1,000 Calorie Challenge!
Options
Replies
-
An hour of running interval will burn about 800 to 1000 calories.
If said hour covered 8-10 miles then I'd agree with you. Walk/ run intervals are unlikely to cover that kind of distancebe 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.
Nope. Heart rate is an indicator of calorie consumption in a limited set of circumstances, it's not a cause of calorie expenditure except inasmuch as the heart is itself a muscle and consumes a small proportion of the total calories expended by operating itself.
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.
I think there is a lot to be attributed that the pervasive myth that HRMs are a reliable indicator of calorie expenditure.
Googly-eyed marketeers, third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution...0 -
I'm using striiv to track steps and calories burned.. I am totally in0
-
@chivalryder Thanks. Do you have a source I can start at?
Not off hand, but I'm stuck at work and 90% of the internet is blocked.0 -
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.
No you can't. Your calculations are waaaaay off. I burn approximately 385 calories in a 25 run pacing myself at 9:30. There is no way you can burn 1000 calories in a run walk scenario, unless you are doing it for hours.
0 -
i burn 1000-1200 calories when i walk 16,000-18,000 steps0
-
He probably doesnt do it in an hour, but the challenge as set was to do it in a day. It then beccomes a lot easier, but time consuming.Cave_Goose 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.
No you can't. Your calculations are waaaaay off. I burn approximately 385 calories in a 25 run pacing myself at 9:30. There is no way you can burn 1000 calories in a run walk scenario, unless you are doing it for hours.
0 -
He probably doesnt do it in an hour, but the challenge as set was to do it in a day. It then beccomes a lot easier, but time consuming.Cave_Goose 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.
No you can't. Your calculations are waaaaay off. I burn approximately 385 calories in a 25 run pacing myself at 9:30. There is no way you can burn 1000 calories in a run walk scenario, unless you are doing it for hours.
He said it only takes about an hour.0 -
Still ALL in...
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)
Friday, April 17 - 1003 calories (made it by the skinny today with weights, walking, cycling, walking, and more cycling, and more walking)0 -
chivalryder wrote: »@chivalryder Thanks. Do you have a source I can start at?
Not off hand, but I'm stuck at work and 90% of the internet is blocked.
Personal testing with HRM is easiest to see this effect. I can't say I've seen studies on it - because it's a known effect.
Walk and notice how high the HR gets. That's the HR needed to supply the oxygen needed for that level of effort.
Now run really fast for 1 min, and notice how high the HR gets.
That's the HR needed for that level of effort.
Now start walking again, and notice how long it takes for HR to lower to the actual level needed for that level of effort.
So that whole time it is lowering, slowly if bad fitness, faster if good fitness, it is actually elevated compared to the level of effort.
Make this an interval workout, or P90X or Insanity or lifting, ect, and multiply that effect for longer workout, and it could add up easily.
End of my ride last night it dropped 42 bpm in 1 min of slow riding to front door, and was still no where near the normal standing HR which I was doing for several seconds at that point.
So even standing, it was inflated.
Called EPOC - Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption, body making up for oxygen debt, and while the extra work of recharging ATP stores or shuttling carbs off to glucose storage may make a bit of increase to your metabolism, it's no where near what the inflated HR would cause a HRM to estimate for calorie burn.
Now, Garmin was using an algorithm by First Beat that did decent job in study taking in to account breathing rate along with HR to figure out if truly aerobic steady-state or not.
Still a bunch of assumptions to do that, and sensing the breathing rate through the variability in HR could be interesting (I can see the difference visually), it is still rough, but better I've noticed. Sadly Garmin doesn't allow manual input of VO2max for them to use best figures to calculate with, still using BMI and activity factor to estimate that.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »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).
I need to work on my sarcasm game, it would appear. I was taking the piss out of the MFP calorie estimations.
Already have an HRM and linked devices which give more reliable estimations. For me, the pace & distance figures are currently more important than the calories burned figure.0 -
Maybe I missed it, but has OP even come back to report her results????0
-
christinev297 wrote: »Maybe I missed it, but has OP even come back to report her results????
Op came back a long time ago and said to forget the whole thing.0 -
Oh i'm definitely in! Starting this morning.0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Maybe I missed it, but has OP even come back to report her results????
Op came back a long time ago and said to forget the whole thing.
:laugh: and yet it still goes on....0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Maybe I missed it, but has OP even come back to report her results????
Op came back a long time ago and said to forget the whole thing.
Some time ago I was in a challenge where I burned 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and it really helped to boost my weight loss. I'm starting the same challenge again tomorrow, if anyone would like to join me.:) All you have to do is burn 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and I will be posting in this forum every day to see how everyone is doing. I can't wait to start this challenge, and if you would like to join me just comment with, "I'm in!" Thanks everyone! Hope to see you there!
That's too bad, because her original premise certainly was a good one: using 7 days of burning calories through exercise to jump start or boost one's weight loss.
Consider me one that needed a quick jump start or boost as I realized I had gained a few pounds over the past 4 months. I've got 2 more days to go to complete the 7 consecutive days of burning 1000 (or more) calories. And yes, I slept 10 hours last night whether I wanted to or not as the cumulative effect from the training stress does build up. Luckily, next week is a scheduled rest and recovery week for me.0 -
Still ALL in...
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)
Friday, April 17 - 1003 calories (made it by the skinny today - 95 minutes walking/30 minutes cycling/60 minutes weight lifting)
Saturday, April 18 - 1383 calories (2:25:52)
0 -
Personal testing with HRM is easiest to see this effect. I can't say I've seen studies on it - because it's a known effect.
Walk and notice how high the HR gets. That's the HR needed to supply the oxygen needed for that level of effort.
Now run really fast for 1 min, and notice how high the HR gets.
That's the HR needed for that level of effort.
Now start walking again, and notice how long it takes for HR to lower to the actual level needed for that level of effort.
So that whole time it is lowering, slowly if bad fitness, faster if good fitness, it is actually elevated compared to the level of effort.
Keep in mind it works both ways in terms of over-reporting and under-reporting one's effort based on HR alone. When doing intervals, the HR really lags the effort going from start to finish of the interval. So in shorter duration intervals, the HR doesn't even reach the target zone even though one's effort is pumping it out. Even if I do Zone 4 intervals, the HR lag can be up to 3 minutes before it climbs to the level even though I am pegged in the proper zone in the very first few seconds of the interval in terms of effort. The HR lag - in this case - means that the calorie burn is being under-reported.
In other words, it all works out to a wash in the end on both sides of an interval.
0 -
Hit 7049 for the week so far and I still have a 15 mile run and a 4500 yard swim to do tomorrow...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions