Such high calorie burns? What?
Replies
-
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.
So that +/-1 to 2 cals per mile is important then?0 -
WhitneyDurham777 wrote: »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.
@WhitneyDurham777 @AmandaOmega
When I started training on a power meter trainer I asked a friend and high level cyclist what is a decent power output and he suggested 200w.
I found that really hard but felt crushed when I told him I was struggling to do that for an hour and he replied:
"An hour? I thought you meant sustained for a long duration as I do 200w for 4 hours or 260w for an hour."
Gulp!
He's also small (150lbs) and you wouldn't guess from looking at him that he can produce that kind of power.
The range of fitness abilities is far wider than most people realise.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
So that +/-1 to 2 cals per mile is important then?
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 )
For what it's worth averaging 200 watts for an hour will only burn 720 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.
Glycogen levels etc might make it feel harder to run one day vs the next but do not change the amount of energy it took.0 -
WhitneyDurham777 wrote: »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.
@WhitneyDurham777 @AmandaOmega
When I started training on a power meter trainer I asked a friend and high level cyclist what is a decent power output and he suggested 200w.
I found that really hard but felt crushed when I told him I was struggling to do that for an hour and he replied:
"An hour? I thought you meant sustained for a long duration as I do 200w for 4 hours or 260w for an hour."
Gulp!
He's also small (150lbs) and you wouldn't guess from looking at him that he can produce that kind of power.
The range of fitness abilities is far wider than most people realise.
You would be surprised how much power can come from smaller people if they are trained for it. My FTP is 300 watts and I weigh in at 145lbs most days. Normally when I am out for a easy, comfortable hour ride I'll aim for 200 watts. If I am racing a full Ironman I am targeting 210 or so for the 5 hours I am riding (23ish mph). Half iron, I am aiming for 240 watts for the 2.5hrs.3 -
I think you may be missing the point. From a biochemical point of view, while the work output needed to cover 10 mi at at a 6 min/mile pace for a squat, 4ft 9in flabby 160 lb runner compared to a 6 ft Olympic middle distance 160 lb athlete may be similar, the calories burned to get that output will likely be quite different. It actually takes energy to produce energy (I. E. The body is not an ideal engine) and that energy cost will be quite different based on the biological fuel source (glycogen, glucose, fat, diglycerides, muscle, etc.), efficiency of oxygen transport from the lungs to the muscles, level of hydration, etc. Is the energy being produced via aerobic vs anaerobic pathways? Etc. etc.
I guarantee you that the heart of the squat poorly conditioned runner running the 10 miles in 60 minutes will be pumping at a much higher rate than the Olympic athlete which clearly takes more calories over the same time period. At least until they keel over with cardiac arrest.
A similar analogy would be two cars that weigh the same but have engines that operate at significantly different efficiencies. One will burn less fuel (i. e. Fewer calories) to travel the same distance.
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
Glycogen levels etc might make it feel harder to run one day vs the next but do not change the amount of energy it took.
0 -
See my post above for a detailed explanation. It is the caloric cost of the energy required to produce the force needed to move the body over the given distance that can be significantly different for different people.0
-
People can't store enough glycogen to use it exclusively on a 10 mile run. A well trained man of typical size has about 2,000 to 2,500 kCal of glycogen in their entire body. You can't move the stuff from your biceps to your legs. It can be neat to imagine different scenarios - what if a runner's legs were 20 feet long - but the reality is energy use tracks very well with work done.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »People can't store enough glycogen to use it exclusively on a 10 mile run. A well trained man of typical size has about 2,000 to 2,500 kCal of glycogen in their entire body. You can't move the stuff from your biceps to your legs. It can be neat to imagine different scenarios - what if a runner's legs were 20 feet long - but the reality is energy use tracks very well with work done.
0 -
I agree with you 100% with respect to energy use tracking well with work done.
Though, it is not actually glycogen that fuels the muscles directly, it is ATP. The energy is derived from ATP (adenosine triphosphate) present in muscles. Muscles only contain limited quantities of ATP. When depleted, ATP needs to be resynthesized from other sources, namely creatine phosphate (CP) and muscle glycogen. Other supplies of glycogen are stored in the liver and the human body is also able to resynthesize ATP from glucose, lipids, i.e. free fatty acids. Different modes of energy coverage are used depending on intensity and duration of the workload put on the body.
This is one of the many functions of your circulatory system - to transport fuel (in the form of glucose for aerobic energy production; glucose is then converted to ATP at the needed site) from different storage sites to where it is needed.
So fuel for your legs can indeed come from other parts of your body. This is partly why when you run or exercise consistently and control caloric intake, you lose weight from all over.1 -
WhitneyDurham777 wrote: »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.
Once you're up to speed then 23mph on the flats isn't really related to your weight - it's more down to power and aero, so being smaller means you'll be able to hold 23mph at 200W. I've got a lot more watts available than that but am not as aero(!) so could probably keep up on the flat although I suspect you'd drop me on the climbs.
More likely he's underestimating the power because 200W isn't all that much for a fit male rider - 277W in an hour wouldn't be at all unusual.0 -
0 -
I think you may be missing the point. From a biochemical point of view, while the work output needed to cover 10 mi at at a 6 min/mile pace for a squat, 4ft 9in flabby 160 lb runner compared to a 6 ft Olympic middle distance 160 lb athlete may be similar, the calories burned to get that output will likely be quite different. It actually takes energy to produce energy (I. E. The body is not an ideal engine) and that energy cost will be quite different based on the biological fuel source (glycogen, glucose, fat, diglycerides, muscle, etc.), efficiency of oxygen transport from the lungs to the muscles, level of hydration, etc. Is the energy being produced via aerobic vs anaerobic pathways? Etc. etc.
I guarantee you that the heart of the squat poorly conditioned runner running the 10 miles in 60 minutes will be pumping at a much higher rate than the Olympic athlete which clearly takes more calories over the same time period. At least until they keel over with cardiac arrest.
A similar analogy would be two cars that weigh the same but have engines that operate at significantly different efficiencies. One will burn less fuel (i. e. Fewer calories) to travel the same distance.
The differences in HR have nothing to do with any calorie burn differences between the two runners. The differences in HR are due to the vast differences in their cardiovascular fitness. In addition, there are pretty significant differences in individual heart rate vs. cardiovascular output, and HR is affected by many other things such as weather conditions and recovery.
Any difference in running calorie burn between two runners of the same weight is going to be down to: 1) running efficiency (i.e. power output to run at a certain speed) and 2) biomechanical efficiency (i.e. efficiency in converting calories to power output).
These efficiencies vary from person to person, but honestly worrying about those minutia is majoring in the minors. These efficiencies tend to lie within a fairly narrow range on average. It is not "significantly different" as you keep insisting. And it's a more accurate indicator than HR, which is a fairly loose indicator of calorie burns.1 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »I think you may be missing the point. From a biochemical point of view, while the work output needed to cover 10 mi at at a 6 min/mile pace for a squat, 4ft 9in flabby 160 lb runner compared to a 6 ft Olympic middle distance 160 lb athlete may be similar, the calories burned to get that output will likely be quite different. It actually takes energy to produce energy (I. E. The body is not an ideal engine) and that energy cost will be quite different based on the biological fuel source (glycogen, glucose, fat, diglycerides, muscle, etc.), efficiency of oxygen transport from the lungs to the muscles, level of hydration, etc. Is the energy being produced via aerobic vs anaerobic pathways? Etc. etc.
I guarantee you that the heart of the squat poorly conditioned runner running the 10 miles in 60 minutes will be pumping at a much higher rate than the Olympic athlete which clearly takes more calories over the same time period. At least until they keel over with cardiac arrest.
A similar analogy would be two cars that weigh the same but have engines that operate at significantly different efficiencies. One will burn less fuel (i. e. Fewer calories) to travel the same distance.
The difference in HR have nothing to do with any calorie burn differences between the two runners. The differences in HR are due to the vast differences in their cardiovascular fitness. In addition, there are pretty significant differences in individual heart rate vs. cardiovascular output, and HR is affected by many other things such as weather conditions and recovery.
Any difference in running calorie burn between two runners of the same weight is going to be down to: 1) running efficiency (i.e. power output to run at a certain speed) and 2) biomechanical efficiency (i.e. efficiency in converting calories to power output).
These efficiencies vary from person to person, but honestly worrying about those minutia is majoring in the minors. These efficiencies tend to lie within a fairly narrow range on average. It is not "significantly different" as you keep insisting. And it's more accurate indicator than HR, which is a fairly loose indicator of calorie burns.
Not to mention, that as one becomes more efficient and proficient, they go harder/faster, etc...per @NorthCascades chart, it looks like I would be "Good" (cat 3)...I'm obviously going to get a lot more work than a novice rider in the same amount of time...HR would be largely irrelevant...my coach is a retired BMX pro and races road as a Cat 1...he's obviously going to be able to do more work than I am in the same amount of time...HR would be largely irrelevant.0 -
@cwolfman13 (and anyone else) it's actually Andy Coggan's chart.0
-
I do love that chart. I can throw down a solid 4.5w/kg at threshold which puts me in the mid Cat2 range but my best ever top-end sprint only just cracked 1100 watts, which only puts me in the cat3 range there. Not surprising since I train for Ironman (all about long and low) vs something like crit racing which is all about explosive power.0
-
I can hit 1,600w, but I can't hold it for more than 2 or 3 seconds. (I don't have my CP chart handy.) On the other hand, my FTP is nothing to brag about. I'm a natural sprinter. Which is odd because I'm drawn to endurance events, I'm just not terribly fast at them.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....
Are you sure about both the weight of these people and their times? Heavier people + longer times = more calories burned.
The MFP exercise database is about 25% inflated for me. When I log everything and eat about 75% of those calories, I lose as expected.0 -
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
100 mins of HIIT??
I just started doing HIIT on the Arc Trainer, I warm up for a 3 mins at level 3. After that i do 30 secs as fast and hard as i can on level 15, then drop down to level 3 at a slow pace for 1 min 30 secs. I can repeat this 3 times and I'm done, my legs feel like they are going to flat burn off. I can't hardly sit or walk without them throbbing. I can't see how anyone can come close to hour and 40 mins of HIIT.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?
You and I have different meanings to the term HIIT then.
For me, its not about running at 9 mph or 10 or 12. but to run faster than you would normally run at.
So for me, I am comfortable running at 6.0 mph. and 7.0 mph is much harder for me to do for a length of time.
0 -
For my current running route, weight, and time, every calculator I've seen has me burning at least 600 cal in the 48 minutes it takes me to finish. I choose not to believe the ones that tell me I burn 750 cal.0
-
Commander_Keen wrote: »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?
You and I have different meanings to the term HIIT then.
For me, its not about running at 9 mph or 10 or 12. but to run faster than you would normally run at.
So for me, I am comfortable running at 6.0 mph. and 7.0 mph is much harder for me to do for a length of time.
Nothing wrong with what you are doing but it's not truly a HIIT program.
HIIT - "HIIT is the concept where one performs a short burst of high-intensity (or max-intensity) exercise followed by a brief low-intensity activity, repeatedly, until too exhausted to continue. Though there is no universal HIIT session duration, these intense workouts typically last under 30 minutes, with times varying based on a participant's current fitness level."
1 -
abrunson2626 wrote: »Commander_Keen wrote: »
HIIT - "HIIT is the concept where one performs a short burst of high-intensity (or max-intensity) exercise followed by a brief low-intensity activity, repeatedly, until too exhausted to continue. Though there is no universal HIIT session duration, these intense workouts typically last under 30 minutes, with times varying based on a participant's current fitness level."
So why is mine not correct??
45 seconds is a short burst,
7.2 = max intensity.
Brief low intensity activity = walk for 60 seconds
110 min = repeated until too exhausted to continue.0 -
Commander_Keen wrote: »abrunson2626 wrote: »Commander_Keen wrote: »
HIIT - "HIIT is the concept where one performs a short burst of high-intensity (or max-intensity) exercise followed by a brief low-intensity activity, repeatedly, until too exhausted to continue. Though there is no universal HIIT session duration, these intense workouts typically last under 30 minutes, with times varying based on a participant's current fitness level."
So why is mine not correct??
45 seconds is a short burst,
7.2 = max intensity.
Brief low intensity activity = walk for 60 seconds
110 min = repeated until too exhausted to continue.
Look up HIIT on youtube and you will see what I'm talking about. The high intensity part of HIIT is 100% max of what you can do no less. HIIT is design to be a much shorter workout but still get the same as a longer but less intense one.
I'm sorry but you you're doing hour and 50 mins you're not doing 100% max on the high intensity part.0 -
-
The_Enginerd wrote: »I think you may be missing the point. From a biochemical point of view, while the work output needed to cover 10 mi at at a 6 min/mile pace for a squat, 4ft 9in flabby 160 lb runner compared to a 6 ft Olympic middle distance 160 lb athlete may be similar, the calories burned to get that output will likely be quite different. It actually takes energy to produce energy (I. E. The body is not an ideal engine) and that energy cost will be quite different based on the biological fuel source (glycogen, glucose, fat, diglycerides, muscle, etc.), efficiency of oxygen transport from the lungs to the muscles, level of hydration, etc. Is the energy being produced via aerobic vs anaerobic pathways? Etc. etc.
I guarantee you that the heart of the squat poorly conditioned runner running the 10 miles in 60 minutes will be pumping at a much higher rate than the Olympic athlete which clearly takes more calories over the same time period. At least until they keel over with cardiac arrest.
A similar analogy would be two cars that weigh the same but have engines that operate at significantly different efficiencies. One will burn less fuel (i. e. Fewer calories) to travel the same distance.
The differences in HR have nothing to do with any calorie burn differences between the two runners. The differences in HR are due to the vast differences in their cardiovascular fitness. In addition, there are pretty significant differences in individual heart rate vs. cardiovascular output, and HR is affected by many other things such as weather conditions and recovery.
Any difference in running calorie burn between two runners of the same weight is going to be down to: 1) running efficiency (i.e. power output to run at a certain speed) and 2) biomechanical efficiency (i.e. efficiency in converting calories to power output).
These efficiencies vary from person to person, but honestly worrying about those minutia is majoring in the minors. These efficiencies tend to lie within a fairly narrow range on average. It is not "significantly different" as you keep insisting. And it's a more accurate indicator than HR, which is a fairly loose indicator of calorie burns.
0 -
Let's agree to disagree.
'Are You Burning as Many Calories as You Think?' - http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/burning-many-calories-think/
0
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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