Burning 1000 calories at the gym?

999tigger · May 2015

Agree with your first 2 points. The OP did suggest she has the time to put in. If I was going to do it i'd take rest days and listen to my body, be careful to avoid overtraining, take it steady, hydrate and properly fuel any workout. I'd also need a lot of music. 3-4 hours it becomes easy, but do most people have 3 hours?

yopeeps025 · May 2015

SO one time I wore a HRM during a full non active 24 hours that shows how many calories you burn. It said I was burning over 3000 calories just for being alive. I threw that thing away so quick after that.

Timshel_ · May 2015

bethany_h_xx wrote: »

hi
If I was to burn 1000 calories every day at the gym do you think I would be on track for losing 2lbs per week?
How accurate are the gym machines?
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 2
Thanks

Technically, if you were eating at maintenance for calorie needs, and you did burn an additional 1000 calories per day above that that you did not eat back, yes. BUT...not likely going to happen, or be sustainable.

TimothyFish · May 2015

999tigger wrote: »

Agree with your first 2 points. The OP did suggest she has the time to put in. If I was going to do it i'd take rest days and listen to my body, be careful to avoid overtraining, take it steady, hydrate and properly fuel any workout. I'd also need a lot of music. 3-4 hours it becomes easy, but do most people have 3 hours?

The average American watches 5 hours of TV per day, so yeah, I think most people have 3 hours.

Dnarules · May 2015

yopeeps025 wrote: »

SO one time I wore a HRM during a full non active 24 hours that shows how many calories you burn. It said I was burning over 3000 calories just for being alive. I threw that thing away so quick after that.

That's not how you use it. It isn't made to be worn 24 hours.

cwolfman13 · May 2015

bethany_h_xx wrote: »

hi
If I was to burn 1000 calories every day at the gym do you think I would be on track for losing 2lbs per week?
How accurate are the gym machines?
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 2
Thanks

diet for weight control; exercise for fitness. You don't have to burn any calories with exercise to lose weight, though it helps in that without exercise your calorie targets will be paltry at best. Weight control is most efficiently achieved through your diet....exercise is for fitness.

you would be hard pressed to burn 1,000 calories in the gym day in and day out. Even when I'm actively training for an event, I don't burn 1,000 calories everyday with my training. It's not impossible, it's just not really advisable, particularly as I doubt you have any clue as to how to actually feed your body appropriately for that kind of activity.

lemurcat12 · May 2015

RunsUponATime wrote: »

It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.

The typical person cannot run 10 miles (for me it would be more like 11 or 12 miles for 1000 calories) per day, every day, so while it's possible, skepticism is reasonable when someone proposes that. So often they mean going from the couch to that level of activity, which clearly is 100% unrealistic. (On the other hand, some people also have lengthy bike commutes or active jobs, so there are a variety of ways people can routinely burn a lot.)

In any case, I agree it's possible, and I totally agree with your point about that level of activity requiring extra calories.

yopeeps025 · May 2015

Dnarules wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

SO one time I wore a HRM during a full non active 24 hours that shows how many calories you burn. It said I was burning over 3000 calories just for being alive. I threw that thing away so quick after that.

That's not how you use it. It isn't made to be worn 24 hours.

Well I trained long enough to know my difference in intensity levels.

cwolfman13 · May 2015

RunsUponATime wrote: »

It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.

Your average MFPer isn't going to be out running 10 miles per day, nor is that really advisable. From a fitness performance and recovery perspective, rest is just as important as the work. And given other posts from the OP, she really doesn't know what she's doing in the first place so advising 1000 calorie burns really isn't a very good idea.

llUndecidedll · May 2015

You can, but it will take you a while. I usually do this, but I take a break. I would burn 400- 600 calories, take a break, and then do the rest. I usually end up doing about 3 hours of cardio if I'm trying to burn 1000 calories in one gym session. It's much easier if I break it up: walk for 90 minutes in the morning, walking for 90 minutes after work. I go by 50% of whatever the machine reading gives me because exercise machines aren't accurate for most people. This method is tiring... but fun if you like this kind of thing, but it is better to focus on your diet than burning 7000 calories through exercise weekly.

yopeeps025 · May 2015

cwolfman13 wrote: »

RunsUponATime wrote: »

It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.

Your average MFPer isn't going to be out running 10 miles per day, nor is that really advisable. From a fitness performance and recovery perspective, rest is just as important as the work. And given other posts from the OP, she really doesn't know what she's doing in the first place so advising 1000 calorie burns really isn't a very good idea.

I will say it like if you question something to burn 1000 calories then more likely you don't need to be training that way.

brianpperkins · May 2015

llUndecidedll wrote: »

You can, but it will take you a while. I usually do this, but I take a break. I would burn 400- 600 calories, take a break, and then do the rest. I usually end up doing about 3 hours of cardio if I'm trying to burn 1000 calories in one gym session. It's much easier if I break it up: walk for 90 minutes in the morning, walking for 90 minutes after work. I go by 50% of whatever the machine reading gives me because exercise machines aren't accurate for most people. This method is tiring... but fun if you like this kind of thing, but it is better to focus on your diet than burning 7000 calories through exercise weekly.

Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.

llUndecidedll · May 2015

Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.

I usually walk with an incline of 9 to 15 % at 3 mph-ish. I can only sustain this for about an hour. I have done it for 100 minutes once, but it was a bit much... but I completed my little personal challenge.

brianpperkins · May 2015

llUndecidedll wrote: »

Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.

I usually walk with an incline of 9 to 15 % at 3 mph-ish. I can only sustain this for about an hour. I have done it for 100 minutes once, but it was a bit much... but I completed my little personal challenge.

That amount of incline is enough to roughly double the burn of flat terrain ... assuming it is all up hill (rarly done in the real world) and no mechanical advantage provided if using a treadmill.

Francl27 · May 2015

llUndecidedll wrote: »

Three hours of walking at 3mph comes out to 9 miles covered .... a 200 pound person nets about 540 calories from that.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Using MET tables comes to out to a comparable number using more math.

I usually walk with an incline of 9 to 15 % at 3 mph-ish. I can only sustain this for about an hour. I have done it for 100 minutes once, but it was a bit much... but I completed my little personal challenge.

Most people who do that hold the bar though, so you can remove 20% of the burn easily.

I did 9% at 3.5mph without holding to anything and was completely beat after an hour. Not sure what my burn was but the treadmill said 500 calories, so probably less. Can't even imagine doing that for over 2 hours to burn 1000 calories... just nope. I haven't even been able to do 9% without having my calves screaming at me since... but I'm not giving up!

llUndecidedll · May 2015

That amount of incline is enough to roughly double the burn of flat terrain ... assuming it is all up hill (rarly done in the real world) and no mechanical advantage provided if using a treadmill.

Yep, I'm sure the treadmill gives me some advantage. That's why I try to walk at a good incline. I know that I'm much better at higher inclines than brisk/speed walking, so I just increase the intensity of my cardio session by upping the incline. I keep it uphill the entire time or would that be half the time? I choose a mountain climbing program where it takes me from 9 to 15% incline, then reverses half way so it then goes from 15 to 9% incline. Either way I never go below 9% and never hold onto the rails. I think it's fun and challenging enough for me.

Francl27 · May 2015

llUndecidedll wrote: »

That amount of incline is enough to roughly double the burn of flat terrain ... assuming it is all up hill (rarly done in the real world) and no mechanical advantage provided if using a treadmill.

Yep, I'm sure the treadmill gives me some advantage. That's why I try to walk at a good incline. I know that I'm much better at higher inclines than brisk/speed walking, so I just increase the intensity of my cardio session by upping the incline. I keep it uphill the entire time or would that be half the time? I choose a mountain climbing program where it takes me from 9 to 15% incline, then reverses half way so it then goes from 15 to 9% incline. Either way I never go below 9% and never hold onto the rails. I think it's fun and challenging enough for me.

Now that's pretty awesome!