Such high calorie burns? What?
Options
Replies
-
I suppose it depends. My boyfriend, who is a long distance endurance cyclist, can burn around 900-1000 calories in an hour if he's pushing really hard. But the guy has massive muscles in his legs and puts out immense power (about 200 watts average). Me? I can only burn about half that, around 450 calories in an hour (and I put out a little more than half his power).
But most people don't work out at that intensity for that long, so they may be overestimating. Don't worry about what they're doing (besides, if you underestimate your exercise calories, the rest are basically bonus calories
) 0 -
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...
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....
Use this online calculator to give you a more accurate estimate: https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc
Edit - sorry, this calculator doesn't list lifting weight. But for aerobic exercises, it has a lot listed.
0 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »I suppose it depends. My boyfriend, who is a long distance endurance cyclist, can burn around 900-1000 calories in an hour if he's pushing really hard. But the guy has massive muscles in his legs and puts out immense power (about 200 watts average). Me? I can only burn about half that, around 450 calories in an hour (and I put out a little more than half his power).
But most people don't work out at that intensity for that long, so they may be overestimating. Don't worry about what they're doing (besides, if you underestimate your exercise calories, the rest are basically bonus calories )
So just an interesting fact. Your boyfriend is still only burning 720 Calories/hour @ 200W. He would have to put out 277W to burn 1000 calories and hour. I am thinking people are way overestimating their abilities. You have to have an amazing cardiovascular system to be able to burn 100 calories an hour. At 200W I can ride my aero bike on the flats around 23mph. I am pretty small however so I don't need nearly as much power as someone larger to get up to speed.1 -
MPF is not accurate. Gym machines are more accurate but not that accurate.
I would recommend getting a HR monitor - not the wrist ones though. The one that goes around your chest is your better bet. Like a Polar H7.
Thats the only way to get closer to accurate results. I'm not saying its perfect. But it is more accurate than a gym machine or MPF.
No. That's not the only way to get anything like accurate results. It's not even a good way for most people in here.0 -
LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »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.
You would burn 1000 KCal in 60 minutes if you run 10 miles.
You'd also burn 1000 kCal in 6 hours if you ran 10 miles.
(10 miles * 0.63 * 160lbs = 1008 Calories)
Time isn't the variable
Anytime any 160lb person runs 10 miles, they burn 1000 Calories2 -
OP, no worries about your calorie expenditure from exercising compared to others. There are lots of reasons that inaccuracies occur, and as others have stated, eating at a deficit is the key to weight loss.
Some helpful comments posted above by several endurance athletes will give you an idea for what drives calorie expenditure.
Just for fun, I went into my Training Peaks log and looked at some recent workouts to capture different calorie burns for comparison. I wear a Heart Rate monitor when I run and both a HRM and a power meter during bike training sessions. This info gets uploaded automatically from my garmin device to my TP account, so no manual calculations are done by me.
So a recent easy paced 8.5 mile run lasting 1:20:00 showed a calorie burn of 927
Three days earlier, a high intensity bike session, (including a 20 minute FTP test) lasted 1:06:00 and showed a 539 calorie burn
Finally, an 18 mile run (12 miles at marathon pace, 6 miles easy) lasted 2:58:00 and showed 1782 calories burned.
So I find it hard to imagine that many folks can actually burn 1000 calories/hr, even when working hard, unless of course you're running a 6 min/mile pace as @scorpio516 shows in his calculation. And for the record, I'd love to be that fast, calorie burns or not.
0 -
I hope the FTP test brought good news. 0
-
LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »I kinda don't believe anyone can do 100 minutes of HIIT.
HIIT is all out sprinting, going as hard as you can until you think your heart is going to burst and you are begging for mercy, then back to steady state cardio for recovery. No walking allowed, unless walking is steady state cardio for you.
I'm not being mean here. I'm not ready for true HIIT right now. But I've done a lot of it, and the most even my friend who is super fit can do is 45 minutes. And even then, she doesn't. It's too hard on the body and if you do too much of it it's counter productive for training.
I don't think there is a word for what that is. There should be. Like maybe, medium intensity interval training? Like when I ramp up the elliptical and go all out for forty seconds then take it back to normal speed for forty seconds?
I think "HIIT" has become something rather trendy to call any kind of interval training that involves any kind of intensity.
The highest intensity interval training I do is an attack/sprint interval session I do once per week, but I'd hesitate to call it HIIT...IDK, the term seems to have lost all meaning so I don't even really know what it means...
Basically I spend 7 minutes at tempo...then 15 seconds flat out...back to 7 minutes tempo...then 30 seconds flat out...back to 7 minutes tempo...then 45 seconds flat out...back to 7 minutes tempo and repeat...at the end just before the cool down there is a 1 minute flat out as you can go. By the end, I have a great deal of difficulty keeping the same cadence at tempo as I did in the beginning...same for my sprint...
It's basically designed to help me attack and then be able to recover while maintaining tempo once the attack is over. The whole thing including a short warm up and cool down takes 45 minutes and pretty much thrashes me, so I only do it once per week.
I do a similar, but easier interval ride on another day alternating a couple of minutes at an endurance pace and then clicking up to tempo...I have a 45 minute program and a 60 minute program for this one, but I'm not sprinting save for the last 45 seconds coming into the finish line before cool down.0 -
1
-
I don't change the cals when I enter the activity. I should, but I don't. For me, it's used only for recording the number of minutes I exercised, that's what I care about.0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »Commander_Keen wrote: »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
You do 100 minutes of HIIT?
7.2mph isn't HIIT. It's a brisk pace for a 10K though.
At 220 and saying 50 minutes running with 50 minutes walking, for arithmetic simplicity:
Running calories - 792 cals
Walking calories - 396 cals
Total - 1188 cals
Clearly that's an overestimate and not a particularly interesting use of time, but it's not outlandish.0 -
My morning on the treadmill doing day 2 of week 5 of C25K, so 16 minutes running and 15 mins of walking gave me ~330 cals per my Polar strap, And I'm 6 ' 265 lbs, so not in shape at all. HR hits 150 ish while running.
Yeah, 1000 per hour seems a bit out there for someone in shape.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My morning on the treadmill doing day 2 of week 5 of C25K, so 16 minutes running and 15 mins of walking gave me ~330 cals per my Polar strap, And I'm 6 ' 265 lbs, so not in shape at all. HR hits 150 ish while running.
Yeah, 1000 per hour seems a bit out there for someone in shape.
What distance did you cover?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MPF is not accurate. Gym machines are more accurate but not that accurate.
I would recommend getting a HR monitor - not the wrist ones though. The one that goes around your chest is your better bet. Like a Polar H7.
Thats the only way to get closer to accurate results. I'm not saying its perfect. But it is more accurate than a gym machine or MPF.
No. That's not the only way to get anything like accurate results. It's not even a good way for most people in here.
0 -
LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »
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...
It's fairly common here to see that people are logging stuff without thinking through whether it's realistic or not. Sweating a lot isn't an indicator of effort, but people think it is, similarly being out of breath, or not.
Another factor is people using instrumentation in a way it's not designed for. HR monitoring is a source of a lot of overestimation.
I'd make a similar observation about accounting for arbitrary percentages, whether MFP based or otherwise. In some circumstances it's reasonably accurate to log here, in other areas not so much.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My morning on the treadmill doing day 2 of week 5 of C25K, so 16 minutes running and 15 mins of walking gave me ~330 cals per my Polar strap, And I'm 6 ' 265 lbs, so not in shape at all. HR hits 150 ish while running.
Yeah, 1000 per hour seems a bit out there for someone in shape.
What distance did you cover?
Watch say 2.82 KM. Did not look at what the treadmill said.
So, ~1.75 mi. Using the formula above, 1.75 * .63 * 265 = 292. Pretty close.0 -
scorpio516 wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »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.
You would burn 1000 KCal in 60 minutes if you run 10 miles.
You'd also burn 1000 kCal in 6 hours if you ran 10 miles.
(10 miles * 0.63 * 160lbs = 1008 Calories)
Time isn't the variable
Anytime any 160lb person runs 10 miles, they burn 1000 Calories
0 -
Not quite true. Metabolic rates, a person's body fat/muscle mass ratio, running mechanics, glycogen levels, etc. will have a significant impact on actual calories burned for the same distance. The example sited would be true for a physics problem related to the theoretical minimum amount of work required to move 160 lbs over 10 miles give identical conditions related to the shape of the mass, gravity, friction/drag, etc.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My morning on the treadmill doing day 2 of week 5 of C25K, so 16 minutes running and 15 mins of walking gave me ~330 cals per my Polar strap, And I'm 6 ' 265 lbs, so not in shape at all. HR hits 150 ish while running.
Yeah, 1000 per hour seems a bit out there for someone in shape.
What distance did you cover?
Watch say 2.82 KM. Did not look at what the treadmill said.
So, ~1.75 mi. Using the formula above, 1.75 * .63 * 265 = 292. Pretty close.
0.6 for running, 0.3 for walking.
When I did C25K I didn't bother distinguishing the walking vs running as after week 4 the walking is quite limited.0 -
i have a friend who logs 70 calories for going up a couple flights of stairs. I try not to let things like that on here irritate me. I'm 5'5' pregnant & gaining & 210 poundsish now & i burn like 600-700 an hour giving all i got. When i was bigger and cycling a lot i did burn close to 1000 an hour but i had to average 18-20mph, I'd be so exhausted I'd be high as a kite afterward. I think youre right, burning that much is hard to do.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions