Ladies. How long does it take you to burn 200 calories?

First, why do you want to loose that many calories that fast? How did you calculate that it took you 20 minutes to burn those 200 calories?

Today it took me 30 minutes to burn 270 calories via my HRM to walk/run 2.22 mile while carrying my lazy child.

20 minutes for 200 calories is pretty decent it depends on what you're doing and how accurate you'd consider the machine you're using. It'd probably take me 25 minutes, but I'm not working especially hard, but I use high incline.

Not sure how long it takes me to burn that because it probably varies greatly by what I do, but you should be looking at about 30mins a day of moderate exercise either way. I do know I burn about 200 cals on an 8min/mi pace run around 20mins.

NickGibson188 wrote: »

Remember if it was easy everyone would be walking round looking like a fitness model :-)

^^^ that.

It depends on what you are doing, and how much you weight. Unless you are very overweight and you are going at a really high intensity, you are probably not burning anything close to that many calories. To give you an example, my estimation as healthy weight, average height woman for running a 5k, which is for me around 40 minutes during training, is around 300 calories. If you are hoping to burn lots of calories and are disappointed by the 200, unless you are very obese, then this is not happening in 20 minutes. If the goal is to lose weight, it is easier to do it by restricting calories you eat, than trying to eat a lot and then burn it through exercise, unless your lifestyle allows you to spend hours training every day.

atypicalsmith wrote: »

Also, even if you are programming in all of your info, how do you know if the calories it says you are burning are including or are in addition to the calories you would have burned anyway in that same time frame? Let's say one burns 70 calories a minute just staying alive: breathing, keeping your heart beating and your blood circulating, your cells replaced, etc. Now, if you are on a treadmill and plug in all your numbers, and it says you burned 150 calories in 30 minutes, does this include or exclude the 35 calories you would have burned anyway had you been sleeping instead?

That said, I love keeping track of calories burned and when I exercise, I feel a lot better and eat less junk. Also, no matter what, you will always burn more calories by exercising than by not. Also, it helps with your overall metabolism.

I've never seen a database entry, HRM, machine, or anything else remove calories that would have been burned otherwise.
Because how does it know what you would have been doing otherwise?
Sleeping?
Or mowing the lawn, running after kids, walking the dog, ect.
It's estimating what you burned in those minutes at that level of exercise - which includes everything.

Sadly elliptical's have no good studies for formula for calorie burn like treadmills have, too many variables and personal ways of doing it.
The best just measure your wattage output, and assume you are the average 20-23% efficient turning calories into movement. Weight is all that matters then.

Actually, MFP already has an estimate of what it expects you to burn every minute of the day - In your goals - calories burned from daily activity.
Divide by 1440 - that's your already accounted for calorie burn per minute that your eating goal is based on.

That's what you should be subtracting from whatever burn you do in addition to normal living that MFP is already estimating.

heybales wrote: »

10 cal/min isn't that bad.

As you get more fit, you can do more than that - easily.

Exactly!

200 calories can take me anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour, depending on what I'm doing.