Is there a cap on how much I can burn?

sbuell20 wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with burning over 1000 calories. I don't understand the fear.

I try to burn over 1000 calories at least one day each week if possible. And I've had some days where I've burned a whole lot more than that.

For example, if you estimate 400 calories per hour on a bicycle ... and you ride 5 hours ... that's 2000 calories. That's a great day!!

My thing is I want to make sure I can burn them all or at least most off without harm. I love to eat/drink more than my diet is comfortable with. However, I wouldn't feel so bad if I can just go to the gym and work them off.

That's what I do.

One of the best things about exercising lots is that I can eat more ... within reason, of course.

I don't necessarily eat all my calories back, but the exercise gives me the freedom to have a bit more flexibility in my diet. For example, my birthday was about a month ago. That weekend, my husband and I cycled up a storm ... and I was able to go to a Mexican Restaurant for dinner (my favourite food), and then the next day I was able to eat half a small cheesecake.

BTW - I'm quite steadily losing weight.

sbuell20 wrote: »

Emilia777 wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

yeah walking and doing abs are not going to burn that many calories in 2.5 hrs. unless you are severely obese then maybe but I still dont think it would be that high. I can walk for 3-4 hrs when I go to the mall and dont even burn that many,even when I was 70 lbs overweight I still didnt burn that many. Also who can do abs for 40+ min? isnt that redundant?.

I have no idea what kind of ab work someone can do for 40 minutes. I take under 10 minutes, including rest, for ab exercises, and they hurt for days afterwards.

I'll try and make you a list of what I do. I will look up the names of the exercises. It hurts at the end of the workout. I'm kind of an extreme individual at times, but there are more extreme.

I appreciate the thought, but I for one wouldn’t do it anyway tbh. When it comes to exercising, I’m not extreme - I prefer being consistent and safe. Imo, that’s the name of the game for heavy lifting. But, to each their own.

@Mr_Knight. I'm training for a half marathon, so I just might run another 10 miles after the first 5. I definitely would if I wasn't so damn slow.

@Emilia777 Thanks for the heads up. I really hate a chest strap. I'll take a look at those reviews.

enterdanger wrote: »

@Mr_Knight. I'm training for a half marathon, so I just might run another 10 miles after the first 5. I definitely would if I wasn't so damn slow.

@Emilia777 Thanks for the heads up. I really hate a chest strap. I'll take a look at those reviews.

Happy to help, and I’m sure you’ll find something. My local Running Room has the Mio and a 30 day satisfaction return policy, so if you’ve got one around, you’d be able to try out some alternatives. Good luck with your training!!

jkohnmobile wrote: »

This looks a lot like the numbers in MFP's database, at least for cycling (for example, 16-19MPH being 12 METs, which at my weight would be about 1000 kcal/hr and I can tell you that's way high.

Based on weight of 170.2, the calculated calories for my March 3 indoor ride of 1:00:01 covering a distance of 18.7 miles are as follows:
* MFP - 926 (16-20 mph)
* MET - 973
* IpBike - 895 (derived from power output based on empirical relationship of speed to power for the Kurt Kinetic Road Machine @ 22% efficiency, 232 average watts).

Disclaimer for 2011 Compendium categories in red are estimated MET values and 16-19mph is one of them. I'm pretty sure that had I been going at 19mph my calories based on power would be in line with MFP (and that's not that big of a deviation from MET calculations). I was getting much bigger discrepancies based on HR when I got back to cycling 10 months ago (on high side at lower speeds if memory serves). With lower speeds, MFP was also very generous.

INDOOR ride with 2x20' and 1x10' tempo if memory servers. January 23 test puts my FTP at 247 using the indoor trainer so the power meets the ride. And yes, I average 2mph faster outdoors with similar RPE. Also yes, VP is not the most accurate and likely will shift the actual FTP but it's a consistent deviation (KK acknowledges the fact in their equation). And I do maintain a consistent setup (tire pressure, dedicated bike, etc).

Percentage efficiency is inversely proportion to calories expended (higher the efficiency, less calories are needed, (KJ / % efficiency) * 4.184 = Calories). 20-25% is the general range with few exceptional measured in the 27% range. Most elite cyclist are in the 25% range. At 25%, it's a 13% drop in calories but I don't think I ever hit that level of efficiency even in my early twenties when I was racing collegiate Bs with a few forays in USCF Cat 4 some 26 years ago. 22% is just a comfortable margin without paying for the actual testing since I don't plan to race anymore (wasn't that good or had much luck in the first place). I don't always eat back all my exercise calories so the 107.6 difference is not that big of a deal and it already has a comfortable margin to other estimates.

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

yeah walking and doing abs are not going to burn that many calories in 2.5 hrs. unless you are severely obese then maybe but I still dont think it would be that high. I can walk for 3-4 hrs when I go to the mall and dont even burn that many,even when I was 70 lbs overweight I still didnt burn that many. Also who can do abs for 40+ min? isnt that redundant?.

I agree. I'm thinking that there are much more efficient ways to exercise and have a nice calorie burn and still have time left over to have a life. And there's no way just walking and "abs" will generate that type of calorie burn.

I am a little jealous of all these people who can burn so many calories during their hour workouts or so, definetely don't get that type of burn when you're 5 ft 1 and 120. Figures, cause I have the appetite of a football player!

jkohnmobile wrote: »

kcjchang wrote: »

jkohnmobile wrote: »

This looks a lot like the numbers in MFP's database, at least for cycling (for example, 16-19MPH being 12 METs, which at my weight would be about 1000 kcal/hr and I can tell you that's way high.

Based on weight of 170.2, the calculated calories for my March 3 indoor ride of 1:00:01 covering a distance of 18.7 miles are as follows:
* MFP - 926 (16-20 mph)
* MET - 973
* IpBike - 895 (derived from power output based on empirical relationship of speed to power for the Kurt Kinetic Road Machine @ 22% efficiency, 232 average watts).

Disclaimer for 2011 Compendium categories in red are estimated MET values and 16-19mph is one of them. I'm pretty sure that had I been going at 19mph my calories based on power would be in line with MFP (and that's not that big of a deviation from MET calculations). I was getting much bigger discrepancies based on HR when I got back to cycling 10 months ago (on high side at lower speeds if memory serves). With lower speeds, MFP was also very generous.

Outdoors, 19mph wouldn't require anywhere near 232 watts, unless you were way heavier. I would take power numbers from a trainer "calibration curve" with a grain of salt, since things like tire type and pressure can have an impact. And using 22% efficiency is also likely to inflate kcal estimates unless you've had lab testing to determine that's accurate for you. A straight kj = kcal (25% efficiency) is more commonly used.

I am 145lbs and at 250 watts I am moving at about 23mph on my road bike, and about 25-26 on my tri bike. However on flat terrain it really depends on your CdA, more than your weight. On a flat road, your power is more about overcoming drag than your own body weight.