1,000 Calorie Challenge!
Replies
-
arditarose wrote: »What are you doing to burn 1000 calories a day with exercise? I only burn like 900 a week. Count me out.
Keep in mind weight has a lot to do with it. For example, during a Zumba class I only burn 400. My fiance burns almost 800. He weights 190 and I'm 115.
0 -
Why are all these people posting who do NOT want to do it? Bye!
I will take the challenge! I burned 1,036 yesterday (actual workout time plus steps throughout the day) and I have a personal goal of burning 100 calories every ten minutes that I work out. That has become more difficult as I have lost weight, but I still strive for it!0 -
veganbettie wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »But if that's accurate then a HRM is the most accurate way to measure burned calories correct?
NO.
Care to elaborate?
Its something that measures your heart rate, pace, distance, time, if you put in all the right information to me that would seem to be the best judge of calorie burn.
HRM doesn't measure distance or pace. You need GPS for that. And heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions.
There are 8 billion posts on MFP describing this in detail, look 'em up.0 -
veganbettie wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »But if that's accurate then a HRM is the most accurate way to measure burned calories correct?
NO.
Care to elaborate?
Its something that measures your heart rate, pace, distance, time, if you put in all the right information to me that would seem to be the best judge of calorie burn.
It is about as accurate as you will be able to get short of running on a treadmill with a mask over your face to capture O2 and CO2. However it is still not *that* accurate. If you ride, a power meter on the bike is about as accurate as you can get without lab equipment.0 -
Why are all these people posting who do NOT want to do it? Bye!
I will take the challenge! I burned 1,036 yesterday (actual workout time plus steps throughout the day) and I have a personal goal of burning 100 calories every ten minutes that I work out. That has become more difficult as I have lost weight, but I still strive for it!
You might want to read the thread...0 -
How the eff is this still going?0
-
The people concerned with burning those kind of calories in a shorter time frame- are not the people prepared to do so.
I've been burning 1000 calories most days since I've started losing weight. Yes, it does usually take me about four hours in the gym, but since I've become more fit... that time span is slowly becoming shorter [I'm happy to say!].
I may just try to burn 1000 calories every other day, though. Burn 500 calories the rest of those days. Yesterday, I was shaking at the end of the night. I only had one cup of coffee right before working out,so I don't think that's it because that's my usual routine.
I do look forward to increasing my fitness so that I can burn 1000 calories in a shorter period of time, though!
I think it's a nice little challenge as long as you know your limitations.
0 -
NICE. I mostly do bacon for dinner- I eat bacon and eggs for dinner. I don't really do breakfast and I'm so lazy about lunch (crock pot = lunch all week long)
I haven't googled up bacon crock pot recipes yet. But someone has had to have done it-I'm sure of it.0 -
veganbettie wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »But if that's accurate then a HRM is the most accurate way to measure burned calories correct?
NO.
Care to elaborate?
Its something that measures your heart rate, pace, distance, time, if you put in all the right information to me that would seem to be the best judge of calorie burn.
The non-HR stuff is easy, but normally not a HRM would be using that. Garmin is only one I know of that would use that on some models to get better estimate of calorie burn, along with HR.
The HR stuff is stats most people generally won't have, like HRmax and VO2max. So assumptions are made for calculating those.
Or the self-tests to get them are again making assumptions, though it could be better.
Or worse, it's a cheaper HRM without those stats directly available, and assumptions are made from BMI regarding fitness level.
Then it must be used in the right conditions as commented above to have best chance of accuracy - steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min.
Not falsely elevated for the many reasons a HR can be.
Once you get past that, it indeed can be the best estimate.
And if you don't, could be the worst.
0 -
Still ALL in, however Friday's forecast may throw a wrench into my plans...
Saturday, April 11 - 1845 calories (2:02:48 on the singlespeed hot laps stateside)
Sunday, April 12 - BUST (Air France flight was delayed making me 3 1/2 hours late to Paris. By the time I caught another flight and got back to Germany, it was too dark to ride.)
Monday, April 13 - 1289 calories (2:17:22 easy Zone 1/2 road bike ride)
Tuesday, April 14 - 1500 calories (2:05:41 Zone 2 road bike ride - hit 1000 calories at the 1:26 point)
Wednesday, April 15 - 1299 calories (2:38:22 Zone 1 road bike leisurely ride)
Thursday, April 16 - 1029 calories (1:17:20 4 x 8 Zone 4 Intervals)0 -
Jealous of all of your workouts
/jitters around nervously due to taper
0 -
veganbettie wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »But if that's accurate then a HRM is the most accurate way to measure burned calories correct?
NO.
Care to elaborate?
Its something that measures your heart rate, pace, distance, time, if you put in all the right information to me that would seem to be the best judge of calorie burn.
HRM doesn't measure distance or pace. You need GPS for that. And heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions.
There are 8 billion posts on MFP describing this in detail, look 'em up.
oh good thing I have a Garmin watch HRM then, fabulous.
so sorry for asking you to elaborate on a one word answer to my question, you didn't need to respond at all, others already helped.
best wishes you awesomely pleasant person.
0 -
It has... we have gotten to the "circular argument" part of the thread. If it keeps going it will further devolve into a semantics fight, followed by cat gifs, followed by the eventual heat death of the universe.
But hold on, now I'm confused.
If we all burn 1000 calories a day for a week, won't that generate enough heat to keep the universe running for longer? You know, prevent heat death?
I can probably contribute a little bit more than that though, MFP's calorie calculations say I burn at least 1,000 calories on my 7.5km runs. I mean, I think they're like 7.5km long, I haven't got a GPS so I've had to estimate it from Google Maps and a slide rule. I don't have an HRM either and I don't time how long it takes me to run but 1000 calories sounds about right.0 -
rrowdiness wrote: »It has... we have gotten to the "circular argument" part of the thread. If it keeps going it will further devolve into a semantics fight, followed by cat gifs, followed by the eventual heat death of the universe.
But hold on, now I'm confused.
If we all burn 1000 calories a day for a week, won't that generate enough heat to keep the universe running for longer? You know, prevent heat death?
I can probably contribute a little bit more than that though, MFP's calorie calculations say I burn at least 1,000 calories on my 7.5km runs. I mean, I think they're like 7.5km long, I haven't got a GPS so I've had to estimate it from Google Maps and a slide rule. I don't have an HRM either and I don't time how long it takes me to run but 1000 calories sounds about right.
Get yourself something like the Wahoo Fitness TICKR HR strap and excellent APP. You will be able to set your age, gender, weight, height, HR profile, set your training zones, measure your zones - all for a much more accurate account of measuring the amount of calories you are burning through exercise than the MFP calorie calculations.
Is it perfect? No. But it will give you a much more accurate picture within an acceptable range of tracking your lifestyle through CICO depending on your goals (gaining, losing, or maintaining).
0 -
@Mr_Knight, @KKJackson91 is correct. An hour of running interval will burn about 800 to 1000 calories. That would be alternating a minute to 90 seconds fast running and a minute of walking. I used to do it. What really makes it burn so much calories is the constant change of the heart rate. When I do a full 5 mile run (which takes me 54 minutes) without stopping (my neighborhood is very hilly) I now burn about 800 calories. Also keep in mind that as one gets better better, they lose les and less calories and have to resort to pushing themselves more if they want to lose more.0
-
1000 calories everyday is not healthy for the body. I do about 800-900 Monday through Thursday with Boxing, Muy Thai and my brother's workout (He's a personal trainer), take a day off Friday, do something very light on Saturday, and run on Sunday. I would love to join, but I really don't want to do 1000 calories for 7 days straight.0
-
@Mr_Knight, @KKJackson91 is correct. An hour of running interval will burn about 800 to 1000 calories. That would be alternating a minute to 90 seconds fast running and a minute of walking. I used to do it. What really makes it burn so much calories is the constant change of the heart rate. When I do a full 5 mile run (which takes me 54 minutes) without stopping (my neighborhood is very hilly) I now burn about 800 calories. Also keep in mind that as one gets better better, they lose les and less calories and have to resort to pushing themselves more if they want to lose more.
Sometimes I seriously wonder where people get their information from.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »@Mr_Knight, @KKJackson91 is correct. An hour of running interval will burn about 800 to 1000 calories. That would be alternating a minute to 90 seconds fast running and a minute of walking. I used to do it. What really makes it burn so much calories is the constant change of the heart rate. When I do a full 5 mile run (which takes me 54 minutes) without stopping (my neighborhood is very hilly) I now burn about 800 calories. Also keep in mind that as one gets better better, they lose les and less calories and have to resort to pushing themselves more if they want to lose more.
Sometimes I seriously wonder where people get their information from.
I can at least see how people believe this because the constant change in HR will give you a higher estimate on a HRM.
Its not true, but I can see how people can think this.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »No.
I exercise for health and fitness.
I eat to lose weight.
I never have, nor ever will exercise to produce a caloric deficit.
Is this somehow more virtuous?
You win. Your holier than me.0 -
I got my infomration from a bunch of fitness professionals.0
-
@Mr_Knight, @KKJackson91 is correct. An hour of running interval will burn about 800 to 1000 calories. That would be alternating a minute to 90 seconds fast running and a minute of walking. I used to do it. What really makes it burn so much calories is the constant change of the heart rate. When I do a full 5 mile run (which takes me 54 minutes) without stopping (my neighborhood is very hilly) I now burn about 800 calories. Also keep in mind that as one gets better better, they lose les and less calories and have to resort to pushing themselves more if they want to lose more.
Do you actually think you know what you are talking about?0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »@Mr_Knight, @KKJackson91 is correct. An hour of running interval will burn about 800 to 1000 calories. That would be alternating a minute to 90 seconds fast running and a minute of walking. I used to do it. What really makes it burn so much calories is the constant change of the heart rate. When I do a full 5 mile run (which takes me 54 minutes) without stopping (my neighborhood is very hilly) I now burn about 800 calories. Also keep in mind that as one gets better better, they lose les and less calories and have to resort to pushing themselves more if they want to lose more.
Sometimes I seriously wonder where people get their information from.
I can at least see how people believe this because the constant change in HR will give you a higher estimate on a HRM.
Its not true, but I can see how people can think this.
Pretty much. As I outlined above, you can fake out the heart-rate based calorie burn by doing a bunch of hard intervals and not allowing your heart rate to come down significantly between them. The HRM thinks you are still working hard when in reality you are not working at all. This effect is made even more pronounced for someone who is not in good shape and their heart rate elasticity is not what it could be (thus the heart rate stays higher for longer even though the actual work has long ago ended)0 -
I got my infomration from a bunch of fitness professionals.
99% of "fitness professionals" base their information on bro science. It is not a reputable source. Try reading up on what you're talking about from published, peer-reviewed studies. That is the only way to get solid information that you can then back up.
Because what you said is not how it works.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »
I think one person said that it was impossible in a day and everyone else disagreed, Then it moved on when the op claimed to do it easily in an hour.
do keep up
I was merely responding to what jorocka was saying. the tenet of the tread at that point was about calroie burns and overstimation. Ofc the thread splintered off into different areas. Your response was inadequate do pay attention.
I wouldnt disagree with what glevinso wrote above which is a good summary. No idea why some of you got so excited.
and I made it pretty clear earlier- the easy of which one can burn a 1000 calories is directly proportional to the length of time in which the attempt to do so.
since we are trying to cherry pick this subject.
That's the long and short of it.
The second long and short of it is- anyone who CAN/DOES burn those kind of calories in a much shorter time frame isn't trying to do so- they are just doing what they love (long distance endurance athletes for example)... none of them are concerned with burning those kind of calories.
The people concerned with burning those kind of calories in a shorter time frame- are not the people prepared to do so.
Just responding.
First bit is the point i was making from the start, but at that stage people were wibbling on about hrms. Op set the challenge so eh was able to define the criteria and what she meant. Not sure everyone had to be up for VO2 testing. It was just 1000 in a day, think its accepted her claim to do 1000 in an hour was highly unlikely.
The second bit and this brings the purpose of her challenge in again is that it was 1000 in a day, not a challenge for 1000 in an hour. I dont think she was after the people who could already easily accomplish 100 burns in a short space of time to do so, but was more aimed at those trying to lose weight. As you say asking fit people to burn calories when they dont even need to lose any weight or prove how fit they are would be pretty pointless.
Theres another group who for whatever reason either dont have the fitness level/ or interest.
The final group are people who can manage 1000 pe day 7000 in a week and are interested i.e the people the Op was after. Clearly those people exist because theyve indicated they are undertaking the challenge or their version of it.0 -
@chivalryder Thanks. Do you have a source I can start at?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