How are people burning so many cals?
Replies
-
When I did nothing but long, heavy elliptical sessions, I could burn 600+ calories an hour. I also weighed more, so could burn more calories by the same movements. Eventually, I couldn't take the boredom. Now I do Stronglifts and c25k and I'm lucky to burn 400 calories in 90 mins. *shrug*0
-
i can't speak to other people, but i ran 20 miles on 4/10 and burned 1700 calories. on 4/18, i biked 22.1 miles and burned 994 calories and on 4/19, i ran 13.25 miles and burned 1394 calories. that's how i'm rolling these days!0
-
Seems like there is a lot of negativity towards using an HRM to count calories burned, but I lost over 30 pounds over the course of 5 months using data from the HRM AND eating back those calories. So...0
-
Runnermadre wrote: »Seems like there is a lot of negativity towards using an HRM to count calories burned, but I lost over 30 pounds over the course of 5 months using data from the HRM AND eating back those calories. So...
Some people accept the limitations of HRMs when it comes to caloric estimations. They are not calorie counters, period.
Anecdotes are not a substitute for science.0 -
It also depends on the HRM and the way it calculates exertion. Sunto, some Garmins and some Polars use HR variability and also keep track of your changing fitness levels. In my experience these seem to give believable and consistent calorie counts for running although they are a little lower than the numbers given by other methods.0
-
Runnermadre wrote: »Seems like there is a lot of negativity towards using an HRM to count calories burned, but I lost over 30 pounds over the course of 5 months using data from the HRM AND eating back those calories. So...
And lots of people are very negative towards the MFP estimates but I was successful using their numbers.
I'm not against HRMs. I get some people find them useful whether for calorie estimates or motivation or whatever. I do object to the constant message on this board that they are the most accurate way to estimate. New people are often told they need one. And far too many people blindly follow them.
0 -
GalactusEmpire wrote: »GalactusEmpire wrote: »I can easily burn over 1500 calories. If you don't think it is possible to burn that much, then you don't know exactly how it works. Of course it will never be exact, it is almost impossible to find the exact number.
But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
1) a 3 hour hike is not what most people would call "easily" or can fit in their daily routine
2) You are 100 lbs heavier than me. So, for me (and I suspect the OP) to burn this kind of calories, it would require almost running a marathon.
I only replied to this because there are many people saying that it is impossible to burn over 1000 calories. Have you seen the replies? People saying that logging 1000 calories burned is false, or some even saying people use it as an excuse to eat more food.
While I don't burn over 1000 on a regular basis, it DOES happen. Nobody is the same size, nobody exercises the same.GalactusEmpire wrote: »But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
A hiking MET of 6 requires significant hills and/or carrying a meaningful load. You also need to subtract ~1 from the MET number, or you're double-counting your BMR burn.
It's certainly possible to do, though, for someone fit enough.
Even using a MET number of 3, I get a calorie burn of 960 for a 3 hour hike. I am not trying to brag or say anything other than that calorie burns over 1000 aren't impossible like many people are saying.
Aww jeeze not this 1000 calorie nonsense again...0 -
It's really difficult to count how many calories you are burning.
1) Cardio machine calorie counters can be off by huge percentages. Specifically the ones that don't even ask for your personal stats.
2) Everyone burns calories at a different pace.
3) Steady state cardio kills calories while you are working out but stops as soon as your done. HIIT cardio creates an O2 deficit that kills calories during and after your workout. Strength training, like HIIT, kills fewer calories during the workout but uses calories like carzy to rebuild muscle.
4) Muscle burns more calories than fat so the lower your body fat %...0 -
grimmeanor wrote: »Here's some comparative data I received for the same 4 mile run route, averaging around 11:20 min/mile (some higher, some lower)
Just as an FYI manually entering your run via my profile in Garmin Connect -- 7km pace, 47 minutes (basically 4 miles covered) = 572 cals. I assume the GC site code is using my profile weight there (~91kg / 200 lbs) and 5' 8" height in the calculation, but it might be using other observed metrics too.
Other examples: Garmin reports my most recent 5:36/km 10k run as 900 calories; Strava using data fed to it from Garmin calls it 1056 calories. MFP calculates 56 minutes running 10.7kph as 932.
I'm quite ok with the Garmin estimate; to date I've assumed the difference between Garmin and Strava was Garmin doesn't include calories burned during the activity due to Basal Metabolic Rate but no doubt the algorithms they license are also a factor.
I don't really care about the differences reported by different tools other than preferring to use the more conservative estimates for calories burned from exercise, so I have set Garmin to feed MFP not Strava. In addition I don't eat back all exercise calories burned as I accept that my input tracking isn't always going to be spot on. If I feel fatigued I'll take in some extra fuel.
As for heart rate monitoring, I use it for training purposes and that's it.0 -
GalactusEmpire wrote: »GalactusEmpire wrote: »I can easily burn over 1500 calories. If you don't think it is possible to burn that much, then you don't know exactly how it works. Of course it will never be exact, it is almost impossible to find the exact number.
But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
1) a 3 hour hike is not what most people would call "easily" or can fit in their daily routine
2) You are 100 lbs heavier than me. So, for me (and I suspect the OP) to burn this kind of calories, it would require almost running a marathon.
I only replied to this because there are many people saying that it is impossible to burn over 1000 calories. Have you seen the replies? People saying that logging 1000 calories burned is false, or some even saying people use it as an excuse to eat more food.
While I don't burn over 1000 on a regular basis, it DOES happen. Nobody is the same size, nobody exercises the same.GalactusEmpire wrote: »But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
A hiking MET of 6 requires significant hills and/or carrying a meaningful load. You also need to subtract ~1 from the MET number, or you're double-counting your BMR burn.
It's certainly possible to do, though, for someone fit enough.
Even using a MET number of 3, I get a calorie burn of 960 for a 3 hour hike. I am not trying to brag or say anything other than that calorie burns over 1000 aren't impossible like many people are saying.
I don't think people are saying it's impossible...that would be stupid...obviously it's possible...but most people claiming to do this day in and day out are overestimating their burn. Most people simply aren't training like this day in and day out.
Even when I'm actively training for an event, I don't have burns over 1,000 every day or even most days...0 -
juliah1234 wrote: »It's really difficult to count how many calories you are burning.
1) Cardio machine calorie counters can be off by huge percentages. Specifically the ones that don't even ask for your personal stats.
2) Everyone burns calories at a different pace.
3) Steady state cardio kills calories while you are working out but stops as soon as your done. HIIT cardio creates an O2 deficit that kills calories during and after your workout. Strength training, like HIIT, kills fewer calories during the workout but uses calories like carzy to rebuild muscle.
4) Muscle burns more calories than fat so the lower your body fat %...
You were really good there for the first two... but then... you went WAY off the rails...0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »GalactusEmpire wrote: »GalactusEmpire wrote: »I can easily burn over 1500 calories. If you don't think it is possible to burn that much, then you don't know exactly how it works. Of course it will never be exact, it is almost impossible to find the exact number.
But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
1) a 3 hour hike is not what most people would call "easily" or can fit in their daily routine
2) You are 100 lbs heavier than me. So, for me (and I suspect the OP) to burn this kind of calories, it would require almost running a marathon.
I only replied to this because there are many people saying that it is impossible to burn over 1000 calories. Have you seen the replies? People saying that logging 1000 calories burned is false, or some even saying people use it as an excuse to eat more food.
While I don't burn over 1000 on a regular basis, it DOES happen. Nobody is the same size, nobody exercises the same.GalactusEmpire wrote: »But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
A hiking MET of 6 requires significant hills and/or carrying a meaningful load. You also need to subtract ~1 from the MET number, or you're double-counting your BMR burn.
It's certainly possible to do, though, for someone fit enough.
Even using a MET number of 3, I get a calorie burn of 960 for a 3 hour hike. I am not trying to brag or say anything other than that calorie burns over 1000 aren't impossible like many people are saying.
I don't think people are saying it's impossible...that would be stupid...obviously it's possible...but most people claiming to do this day in and day out are overestimating their burn. Most people simply aren't training like this day in and day out.
Even when I'm actively training for an event, I don't have burns over 1,000 every day or even most days...
^This. This is what I understood from the OP and what I was also trying to reply. Of course it is possible, for anyone. But it seems kind of fishy when people are claiming to do this daily. Again it is possible to do this even daily, and I know I have done it in the past myself for extended periods of time. It is however something that makes sense only when logging shows that this person is spendign several hours per day doing physical activities, or has a very high weight. It looks physically impossible when people claim to have managed it at 150 lbs, by running for 40 minutes and then lifting for an extra hour.0 -
Not really if you read the whole thread.
Aww jeeze not this 1000 calorie nonsense again...cwolfman13 wrote: »
I don't think people are saying it's impossible...that would be stupid...obviously it's possible...but most people claiming to do this day in and day out are overestimating their burn. Most people simply aren't training like this day in and day out.
Even when I'm actively training for an event, I don't have burns over 1,000 every day or even most days...
People can overestimate because of the method of calculation and overstimation of their own effort. Its quite achievable though just a case of putting in the duration and intensity of whatever you are doing as well as it favouring heavier people. Your not really going to be doing it in an hour, but 2-4 is more likely. Most people dont put that amount of effort in.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »GalactusEmpire wrote: »GalactusEmpire wrote: »I can easily burn over 1500 calories. If you don't think it is possible to burn that much, then you don't know exactly how it works. Of course it will never be exact, it is almost impossible to find the exact number.
But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
1) a 3 hour hike is not what most people would call "easily" or can fit in their daily routine
2) You are 100 lbs heavier than me. So, for me (and I suspect the OP) to burn this kind of calories, it would require almost running a marathon.
I only replied to this because there are many people saying that it is impossible to burn over 1000 calories. Have you seen the replies? People saying that logging 1000 calories burned is false, or some even saying people use it as an excuse to eat more food.
While I don't burn over 1000 on a regular basis, it DOES happen. Nobody is the same size, nobody exercises the same.GalactusEmpire wrote: »But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
A hiking MET of 6 requires significant hills and/or carrying a meaningful load. You also need to subtract ~1 from the MET number, or you're double-counting your BMR burn.
It's certainly possible to do, though, for someone fit enough.
Even using a MET number of 3, I get a calorie burn of 960 for a 3 hour hike. I am not trying to brag or say anything other than that calorie burns over 1000 aren't impossible like many people are saying.
I don't think people are saying it's impossible...that would be stupid...obviously it's possible...but most people claiming to do this day in and day out are overestimating their burn. Most people simply aren't training like this day in and day out.
Even when I'm actively training for an event, I don't have burns over 1,000 every day or even most days...
Agreed.
I think our last 1000 calorie thread put this one to bed. I tried to squash it best I could myself. Someone wanting to burn 1000 calories a day in a misguided attempt to be able to eat more while losing weight is likely not in the kind of shape required to actually consistently burn 1000 calories a day.
This is something I do repeatedly, daily, weekly... I am training for an Ironman. I am not trying to lose weight. Unless someone is putting in the kind of training volume I am, 1000 calories a day is not likely.0 -
Aaaaaand this is why I just don’t eat back exercise calories.
I agree with those saying that estimates will only be reliable if you’re using the right tool for a specific type of exercise. My burn estimate for a 5 mile run at 6.4mph is about 540 calories, but I believe that’s definitely overestimated. Not only that, burns vary significantly by a person’s weight. If I still weighed 180lbs, I’d have burned an estimated 880 calories (132lbs now)
. The way I see it, moving more is always going to be good. I focus more on tracking my calories in than my exercise calories out. I prefer that over dwelling on exercise burns. 0 -
juliah1234 wrote: »It's really difficult to count how many calories you are burning.
1) Cardio machine calorie counters can be off by huge percentages. Specifically the ones that don't even ask for your personal stats.
2) Everyone burns calories at a different pace.
3) Steady state cardio kills calories while you are working out but stops as soon as your done. HIIT cardio creates an O2 deficit that kills calories during and after your workout. Strength training, like HIIT, kills fewer calories during the workout but uses calories like carzy to rebuild muscle.
4) Muscle burns more calories than fat so the lower your body fat %...
I am pretty sure the benefit from HIIT after the exercise is done, is something like 100 calories for the average person, probably less. I am too tired to look for links now, but it is really not doing what people would hope, if there main goal for HIIT is weight loss. And what most new initiates to exercise consider HIIT, usually is nothing like HIIT.
I also remember researching this fat vs muscle fat burns and I think the difference was something like 2-3 calories per pound, so not really contributing much to make a difference.0 -
So, if I understand it, you are saying:brianpperkins wrote: »The science supports his postion, not yours. The amount of net energy needed to move a person from point A to point B is primarly a function of mass and distance. You're trying to factor things in that are not part of the equation and that illustrate why HRMs are inaccurate for what you're trying to do. The range of activities for which a HRM can come close to an accurate estimation of caloric burn is relatively narrow and walking is not one of those activities that they do well.
If today- I move my 250 lbs 1.5 miles in 30 min requiring an average heart rate of 140.
- with an improved fitness level, I can strap on enough weight to equal 250 lbs and burn the same amount of calories going 1.5 miles in 30 min, even if my heart rate only averages 110 beats per minute.
Can you point me toward an authority for this? I don't have an emotional investment in the answer. Just want to understand it.0 -
idk. I let Fitbit figure it out. But I walk 30 mins in the morning, 45-60 mins at lunch, 60 mins in the evening, and 20 mins pilates before bed. I spread it out because I cannot do too much at one time.0
-
Also, if people are using Fitbits it will give a higher count because it counts all your steps and the intensity ALL DAY long based on your weight, height, etc.0
-
My understanding is that one should burn fewer calories per mile at a HR below their maximum aerobic threshold simply because fat provides more energy per gram burned than glycogen.
Most HR monitors have no way of taking this into account accurately.0 -
In case anybody actually cares about these so called "simple alothograms" Or the science inside of your HRM.
Here is a link to a white paper discussing First beat technologies whom is one of the suppliers for HRMs for both consumer products like Garmin , sumoto, ect and for professional use.
Here is the white paper on HRM energy expenditure
http://www.firstbeat.com/userData/firstbeat/download/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Peer reviewed reserch and white papers on HRM , energy expenditure , ect
http://www.firstbeat.com/physiology/research-and-publications0 -
Well, when I do cardio in the gym, I input less than half of whatever the machine gives me. I'm not in such great shape, so at 210 lbs I burn about 400 (half of what the machine says) calories on the elliptical and up to 300 calories on the treadmill, from a 60 minute workout.
0 -
0
-
True or False
Extra points for authority in layman's English.Moving x mass y distance at a fitness level requiring 140 heart beats per minute burns the same calories as the same person moving the same mass the same distance at a fitness level requiring 110 bpm.0 -
I just go by what the bike or treadmill tell me, I have no idea what I lose by lifting weights do I don't log it as a calorie burn. I do an hour of cardio and burn anywhere between 550-750 depending on my resistance and effort. My gym buddy usually burns about 200 less than me because she doesn't incline on the treadmill and I noticed her heart rate is only 130 on the bike whereas mine gets up to 160, so we do the same time etc on the equipment but I put more effort in, also she's 170lbs and I'm 245lbs so I don't know if you generally burn more the bigger you are too?0
-
You are making the common mistake that heart rate has anything to do directly with burning calories. It does not.
Simple physics dictates it takes X number of joules to move an object of Y grams a distance of Z meters. That will never change. Where things get complicated is how you move the object and what it is. If it is a giant block of wood and you are dragging it on the ground you will have to overcome friction. If you put the block on wheels you have less friction to deal with and it takes less energy. In a theoretical frictionless system you can calculate the exact amount of energy needed to accelerate the object and then decelerate it before it gets where you want it.
Since we are not in a frictionless environment, there will be efficiency losses - these can be calculated as well. You will come up with a number that actually is power (joules/second) required to move the item.
The human body produces power using muscles to drive the object forward. In this case we aren't talking about a block of wood, but our own selves. There is an efficiency loss in that not every watt you produce is used in moving the body forward. The body itself is inefficient, among other things (the number for cycling is about 25%. Meaning 25% of the power you produce is actually used to move you forward. I am not sure what that number is for running).
OK why are we talking about this? Well, it comes down to HOW the body produces power. When your muscles work, they consume three things, water, oxygen and glucose (I am being simple here, let's not complicate things with talk of Krebs cycles, ATP/ADP, etc ). Glucose is the actual fuel - think of it like gasoline in the car. The muscle also needs water and oxygen to utilize the energy in the glucose. If asked to work harder, the muscle consumes more glucose (fuel...ie CALORIES), and consequently needs more water and more oxygen. Oxygen is carried to the muscles via red blood cells. So when the muscle needs more oxygen, how does it get it? Well it comes from blood. If it needs more blood, the heart has to work harder to provide that oxygen, and to do that it speeds up. Aside from blood pressure conditions, the heart doesn't pump any HARDER to get blood flowing around the body, rather it goes faster.
So... correlation: heart rate rises when the body is producing more power. If the muscles are burning more calories to move, then the heart rate will rise to provide oxygen to accommodate the consumption of fuel. So as you can see your higher heart rate is an indicator that fuel is being consumed elsewhere in the body, but it is not a direct correlation. There are algorithms (linked above by a kind person) that can somewhat match the general correlation curve of calories burned to heart rate, but it is never exact because it is simply that - a correlation, not a causation. Your elevated heart rate is not what is burning calories, rather it is an indicator that calories are being burned somewhere else.
0 -
Its not as simple as just comparing two heartrates but depends on the state of one's training and the percentage of glycogen and fat one is burning at any given intensity.True or False
Extra points for authority in layman's English.Moving x mass y distance at a fitness level requiring 140 heart beats per minute burns the same calories as the same person moving the same mass the same distance at a fitness level requiring 110 bpm.
In general though one will burn fewer calories per mile at a lower heartrate than at a higher heartrate because fat/glycogen burning ratio is greater at a lower intensity. Your energy expenditure during steady state exercise also gets lower over time as the ratio shifts more towards fat.
Oxidation of one gram of fat produces twice as much ATP as a gram of carbohydrate. From http://home.earthlink.net/~dayvdanls/CampOLs/RespCatab.html
This ATP is what provides the energy for the muscles to work.
0 -
Caloric burn is an estimation. IMO the closest being HR monitors. The response given by equipment is made by a very simple calculation that cannot calculate effort, just a population estimation from a previous model and often grossly overestimated.
Size is a huge factor. Think Prius vs. Titan. Both may travel the same distance, but the Titan will require much greater fuel to gain the required physical force to move the additional weight. If you slam the pedals of an automobile you will use more fuel. Same issue in biologics - we don't like change, so a nice easy jog without changes in speed will use less fuel. Stopping and sprinting, jumping, and interval training with dramatically increase your calorie burn. This is why machines have a "fat burning" mode, which changes speed and resistance throughout the workout.0 -
Looking at my Garmin data for runs of similar duration but different intensities.
Run 1: Low effort recovery run, 65 min, 5.65 miles, avg HR 109 - 98 cal per mile
Run 2: 3 x 10 min tempo intervals with easy running, 70 min, 7.25 mi, avg HR 128 - 111 cal per mile
That's for a 178 lb person calculated by Garmin using the firstbeat algorithms.
As an extra data point, during the higher intensity portion of Run 2 I was burning 127 cal per mile at an avg HR 145.
I'm not home right now but I run all this data through the firstbeat athlete software and it graphs the fat/glycogen burn ratio of the run over time so its easy to see the effect of speed and duration.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »3.5 miles * 200 lbs * .3 = 210 calories ... a rough net expenditure based on a study reported in Runner's World.
Also consistent with MET - a 3mph-ish walk on level ground has a net MET of 2.5, so ~220-ish.
All in the same ball park located a long way from 400+
Ok so how do you figure out the net MET of an exercise then?
Anyway, if I burn 200 calories at 130 pounds in 50 minutes of walking at 4mph, I can't imagine that a 200 pound person wouldn't burn at least 50% more in one hour...
It seems you all are saying that it's impossible but are pulling numbers out of nowhere.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions