Kettlebell for weight loss
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »I can't access the study, but there are some articles summarizing the findings out there. Someone might find it interesting: http://www.yourhpservices.com/blog/2012/04/are-kettlebells-more-effective-than-treadmills/
Doesnt apply to me because i use a 24 kg kettlebell.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
Yah i agree which is why i said 1000 calories min not 1500
You're looking at 350 to 500 on a good day.
ETA and I'm being generous.
Looks about right to me, but I'm bad at math so I'll show my work for others to correct me: The MET value for kettlebell swings seems to be about 9.8 based on a quick google search. So we take MET (9.8) x weight in kg (OP, I think you said you were around 250 pounds (113 kg), but I could be misremembering?) x time (25 minutes). 9.8 x 113 x 25 = 553 calories burned.0 -
I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.0
-
but a study using a different exercise does apply to you?2
-
derek1237654 wrote: »I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.
Then why would you post a thread yesterday asking how many calories are burned during your kettlebell workout if you are confident in your estimates already and your weight loss patterns support that?3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
Yah i agree which is why i said 1000 calories min not 1500
You're looking at 350 to 500 on a good day.
ETA and I'm being generous.
Looks about right to me, but I'm bad at math so I'll show my work for others to correct me: The MET value for kettlebell swings seems to be about 9.8 based on a quick google search. So we take MET (9.8) x weight in kg (OP, I think you said you were around 250 pounds (113 kg), but I could be misremembering?) x time (25 minutes). 9.8 x 113 x 25 = 553 calories burned.
Well you are still burning a large amount of calories between sets which is why it is a HIIT workout and dont forget the anaerobic burn0 -
burning a large amount of calories during rest... um ok0
-
derek1237654 wrote: »I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.
Because weight loss comes from CICO, not how long/often you use a kettlebell.3 -
notreallychris wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.
Because weight loss comes from CICO, not how long/often you use a kettlebell.
Yes of course it comes from CICO which is why food and activity are both taken into account0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »I can't access the study, but there are some articles summarizing the findings out there. Someone might find it interesting: http://www.yourhpservices.com/blog/2012/04/are-kettlebells-more-effective-than-treadmills/
Doesnt apply to me because i use a 24 kg kettlebell.
An 8kg difference isn't that huge. Certainly not enough to dismiss the whole study.1 -
Seriously i give up! I know what that level of kettlebell swings do even if others dont. Just trying to help.0
-
derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
They're also not limiting themselve to 20 reps per set. Their sets are a full minute long so they are likely doing 50-60 reps per set. 50 reps with 20kg is a whole lot more intense (like, a WHOLE lot more) than 20 reps with 24kg.
Obviously you didnt read the study. They gave an example of a person doing 6 reps in 15 seconds followed by 15 sec of rest which is 12 reps a minute. So that is 38 reps per minute less than your lowest estimate. Dude just read the study dont just pull numbers out of thin air.
Post it and I'll read it.
I was going off the only info about it you gave. You only said they worked for 20 minutes with ten minutes of rest so I just went with 1 minute to 1 minutes.
But with that little tidbit, they're doing legitimate intervals of 15 seconds at high intensity with only 15 second rests (which even more intense than the 1 minute to 1 minute).
Your 30 second sets with one minute rests doesn't even get into the same ballpark when it comes to intensity.
There's a reason that they only went 20 minutes. That kind of interval training is crazy intense and it simply isn't reasonable to expect that it can be done for as long as your going.
Your rest periods are 3-4 times longer than theirs.
You're doing a different exercise.
Why would you expect a calorie burn per minute even remotely in the same range?4 -
derek1237654 wrote: »I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.
Because you're mistaken and you're touting benefits beyond what other newbies here in the getting started forum can expect.3 -
derek1237654 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
Yah i agree which is why i said 1000 calories min not 1500
You're looking at 350 to 500 on a good day.
ETA and I'm being generous.
Looks about right to me, but I'm bad at math so I'll show my work for others to correct me: The MET value for kettlebell swings seems to be about 9.8 based on a quick google search. So we take MET (9.8) x weight in kg (OP, I think you said you were around 250 pounds (113 kg), but I could be misremembering?) x time (25 minutes). 9.8 x 113 x 25 = 553 calories burned.
Well you are still burning a large amount of calories between sets which is why it is a HIIT workout and dont forget the anaerobic burn
When your rests are a minute long, you're not doing HIIT.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
They're also not limiting themselve to 20 reps per set. Their sets are a full minute long so they are likely doing 50-60 reps per set. 50 reps with 20kg is a whole lot more intense (like, a WHOLE lot more) than 20 reps with 24kg.
Obviously you didnt read the study. They gave an example of a person doing 6 reps in 15 seconds followed by 15 sec of rest which is 12 reps a minute. So that is 38 reps per minute less than your lowest estimate. Dude just read the study dont just pull numbers out of thin air.
Post it and I'll read it.
I was going off the only info about it you gave. You only said they worked for 20 minutes with ten minutes of rest so I just went with 1 minute to 1 minutes.
But with that little tidbit, they're doing legitimate intervals of 15 seconds at high intensity with only 15 second rests (which even more intense than the 1 minute to 1 minute).
Your 30 second sets with one minute rests doesn't even get into the same ballpark when it comes to intensity.
There's a reason that they only went 20 minutes. That kind of interval training is crazy intense and it simply isn't reasonable to expect that it can be done for as long as your going.
Your rest periods are 3-4 times longer than theirs.
You're doing a different exercise.
Why would you expect a calorie burn per minute even remotely in the same range?
Per minute is not that high but over 75 min total burn is high0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
They're also not limiting themselve to 20 reps per set. Their sets are a full minute long so they are likely doing 50-60 reps per set. 50 reps with 20kg is a whole lot more intense (like, a WHOLE lot more) than 20 reps with 24kg.
Obviously you didnt read the study. They gave an example of a person doing 6 reps in 15 seconds followed by 15 sec of rest which is 12 reps a minute. So that is 38 reps per minute less than your lowest estimate. Dude just read the study dont just pull numbers out of thin air.
Post it and I'll read it.
I was going off the only info about it you gave. You only said they worked for 20 minutes with ten minutes of rest so I just went with 1 minute to 1 minutes.
But with that little tidbit, they're doing legitimate intervals of 15 seconds at high intensity with only 15 second rests (which even more intense than the 1 minute to 1 minute).
Your 30 second sets with one minute rests doesn't even get into the same ballpark when it comes to intensity.
There's a reason that they only went 20 minutes. That kind of interval training is crazy intense and it simply isn't reasonable to expect that it can be done for as long as your going.
Your rest periods are 3-4 times longer than theirs.
You're doing a different exercise.
Why would you expect a calorie burn per minute even remotely in the same range?
Per minute is not that high but over 75 min total burn is high
As I illustrated in my edit above, you're looking at about 5-6 calories a minute. That's 350-450 calories total.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
They're also not limiting themselve to 20 reps per set. Their sets are a full minute long so they are likely doing 50-60 reps per set. 50 reps with 20kg is a whole lot more intense (like, a WHOLE lot more) than 20 reps with 24kg.
Obviously you didnt read the study. They gave an example of a person doing 6 reps in 15 seconds followed by 15 sec of rest which is 12 reps a minute. So that is 38 reps per minute less than your lowest estimate. Dude just read the study dont just pull numbers out of thin air.
Post it and I'll read it.
I was going off the only info about it you gave. You only said they worked for 20 minutes with ten minutes of rest so I just went with 1 minute to 1 minutes.
But with that little tidbit, they're doing legitimate intervals of 15 seconds at high intensity with only 15 second rests (which even more intense than the 1 minute to 1 minute).
Your 30 second sets with one minute rests doesn't even get into the same ballpark when it comes to intensity.
There's a reason that they only went 20 minutes. That kind of interval training is crazy intense and it simply isn't reasonable to expect that it can be done for as long as your going.
Your rest periods are 3-4 times longer than theirs.
You're doing a different exercise.
Why would you expect a calorie burn per minute even remotely in the same range?
Per minute is not that high but over 75 min total burn is high
As I illustrated in my edit above, you're looking at about 5-6 calories a minute. That's 350-450 calories total.
You know what it doesnt matter. I know i burn over 1000 doing 1000 swings so thats fine.0 -
I did the 10000 swing challenge over 30 days. The first week is a *kitten*, but it gets better. I was only averaging approx 300-350 swings a day over 7 days. I don't notice a massive weight loss but I was tighter and my core lifts got stronger. I followed a program from t-nation designed by Dan John.0
-
After reading the webMD article about kettlebell exercising burning as much as 400 calories in 20 minutes I finally got my baby kettlebell out and started swinging it. All I'm doing now is swinging it between my legs while doing squats. It is very much a whole body workout, except maybe it's not working my neck. derek1237654, I thank you for being such an enthusiast of the device. I've had that baby kettlebell for years and never worked with it.0
-
derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
They're also not limiting themselve to 20 reps per set. Their sets are a full minute long so they are likely doing 50-60 reps per set. 50 reps with 20kg is a whole lot more intense (like, a WHOLE lot more) than 20 reps with 24kg.
Obviously you didnt read the study. They gave an example of a person doing 6 reps in 15 seconds followed by 15 sec of rest which is 12 reps a minute. So that is 38 reps per minute less than your lowest estimate. Dude just read the study dont just pull numbers out of thin air.
Post it and I'll read it.
I was going off the only info about it you gave. You only said they worked for 20 minutes with ten minutes of rest so I just went with 1 minute to 1 minutes.
But with that little tidbit, they're doing legitimate intervals of 15 seconds at high intensity with only 15 second rests (which even more intense than the 1 minute to 1 minute).
Your 30 second sets with one minute rests doesn't even get into the same ballpark when it comes to intensity.
There's a reason that they only went 20 minutes. That kind of interval training is crazy intense and it simply isn't reasonable to expect that it can be done for as long as your going.
Your rest periods are 3-4 times longer than theirs.
You're doing a different exercise.
Why would you expect a calorie burn per minute even remotely in the same range?
Per minute is not that high but over 75 min total burn is high
As I illustrated in my edit above, you're looking at about 5-6 calories a minute. That's 350-450 calories total.
You know what it doesnt matter. I know i burn over 1000 doing 1000 swings so thats fine.
This is not even accurate and I hope that a newbie to MFP or newbie to exercise understands that this promoting false calorie burning. Even with an HRM tracking your calories this is way overestimated.
I hope one will not go out and buy kettlebells and start swinging and snatching thinking 1000+ calorie burns are achievable without numerous hours of work. Plus this is a high risk for injury. Way too much.
Read the study posted earlier in the thread. Running is better than kettlebell swinging and snatches any day for calorie burning.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions