Running At Home??
Options
Replies
-
If running in place is working for you then go for it. Its better then nothing. Have you tired 30 Day Shred, Ripped in 30 or Shred all by Jillian Michaels? Not as high impact as Insanity. Or jumping rope is a very good workout. Go out side your front door with baby in stroller and just start jumping. If you can invest in a kettlebell, you can get a great full body workout with that. Combination of strength and cardio.1
-
Running in place is definitely going to burn calories. I have found it to be very effective in the past, esp when done first thing in the morning. It won't prepare your feet and legs for running better outside but if all you want is the calories burn from it go for it. Google "calories burned running in place" and you will see what I mean.
Also: "Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible."
Actually if it was VERY high intensity, it was possible. I have heard those fitbit counter things don't always give accurate readings though... so who knows. But like HIIT can make you burn 500 in 32 min for a comparison... Granted, I would expect to burn between 150-200 calories casually running in place for 30 min unless right, very overweight.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »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.
I've shown you the calculation, albeit based on my own data. My running watch tells me my cadence and vertical deviation.
So let's look at it a different way. The estimate for cumulative vertical deviation of c600 metres is 10% of the horizontal distance, so c9% of the total calories in that 6km run.
9% of 350calories is somewhat less than the 50 calories I've suggested.
So rather than just asserting it'll be more I'd be interested to see how you'd calculate a greater expenditure.
I will acknowledge that it's likely that the originators vertical deviation is likely to be greater, but equally cadence is likely to be lower.
I'd highlight that the reason I'm reinforcing the message is that elsewhere the OP is anxious about refuelling an excessive daily calorie burn. If she eats back what she thinks she's burning then she's unlikely to lose weight.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »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.
I've shown you the calculation, albeit based on my own data. My running watch tells me my cadence and vertical deviation.
So let's look at it a different way. The estimate for cumulative vertical deviation of c600 metres is 10% of the horizontal distance, so c9% of the total calories in that 6km run.
9% of 350calories is somewhat less than the 50 calories I've suggested.
So rather than just asserting it'll be more I'd be interested to see how you'd calculate a greater expenditure.
I will acknowledge that it's likely that the originators vertical deviation is likely to be greater, but equally cadence is likely to be lower.
You did not show a calculation for going from 600-800 meters in vertical gain to 50 calories. And if you are simply trying to take the vertical change as a percentage of the total change, that is not valid. It does't work that way. It tales more energy to move vertically that it does horizontally. Gravity must be overcome. Just propelling the body up takes energy and burns calories.
If this is not enough to convince you that your 50 calorie estimate...which you have now decided should be even lower...is extremely inaccurate, then maybe one of these will be more convincing.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/452928-how-to-jog-in-place-to-lose-weight/
The University of Maryland Medical System says a 135 pound person burns 292 calories. A 215 pound person burns 465 calories.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/running-jogging-in-place-133
mfp...which you may be familiar with...says a 150 pound person will burn 359 calories
http://calorielab.com/burned/?mo=ac&ac=12025&ti=Jogging+in+place&q=&wt=150&un=lb&kg=68
calorie lab says a 150 pound person will burn 238
There are countless articles on this. I'm sure some sources are better than others, but they all say you will burn hundreds of calories...much, much, much more than your random guess of 50 or less.0 -
Basically I hate running but for some reason I started running in place at home - personally I enjoy it. I believe I did benefit from it, though I still hate running I will jog on the treadmill from time to time.
I would say go for it, while it is not the same as running outdoors or running on a treadmill it is a cardio workout. I think it is more important to do what you will do as opposed to trying to do what you should do!!!
I used my FitBit and would reach Peak HR equally if not more than at the gym.1 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »You did not show a calculation for going from 600-800 meters in vertical gain to 50 calories.
Fair cop, I assumed that you'd infer that it was the same calculation that I've used for the distance; 0.6*bodyweight in lbs. At 160lbs I'll burn c100cals per mile. Clearly there are some issues with that, I'd already identified that these are estimates. The 0.6 multiplier is double that for walking, so it accounts for the much lower efficiency of running.http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/running-jogging-in-place-133
mfp...which you may be familiar with...says a 150 pound person will burn 359 calories
So assuming a similar pace to my own a 150lb runner will burn c320 cals running horizontally. Does it really sound realistic that they'll burn more by not moving forward? So less work consumes more energy?
Intriguing...
0 -
Though a lot of this number crunching is interesting. Since you have steps. Steps, steps, steps, steps, steps, steps, and steps definitely best bang for your buck in your situation.0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »You did not show a calculation for going from 600-800 meters in vertical gain to 50 calories.
Fair cop, I assumed that you'd infer that it was the same calculation that I've used for the distance; 0.6*bodyweight in lbs. At 160lbs I'll burn c100cals per mile. Clearly there are some issues with that, I'd already identified that these are estimates. The 0.6 multiplier is double that for walking, so it accounts for the much lower efficiency of running.http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/running-jogging-in-place-133
mfp...which you may be familiar with...says a 150 pound person will burn 359 calories
So assuming a similar pace to my own a 150lb runner will burn c320 cals running horizontally. Does it really sound realistic that they'll burn more by not moving forward? So less work consumes more energy?
Intriguing...
What is your source for using .6*bodyweight to get calories for running in place? I have never read anything indicating that is how you estimate calories for running in place. That methodology just doesn't seem logical to me.
Why would you assume it was the same as running outside? We have had an entire thread saying the two are very different. You don't burn the same number of calories by running three miles and walking three miles. So if your formula can't apply to walking, why would you think it would apply to running in place?
Different activities burn different calories because they work the body differently and at different intensity levels. You can't just use one calorie burn estimate formula for everything you do. Running in place and running outside (or on a track) are two different exercises. In my first post in this thread I pointed that out...your foot lands a different way...different muscles are called into play more or less...etc. Once again, I have already given you links to three different estimates, all of which are significantly higher (by hundreds of calories) than your less than 50 calories guess. And while they differ a bit (all calorie burn formulas for any activity are estimates), they are in the same ballpark...certainly much closer to each other than any of them are to you.
No, you don't burn more running in place than running forward. But nobody claimed that you do. I just claimed that you burn in the hundreds of calories. I have given three sources that back up what I'm saying. You have given your own formula...which I don't think makes sense to use...with no supporting source to justify it...and it gives an estimate that makes no sense in the context of other estimates given. So either mfp and all the other calorie calculators in the world are way, way, way, way off in their estimates...so far off that they are completely useless...or you are just wrong to try to calculate it the way you are.
Which do you think is more likely?0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »No, you don't burn more running in place than running forward. But nobody claimed that you do.
You've just posted at least one link that would suggest exactly that.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »No, you don't burn more running in place than running forward. But nobody claimed that you do.
You've just posted at least one link that would suggest exactly that.
No, I did not. But, you know what? If you want to erroneously believe that running in place for half an hour burns almost no calories, despite evidence showing that is wrong, then go for it, kiddo. I'm not going to argue with you over something this silly. I've linked to multiple calorie calculators that back up what I'm saying and prove you wrong. You've made up your own formula to come up with an answer that doesn't make sense. But whatever. Believe what you will. I'm not wasting more time on this.
OP...to get back to the original post, it is good exercise and you will burn calories doing it...and much more than the 50 or less that my conversation partner seems to believe. Go with your fitbit, or check it against the mfp calculator. Getting your heart rate up will burn calories.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »No, I did not.
Look upthread againGetting your heart rate up will burn calories.
Hmm, I hadn't appreciated that you really don't understand how the process of converting energy from chemical to kinetic works.
My apologies for assuming a degree of knowledge.0 -
Agreed! While it may not be as intense as running outdoors, at least you're moving and getting in some sort of workout! I think it's worth it. Something is always better than nothing!0
-
Agreed, too, that it's better than nothing! Have you considered a treadmill? They are pretty cheap ($100 or less) on Craig's List (at least in my area). I read while on mine - extra incentive to get on it in the evenings. Love the jump rope idea. Sounds like you're doing well, and getting your workout in. Wishing you continued success!0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »No, I did not.
Look upthread againGetting your heart rate up will burn calories.
Hmm, I hadn't appreciated that you really don't understand how the process of converting energy from chemical to kinetic works.
My apologies for assuming a degree of knowledge.
I demonstrated that you provided a very inaccurate and illogical estimate of calories burned...so inaccurate as to be useless...and now it seems you are angry and trying to take little passive aggressive shots at me. Okay, I hope that makes you feel better and soothes your fragile, bruised ego. Happy to be of help.0 -
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but if you live in a 2-story home, running (or even walking) up and down the stairs is great. Jumping jacks, jump rope, and jumping lunges are all nice options too. There are plenty of YouTube videos for decent at home workouts. I second the idea of looking for a secondhand elliptical or treadmill. (Craigslist, garage sales, thrift stores, secondhand furniture stores, etc.) Beware the estimates for calories burned during any workout, because the calculator usually assumes you are going very, very hard.
But yes, running in place is better than nothing! And you don't owe anyone explanations for the workouts you choose. Keep at it, and add different workouts as you can. Best of luck.
0 -
Ok this is going to sound crazy but I challenge anyone to this and tell me it was not rigorous replacement for outdoor running. I do this at work on lunch sometimes when I dont have enough time for a run outside. Oh and I forgot to mention its super cheap you can buy a stool at walmart for like 10-15$ thats 8" and you will be on the path to stepin
8" Step Stool and do fast (jog like) steps back and forth onto the stool for 30 minutes. Trust me you will get a great workout.
The video below shows a good example but get a taller stool lol thats just cheating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7VYOj7b_Ew 2 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »...and now it seems you are angry
If laughter indicates anger, then perhaps. I don't think it does, but feel free to link to a blog post suggesting it does.0 -
EvelynFeatherstone wrote: »Running in place is definitely going to burn calories. I have found it to be very effective in the past, esp when done first thing in the morning. It won't prepare your feet and legs for running better outside but if all you want is the calories burn from it go for it. Google "calories burned running in place" and you will see what I mean.
Also: "Unless you are super morbidly obese, this is not possible."
Actually if it was VERY high intensity, it was possible. I have heard those fitbit counter things don't always give accurate readings though... so who knows. But like HIIT can make you burn 500 in 32 min for a comparison... Granted, I would expect to burn between 150-200 calories casually running in place for 30 min unless right, very overweight.
I'm not extremely overweight but I am overweight. I hate when people (not you) try to shut others down because they don't think it's possible to do something... I burned the same amount of calories running in place as I did with Insanity, so obviously I was using the same amount of effort running as I was doing Insanity. I dont care if some think that it's not the same amount of effort. My heart was beating at the same pace for the same amount of time, give or take 10 mins and 50 or so calories. Either way, it felt the same, only difference is is it was easier on my feet. I'm not training to run a 5K, I just want to lose weight conveniently.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »No, you don't burn more running in place than running forward. But nobody claimed that you do.
You've just posted at least one link that would suggest exactly that.
No, I did not. But, you know what? If you want to erroneously believe that running in place for half an hour burns almost no calories, despite evidence showing that is wrong, then go for it, kiddo. I'm not going to argue with you over something this silly. I've linked to multiple calorie calculators that back up what I'm saying and prove you wrong. You've made up your own formula to come up with an answer that doesn't make sense. But whatever. Believe what you will. I'm not wasting more time on this.
OP...to get back to the original post, it is good exercise and you will burn calories doing it...and much more than the 50 or less that my conversation partner seems to believe. Go with your fitbit, or check it against the mfp calculator. Getting your heart rate up will burn calories.
Thank you for not making me sound crazy, like it is definitely impossible to burn so many calories just running in place.. smh some people.1 -
Agreed, too, that it's better than nothing! Have you considered a treadmill? They are pretty cheap ($100 or less) on Craig's List (at least in my area). I read while on mine - extra incentive to get on it in the evenings. Love the jump rope idea. Sounds like you're doing well, and getting your workout in. Wishing you continued success!
I don't have the space for a treadmill. I'm trying to be as cheap as possible without overdoing myself like I did with Insanity. Lol I will definitely try getting a jump rope from Walmart or somewhere. Thanks for the tip 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions