What if you burned 3500 calories in a day?
Replies
-
Either way, a terrible idea.
Not at all .. That 'about' a Marathon.... it's not like you'd do one the next day too...
But as most say - you wouldn't be using fat as the only fuel - so you wouldn't lose a pound of fat weight.0 -
If I use the METs value for walking 2.8-3.2mph and apply it to a BMR of 1843 (Katch-Mcardle for 300lbs. and 50%BF), I estimate walking 8 mph burns around 1400 gross or 1000 net calories. Meaning 400 of the 1400 you would've burned sitting at home those hours.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
So, yeah, 3500 is not even in the ballpark.
Where did that even come from? If I put in walking 3mph for 160mins. (comes out to 8 miles at moderate pace) in MFP for me it spits out around 600 calories.
The link you posted, are those realistic numbers? May I ask how you calculate with them. I'm trying to find out how much calories I'd burn with for example swimming laps at various intensities. Thanks.0 -
This is really interesting thanks for answering my question! Just so everyone know I dont plan on trying this it was a thought that came up during an 8 mile walk where I almost unintentionally burned that amount.
I walk eight miles pretty much every day and I started doing that when I had over 100lb to lose. At your own admission it took four hours to walk so that's an average of 2mph. There's absolutely no way whatsoever that you burned 3,500 calories for that walk, no matter if you're 100lb overweight.
It's great that you did the walk, I'm not knocking you for that but please don't think that you've burned 3,500 calories doing it. It's probably nearer 700-800.0 -
If I use the METs value for walking 2.8-3.2mph and apply it to a BMR of 1843 (Katch-Mcardle for 300lbs. and 50%BF), I estimate walking 8 mph burns around 1400 gross or 1000 net calories. Meaning 400 of the 1400 you would've burned sitting at home those hours.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
So, yeah, 3500 is not even in the ballpark.
Where did that even come from? If I put in walking 3mph for 160mins. (comes out to 8 miles at moderate pace) in MFP for me it spits out around 600 calories.
The link you posted, are those realistic numbers? May I ask how you calculate with them. I'm trying to find out how much calories I'd burn with for example swimming laps at various intensities. Thanks.
If an activity has a MET value of (for example) 3, it means you are burning calories at 3 times your basal expenditure rate. So if your BMR/RMR is 2000, that's an hourly rate of 83 calories (this doesn't account for sleepy time, it's just rough), so an activity level of 3 would mean you burn 3*83 -> 249 calories in total. Or (3-1) * 83 -> 166 calories above your BMR/RMR.
METs tables here.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/water-activities
Like everything else involving calories, understand that there are error bars are on all the numbers! Forest, trees, etc. :drinker:0 -
I went on a 10-hour hike last month that burned around 3500 kcal (btw: no way does an 8 mile walk burn that much).
I was curious on the impact on my weight loss as well, although I didn't do it for that purpose. Result: None at all, my weight loss went on but at the usual pace. So it hadn't really an effect whatsoever, even though I didn't eat back any of the exercise calories. (I would have, but how on earth are you supposed to consume >5000 kcal when you spend the whole day hiking?)0 -
In a perfect world that would be great! There would be no obesity if ppl would just exerciese! I would be an exercising FOOL! LOL0
-
Well, I am 100 pounds overweight right now and it took me four hours.
To get an approximation of the net calories expended walking multiply you weight (in lbs) by .30 for every mile walked (this formula would be conservative if there was also a considerable vertical change in terrain or if you were on a treadmill at a steep incline) so unless you weigh 1,400 lbs you did not expend an additional 3500 cal walking 8 miles.:laugh: :laugh:0 -
That's what I thought as well, but that is still a great burn.This is really interesting thanks for answering my question! Just so everyone know I dont plan on trying this it was a thought that came up during an 8 mile walk where I almost unintentionally burned that amount.
I walk eight miles pretty much every day and I started doing that when I had over 100lb to lose. At your own admission it took four hours to walk so that's an average of 2mph. There's absolutely no way whatsoever that you burned 3,500 calories for that walk, no matter if you're 100lb overweight.
It's great that you did the walk, I'm not knocking you for that but please don't think that you've burned 3,500 calories doing it. It's probably nearer 700-800.0 -
Well that is an interesting though. Good job on your LOOOONG walk. I hope you allowed yourself some carbs following the walk.0
-
Right. Also, here is info about the compendium.If I use the METs value for walking 2.8-3.2mph and apply it to a BMR of 1843 (Katch-Mcardle for 300lbs. and 50%BF), I estimate walking 8 mph burns around 1400 gross or 1000 net calories. Meaning 400 of the 1400 you would've burned sitting at home those hours.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
So, yeah, 3500 is not even in the ballpark.
Where did that even come from? If I put in walking 3mph for 160mins. (comes out to 8 miles at moderate pace) in MFP for me it spits out around 600 calories.
The link you posted, are those realistic numbers? May I ask how you calculate with them. I'm trying to find out how much calories I'd burn with for example swimming laps at various intensities. Thanks.
If an activity has a MET value of (for example) 3, it means you are burning calories at 3 times your basal expenditure rate. So if your BMR/RMR is 2000, that's an hourly rate of 83 calories (this doesn't account for sleepy time, it's just rough), so an activity level of 3 would mean you burn 3*83 -> 249 calories in total. Or (3-1) * 83 -> 166 calories above your BMR/RMR.
METs tables here.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/water-activities
Like everything else involving calories, understand that there are error bars are on all the numbers! Forest, trees, etc. :drinker:
http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/compendium.htm
I'm pretty sure Fitbit uses it for its calorie estimates and I assume the other trackers and most of the databases do as well. I'm not sure about MFP's activity database, I've never used it.0 -
To even burn near 3,500 in 3-4 hours... it is extensive abuse to your body. I have to put my stationary bike on an incline of 20, and it is terribly hard to push the pedals. Then I go as much as I can for as long as I can. My *kitten* will hurt of course after an hour or so. Have to take a short break of walking around. To move my arms, I use Wii Active Heavy Boxing. I do both exercises together which will burn fat no joke but the result is extensive.
I don't think a normal person could do it. My calves are huge from power lifting with the thousands of squats I did. Let alone, someone might get bored to exercise that much in that certain amount of time.0 -
Either way, a terrible idea.
Not at all .. That 'about' a Marathon.... it's not like you'd do one the next day too...
But as most say - you wouldn't be using fat as the only fuel - so you wouldn't lose a pound of fat weight.
To burn a net of 3500 calories (which is what would theoretically be required for this) would require a fairly heavy person to run a full marathon without eating anything on that day. So yeah, this is a pretty terrible idea.
Plenty of people burn 3500 calories through physical activity in a day, but how many net a 3500 deficit?0 -
I'm not sure how accurate MFP is when it comes to calories burned. This afternoon I walked 10.5 miles in 3hrs around the streets, which is 3.5mph and which MFP says I've burned 803 calories. However, according to MFP if I had hiked for 3hrs, I would have burned 1,267 calories.
To me walking is just in light shoes, on pavements and not carrying anything more than my phone and house keys, whereas I consider hiking to be in boots carrying a rucksack (not a very heavy one, just a waterproof, water and food) and out in the countryside. However, I built up much more a sweat walking 3.5mph for 3hrs, than I ever do hiking across the countryside.
When I'm out in the coutryside I try and drink about 300mls of water every hour and eat a cereal bar every couple of hours. A couple weeks back I hiked 20 miles in just under 9hrs and I gained 0.4lbs from the morning to the evening and yet my calories eaten were just under 1600! It didn't seem fair, but my weight is going down and my stamina is going up, so walking is working for me
Incidentally, according to MFP, I would have to walk for about 15hrs at 3mph to burn 3,500 calories or about 8.5hrs hiking, but I can't image I would burn all that in that time, 15hrs maybe 0 -
All the compendium variations of 'hiking' burn more than walking 3.5mph on a flat, smooth surface. The word hiking assumes you're on uneven terrain with some hills, I think. These numbers were obtained from testing subjects doing the activities.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking0 -
Thanks for that link. You're right, when I'm hiking I'm on uneven ground and yes there are hills, and stiles/fences to climb over. When walking it is generally flat and even, so yes I can see how hiking would burn more. It's just walking the streets is a bit boring compared to being out in the countryside with all the fresh air and distant views, so that is much more enjoyable and the miles slip by.0
-
Either way, a terrible idea.
Not at all .. That 'about' a Marathon.... it's not like you'd do one the next day too...
But as most say - you wouldn't be using fat as the only fuel - so you wouldn't lose a pound of fat weight.
To burn a net of 3500 calories (which is what would theoretically be required for this) would require a fairly heavy person to run a full marathon without eating anything on that day. So yeah, this is a pretty terrible idea.
Plenty of people burn 3500 calories through physical activity in a day, but how many net a 3500 deficit?
212 lbs X .63 X 26.2 miles = estimated 3500 net calories burned
They could then eat their maintenance calories of ~2300 and still lose a lb as a result of the marathon. The body still does burn calories existing.0 -
If I use the METs value for walking 2.8-3.2mph and apply it to a BMR of 1843 (Katch-Mcardle for 300lbs. and 50%BF), I estimate walking 8 mph burns around 1400 gross or 1000 net calories. Meaning 400 of the 1400 you would've burned sitting at home those hours.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
So, yeah, 3500 is not even in the ballpark.
Where did that even come from? If I put in walking 3mph for 160mins. (comes out to 8 miles at moderate pace) in MFP for me it spits out around 600 calories.
The link you posted, are those realistic numbers? May I ask how you calculate with them. I'm trying to find out how much calories I'd burn with for example swimming laps at various intensities. Thanks.
If an activity has a MET value of (for example) 3, it means you are burning calories at 3 times your basal expenditure rate. So if your BMR/RMR is 2000, that's an hourly rate of 83 calories (this doesn't account for sleepy time, it's just rough), so an activity level of 3 would mean you burn 3*83 -> 249 calories in total. Or (3-1) * 83 -> 166 calories above your BMR/RMR.
METs tables here.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/water-activities
Like everything else involving calories, understand that there are error bars are on all the numbers! Forest, trees, etc. :drinker:
Cool! That's what I needed! Now I only need to determine my bmr properly. Does the BMR include the part about sedentary vs. active lifestyle? I would guess not as the energy expenditure due to sport is part of that.0 -
I went on a hike with my family. What was suppose to be 10 miles ended up being 19. We did it in 8 hours and had a 2000 foot elevation climb. I was also carrying my 23 pound child on my back. According to my HR monitor I burned 3600 calories. We barely stopped at all and when we did I pushed pause. I didn't lose any weight from it, in fact I gained some, probably from all the water I drank when we finally got the hell out of there!0
-
No, because the body doesn't gain/lose on a 24-hour cycle. It's a continuum.
sorry but I failed to see the logic here...if you burned 3500 calories, it should be a pound right? either it's within 8 hours or 8 days?0 -
The people on here are so funny. I burned nearly that amount after pretty much a full day of exercise including yoga, swimming, walking, and The Doctor Who Challege (Two Hard Episodes). Its an hypothetical question not something I actualy try to do. It wasnt a net deficit either lol. I burn normally 800-1000 calories a day. Again HYPOTHETICAL!
Either way, a terrible idea.
Not at all .. That 'about' a Marathon.... it's not like you'd do one the next day too...
But as most say - you wouldn't be using fat as the only fuel - so you wouldn't lose a pound of fat weight.
To burn a net of 3500 calories (which is what would theoretically be required for this) would require a fairly heavy person to run a full marathon without eating anything on that day. So yeah, this is a pretty terrible idea.
Plenty of people burn 3500 calories through physical activity in a day, but how many net a 3500 deficit?0 -
People here say that it's not like you can do a marathon everyday... This is possible... check out Dean Karnazes who did 50 marathons in 50 days and have ran ultra distances up to 500 KM non stop. He isn't the only ultra runner to burn so many calories... there are people out there that run ultras and train for ultras. I myself have burn up to 6000 calories one go. You may or may not lose weight depending on consumption... but one thing I do know is that your body becomes built to adapt.0
-
on a related note, I also wonder what happens to those who fast like a week or longer. even your metabolism is slowing down on the fourth day, it's still burning right? so if you fast 7 days or a month, you should lose a lot of weight, too. Is this right?0
-
The "Hiking - cross country" in MFP is pretty weird, it's set as double the calories of the "Walking 2.5mph". Perhaps it's meant to be hiking at an incredible speed, or something. I usually just enter the Walking with the time, even though that's probably understating things.
The OP might have been talking about total calories burned in a day... according to MFP, my resting calories burned are about 2600, so getting to 3500 would only be another 900 calories from exercise. Which, with that hiking calibration, would be an hour and twenty minutes.
Even just on the face of it, as 3500 extra calories from exercise, it's not impossible. I don't know if I've ever done that much, but I got to 2800 on Tuesday, and I know that's not the most I've done.0 -
The "Hiking - cross country" in MFP is pretty weird, it's set as double the calories of the "Walking 2.5mph". Perhaps it's meant to be hiking at an incredible speed, or something. I usually just enter the Walking with the time, even though that's probably understating things.
The OP might have been talking about total calories burned in a day... according to MFP, my resting calories burned are about 2600, so getting to 3500 would only be another 900 calories from exercise. Which, with that hiking calibration, would be an hour and twenty minutes.
Even just on the face of it, as 3500 extra calories from exercise, it's not impossible. I don't know if I've ever done that much, but I got to 2800 on Tuesday, and I know that's not the most I've done.
I'm not saying MFP has an accurate burn estimate but I think the idea is that if you are just "walking" you are probably doing so on a relativly flat evenly graded surface. If you are doing walking cross-country then you are most certainly not doing so on a flat evenly graded surface and it will take more energy.0 -
I haven't read all of the posts but my garmin said I burned 3600 when I ran my first marathon. My weight was pretty much the same the next morning but by the end of the week I was down a few pounds.0
-
Well that would be the logic of those who think everything is ONLY "calories in and calories out". Unfortunately, biological systems are a little more complex than that (for one, we have an endocrine system), and for good reason: to avoid starvation. That same complex biological system even helped prevent obesity before humans were consuming a diet composed primarily of processed junk. Hint: the body needs many nutrients and micro-nutrients to operate at it's healthiest and properly manage metabolism and fat burning/storage.
But they'll be a bunch of people here to tell you I'm just full of bs, it's only "calories in and calories out". Do whatever works for you. I'll do what works for me.0 -
on a related note, I also wonder what happens to those who fast like a week or longer. even your metabolism is slowing down on the fourth day, it's still burning right? so if you fast 7 days or a month, you should lose a lot of weight, too. Is this right?
Maybe. But humans potentially can go months without eating (varies by person of course) so if calories in and calories out were true, why are those people not dropping dead rather quickly? With all the "establish your TDEE, and eat at a deficit" advice you'd think that's exactly what would happen and it doesn't. Because of the low calorie bs I now have a very slow metabolism (it can be fixed over time) and I'm currently eating well under my TDEE (supposedly) and I am gaining weight (but not really getting physically bigger). I know what I eat, I know what I do, but a bunch of people will be quick to assert that I'm lazy, lack willpower, am not tracking accurately, not tracking everything, not weighing my food, blah blah blah. They can go fly a kite.0 -
I lose weight consistently eating pretty much the same quantity and exercising the same amount daily, yet my weight commonly plateaus for 3/ 4 days at a time before I will see a loss. I think weight takes a little time to come off, just as weight takes a little time to go on. If you're really curious about your theory, why not just try it in reverse, and eat 3500 extra calories today, and see if you are a pound heavier tomorrow
0 -
This is really interesting thanks for answering my question! Just so everyone know I dont plan on trying this it was a thought that came up during an 8 mile walk where I almost unintentionally burned that amount.
A few months ago I accidentally burned that many calories. I had an old, out-of-date map with an error on it, so an 11 mile hike in the mountains ended up being 21 miles. It was dark when we got back to the car and I was super sore (felt a lot like what I feel like after running a marathon), but I don't remember any weight changes. (TBH, I wasn't really paying attention since I'm on maintenance and I don't weigh myself very often.) I was careful to eat a crap ton of food for a couple of days to make up for it, though. I don't think a single major calorie burning session does that much, especially not immediately. It's really something that takes place more over time. You wouldn't see it right away, unless it was water weight changes or something.0 -
I would eat a whole jar of crunchy peanut butter.... to keep the space time thingy from destroying the world.
:bigsmile:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions