Kettlebell for weight loss
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Unreal. Read the actual study that you cite. The kettlebell weighed 16 kg not 24 kg which is what i use. The study did not account for the huge anaerobic burn that kettlebell swings produce which is an extra 25% burn rate if you read the ACE study. They only looked at oxygen consumption with a light bell. If you even know what VO2MAX is you would know that it doesnt account for anaerobic burn...you must measure lactate levels. So i am not promoting things that are not true...my calorie burn is atleast 1000 per 1000 swings and im estimating on the low side to be generous. Plus my body weight and the intensity with which i go after the swings and my weight loss further prove my point. As well kettlebells are low impact whereas running on a treadmill is high impact.
Please do not listen to this person. Try it or read the studies for yourself and then decide0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »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.
Thanks glad you find it useful! Just make sure your form is good for all of them.0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »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.
Unreal. 1) Read the actual study that you cite. 2) The kettlebell weighed 16 kg not 24 kg which is what i use. The study did not account for the huge anaerobic burn that kettlebell swings produce which is an extra 25% burn rate if you read the ACE study. They only looked at oxygen consumption with a light bell. If you even know what VO2MAX is you would know that it doesnt account for anaerobic burn...you must measure lactate levels. So i am not promoting things that are not true...my calorie burn is atleast 1000 per 1000 swings and im estimating on the low side to be generous. Plus my body weight and the intensity with which i go after the swings and my weight loss further prove my point. As well kettlebells are low impact whereas running on a treadmill is high impact.
Please do not listen to this person. Try it or read the studies for yourself and then decide
1) Post it so we can!! For the love of all that is good and kind....you keep telling us to read this study but you won't post a link to it. Come on...
2) On page one, you said they used a 20kg bell. Now you say 16kg. Keep your story straight.
I may or may not waste my time responding to the rest of your ramblings after you post a link to the study so I can see it for myself.1 -
@Carlos_421 I think this is the one he's been referencing: https://www.acefitness.org/about-ace/press-room/528/ace-study-reveals-kettlebells-provide-powerful0
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »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.
Hold up, are you squatting WHILE swinging? That's a good way to screw up your back. The kettlebell swing is a hip hinge, not a squat...check out a form video like this one for more details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cVT3ee9mgU
You absolutely can squat with it, but maybe do goblet squats as a warmup before the swings!
1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »@Carlos_421 I think this is the one he's been referencing: https://www.acefitness.org/about-ace/press-room/528/ace-study-reveals-kettlebells-provide-powerful
Thanks Diane!!derek1237654 wrote: »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.
Unreal. Read the actual study that you cite. ... 1) The study did not account for the huge anaerobic burn that kettlebell swings produce which is an extra 25% burn rate if you read the ACE study. 2) They only looked at oxygen consumption with a light bell. 3) If you even know what VO2MAX is you would know that it doesnt account for anaerobic burn...4) you must measure lactate levels. So i am not promoting things that are not true... 5) my calorie burn is atleast 1000 per 1000 swings and im estimating on the low side to be generous. Plus my body weight and 6) the intensity with which i go after the swings and my weight loss further prove my point. As well kettlebells are low impact whereas running on a treadmill is high impact.
Please do not listen to this person. Try it or read the studies for yourself and then decide
Ok, read the study and:
1) Yes, it did. From the study:
“We estimated oxygen consumption and how many calories
they were burning aerobically, and it was 13.6 calories per minute.
But we also measured the blood lactate, so anaerobically they were
burning another 6.6 calories per minute,”
2) That's not true. See above.
3) Do YOU even know what VO2 Max is?? It's the measure of how much oxygen your body can consume. It's used as measurement of potential oxygen uptake and athletes measure it and seek to improve it because the more oxygen they can consume, the better they can perform.
4) They did.
5) That's a calorie per swing. You're not even close.
6) The fact that you're able to go for 75 minutes proves that your intensity is quite lacking in comparison to the participants of the study. We've been over this.
So I'll say it again. Kettlebell swings are a fine exercise but your workout (long breaks and going for over an hour) is poorly set up for their purpose and you are not experiencing the insane calorie burn you're claiming.
Touting what you do not understand and proclaiming unrealistic benefits on the Getting Started forum is irresponsible. Stop it.3 -
when I was over 200lbs and doing a lot of those "1000 calorie burn" workouts I was lucky to burn 600 in 80-90 min and that was giving it my all.I even did kettlebell workouts too and still never burned that many calories in the same time frame.its hard to keep up high intensity for more than 1hr.your body starts losing steam so to speak around an hr(for most people anyway) and for them stating that you burn high calories after the workout? bullsh*t. my calorie burns went down,the most calories I have burned a minute was 10 and I was in the obese stage at 209lbs.I have never once hit 11,12,20 CPM ever no matter what workout I did.and that was with two different HRM checking. sure they werent 100% accurate but neither one ever ranged that high.I think the study is bull which a lot of studies on the internet are.1
-
As i said i have weight loss which corresponds to more than 1000 calories from 1000 swings so for me it does burn that many regardless of what you think the studies say even though I cited a respected study and explained why it burns that many. So since i am not lying about my weight loss i am not irresponsible. I am just telling what i did and how it corresponds to MY weight loss. What do i have to gain by making this up?Carlos_421 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »@Carlos_421 I think this is the one he's been referencing: https://www.acefitness.org/about-ace/press-room/528/ace-study-reveals-kettlebells-provide-powerful
Thanks Diane!!derek1237654 wrote: »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.
Unreal. Read the actual study that you cite. ... 1) The study did not account for the huge anaerobic burn that kettlebell swings produce which is an extra 25% burn rate if you read the ACE study. 2) They only looked at oxygen consumption with a light bell. 3) If you even know what VO2MAX is you would know that it doesnt account for anaerobic burn...4) you must measure lactate levels. So i am not promoting things that are not true... 5) my calorie burn is atleast 1000 per 1000 swings and im estimating on the low side to be generous. Plus my body weight and 6) the intensity with which i go after the swings and my weight loss further prove my point. As well kettlebells are low impact whereas running on a treadmill is high impact.
Please do not listen to this person. Try it or read the studies for yourself and then decide
Ok, read the study and:
1) Yes, it did. From the study:
“We estimated oxygen consumption and how many calories
they were burning aerobically, and it was 13.6 calories per minute.
But we also measured the blood lactate, so anaerobically they were
burning another 6.6 calories per minute,”
2) That's not true. See above.
3) Do YOU even know what VO2 Max is?? It's the measure of how much oxygen your body can consume. It's used as measurement of potential oxygen uptake and athletes measure it and seek to improve it because the more oxygen they can consume, the better they can perform.
4) They did.
5) That's a calorie per swing. You're not even close.
6) The fact that you're able to go for 75 minutes proves that your intensity is quite lacking in comparison to the participants of the study. We've been over this.
So I'll say it again. Kettlebell swings are a fine exercise but your workout (long breaks and going for over an hour) is poorly set up for their purpose and you are not experiencing the insane calorie burn you're claiming.
Touting what you do not understand and proclaiming unrealistic benefits on the Getting Started forum is irresponsible. Stop it.0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »
As i said i have weight loss which corresponds to more than 1000 calories from 1000 swings so for me it does burn that many regardless of what you think the studies say even though I cited a respected study and explained why it burns that many. So since i am not lying about my weight loss i am not irresponsible. I am just telling what i did and how it corresponds to MY weight loss. What do i have to gain by making this up?Carlos_421 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »@Carlos_421 I think this is the one he's been referencing: https://www.acefitness.org/about-ace/press-room/528/ace-study-reveals-kettlebells-provide-powerful
Thanks Diane!!derek1237654 wrote: »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.
Unreal. Read the actual study that you cite. ... 1) The study did not account for the huge anaerobic burn that kettlebell swings produce which is an extra 25% burn rate if you read the ACE study. 2) They only looked at oxygen consumption with a light bell. 3) If you even know what VO2MAX is you would know that it doesnt account for anaerobic burn...4) you must measure lactate levels. So i am not promoting things that are not true... 5) my calorie burn is atleast 1000 per 1000 swings and im estimating on the low side to be generous. Plus my body weight and 6) the intensity with which i go after the swings and my weight loss further prove my point. As well kettlebells are low impact whereas running on a treadmill is high impact.
Please do not listen to this person. Try it or read the studies for yourself and then decide
Ok, read the study and:
1) Yes, it did. From the study:
“We estimated oxygen consumption and how many calories
they were burning aerobically, and it was 13.6 calories per minute.
But we also measured the blood lactate, so anaerobically they were
burning another 6.6 calories per minute,”
2) That's not true. See above.
3) Do YOU even know what VO2 Max is?? It's the measure of how much oxygen your body can consume. It's used as measurement of potential oxygen uptake and athletes measure it and seek to improve it because the more oxygen they can consume, the better they can perform.
4) They did.
5) That's a calorie per swing. You're not even close.
6) The fact that you're able to go for 75 minutes proves that your intensity is quite lacking in comparison to the participants of the study. We've been over this.
So I'll say it again. Kettlebell swings are a fine exercise but your workout (long breaks and going for over an hour) is poorly set up for their purpose and you are not experiencing the insane calorie burn you're claiming.
Touting what you do not understand and proclaiming unrealistic benefits on the Getting Started forum is irresponsible. Stop it.
weight loss comes from taking in less calories than you burn,so yes if you do that you will lose weight, but as others are saying that there is no way that anyone(well most people) including you can burn that many calories that quickly.13.33 calories per minute for 75 min? I know people who are over 300 lbs who cant even burn that much for that time frame.if they could run it may be possible. no one said you are making it up,what they are saying is either you or whatever you are using to gauge the burn is overestimating the burn.you said you are estimating on the low side? I dont think they are low enough to be honest. kettlebell calorie burns are over rated and every article you read will state something different. I have seen that myself with different research I have done0
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