1000 calorie burn?!
Replies
-
filovirus76 wrote: »You know this how?
The MET factor for easy paced running, 6 minute per kilometre, is 10.
The MET factor for vigorous circuit training, broadly the video cited, is 8.
The METs for skipping are 8, 10 and 12 subject to how much intensity one is working at. I'd suggest that the top one isn't sustainable for 60 minutes, and I'd be surprised if the middle one could be, essentially giving an equivalence to easy paced running.
So we're still in the situation where a fairly gentle run is burning more calories than one is going to achieve circuit training.
0 -
MichiganDJ2012 wrote: »My fiancé and I are currently doing 22 minute Hard Corps from Beachbody. A cardio and a core workout (33 minutes) I'll burn around 500 calories.
You're calculating that how?
I couldn't burn 500 calories running straight for 33 minutes or rowing or cycling......
0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No way on the burn...I'm a pretty avid endurance cyclist and pretty fit and there's still no way I could sustain the level of effort over the course of an hour that would be necessary to burn 1,000 calories.
I hit that kind of calorie burn per hour in every XC mountain bike race I do, but those are Zone 4 & Zone 5 a/b/c full out efforts and are only 15 - 25 times per season.
I still couldn't do it...my beta blocker alone would pretty much nix that.0 -
MichiganDJ2012 wrote: »My fiancé and I are currently doing 22 minute Hard Corps from Beachbody. A cardio and a core workout (33 minutes) I'll burn around 500 calories.
hmmmm......0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »MichiganDJ2012 wrote: »My fiancé and I are currently doing 22 minute Hard Corps from Beachbody. A cardio and a core workout (33 minutes) I'll burn around 500 calories.
You're calculating that how?
I couldn't burn 500 calories running straight for 33 minutes or rowing or cycling......
You're just not heavy enough
If you weighted 250, that's 3.25 10:00 miles0 -
Its possible. I've done it. Once. But it is basically super high intensity HIIT for that whole hour. I wouldn't do that regularly unless you are getting a lot of rest/recovery.0
-
scorpio516 wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »MichiganDJ2012 wrote: »My fiancé and I are currently doing 22 minute Hard Corps from Beachbody. A cardio and a core workout (33 minutes) I'll burn around 500 calories.
You're calculating that how?
I couldn't burn 500 calories running straight for 33 minutes or rowing or cycling......
You're just not heavy enough
If you weighted 250, that's 3.25 10:00 miles
I'll have to put on some weight!
0 -
The workout is over an hour, most of the 1000 calories workouts are an hour and 30 minutes and they do give an estimate calorie burn 1000 calorie will be the high estimate there will be a low calorie estimate as well.0
-
WilsonFilson wrote: »Its possible. I've done it. Once. But it is basically super high intensity HIIT for that whole hour. I wouldn't do that regularly unless you are getting a lot of rest/recovery.
If you're really doing "super high intensity HIIT" you couldn't do it for an hour.......
0 -
filovirus76 wrote: »"Fundamentally calorie expenditure is about distance and mass, hence the comparison to running being reasonable. Moving 160lbs through 10 miles running will give about 1000 cals, moving the same mass through 10 miles of walking will burn about 500 cals.
As these kind of videos don't involve moving the bodymass through anything like the same kind of distance, the opportunity to burn 1000 cals just isn't there. "
You know this how? Both burpees and jump roping burn more calories per hour than running. ~10 per min running ~13 per min for the other two. My guess is a video can be somewhere in between the two depending on how much jumping/arm movement/leg movement is involved.
No they don't. Intensity is intensity. If you have the fitness ability to do burpees or jump rope continuously for 1 hour, then you can run at the same intensity for an hour.
Calorie burn is not a fixed part of an activity. Calorie burn depends on intensity and body weight. You can't say that "burpees burn 13 cals/min" or that "running burns 10 cal/min" wout knowing the weight and intensity/speed of the activity. At steady state, for example, I burn 14-16 calories per minute running. If I run faster I burn more, if I run slower I burn less.
Workout videos are highly unlikely to result in a 1000 calorie/hr burn for a number of reasons.
1. Movements are not consistently vigorous enough to sustain a high enough intensity.
2. Movements are not continuous enough to sustain a high enough intensity.
3. Workout usually includes a warm up and cool down--activities at a greatly reduced intensity.
4. Workouts usually include some type of sorta-kinda "core" exercises that greatly reduce intensity.
Hypothetically possible, virtually impossible.0 -
-
At steady state, for example, I burn 14-16 calories per minute running. If I run faster I burn more, if I run slower I burn less.
Would be interested in your opinions on these studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20613650
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/162609820 -
blues4miles wrote: »At steady state, for example, I burn 14-16 calories per minute running. If I run faster I burn more, if I run slower I burn less.
Would be interested in your opinions on these studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20613650
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16260982
Not exactly sure what kind if opinion you are looking for. Both studies are looking at arcane aspects of some type of exercise. Neither is particularly significant IMO outside of whatever niche they were exploring (unless I missed something).
If you saw something more meaningful, let me know and I'll go back and re-read.
0 -
That's not at all how that works.WilsonFilson wrote: »Its possible. I've done it. Once. But it is basically super high intensity HIIT for that whole hour. I wouldn't do that regularly unless you are getting a lot of rest/recovery.
0 -
filovirus76 wrote: »
I'm inclined to just base my opinion on the Stanford research tbh0 -
Ha! For me it would take 5 hours at least in the gym to burn 1,000! Not happening in an hour.0
-
filovirus76 wrote: »
None of the numbers listed in that article are particularly accurate. You can't list a single number for an exercise and apply to all individuals.
Not that I am advocating running as the ultimate exercise for everyone, but it does provide a benchmark in that it is an activity that can be sustained at a consistent effort for an hour; and the intensity can also be varied--from a medium steady state effort (if fitness level is adequate) to an all out effort. It also requires minimal skill, so it is not technique dependent.
Lets look at the other exercises listed:
1. Kettlebell Swings: great exercise. Can be done at moderate intensity or high intensity. Many people will say "you can burn 20 cals/min doing kettlebell swings". Maybe, maybe not. That value has been reported in only one study that I know of and it used some math tricks to get there. In any case, even if true, you are not comparing apples to apples--a max effort kettlebell swing cannot be sustained for an hour. And if one has the fitness ability to hit that level of calorie burn at a max effort, chances are they could achieve the same thing doing an all out run for the same period of time. Submax kettlebell swings (i.e. at a pace that can be sustained for 20 min continuously) have been shown to be a modest aerobic effort, with intensities in the 62%-65% of max category.
2. Burpees: Another great exercise--arguably one of the best body weight exercises you can do. Once again, however, one would have trouble doing continuous burpees for 60 min straight. And if you could, per the numbers reported in that article, the calorie burn numbers would be about the same as running at the same effort level it would take to do burpees.
3. Jumping Rope: great exercise, good calorie burn. Again, at the levels necessary to equal/surpass that of running, probably cannot do it for an hour straight. Actually, jumping rope is kind of like running in place, so calorie burns will be similar.
4. Battle Ropes: No. Not even.
5. Walking up hill with a load: Are you kidding? With a calorie burn listed at 400 per hour.
6. Dancing. Fun, but unless you set yourself on fire, no.
7. Rock Climbing. Now you're just running out of activities to list.
8. Inline Skating. Similar to road cycling, with the same benefits and limitations. Great exercise, but very difficult to keep a sustained effort similar to running. If your legs stop moving while running, you don't keep moving. Not a superior calorie burn.
9. Rowing. This is one that can come close or equal, but requires skill and focus to maintain the effort level.
10. Boxing. Can burn a lot of calories in short bursts, but cannot sustain that high effort for an entire hour.
0 -
I'm 228 and burn around 1200cals running for 60 minutes at a slowish pace (8kmp/hr). When I weighed 150 it used to take me about 90 minutes at a much faster pace to burn the same. One of the very few advantages of me being this fat!0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »filovirus76 wrote: »
I'm inclined to just base my opinion on the Stanford research tbh
CFR please.0 -
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ha! For me it would take 5 hours at least in the gym to burn 1,000! Not happening in an hour.
I almost made it it to 1000 calories per hour for 5 hours today thanks to racing in brutal 30 mph winds...
by 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions