Running At Home??
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.0 -
SarahStarr86 wrote: »Ok, gotcha! If anything, you'll still burn calories and get extra steps in. I do Insanity Max 30 and have for 3 rounds and I'm still out of breath within the first 5-7 minutes, lol! I had started a beginner running program and loved it! I loved the "runners high" I would feel after coming from an outdoor run. It was awesome! With that being said, I did way too much too soon and couldn't walk for almost a week...my knees and thighs were toast. So taking it easy sounds like the perfect plan!
I just recently stopped doing Insanity after 3 weeks.. it hurt my feet to the MAX! From the day I started to the day I ended, nothing but pain. I guess I can't get past the out-of-breath-at-five-minutes phase lol
Foot pain? I don't think jogging in place would be any better for your feet. Jessica Smith has an indoor jogging video on YouTube, this would give you something to try out (it's intervals):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBrAbpOt-WY
I do Leslie Sansone walking DVDs on a rebounder (mini-trampoline).....so the moves are jogging, jumping, and hopping type moves. But the rebounder makes everything much lower impact. A bungee type rebounder would also be very quiet. For rebounder workouts look up Bellicon on YouTube.
Another option might be step aerobics. This would be low(er) impact. It would also be higher intensity than walking because it's sort of like walking up stairs. For free videos check out Jenny Ford on YouTube.
Insanity has a lot of jumping. Jogging in place is lighter on my feet. I did it today and my feet didn't hurt.0 -
Heather4448 wrote: »I'm not sure if this is an option for you, but the local High school might let you use their track.
I just moved out here and I don't have a car. I'm not going to get on the bus to go to a high school track. It doesn't fit into my work schedule. I jogged in place today and burned just as many calories as I did when I was doing Insanity and I was going all out. Given my circumstances, this was perfect.0 -
Are you in an apartment with stairs? Going up and down the stairs is a good aerobic activity too.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
What do you base that on?
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
is that fitbit transferred over to MFP or fitbit itself? Fitbit calorie estimating INCLUDES for however many calories of BMR you are burning during that workout time. In addition, my Fitbit charge 2 is now giving me a calorie burn of 120 calories per mile walked, when the true figure should be around 651 -
I say do WHAT you can WHEN you can WHEREVER you can. Jog in place at home. It's awesome you're fitting it in. Jessica Smith is another one who has walking videos on youtube.3
-
Anything is better than nothing so go for it, but it won't be the same effectiveness as actual jogging/running. 355 calories for 30 min seems like the fitbit is assuming you're jogging normally rather than in-place.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
Check this out:
http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
For example for a 70 kgr person, running a 5K in 30 mins (which you are nowhere close, it would take months for a beginner to get there) would burn these calories. Something is off in how you are using your FitBit.0 -
It will burn calories, though not as many as running (though it will burn more than walking and is still good cardiovascular exercise.)
The mechanics are different (how your foot lands, the muscles worked, etc.) so it's a different exercise. But it is still exercise...your heart rate will increase, and it is hard work. You will burn calories.
So if this is the best option for you right now, then go for it. If you get bored, many people have given other options thatyou can mix in to keep things interesting.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
So it might be helpful to consider how a FitBit works, and why it's telling you that figure. I'd be interested to know whether it has HR, as that will lead to error in the estimate as well.
The FitBit is basically measuring vibration, and estimating the number of steps that the vibrations would suggest you've taken. Based on assumptions about step length it then calculate how far you've moved your body mass forward, and then calculates a calorie estimate based on its assessment of whether you were running out walking. More frequent step size vibrations would suggest running.
The equation it uses differentiates running and walking based on a scaling factor, with running consuming around twice the calories of walking.
So straight away your FitBit isn't measuring what's actually happened.
My pace length for running depends on my speed, but for a 30 minutes tempo paced run covering 6Km it'll be about 1.2metres per step. That would lead to about 350 calories in that time, because I've covered just over three and a half miles. If I was to spend 30 minutes running on the spot I'd have covered zero horizontal distance, and given that i only rise and fall 8cm per step I've not travelled more than perhaps 600-800 metres in vertical distance. That would equate to about 50 calories.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
So it might be helpful to consider how a FitBit works, and why it's telling you that figure. I'd be interested to know whether it has HR, as that will lead to error in the estimate as well.
The FitBit is basically measuring vibration, and estimating the number of steps that the vibrations would suggest you've taken. Based on assumptions about step length it then calculate how far you've moved your body mass forward, and then calculates a calorie estimate based on its assessment of whether you were running out walking. More frequent step size vibrations would suggest running.
The equation it uses differentiates running and walking based on a scaling factor, with running consuming around twice the calories of walking.
So straight away your FitBit isn't measuring what's actually happened.
My pace length for running depends on my speed, but for a 30 minutes tempo paced run covering 6Km it'll be about 1.2metres per step. That would lead to about 350 calories in that time, because I've covered just over three and a half miles. If I was to spend 30 minutes running on the spot I'd have covered zero horizontal distance, and given that i only rise and fall 8cm per step I've not travelled more than perhaps 600-800 metres in vertical distance. That would equate to about 50 calories.
I don't have a fitbit and don't know how they work, but I know your conclusion is wrong.
Assuming you are right (I don't know if you are or not) and running in place for 30 minutes results in you traveling 600-800 meters in vertical distance, you would certainly burn much more than 50 calories. 800 meters is 2,624 feet. As anybody who has ever done even a short hike with THAT much vertical distance traveled can tell you, you will burn significant calories. Vertical distance is much harder than horizontal. It's why taking a walk...or run...at any speed...up a hill is much harder than the same speed on flat land.
I have no idea how many calories running in place for half an hour burns (and it obviously depends on weight, speed, etc.), but it is certainly significantly more than 50.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
So it might be helpful to consider how a FitBit works, and why it's telling you that figure. I'd be interested to know whether it has HR, as that will lead to error in the estimate as well.
The FitBit is basically measuring vibration, and estimating the number of steps that the vibrations would suggest you've taken. Based on assumptions about step length it then calculate how far you've moved your body mass forward, and then calculates a calorie estimate based on its assessment of whether you were running out walking. More frequent step size vibrations would suggest running.
The equation it uses differentiates running and walking based on a scaling factor, with running consuming around twice the calories of walking.
So straight away your FitBit isn't measuring what's actually happened.
My pace length for running depends on my speed, but for a 30 minutes tempo paced run covering 6Km it'll be about 1.2metres per step. That would lead to about 350 calories in that time, because I've covered just over three and a half miles. If I was to spend 30 minutes running on the spot I'd have covered zero horizontal distance, and given that i only rise and fall 8cm per step I've not travelled more than perhaps 600-800 metres in vertical distance. That would equate to about 50 calories.
I don't have a fitbit and don't know how they work, but I know your conclusion is wrong.
Assuming you are right (I don't know if you are or not) and running in place for 30 minutes results in you traveling 600-800 meters in vertical distance, you would certainly burn much more than 50 calories. 800 meters is 2,624 feet. As anybody who has ever done even a short hike with THAT much vertical distance traveled can tell you, you will burn significant calories. Vertical distance is much harder than horizontal. It's why taking a walk...or run...at any speed...up a hill is much harder than the same speed on flat land.
I have no idea how many calories running in place for half an hour burns (and it obviously depends on weight, speed, etc.), but it is certainly significantly more than 50.
You do appreciate that the vertical deviation is already accounted for in the calculations for forward movement?
Fwiw in ultra running we get pretty familiar with climbing and the effects on energy consumption.
At c8cm per step and a 180 cadence 600m in 30 minutes possibly about it.0 -
I think the hardest part of running in place is the sheer boredom of doing the same thing without going anywhere. Not much different from a TM, but you can't vary speed and incline as easily. However, you could do a Leslie Sansome video and where she walks, you jog. When she kicks or does high knees or sidesteps, you join in. It would add a little variety to the workout and give some relief from the jogging.0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
So it might be helpful to consider how a FitBit works, and why it's telling you that figure. I'd be interested to know whether it has HR, as that will lead to error in the estimate as well.
The FitBit is basically measuring vibration, and estimating the number of steps that the vibrations would suggest you've taken. Based on assumptions about step length it then calculate how far you've moved your body mass forward, and then calculates a calorie estimate based on its assessment of whether you were running out walking. More frequent step size vibrations would suggest running.
The equation it uses differentiates running and walking based on a scaling factor, with running consuming around twice the calories of walking.
So straight away your FitBit isn't measuring what's actually happened.
My pace length for running depends on my speed, but for a 30 minutes tempo paced run covering 6Km it'll be about 1.2metres per step. That would lead to about 350 calories in that time, because I've covered just over three and a half miles. If I was to spend 30 minutes running on the spot I'd have covered zero horizontal distance, and given that i only rise and fall 8cm per step I've not travelled more than perhaps 600-800 metres in vertical distance. That would equate to about 50 calories.
I don't have a fitbit and don't know how they work, but I know your conclusion is wrong.
Assuming you are right (I don't know if you are or not) and running in place for 30 minutes results in you traveling 600-800 meters in vertical distance, you would certainly burn much more than 50 calories. 800 meters is 2,624 feet. As anybody who has ever done even a short hike with THAT much vertical distance traveled can tell you, you will burn significant calories. Vertical distance is much harder than horizontal. It's why taking a walk...or run...at any speed...up a hill is much harder than the same speed on flat land.
I have no idea how many calories running in place for half an hour burns (and it obviously depends on weight, speed, etc.), but it is certainly significantly more than 50.
You do appreciate that the vertical deviation is already accounted for in the calculations for forward movement?
Fwiw in ultra running we get pretty familiar with climbing and the effects on energy consumption.
At c8cm per step and a 180 cadence 600m in 30 minutes possibly about it.
You don't have forward movement when running in place. It is just the vertical. And you burn MUCH more than 50 calories in a half hour. I repeat, your conclusion is just wrong.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
So it might be helpful to consider how a FitBit works, and why it's telling you that figure. I'd be interested to know whether it has HR, as that will lead to error in the estimate as well.
The FitBit is basically measuring vibration, and estimating the number of steps that the vibrations would suggest you've taken. Based on assumptions about step length it then calculate how far you've moved your body mass forward, and then calculates a calorie estimate based on its assessment of whether you were running out walking. More frequent step size vibrations would suggest running.
The equation it uses differentiates running and walking based on a scaling factor, with running consuming around twice the calories of walking.
So straight away your FitBit isn't measuring what's actually happened.
My pace length for running depends on my speed, but for a 30 minutes tempo paced run covering 6Km it'll be about 1.2metres per step. That would lead to about 350 calories in that time, because I've covered just over three and a half miles. If I was to spend 30 minutes running on the spot I'd have covered zero horizontal distance, and given that i only rise and fall 8cm per step I've not travelled more than perhaps 600-800 metres in vertical distance. That would equate to about 50 calories.
I don't have a fitbit and don't know how they work, but I know your conclusion is wrong.
Assuming you are right (I don't know if you are or not) and running in place for 30 minutes results in you traveling 600-800 meters in vertical distance, you would certainly burn much more than 50 calories. 800 meters is 2,624 feet. As anybody who has ever done even a short hike with THAT much vertical distance traveled can tell you, you will burn significant calories. Vertical distance is much harder than horizontal. It's why taking a walk...or run...at any speed...up a hill is much harder than the same speed on flat land.
I have no idea how many calories running in place for half an hour burns (and it obviously depends on weight, speed, etc.), but it is certainly significantly more than 50.
You do appreciate that the vertical deviation is already accounted for in the calculations for forward movement?
Fwiw in ultra running we get pretty familiar with climbing and the effects on energy consumption.
At c8cm per step and a 180 cadence 600m in 30 minutes possibly about it.
You don't have forward movement when running in place. It is just the vertical. And you burn MUCH more than 50 calories in a half hour. I repeat, your conclusion is just wrong.
You're missing my point. The c350 cals from a 6k run includes a factor that accounts for the vertical deviation in my gait, as well as the transition across 6000 metres.
Materially you're not going to burn 350 cals running on the spot.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Running in place will not burn as many calories as running outside. But it will burn more calories than sitting on the couch. So if that is a workout you think you will enjoy and you're alternating it with other things, I say give it a try.
Nothing in life is ever perfect, I will always choose the option that lets me get some exercise over skipping it.
I burned 355 calories running in place for 30 mins.
Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible.
According to my FitBit those were my results.
So it might be helpful to consider how a FitBit works, and why it's telling you that figure. I'd be interested to know whether it has HR, as that will lead to error in the estimate as well.
The FitBit is basically measuring vibration, and estimating the number of steps that the vibrations would suggest you've taken. Based on assumptions about step length it then calculate how far you've moved your body mass forward, and then calculates a calorie estimate based on its assessment of whether you were running out walking. More frequent step size vibrations would suggest running.
The equation it uses differentiates running and walking based on a scaling factor, with running consuming around twice the calories of walking.
So straight away your FitBit isn't measuring what's actually happened.
My pace length for running depends on my speed, but for a 30 minutes tempo paced run covering 6Km it'll be about 1.2metres per step. That would lead to about 350 calories in that time, because I've covered just over three and a half miles. If I was to spend 30 minutes running on the spot I'd have covered zero horizontal distance, and given that i only rise and fall 8cm per step I've not travelled more than perhaps 600-800 metres in vertical distance. That would equate to about 50 calories.
I don't have a fitbit and don't know how they work, but I know your conclusion is wrong.
Assuming you are right (I don't know if you are or not) and running in place for 30 minutes results in you traveling 600-800 meters in vertical distance, you would certainly burn much more than 50 calories. 800 meters is 2,624 feet. As anybody who has ever done even a short hike with THAT much vertical distance traveled can tell you, you will burn significant calories. Vertical distance is much harder than horizontal. It's why taking a walk...or run...at any speed...up a hill is much harder than the same speed on flat land.
I have no idea how many calories running in place for half an hour burns (and it obviously depends on weight, speed, etc.), but it is certainly significantly more than 50.
You do appreciate that the vertical deviation is already accounted for in the calculations for forward movement?
Fwiw in ultra running we get pretty familiar with climbing and the effects on energy consumption.
At c8cm per step and a 180 cadence 600m in 30 minutes possibly about it.
You don't have forward movement when running in place. It is just the vertical. And you burn MUCH more than 50 calories in a half hour. I repeat, your conclusion is just wrong.
You're missing my point. The c350 cals from a 6k run includes a factor that accounts for the vertical deviation in my gait, as well as the transition across 6000 metres.
Materially you're not going to burn 350 cals running on the spot.
I'm not missing anything. Yes, the 350 calories in a run include horizontal and vertical. Running in place is just vertical. That is why a run will burn more than running in place. Nobody has disputed that, so I'm not sure why you are trying to argue it.
The point is that running in place will burn significantly more than 50 calories. Sure, less than 350. But whether it is 220, or 250, or 190, or 300...it is definitely much more than 50. You are grossly underestimating the calorie burn, and you have not given any basis for your extremely low guess.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions