is eating 1900 cal a day and burning 1000 in the gym healthy
Replies
-
lauraweres wrote: »I'm a girl 5ft 3 , weighing 8st 10lb if I ran on the treadmill at 10.5mph for 1 hour my burn is around 650cals .. so actually it is possible , but you would be very tired burning that much , but then if I was a 6ft heavy guy running 1 hour that would be about right the more you weigh the more your body burns! But eating back all the calories you burn wouldn't make you lose weight , you might stay the same weight but become much fitter in yourself , however burn yourself out !
You can average 5.7 minute miles for an hour?
Wow... Impressive.
Some of the fastest miles ran by a woman are ran in that amount of time. A few have made it under 5 minutes for a mile.
I would check how fast you think you ran for an hour...
0 -
There was a whole thread on this and it can be done. The thread went on for pages and pages. Its not that big a deal.
Just an average gym goer isnt going to get near that unless they put in quite an amount of time.
Variables
Duration= you wont be doing it in 1hr, but if you spend 2 or 3hrs exercising during the day its possible if you have the time. Just because you might not have the time doesnt mean someone else doesnt. Someone who cycles to and from work would have a big head start.Um assuming many peoples workouts might last 45 mins-1hr and part of that will include geting a drink , wandering round, messing with your phone, resting etc. Most people would fall asleep on long gym sessions.
Intensity= Obviously if all you do is walking or a gentle intensity then the calorie burn per hour is going to be much lower than if you are really trying hard and oushing your heart rate.
Weight= The more you weigh the more calories per hour you will be burning because you are moving more weight. It can be a substantially greater amount if you are 200lbs compared to 130lbs.
Brian obviously spin bikes burn substantially less all things being equal, but the limiting factor on burns is the person doing the exercise more than the activity.
I know. But without key details it is impossible to assess if that person's claims are feasible.0 -
not many people talking about BMR here. Eating 1900 and "burning a 1000" is not all that needs to be taken into account, your body has base level requirement that needs to be met before extra calories burned can be taken into account.
So if you really are burning 1000 calories (which is possible if you work a busy, physical job and exercise for an extended period of time at a high intensity, on the same day), this needs to be added to your BMR. Then you can subtract your calories expended from total caloric intake.
If those numbers your giving are accurate you're probably in a deficit which won't be good long term, but good for burning some body fat stores.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
I know. But without key details it is impossible to assess if that person's claims are feasible.
They are or they arent, does it make a difference?
Think for the purpose of his question you can give 2 answers based on whether they are or are not burning that amount. Answer 1 he is overestimating. Answer 2 he is telling the truth and is burning that amount?
I do see loads of people in the gym just going through the motions and appearing to make little effort (notwithstanding health issues or just fitness levels).0 -
Weight= The more you weigh the more calories per hour you will be burning because you are moving more weight. It can be a substantially greater amount if you are 200lbs compared to 130lbs.
So if I go to gym, and instead of lifting my hypertrophy weights for reps, and switch over to heavy weights, does that mean I'm going to burn more/quicker?0 -
Weight= The more you weigh the more calories per hour you will be burning because you are moving more weight. It can be a substantially greater amount if you are 200lbs compared to 130lbs.
So if I go to gym, and instead of lifting my hypertrophy weights for reps, and switch over to heavy weights, does that mean I'm going to burn more/quicker?
Im talking about cardio, heavier people burn more calories per hour(all things being equal). Do you disagree?
Btw trying to answer your question then whether one method will burn immediate calories faster than another depends. If you were lifting but doing many reps, then that would be more akin to cardio and get your heart rate up for longer periods than just doing a few heavy lifts, which also has more periods of doing nothing. You wouldnt do lifting for calorie burns though, but for the longer term benefits of preserving or building muscle and the different benefits that has over a simple calorie burn.
Whether one activity burns more than another, then youd have to compare. By moving more weight I meant what a person weighs and their body, not what they were lifting.0 -
When I'm at the gym and on the elliptical I burn about 300-310 for 30 mins peer the machine. I put my wright in on the machine. When I get done and log it on MFP pours it in anywhere from 530-560. I always adjust it to what the machine does I've done. Kudos to you if you are burning that many calories. Just be sure to eat right.0
-
RosieRose7673 wrote: »lauraweres wrote: »I'm a girl 5ft 3 , weighing 8st 10lb if I ran on the treadmill at 10.5mph for 1 hour my burn is around 650cals .. so actually it is possible , but you would be very tired burning that much , but then if I was a 6ft heavy guy running 1 hour that would be about right the more you weigh the more your body burns! But eating back all the calories you burn wouldn't make you lose weight , you might stay the same weight but become much fitter in yourself , however burn yourself out !
You can average 5.7 minute miles for an hour?
Wow... Impressive.
Some of the fastest miles ran by a woman are ran in that amount of time. A few have made it under 5 minutes for a mile.
I would check how fast you think you ran for an hour...
I imagine she really meant 10.5 min miles, not mph. That works okay with the calories she suggested (650 in an hour).
I personally think it's likely a little less--I'm 5'3 and find that when I run around 10 min miles and get 6 miles in an hour the calorie count according to the usual methods of estimating are more like 550 calories.
Anyway, so I could burn 1000 calories if I ran 11-12 miles. I've never done that in the gym (sounds like hell), but I do outside sometimes. Not every day, of course.
I would think that burning 1000 in the gym on a regular basis was unlikely, but who knows. If you are heavier you do burn more calories per hour in the same activity. But if you are out of shape it's not likely you can pull off 2 hours of actually intense exercise, and for me 2 hours of non intense exercise would not get me to 1000.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »RosieRose7673 wrote: »lauraweres wrote: »I'm a girl 5ft 3 , weighing 8st 10lb if I ran on the treadmill at 10.5mph for 1 hour my burn is around 650cals .. so actually it is possible , but you would be very tired burning that much , but then if I was a 6ft heavy guy running 1 hour that would be about right the more you weigh the more your body burns! But eating back all the calories you burn wouldn't make you lose weight , you might stay the same weight but become much fitter in yourself , however burn yourself out !
You can average 5.7 minute miles for an hour?
Wow... Impressive.
Some of the fastest miles ran by a woman are ran in that amount of time. A few have made it under 5 minutes for a mile.
I would check how fast you think you ran for an hour...
I imagine she really meant 10.5 min miles, not mph. That works okay with the calories she suggested (650 in an hour).
I personally think it's likely a little less--I'm 5'3 and find that when I run around 10 min miles and get 6 miles in an hour the calorie count according to the usual methods of estimating are more like 550 calories.
Oh! That's most likely it! Whoops!0 -
NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »toniantono2592 wrote: »Why 1000 calories burn in gym seems so strange to all of you?
I burn 1000-1500 calories per day in cycling according my polar rc3
It's not strange. It just takes a long time to achieve it. Most people don't have that kind of time to spend working out.
For example, I'm 5'2 and 20 lbs over weight. It takes me over 3 hours of low grade hiking to hit 900 calories burned, and that's on a good day.
The average person doesn't have 3 hours to dedicate to exercise... every single day.
I can burn 1000 calories a day with the amount of walking around i have to do, to and from work and generally around. In fact, i burn that five days a week! It's not impossible
that would be your everyday burn not 1000 from exercise.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »If the calorie burn charts are anywhere close to right (presumably, they are or researchers would be trying to correct them) burning 1000 calories isn't that difficult. However, whatever a person burns, they should try to keep their calorie deficit between 500 to 1000.
You have a most optimistic view of the "researchers" (and the "calorie burn charts").
Short of me hooking myself up to an expensive machine, I'm kind of stuck with what other researchers have found. Since scientists are using these numbers to make predictions and to determine how much to feed participants in their studies, that have a greater need for accuracy than even those of us who feel the need to weigh food before logging it. If the numbers are very far off, it causes errors in their research. If my numbers are off, I gain a little extra weight. If their numbers are off, their life's work is put in question.0 -
When I'm at the gym and on the elliptical I burn about 300-310 for 30 mins peer the machine. I put my wright in on the machine. When I get done and log it on MFP pours it in anywhere from 530-560. I always adjust it to what the machine does I've done. Kudos to you if you are burning that many calories. Just be sure to eat right.
The cardio machines often overestimate burn. Putting in my age, weight and gender into an elliptical and going for 60 minutes, the machine will tell me I burned about 600-650 calories. However, my HRM says about 400-ish.0 -
I don't understand why so many people have to say something negative when someone says the amount of calories they burn. They could totally be burning 1000 calories , just wish there was a more supportive atmosphere instead of doubting everything someone says and hateful advice ..
Anyways, I would try eating back a portion of the cals you burn because that is a very large number of calories burned! But congrats and keep up the hard work0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm 5'3" and 169 lbs. My HRM tells me I'm burning anywhere from 1000-1250 cals on the elliptical for 130 minutes. I enter this value in MFP because MFP itself usually overestimates the burn (ends up adding several hundred more cals). The HRM is the most accurate measure I have...not sure what else I'd use (machine and MFP seem less reliable).0
-
kskinnyperfect wrote: »I don't understand why so many people have to say something negative when someone says the amount of calories they burn. They could totally be burning 1000 calories , just wish there was a more supportive atmosphere instead of doubting everything someone says and hateful advice ..
Anyways, I would try eating back a portion of the cals you burn because that is a very large number of calories burned! But congrats and keep up the hard work
If something seems off, why not question it? If people are seeking help, they are going to get any help if we just clap and say "good job". Man I would be mad as heck if I thought I was burning 1000 and the situation was the other way around, I was eating back all my calories-not losing, and no one even questioned me.0 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »lauraweres wrote: »I'm a girl 5ft 3 , weighing 8st 10lb if I ran on the treadmill at 10.5mph for 1 hour my burn is around 650cals .. so actually it is possible , but you would be very tired burning that much , but then if I was a 6ft heavy guy running 1 hour that would be about right the more you weigh the more your body burns! But eating back all the calories you burn wouldn't make you lose weight , you might stay the same weight but become much fitter in yourself , however burn yourself out !
You can average 5.7 minute miles for an hour?
Wow... Impressive.
Some of the fastest miles ran by a woman are ran in that amount of time. A few have made it under 5 minutes for a mile.
I would check how fast you think you ran for an hour...When I'm at the gym and on the elliptical I burn about 300-310 for 30 mins peer the machine. I put my wright in on the machine. When I get done and log it on MFP pours it in anywhere from 530-560. I always adjust it to what the machine does I've done. Kudos to you if you are burning that many calories. Just be sure to eat right.
The cardio machines often overestimate burn. Putting in my age, weight and gender into an elliptical and going for 60 minutes, the machine will tell me I burned about 600-650 calories. However, my HRM says about 400-ish.
I set the custom on th treadmill as well, and it says I burn 410 kcal doing 45 mins 8.5mph on 2-3 incline. I think that's pretty accurate0 -
kskinnyperfect wrote: »I don't understand why so many people have to say something negative when someone says the amount of calories they burn. They could totally be burning 1000 calories , just wish there was a more supportive atmosphere instead of doubting everything someone says and hateful advice ..
Anyways, I would try eating back a portion of the cals you burn because that is a very large number of calories burned! But congrats and keep up the hard work
Without confirming they are burning so much how are they supposed to know how much to eat back?0 -
kskinnyperfect wrote: »I don't understand why so many people have to say something negative when someone says the amount of calories they burn. They could totally be burning 1000 calories , just wish there was a more supportive atmosphere instead of doubting everything someone says and hateful advice ..
It *is* possible to burn 1000 calories. The problem is most people on MFP thinking they're doing that, aren't. Many of them aren't even close - it is not uncommon to see 2x and 3x over-estimates on here.
I fail to see how helping someone run on bad numbers is more helpful than pointing out an error...
0 -
A 5'6, 175, 35 year old male has a RMR over 2000 calories .... so 1900 consumed - 1000 burned at the gym - at least 2000 RMR = 1,000 negative net caloric intake per day.
Based on that, questioning the numbers provided is the only logical thing to do.0 -
Why not just answer his question on the either or basis of the burn being inaccurate and then on the basis of it being correct? That way you can query his claim, but also allow for the fact he could be correct. If you are prepared to put the time in, then burning 1000 is relatively straightforward.0
-
Why not just answer his question on the either or basis of the burn being inaccurate and then on the basis of it being correct? That way you can query his claim, but also allow for the fact he could be correct.
That's been done, more than once.If you are prepared to put the time in, then burning 1000 is relatively straightforward.
Sure, on its own.
But doing so while netting 900 calories is not.
0 -
Why not just answer his question on the either or basis of the burn being inaccurate and then on the basis of it being correct? That way you can query his claim, but also allow for the fact he could be correct. If you are prepared to put the time in, then burning 1000 is relatively straightforward.
The answers based on the assumption his numbers are correct are numerous. Until he returns and provides feedback there is no way to ascertain if he is right or wrong, and if wrong what the likely burn number is for his situation.0 -
Not really sure that's true. I did it for ~7 months and was fine except I lost a bunch of weight.
0 -
Not really sure that's true. I did it for ~7 months and was fine except I lost a bunch of weight.
With 54 pounds to lose per his profile ... a -1,000 net caloric intake is unhealthy and unsustainable. It is disorder territory.
Looking at a few days of your diary from January ... very different net intake level.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
Not really sure that's true. I did it for ~7 months and was fine except I lost a bunch of weight.
With 54 pounds to lose per his profile ... a -1,000 net caloric intake is unhealthy and unsustainable. It is disorder territory.
Looking at a few days of your diary from January ... very different net intake level.
That's because I wasn't loosing weight in January. I maintain between 3500-4000 calories a day.
When I was loosing weight last year I normally ate around 1700-2300 a day and burned as much or more. Not sure I had a disorder, just wanted to get the weight off and once it was off fell into easy maintenance.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Why not just answer his question on the either or basis of the burn being inaccurate and then on the basis of it being correct? That way you can query his claim, but also allow for the fact he could be correct. If you are prepared to put the time in, then burning 1000 is relatively straightforward.
The answers based on the assumption his numbers are correct are numerous. Until he returns and provides feedback there is no way to ascertain if he is right or wrong, and if wrong what the likely burn number is for his situation.
Yes, sorry it was mainly to the ones going on about questioning said person. Just back fom gym so was grazing through the moans.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
Not really sure that's true. I did it for ~7 months and was fine except I lost a bunch of weight.
With 54 pounds to lose per his profile ... a -1,000 net caloric intake is unhealthy and unsustainable. It is disorder territory.
Looking at a few days of your diary from January ... very different net intake level.
That's because I wasn't loosing weight in January. I maintain between 3500-4000 calories a day.
When I was loosing weight last year I normally ate around 1700-2300 a day and burned as much or more. Not sure I had a disorder, just wanted to get the weight off and once it was off fell into easy maintenance.
Eating under 2000, factoring in resting metabolic rate, then burning 1000 plus through exercise is unhealthy, unsustainable, and unwise.
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