1,000 Calorie Challenge!
Replies
-
KKJackson91 wrote: »@Mr_Knight Actually, I can burn 1000 calories easy in one workout. It only takes about an hour of running and walking intervals. I'll be posting here every day to check in. I also log my calorie burns with an HRM.
As above you're massively overestimating your burn. I've just checked back through my records and when I was 270lbs I was only burning around 750 cals an hr for running (and whilst it was slow running, it was running for an hour, no walking).
I'm 163lbs now and did a 33mile ultra yesterday with nearly 4000ft of total climbs in 8hrs and only burned about 4000 cals (so averaging 500 an hour).
0 -
As the OP stated its easier for her because of her weight, but it depends on the individual.
The OP is wrong. It is not "easier" when carrying a lot of weight. What is "easier" is getting huge, misleading readings out of HRMs and exercise equipment.
Anyone who thinks a 250 pound male is having an "easier" time burning calories running has never been a 250 pound male trying to burn calories running.
Agreed (at least in my experience). Even as an out of shape 160+lb'er, I did not have the fitness/endurance ability to complete a 500 calorie-level workout, much less two of them a day, or 1,000 in one go--for 7 days straight. I imagine it would be much more difficult for a heavier person (in general, assuming a similar lack of fitness). "Easy" is the last word I would use to describe such.0 -
No it's not but exercise is not needed for weight loss so to create a deficit with exercise seems sort of counter productive....esp if you hate exercise and are only doing it to create a deficit...
Question is with this week of burning 1k a day are you following NEAT or TDEE? and if NEAT are you eating them back? and if yes then what are you going to do to fill in those calories?
IF TDEE are you going to continue this thereby needing to recalculate your TDEE after it's done?
Who said it was needed for weight loss? People moving more and burning calories makes achieving the deficit easier. A balance between reducing consumption and moving a bit more.
Why on earth is that counter productive? just because people dont like exercise because they find it hard isnt a good enough reason not to do some. There are also significant other benefits besides any calorie burn. Lots of people dont like to limit their food to less than their body needs to maintain, but they do.
If its TDEE then it will already be included.
If its NEAT, then its up to the individual what % they eat back. Plenty of people dont eat 100% of their accurate calories back.
As the OP stated its easier for her because of her weight, but it depends on the individual. Theres also no reason youd have to do it all at one go.
because if they don't like it they won't keep it up and chances are will still eat like they are exercising...
I didn't say it was a good reason but some folks just aren't gonna exercise...or can't...physically...ie my grandmother was in a wheelchair with MS for years and couldn't really exercise much if at all as it affected her entire body.
TDEE would change if you added in exercise as most don't currently burn 1k a day...and if you found you liked it you would have to recalculate.
I still don't think 1k a day calorie burn is something that is needed or desired by most for weight loss...setting reasonable goals with a reasonable deficit doesn't guarantee success but having unreasonable goals will surely lead to downfall.
0 -
Samstan101 wrote: »
I'm 163lbs now and did a 33mile ultra yesterday with nearly 4000ft of total climbs in 8hrs and only burned about 4000 cals (so averaging 500 an hour).
OMG, can I just say that is amazing? I can only imagine the hard work that went into accomplishing that.1 -
Ya know - It would be really great to see people allowing others to figure out if their exercise burn calculations are correct on their own time and personal experience/results rather than the constant hijacking of threads that debate/criticize if someone on MFP is calculating their burns correctly. Especially when a member clearly is not asking for help with calculating burns in her OP. I can certainly state EASILY, based on my results and a 2 year spreadsheet tracking my results, that 1000 calorie burns in about 60-70 minutes of exercise is entirely possible.
Rather than condescend to the OP as to why you wouldn't participate in her challenge that clearly seems to motivate her, move along!
smh. People.0 -
That's almost 2 hours of running or using a rowing machine for me. Doing that 7 days a week would turn my hobby into a chore. No thanks.0
-
@OP - my only caution about such a challenge is the lack of rest day(s). That is hard core exercise stress and your body does need recovery, especially dependant on one's present fitness level. I never work out 7 days in a row because it affects my performance both in fitness and day to day living.0
-
madrose0715 wrote: »I can certainly state EASILY, based on my results and a 2 year spreadsheet tracking my results, that 1000 calorie burns in about 60-70 minutes of exercise is entirely possible.
Nobody actually disputed that.
0 -
Sorry I missed the bit where she was claiming it was easy to do it in an hour. It seems the discussion has splintered between whether its possible to burn 1000 calories a day by exercise, whether the OP is being realistic in claiming she can do it easily in an hour( I doubt it) and whether you can burn calories to create a deficit.
Its possible to burn 1000 calories a day, it just takes time and you are more than likely going to need breaks. I found it easier to burn larger numbers of calories per hour when I weighed more, but now offset that with exercising with greater intensity and duration.0 -
madrose0715 wrote: »I can certainly state EASILY, based on my results and a 2 year spreadsheet tracking my results, that 1000 calorie burns in about 60-70 minutes of exercise is entirely possible.
Can you give examples of these exercise sessions? I am interested to see what I could do in order to earn calorie burns like these.
0 -
Calliope610 wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »I can certainly state EASILY, based on my results and a 2 year spreadsheet tracking my results, that 1000 calorie burns in about 60-70 minutes of exercise is entirely possible.
Can you give examples of these exercise sessions? I am interested to see what I could do in order to earn calorie burns like these.
body weight in pounds * miles run * .65
So.... 150 pounder running an hour at a half-marathon pace would do it.0 -
*out*0
-
Calliope610 wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »I can certainly state EASILY, based on my results and a 2 year spreadsheet tracking my results, that 1000 calorie burns in about 60-70 minutes of exercise is entirely possible.
Can you give examples of these exercise sessions? I am interested to see what I could do in order to earn calorie burns like these.
body weight in pounds * miles run * .65
So.... 150 pounder running an hour at a half-marathon pace would do it.
In other words, 150 lbs running 10.2-ish miles in an hour for those who haven't done the math.
That pace is not quite twice my comfortable 10k pace. Since I'm a lightweight, I'd have to run quite a bit faster than that. Not happening once, let alone every day for a week.
Plus, it'd double my usual weekly mileage. Bad idea, even if I could get through it.0 -
Well I'm stuffed then!!!! As mfp gives me over 1000 calories burned for 25,000 steps which is roughly 10-11miles.
Which going by all the posts here is highly innacurate. ..0 -
For me to burn 1000 calories I would need to do either:
- Walk for 5 hours. I burn approx. 200 calories per hour while walking.
- Cycle for 2.5 hours. I burn approx. 400 calories per hour while cycling.
On Saturday, I cycled 82.67 km ... I would have burned over 1000 calories on that ride.
On Sunday, I walked/hiked 11.7 km (up and down hills) ... I didn't come anywhere near to burning 1000 calories on that walk since it took a little under 3 hours.
I'm all for doing workouts that burn 1000+ calories (like my ride on Saturday), but as I work and go to uni, I just don't have the time to get out for 5+ hour walks or 2.5+ hour bicycle rides 7 days in a row. Maybe if I were doing a cycling tour ...
But if you've got the time ... go for it!!
0 -
Calliope610 wrote: »No thank you. A 50mile, 3hr ride on my road bike doesn't burn more than about 700. I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend 4+ hours a day working out on a challenge. I have more important things to do. Like play with my dog or spend time in my gardens.
I think your burns are off. You do realize the Tour de France riders (who ride at a very easy pace 90% of the time) burn 5000 calories every day, and they ride 100-200 miles each day. How do you figure that you burn a mere 700 in 50 miles?
Heck, when I was mountain biking, I easily burned 1000+ calories in 2 hours.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »No thank you. A 50mile, 3hr ride on my road bike doesn't burn more than about 700. I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend 4+ hours a day working out on a challenge. I have more important things to do. Like play with my dog or spend time in my gardens.
I think your burns are off. You do realize the Tour de France riders (who ride at a very easy pace 90% of the time) burn 5000 calories every day, and they ride 100-200 miles each day. How do you figure that you burn a mere 700 in 50 miles?
Heck, when I was mountain biking, I easily burned 1000+ calories in 2 hours.
yeah I questioned that too. But seeing I'm new to exercising I didn't want to say anything. Whadda I know
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »No thank you. A 50mile, 3hr ride on my road bike doesn't burn more than about 700. I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend 4+ hours a day working out on a challenge. I have more important things to do. Like play with my dog or spend time in my gardens.
I think your burns are off. You do realize the Tour de France riders (who ride at a very easy pace 90% of the time) burn 5000 calories every day, and they ride 100-200 miles each day. How do you figure that you burn a mere 700 in 50 miles?
Cycling burns are hugely affected by speed - most of the energy TdF riders burn is for pushing air out of the way. TdF riders going 40kph+ burn a lot more per km than does a typical recreational rider going 20kph - as in three times more.
So doing the back math on a 200km, 4500 calorie TdF stage, you get 1500 calories for 200km -> 700 calories for 90km -> 700 calories for 50 miles, which would be right on the poster's numbers, assuming they were going ~20kph.0 -
I wish I could burn 1000 calories a day, I primarily strength train and for an hour I get less than 200 calories. I'd have to work out for 5 hours a day. Good luck to those doing the challenge though0
-
chivalryder wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »No thank you. A 50mile, 3hr ride on my road bike doesn't burn more than about 700. I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend 4+ hours a day working out on a challenge. I have more important things to do. Like play with my dog or spend time in my gardens.
I think your burns are off. You do realize the Tour de France riders (who ride at a very easy pace 90% of the time) burn 5000 calories every day, and they ride 100-200 miles each day. How do you figure that you burn a mere 700 in 50 miles?
Heck, when I was mountain biking, I easily burned 1000+ calories in 2 hours.
You are right. I inadvertently restarted my HRM at the 1/2 point, so it was about 1400-1600 calorie burn.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Well I'm stuffed then!!!! As mfp gives me over 1000 calories burned for 25,000 steps which is roughly 10-11miles.
Which going by all the posts here is highly innacurate. ..
My iOS caloric adjustment for just over 10,000 steps is 162 calories, and that’s for around 5 miles. It’s weird that it would be that inconsistent from person to person.
Today I walked 7,180 steps or 2.8 miles and got 108 calories.0 -
I do at least 1200 a day in the pool
Though not for the next 4 weeks. Stuck in China on business. No pool access so a lot of walking. Endomondo and MFP don't agree on kcals for walking.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Well I'm stuffed then!!!! As mfp gives me over 1000 calories burned for 25,000 steps which is roughly 10-11miles.
Which going by all the posts here is highly innacurate. ..
My iOS caloric adjustment for just over 10,000 steps is 162 calories, and that’s for around 5 miles. It’s weird that it would be that inconsistent from person to person.
Today I walked 7,180 steps or 2.8 miles and got 108 calories.
That's a huge difference between us! Can I ask your height and weight?
I'm 5"8 and 140lbs. But I doubt it would make such a big difference. ..
0 -
All numbers need to be relative and must have a specific target in mind. Short term anything does nothing (including diets) It's true that 7000 calories (assumable as a caloric deficit) is too much but some can manage this short term but for most I wouldn't advise it. To lose weight you need a caloric deficit and enough physical activity to tell your body not to use muscles and glycogen there for energy. It's also understood that the slower your weight loss the better your body can permanently keep it off. I'd rather have something solid long term then all these quick methods. You have to sustain whatever you are doing. there is no quick magic pill.0
-
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Well I'm stuffed then!!!! As mfp gives me over 1000 calories burned for 25,000 steps which is roughly 10-11miles.
Which going by all the posts here is highly innacurate. ..
My iOS caloric adjustment for just over 10,000 steps is 162 calories, and that’s for around 5 miles. It’s weird that it would be that inconsistent from person to person.
Today I walked 7,180 steps or 2.8 miles and got 108 calories.
That's a huge difference between us! Can I ask your height and weight?
I'm 5"8 and 140lbs. But I doubt it would make such a big difference. ..
Of course, happy to share. You’re quite a bit taller, so maybe that’s why. I’m only 5’4” and 133lbs. Goes to show, accuracy is not that great. Either way, at least we know that more walking is better, so you can’t go wrong.0 -
If I knew what I was actually burning I'd join for sure. I'm getting tracking device w/ HRM next month. I'm still not sure which one to get. I was set on a FitBit Charge HR, but am getting mixed feedback about it. Yesterday I worked out 110 minutes throughout the day (not counting other activity). I have not missed one day in 19 days of workouts and getting addicted to it! MFP Shows me burning over 1000 yesterday, but don't trust the calculated burns. I feel like I burned that, but ya know
Polar f7 I think it is chest hrm are the most accurate. Wrust ones are not. There is a seperate fitness band called the polar loop that can link with the hrm of the vchest and it is the only hrm chest to link w a band on market.0 -
Samstan101 wrote: »KKJackson91 wrote: »@Mr_Knight Actually, I can burn 1000 calories easy in one workout. It only takes about an hour of running and walking intervals. I'll be posting here every day to check in. I also log my calorie burns with an HRM.
As above you're massively overestimating your burn. I've just checked back through my records and when I was 270lbs I was only burning around 750 cals an hr for running (and whilst it was slow running, it was running for an hour, no walking).
I'm 163lbs now and did a 33mile ultra yesterday with nearly 4000ft of total climbs in 8hrs and only burned about 4000 cals (so averaging 500 an hour).
Amazing how that works.0 -
TOTALLY IN!
today 3 hour work-out 1700 cal,,catching up for 3 days off
try to do 5-6 days a week..min 800-1500..60-90min
LUV to try your 1000k for 7 days..
good luck0 -
christinev297 wrote: »yeah I questioned that too. But seeing I'm new to exercising I didn't want to say anything. Whadda I know
With Walking/Running, it's less variable in that you, me, a 400lb guy, whoever - are carrying their body mass from point A to B fighting gravity the whole way, and will expend energy. Sure faster guy burns more but it's a percentage not double/triple. The "body weight in pounds * miles run * .65" or "1 cal per kg per km" is pretty close. Less if you're loafing, more if you're really racing.
But on a bike, your mass is being supported by the bike. Body weight doesn't matter unless you're climbing hills. You can bike for an hour, leisurely loafing around a flat course, and burn almost the same as if you were sitting on the couch. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Swimming is the same - you loaf along with no effort at all and the calorie burn is tiny because the water is doing most of the work.
Cycling on Saturday, 191 minutes in 60mph winds, at 19mph avg speed was just 1700 cals.
Thursday for 180 minutes, no wind but a bit more effort was 1835.
And running easy today for 2 hrs/23km was 1250 cals.
One of the reasons "you can't outrun a crappy diet" is so true.
0 -
Just so that the vast majority of posters know - it's not merely the mass being moved nor the time being taken that can result in a high calorie burn.
The level of fitness and ability to push yourself can also accomplish that easily.
Per a VO2max test for myself, running just a tad higher than Aerobic HR zone (based on that test, which is also 82% of tested HRmax, so not a massive effort being done, below race pace), I'll burn a tad over 1000 per hour. And can easily do that for 2 hrs straight, last half-marathon was higher HR for shorter time burning more per hour actually. Now recovery from running that hard is a few days.
Day after day for 1 hr, no thanks - only if I want an injury at the end of the week to knock me out for many weeks.
And on a nice day not getting dehydrated and well fueled, a 3 hr bike ride with an average HR at that level is very possible too.
So big burns are possible. I've easily reached 7000 weekly during summer training with a long ride and run, and short ride and run, in a week.
But ditto the comments that a cheaper HRM like Polar FT4 or FT7 is going to make some bad assumptions and inflate calorie burn.
Shoot, even a nicer Polar HRM could be inflating by 30%!
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
Also ditto to comments that if an already big deficit requires another extra 1000 deficit created by just exercise (no comment about eating back exercise calories) - then something is very jacked up with the body or the logging or both.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions