How many calories do you burn during Zumba? (especially someone around 200lbs?)
Verity1111
Posts: 3,307 Member
I'm about 210lbs and I have been doing Zumba for about 60 minutes a day for a few days now. I am afraid of logging too high, but my calorie count is low so I also do not want to under eat by too much... Can anyone give me an idea of what they log? I'd say moderate effort because I go from quick to slow songs, to medium etc. I can't afford a HRMonitor yet. I'm using Zumba Core on XBox Kinect.
0
Replies
-
I wear a chest strap monitor in my Zumba class at the gym and I burn anywhere from 630-780 a class depending on how hard I go. I weigh 170.2
-
For reference, I am 5'6", 160 lbs.
I wear a Polar M400 watch with the chest strap and it usually gives me between 450-550 calories per hour, depending on the intensity of the class. Zumba is such a great workout! I do it almost everyday..I love it!2 -
It really depends on the exercise and the effort. I'd put 400.0
-
Totally depends. you can "Do" zumba or you can *do* Zumba.
I remember an aerobics class I was in where there was one woman who "did" all the moves, but so faintly and tentatively she never broke a sweat. Feet only a few inches from the ground, her arm movements were tiny little flaps. "Do" exercise classes like that and you're not burning much more than you would have just standing there.
7 -
I'd maybe log 200- 300 calories max. I know they claim you lose thousands of calories an hour but I am skeptical of wild claims like that.8
-
If it helps I have trouble breathing after each song and I'm drenched in sweat lol I logged the first day at 600 because it said 800 or something on a calculator I used but then I started wondering if it was right so I logged more around 400-500. But I only eat 1200 calories so if I work off 600-700 and Im logging 400-500 I will be netting around 1000 calories or less even. I really need money for a fitness watch
1 -
I burn over 100 calories on a 1-2 mile walk to the store though. That sounds very low for my weight. I doubt it burns thousands though lol that's ridiculous.Ready2Rock206 wrote: »I'd maybe log 200- 300 calories max. I know they claim you lose thousands of calories an hour but I am skeptical of wild claims like that.
1 -
sweetpea813 wrote: »I wear a chest strap monitor in my Zumba class at the gym and I burn anywhere from 630-780 a class depending on how hard I go. I weigh 170.
Are all of the songs super fast or do you also do warm ups? Thank you so much for the input btw!!1 -
dragon_girl26 wrote: »For reference, I am 5'6", 160 lbs.
I wear a Polar M400 watch with the chest strap and it usually gives me between 450-550 calories per hour, depending on the intensity of the class. Zumba is such a great workout! I do it almost everyday..I love it!
Me too! & Thank you for the idea!!!! I am assuming if you being 160 and someone around the same (170lbs) both burn over 400 (or in her case even over 600) calories per hour then I almost definitely do being 50lbs heavier. At least I know it is safe to log 400 without going over. I just wish I had a better idea of my actual burn. I need a cheap, semi-accurate HRM lol2 -
Verity1111 wrote: »sweetpea813 wrote: »I wear a chest strap monitor in my Zumba class at the gym and I burn anywhere from 630-780 a class depending on how hard I go. I weigh 170.
Are all of the songs super fast or do you also do warm ups? Thank you so much for the input btw!!
We do a warm up song then all the songs are super fast. My class isn't typical Zumba. I think it's more hip hop rather than Latin based. It's a hard class and we do lots of jumping and punching along with the dance steps. I get winded more in this class than any of the other cardio classes. I love it!
2 -
sweetpea813 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »sweetpea813 wrote: »I wear a chest strap monitor in my Zumba class at the gym and I burn anywhere from 630-780 a class depending on how hard I go. I weigh 170.
Are all of the songs super fast or do you also do warm ups? Thank you so much for the input btw!!
We do a warm up song then all the songs are super fast. My class isn't typical Zumba. I think it's more hip hop rather than Latin based. It's a hard class and we do lots of jumping and punching along with the dance steps. I get winded more in this class than any of the other cardio classes. I love it!
The ones I dance to are the same. Lots of jumping and arm movements. I may not do them right but I make sure Im moving a lot one way or the other lol I used to do a lot better but I have a bad ankle now I had surgery on. I always end up sweating and out of breath. My hair looks like I showered sometimes. Lol. It is fun though!0 -
An HRM won't give you a calorie burn thats worth anything for Zumba because it's not steady state
You're best using METs charts to be honest4 -
So 6.5 METs ..multiply that by your weight in KG to get an estimate of an hours zumba class
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/new-activity-updates
I'd take it down a bit to be safe so allow 450-5009 -
So 6.5 METs ..multiply that by your weight in KG to get an estimate of an hours zumba class
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/new-activity-updates
I'd take it down a bit to be safe so allow 450-500
^This. Sweating and other metrics like that aren't necessarily predictive of anything. Sweating just means you're hot.9 -
An HRM won't give you a calorie burn thats worth anything for Zumba because it's not steady state
You're best using METs charts to be honest
And that's certainly a valid point on the HRM, although it gives a good ballpark range. I've found that when I'm cutting, if I eat back most or all of the calories my Polar says I've burned, I still lose pretty close to my expected rate of loss. That's just me, though, of course.
The Polar app also syncs with MFP, which is nice so I don't have to log exercise manually. ..heh, lazy FTW!
I've also occasionally seen 600+ calories from my HRM for Zumba, too, which in that case, I know it's a little wonky.1 -
There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.1 -
There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!0 -
The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
7 -
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?0 -
Oh, also, I over log. As in I log my food a bit higher than it might be just to make sure it's accurate. I don't have a scale so if I ate 1/2 cup of food I might log 3/4 cup instead to make sure I don't go over my calories. Or if I eat 1/8 or a pie I might log 1/6 because Maybe my perception is off lol etcIn the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Not sure about Zumba but I do Max30 and have calculated my burn at 200-250 cal for that. I'm a 37yr old woman and 168lb. I'd estimate at your weight you would burn 100-150 more than that depending on effort level.0
-
Verity1111 wrote: »
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
At your weight you are only burning about 63 calories (net) per mile walking.
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
HRMs accurately measure heartbeats and there is no direct correlation between heartbeats and calories. They are a cardio training aid and not an energy measurement device.
If you are of roughly average fitness level and have an average exercise HR and are doing an appropriate exercise (steady state cardio of a decent intensity level) then yes you can get a reasonable estimate from a basic HRM.
I invested a bit of time and effort into buying a good standard configurable HRM, got my VO2 max and true max HR tested in a sports science lab and under perfect conditions it can be remarkably accurate compared to a power meter. Under imperfect conditions (but still steady state cardio) it can be out by 25%.
No I don't think there is any way to accurately estimate Zumba calories unless you are hooked up to a portable gas analyser to measure your oxygen uptake.
1 -
Always_Kriss wrote: »why not just buy a scale
Because not everyone has spare cash. My kid has a birthday tomorrow and I have $1 in my bank account.0 -
-
Verity1111 wrote: »
0 -
Double post
[/quote]
0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »
I can't run at all. I have a bad ankle. When I try to run I hobble and it's pretty painful as well. I literally can't even jog.The people using a HRM are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.Verity1111 wrote: »There are numerous calorie burn calculators online.
Here's one specifically for zumba that looks decent enough (though some of the stuff mentioned on this site I don't necessarily agree with, but the calculators seem somewhat reasonable) ~ http://caloriesburnedhq.com/zumba-calories-burned/
There are other sites that will allow you to enter your weight, sometimes your height and gender, and the exercise and time and give you an estimate of the calories burned. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, but most of these are probably good enough ballpark estimates (since frankly, most everything is really a ballpark estimate when you really think about it). Unfortunately, most don't have zumba for an exercise option, but you could probably use the generic aerobics options.
Always underestimate your calorie burn and overestimate your calorie intake (when you can't precisely measure like at a restaurant)...and you will be happier with the results since you will more likely be burning more than you are eating.
Thank you! According to that the minimum I'd burn is 650 (probably more like 550-600) and mid level is 750... I could just go with the low level intensity to be safe and log around 600calories. It makes sense because the two people who posted were 170lbs burning 630-780 (100calories above the calculator) and 160lbs burning 450-550 (around the same as the low and mid effort parts of the calculator) so Id say its within 100calories of being accurate in either direction. Thank you!
I wouldn't put any credence on people's HRM numbers as they are just using an inappropriate device to come up with a guess for them.
Some other points - exercise feeling hard doesn't translate to high calorie burns when you are unfit.
Sweating heavily is no indicator of high calorie burns.
Unfit people have high exercise HR and their recovery back to normal is worse than average - all that skews HRM numbers into exaggeration, especially for stop/start or interval exercise.
An alternative idea.....
Can you run for an hour Verity?
At your weight a run for an hour at 5 mph would give you approx. burn of 661 cals.
Or another comparison - a brisk walk for an hour at 4mph would give you an approx. burn of 252.
In the end just pick a reasonable sounding number, be consistent and let your weight loss be your guide over an extended period of time. BTW - a small inaccuracy a few times a week is potentially dwarfed by daily inaccuracy in food logging.
I can walk. An hr? When I put in a walk for my weight it says I burn over 100 calories walking for 20 minutes. I used to walk for exercise and burning about 100-130 calories per 20 minutes was usually accurate (considering the weight loss I attained from it and so on.)
Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
At your weight you are only burning about 63 calories (net) per mile walking.
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
HRMs accurately measure heartbeats and there is no direct correlation between heartbeats and calories. They are a cardio training aid and not an energy measurement device.
If you are of roughly average fitness level and have an average exercise HR and are doing an appropriate exercise (steady state cardio of a decent intensity level) then yes you can get a reasonable estimate from a basic HRM.
I invested a bit of time and effort into buying a good standard configurable HRM, got my VO2 max and true max HR tested in a sports science lab and under perfect conditions it can be remarkably accurate compared to a power meter. Under imperfect conditions (but still steady state cardio) it can be out by 25%.
No I don't think there is any way to accurately estimate Zumba calories unless you are hooked up to a portable gas analyser to measure your oxygen uptake.
Where are you getting that walking information? I always get over 100 calories PER mile on every calculator I use. https://www.verywell.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
That chart estimates 106calories.
You're talking about "net" calories? Seems different.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »...Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
A good write-up about HRMs which explains it very thoroughly: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-214721 -
Verity1111 wrote: »...Thank you btw for the input on HRM. I didnt realize those wouldnt be accurate? I would think they are the one way that is accurate? Do you not think any way is accurate or even close?
A good write-up about HRMs which explains it very thoroughly: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
Oy. Complex. I will read it later. Thank you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 441 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions