Such high calorie burns? What?

LiveLoveFitFab
LiveLoveFitFab Posts: 302 Member
edited November 15 in Fitness and Exercise
Okay, I understand if you are really big that you can burn a lot of calories doing not much, but I keep seeing people who are around my size burning almost 1000 or more calories in an hour. The most I could do, being completely drenched in sweat and working to my max is maybe 600 calories in an hour. Ten calories a minute is hard to do unless you are really big. But these people aren't really big... :/

Not to mention, I keep seeing people who are just doing something simple, like weight lifting general and burning a lot of calories. My estimate is at 180-250 per hour doing regular lifts. How are they burning so much more? I jog in between sets and still can't burn as much as they do.

Am I exercising wrong? I go by my heart rate, intensity and I know everything is just really an estimation. I also subtract about 20% from MFP's values, because I hear they are grossly inflated. Even without subtracting 20%, I don't think I could burn 1000 calories in an hour just by running.

What am I missing out on? That's a lot of calories, and these folks aren't that big. Should I be logging more exercise calories?

I'm 5'5 and 160lbs if that helps, and in general fitness. No guru here, but I don't get out of breathe just going up stairs....
«13

Replies

  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    In some cases the numbers could be correct. In many they are not. I don't really pay attention to those newsfeed posts.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    1. I wouldn't worry about how or what others log. That's counterproductive.
    2. Yes 1000 calories an hour is a lot. My husband can do that. Me? No. Best I get kicken kitten is about 600.
    3. Stick to what works for you ;-)

    Like you said, that's a function of weight and or larger muscle mass.

  • __TMac__
    __TMac__ Posts: 1,669 Member
    MFP gives really high numbers for calories burned when you enter manually. Which is why I don't use them. I've never logged more than 600 cals, even when I was heavier, and those were really big workouts. And even then, I only eat back 75% or so.
  • Rocknut53
    Rocknut53 Posts: 1,794 Member
    Keep in mind that their numbers may be inflated, which if they're trying to lose weight, relying on those numbers would be counter-productive. Do what works for you.
  • bbell1985
    bbell1985 Posts: 4,571 Member
    LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »
    I just wish I could do 600 in an hour without doing a whole hour of HIIT. Come to think of it, I wish I could do a whole hour of HIIT

    Why? True HIIT is not meant to be done for an hour anyway.
  • bbell1985
    bbell1985 Posts: 4,571 Member
    LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »
    Because the only way I am burning over 600 calories in an hour is doing an hour of HIIT. I wasn't being serious. :wink:

    Meh. Focus on your food. Get a bit of a calorie burn if you can. BTW I started with similar stats to you. 5'4" 163
  • Charlene_1985
    Charlene_1985 Posts: 122 Member
    I run 8:30 minutes for about an hour. At 128lbs, I'm burning maybe 650-700 calories. Someone at 150lbs would probably be burning around 800 I'm assuming.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    edited February 2017
    My power meter has me at about 800 kJ/hr on a long sustained hill and a short deadline. 600 is more comfortable when I'm not in a rush. I'm measuring torque vector and angular velocity at the pedals. Outdoor bike with mountainous roads nearby.

    Edit: That's up a long hill. I have a much harder time keeping up with that kind of power on flat ground.
  • TheSkyBlushed
    TheSkyBlushed Posts: 153 Member
    edited February 2017
    LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »
    Okay, I understand if you are really big that you can burn a lot of calories doing not much, but I keep seeing people who are around my size burning almost 1000 or more calories in an hour. The most I could do, being completely drenched in sweat and working to my max is maybe 600 calories in an hour. Ten calories a minute is hard to do unless you are really big. But these people aren't really big... :/

    What am I missing out on? That's a lot of calories, and these folks aren't that big. Should I be logging more exercise calories?

    I'm 5'5 and 160lbs if that helps, and in general fitness. No guru here, but I don't get out of breathe just going up stairs....

    I agree 100% I think they (MFP & MapMyFitness) are waaaaay too generous with the fitness calories. I almost always just ignore them & only eat about 25% of them back at most... and I still gained. So... there's that. LOL

    Yet I am bigger than you at 5'9 (and much heavier) so I think they do give you more when you are bigger.
  • Jaymie
    Jaymie Posts: 235 Member
    I have seen posts reading burnt 300cal from doing 10mins of... and thought gees I hope this person realises that MFP over estimates the calories. Dunno maybe it is accurate but if weight loss is the main goal I wouldn't go by mfp calculations
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    i have always used MFP numbers and they have been fine for me - i've always eaten back my exercise cals.

    i last burn 600 cals in an hour doing a 10k race... which took me exactly 60 minutes.

    as long as you're losing weight doing what you're doing, don't worry about anyone else.
  • MelanieCN77
    MelanieCN77 Posts: 4,047 Member
    For what it's worth, when my device reports my workouts to my MFP timeline it's all over the place. Certain things it reports double, and today it added 200 cals and ten minutes to what I actually did. The cals it adds to my diary are correct though, it's the social report that's off. I got tired of correcting it because I knew poeple would see it and assume I was some mythical workout beast, so I turned it off.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited February 2017
    Ten calories a minute is hard to do unless you are really big
    No - calorie burns over an extended duration are more about fitness than size.
    600 cal / hour is not that difficult for a fit person. And fit people also have an enormous range of abilities!

    Why don't you try and "calibrate" yourself either using a piece of equipment that can give a reliable calorie burn (power meter equipped bike, Concept2 trainer with weight correction applied for example).

    Or run on flat ground and use formula:
    Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles) to give a reasonable estimate.
    At your weight a six mile run gives you c. 605 cals.

    Try and worry more about fitness and health improvements that an unnecessary emphasis on calorie burns.
    Your weight loss results tell you all you need to know about your calorie balance.
  • niblue
    niblue Posts: 339 Member
    I did a 10K race yesterday in a little over 57 minutes and that formula gives about the same result for me as my Garmin did (760 from the formula, 810 calories from Garmin). Strava seems to overestimate running calories though, giving 1,111 calories from the same Garmin data.

    On the bike I can burn 700-800 calories in an hour but I'd have to be properly going for it. 500-600 being more common.
  • FatMoojor
    FatMoojor Posts: 483 Member
    For cardio, I generally go with 100 calories per mile.
    For strength work, 100 calories every 30 mins.
  • 3rdof7sisters
    3rdof7sisters Posts: 486 Member
    How? Cuz' MFP, my Fitbit, and the machine give overestimated calorie burns. They are probably entering the calorie burn that. For example, MFP gives me over 900 calories burned for 65 minutes on the elliptical, when 1/2 that amount is much more realistic.
  • LiveLoveFitFab
    LiveLoveFitFab Posts: 302 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Ten calories a minute is hard to do unless you are really big
    No - calorie burns over an extended duration are more about fitness than size.
    600 cal / hour is not that difficult for a fit person. And fit people also have an enormous range of abilities!

    Why don't you try and "calibrate" yourself either using a piece of equipment that can give a reliable calorie burn (power meter equipped bike, Concept2 trainer with weight correction applied for example).

    Or run on flat ground and use formula:
    Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles) to give a reasonable estimate.
    At your weight a six mile run gives you c. 605 cals.

    Try and worry more about fitness and health improvements that an unnecessary emphasis on calorie burns.
    Your weight loss results tell you all you need to know about your calorie balance.

    I'm going to try this. I've been going off my heart rate with knowing my v02 max, but I'd like another back up calculation.
  • Spliner1969
    Spliner1969 Posts: 3,233 Member
    On my workout days I do 90 minutes. The first 30-35 minutes I'll burn around 500 calories using my M5 maxed out on settings steady state cardio wearing my HRM for accuracy. I believe that calorie burn estimate wholeheartedly, it's so hard it feels like you're dying for that whole 30-35 minutes lol. However, after I'm done, I hop off and continue with circuit training for another 60 minutes. It takes me that whole 60 minutes or so to burn another 500-600 calories. I believe that estimate is about 70% accurate because my heart rate goes down and although I keep moving the whole time in order to keep my heart rate above say 120, it just doesn't take quite as much effort as the M5 does. So my total burn for that 90 minutes is usually around 1100 calories, of which I build 750-800 into my daily calorie budget. So is the 1100 you see in my feed daily accurate 100%, probably not but it's close. I figure any time you see burns that high, figure at least 20% is over-inflated.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Ten calories a minute is hard to do unless you are really big
    No - calorie burns over an extended duration are more about fitness than size.

    This.

    For an extreme example, look at the people racing in the Tour of France.
  • jkwolly
    jkwolly Posts: 3,049 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    In some cases the numbers could be correct. In many they are not. I don't really pay attention to those newsfeed posts.
    Exactly this. Just scroll right past.
  • subcounter
    subcounter Posts: 2,382 Member
    I guess the only correct method would be going with a similar HR zone workouts consistently, and modifying your caloric intake depending on the weekly results or your weight. At the end of the day, all the apps, even ones that has HR monitors incorporated use these formulas based on experiments on various sample groups. Everyone will act differently in a way depending on their fitness levels, body types etc.
  • ajwcyclist2016
    ajwcyclist2016 Posts: 161 Member
    Calories burned relates to your size weight and fitness level. The bigger and heavier you are the more energy it takes to move your body and also the fitter your are more energy you can burn.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    edited February 2017
    In many cases, people are overestimating their burns...they're just taking them directly from the database without verifying their relative accuracy and just taking them as gospel. An average ride on my bike for 60 minutes is in the neighborhood of 600 calories...an effort necessary for me to burn 1,000 would be pretty tough, and certainly not something I could do daily
  • tasha12004
    tasha12004 Posts: 232 Member
    I burn 700-800 calories on the arc trainer at planet fitness for 60 minutes. How? Because i do intervals with lower intensity then higher throughout my hour. I burn about 12-15 calories per minute depending on the intensity and how fast i am going. The arc trainer is basically a ski machine. I love that machine and i sweat on that more than any other cardio machine i use.
  • RUNucbar
    RUNucbar Posts: 160 Member
    I know my burns are WAY off but I know if one day is 430 and another day is 650, day two was better. I get my number from a heart rate monitor rather then MFP but they just *feel* wrong. I'm 137lbs, 5 foot 2 and burned, according to it, 642cals in 56 minutes 44 seconds. Another day was 511 in 1 hour 3 minutes. I know the first one was 'better' as I did more so I log it anyway for my own records really.

    Focus on how fast you can run, how far, how much you can lift or whatever you want to achieve. Looking too much at the numbers of others is demoralizing a lot of the time. Difficult to ignore but generally for the best.
  • Commander_Keen
    Commander_Keen Posts: 1,179 Member
    I am on the tread mill for 100 min.
    I burn 1500+ calories
    My current weight is 220+
    I do HIIT.. I run for 45 seconds (7.2)mph and walk for a min
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    subcounter wrote: »
    I guess the only correct method would be going with a similar HR zone workouts consistently, and modifying your caloric intake depending on the weekly results or your weight. At the end of the day, all the apps, even ones that has HR monitors incorporated use these formulas based on experiments on various sample groups. Everyone will act differently in a way depending on their fitness levels, body types etc.

    Much easier to just measure it, where possible. Power meters are a great thing about bikes and rowing machines, takes all the guesswork and inaccuracy out of it.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories