Is 320 calories burned/workout good?

xashley99x
xashley99x Posts: 1 Member
edited December 3 in Health and Weight Loss
I'm an 18 year old female, 190 pounds and 4'11. I just started doing 40 minutes on an incline treadmill, and I hope to do that 4-5 times per week.

I feel like I do a really intense workout but the treadmill says I'm only burning 322 calories. Is that enough to lose weight if I eat 1000-1200 calories per day? I hope so because I don't think I can do more on the treadmill than I already do.

Replies

  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    As long as you're in a calorie deficit you'll lose weight, whether you exercise or not. 322 calories is likely high for your workout, so eating 1200 plus about half of those exercise calories will do.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Are you holding on to the treadmill? That lowers the calorie burn significantly
  • kam3190
    kam3190 Posts: 157 Member
    eating 1000 calories on top of excercise just isnt enough you need to be eating more.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    edited August 2016
    kam3190 wrote: »
    eating 1000 calories on top of excercise just isnt enough you need to be eating more.

    i'm sorry, but no. OP is very short and incredibly overweight.

    She can safely lose 1.9 pounds per week.
  • guinevere96
    guinevere96 Posts: 1,445 Member
    kam3190 wrote: »
    eating 1000 calories on top of excercise just isnt enough you need to be eating more.

    Keep in mind that OP is only 4'11, our deficits are very very small. at 5'2 and MFP sets my net goal to 1260, and im a whopping 50lbs heavier than her.
  • auzziecawth
    auzziecawth Posts: 244 Member
    I'm only a little taller then you (pretty fit) and even at intense exercise I have a hard time burning more then 400 calories in an hour. Calorie burn is directly related to height and weight. The shorter you are and the less you weigh the less you will burn. So 300 for a 40 min walk is actually pretty decent at your height.
  • SophieSmall95
    SophieSmall95 Posts: 233 Member
    Take the machine calorie burns reading with a pinch of salt, they're notoriously not accurate. But you're going great and good luck and keep up the hard work. :)
  • kam3190
    kam3190 Posts: 157 Member
    im sorry. i thought 1200 was a minimum? i also thought she was only eating 1000 calories on top of the excercise. (not eating back any calories) putting her at a net off like 800 to 1100 a day.
  • Arapacana1
    Arapacana1 Posts: 117 Member
    The calorie burn sounds about right to me. My exercise bike says I burn around 350 for an hour of fairly intense cycling, and that seems pretty accurate given my rate of weight loss. I am your weight but some inches taller. But you need to eat 1200 calories minimum, and then you can add back some (or none, for a faster weight loss) of your exercise calories.
  • Wolfena
    Wolfena Posts: 1,570 Member
    I think it's a good burn.. ☺

    The frustrating thing about working out is that better shape you are in and the thinner your body gets, the less calories you will burn working out, even at high intensity
  • blackaheep4288
    blackaheep4288 Posts: 41 Member
    Wolfena wrote: »
    I think it's a good burn.. ☺

    The frustrating thing about working out is that better shape you are in and the thinner your body gets, the less calories you will burn working out, even at high intensity

    This is the sad truth. I started at 418#s... I was getting 1k-1200 calories burned per hour on the treadmill. This was at a 15 incline and 2mph. I injured my leg when I slipped and fell a few months back at work so I'm unable to do such an incline now. I did check the other day though and if I did the same workout I'd be burning 800 calories.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    320 calories in 40 minutes, i.e. 8 calories per minute, is pretty good! I have to bicycle at about 16 mph to burn 8 calories per minute.
  • Seffell
    Seffell Posts: 2,244 Member
    322 cals for a 40min workout is quite a lot. I only burn around 200 per 30 min biking.
  • briscogun
    briscogun Posts: 1,138 Member
    edited August 2016
    SophieSmall95 wrote: »
    Take the machine calorie burns reading with a pinch of salt, they're notoriously not accurate. But you're going great and good luck and keep up the hard work. :)

    Bingo.

    The machine has no idea how tall you are, how much you weigh, how fast your heart rate is, what effort level you are giving... nothing. I'm a 6 foot tall male. If you and I both did a 40 min workout on your machine it would give us an identical calorie burn. Do you think we both actually would burn the identical amount? No.

    Those are estimates at best. Do not log those numbers if you want to have any sort of accuracy. If you want to get close, get a fitness tracker with a heart rate monitor, or even better a chest strap monitor, to really get an idea. Other than that, you are just guessing. That's why people will only log in some of their exercise, or not log in the calorie burn (just put in a "1" to log the activity no the calorie credit) or they only eat back like half of their exercise calories to make sure they don't go over on accident.

    Either way, good luck!
  • LazSommer
    LazSommer Posts: 1,851 Member
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    kam3190 wrote: »
    eating 1000 calories on top of excercise just isnt enough you need to be eating more.

    i'm sorry, but no. OP is very short and incredibly overweight.

    She can safely lose 1.9 pounds per week.

    subtle
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    LazSommer wrote: »
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    kam3190 wrote: »
    eating 1000 calories on top of excercise just isnt enough you need to be eating more.

    i'm sorry, but no. OP is very short and incredibly overweight.

    She can safely lose 1.9 pounds per week.

    subtle

    well, at 100 pounds overweight she is morbidly obese. To try and tell someone her current size the answer is to "eat more" can be dangerous and unhelpful.

    She can and SHOULD be losing more.
  • kgirlhart
    kgirlhart Posts: 5,188 Member
    kam3190 wrote: »
    im sorry. i thought 1200 was a minimum? i also thought she was only eating 1000 calories on top of the excercise. (not eating back any calories) putting her at a net off like 800 to 1100 a day.

    It is for the average woman, but 4'11" is way under average.
  • ArcherGilS
    ArcherGilS Posts: 6 Member
    brian_gunther wrote: »
    SophieSmall95 wrote: »
    Take the machine calorie burns reading with a pinch of salt, they're notoriously not accurate. But you're going great and good luck and keep up the hard work. :)

    Bingo.

    The machine has no idea how tall you are, how much you weigh, how fast your heart rate is, what effort level you are giving... nothing. I'm a 6 foot tall male. If you and I both did a 40 min workout on your machine it would give us an identical calorie burn. Do you think we both actually would burn the identical amount? No.

    Those are estimates at best. Do not log those numbers if you want to have any sort of accuracy. If you want to get close, get a fitness tracker with a heart rate monitor, or even better a chest strap monitor, to really get an idea. Other than that, you are just guessing. That's why people will only log in some of their exercise, or not log in the calorie burn (just put in a "1" to log the activity no the calorie credit) or they only eat back like half of their exercise calories to make sure they don't go over on accident.

    Either way, good luck!

    Depends on the treadmill OP's using. There are some that you can enter your weight, age etc. Sadly the one I use doesn't have a height option - really annoys me.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories