for an hour at 9mph will burn 1,169 calories. From experience from the average burns stated on other run trackers I have used, this seems much more accurate than what the poster here is stating.

    Not many people can run 9 miles at 9mph!

    Every calculator is a little different: Straight up 3-mph walking versus running 6 mph for 9 miles I get a 150-calorie difference using this calculator. http://www.healthstatus.com/perl/calculator.cgi

    In reality it is going to depend on what the terrain is like, your fitness level, walking / running pace and a host of other details. In my experience the two are actually fairly similar -- within 15 percent.

    I am not arguing whether people can run at 9mph, just that walking does not burn as much as running.
  • jlapey
    jlapey Posts: 1,850 Member
    Options
    My HRM says I burn that much when I'm raking the yard from 10:00am to 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon...