Excercise that burns 200 calories in 2.5 mins.
sophie9492015
Posts: 204 Member
So i found this article online that says you can burn 200 calories in 2.5 minutes..
Really? Is that true that you could burn 1000 calories in 12.5 minutes. It seems too good to be true.. heres the article
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.popsugar.com.au/fitness/Exercises-Burn-200-Calories-Under-3-Minutes-37192813/amp
Really? Is that true that you could burn 1000 calories in 12.5 minutes. It seems too good to be true.. heres the article
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.popsugar.com.au/fitness/Exercises-Burn-200-Calories-Under-3-Minutes-37192813/amp
5
Replies
-
It sounds like HIIT, but the exercises they've suggested aren't ideal imo.
You also don't just exercise for the short time, if you read the article they say you do 4 minutes in between each of the 5 30s intervals.
You also can't do proper HIIT everyday due to the intensity.3 -
Thank you, but why wouldn't you just do 12.5 minute a day and burn 1000 cal?
What makes those exercises not ideal?1 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »Thank you, but why wouldn't you just do 12.5 minute a day and burn 1000 cal?
What makes those exercises not ideal?
The point is to work so intensely that you physically can't do more than 10-20 seconds without a break. (I personally think 30s is too long for an HIIT interval but never mind)
You need decent rest periods in between to recover, so that you're able to push yourself again.
You can't continuously do it for that long. You have to take breaks in between. Those exercises are more for intervals I think - I know I wouldn't get the same effect from them as a I would from doing sprint on a spin bike or flat out on a treadmill.4 -
What if you did them 2.5 mins at a time through out the day? Would you burn the 1000 calories?1
-
sophie9492015 wrote: »It seems too good to be true..
I'd agree with your assessment. There is absolutely no chance.
To put it in perspective, I'll burn about 100 calories per mile running. I can run a mile in about 6 minutes, but not for any great distance.0 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »What if you did them 2.5 mins at a time through out the day? Would you burn the 1000 calories?
You can't even do 2.5 minutes at a time. You have to have breaks in between the intervals, as the article describes. So, you'd be doing cardio for 20-30 minutes with a few bursts of extremely high intensity exercise.3 -
Lol these articles are always huge over estimates.3
-
It seems too good to be true, because it is. There is no way you are going to have that burn level.2
-
Damn it .. i knew it was too good to be true! Hahah. Any suggestions for excercises that burn cals quickly? Because i walk all day at work i am so tired to workout alot.0
-
Swimming tends to have a decent burn, but personally it also makes me stupid hungry. You don't need that high of a calorie burn to lose weight. Why do you want to burn that much?0
-
I guess you're right, i just thought it would be incredible to be able to do it so easily.
I really want to burn 500 calories per day. But dont want to spend an hour doing it..2 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »What if you did them 2.5 mins at a time through out the day? Would you burn the 1000 calories?
You can't even do 2.5 minutes at a time. You have to have breaks in between the intervals, as the article describes. So, you'd be doing cardio for 20-30 minutes with a few bursts of extremely high intensity exercise.
This. It's five rounds of 30-second bursts followed with one minute of rest in between, so it's really 6.5 minutes (sounds like a watered down version of tabata).
First, to burn 1,000 calories (assuming the 200 estimate is correct) it would take about 40 minutes to do five sessions (assuming two minutes rest in between sessions.
Second, if you're really going all out, I doubt you could keep it up for five consecutive sessions.2 -
No, you can't! Calorie burn is not related to heartrate. Energy expenditure is very simply an equation involving mass, distance covered and some gravity thrown in, plus a fairly small multiplyer for how our bodies work. So say you lift a 50kg weight 0.5m up: 50x0.5*9.81 <- this is gravity. This gives 245 joules. This is literally nothing in calories.
If you want to burn 500kcal then you really have to go full out, and bring enough time along. Remember it's roughly weight * distance, for example for running lbs * miles * 0.68 or for walking lbs * miles * 0.3. Now think about how long you'd need for that. It's honestly easier to create a meaningful calorie deficite in the kitchen, and do sports to get a handful of calories extra and for your wellbeing and health
3 -
Thanks so much!0
-
Hey yirara, do you think you could help me put with my map my walk accuracy question, please? I just posted in the fitness section..0
-
sophie9492015 wrote: »It seems too good to be true..
Yup!!sophie9492015 wrote: »I guess you're right, i just thought it would be incredible to be able to do it so easily.
I really want to burn 500 calories per day. But dont want to spend an hour doing it..
It would be incredible. And if it were that easy, there would be a lot more fit people in the world. You've actually got to put in the work.
The best calorie burning exercise I've found is climbing stairs (real stairs) ... but even then you've got to climb a lot of stairs quite quickly, and it is still going to take a whole lot more than 2.5 minutes to burn 200 calories.
1 -
Thanks, i have got a gym membership i havent used for a while.. whats the best excercise to do at the gym?0
-
sophie9492015 wrote: »Thanks, i have got a gym membership i havent used for a while.. whats the best excercise to do at the gym?
Spin class
Running on the treadmill
Rowing is decent too ... good for some variety1 -
No, you can't! Calorie burn is not related to heartrate. Energy expenditure is very simply an equation involving mass, distance covered and some gravity thrown in, plus a fairly small multiplyer for how our bodies work. So say you lift a 50kg weight 0.5m up: 50x0.5*9.81 <- this is gravity. This gives 245 joules. This is literally nothing in calories.
If you want to burn 500kcal then you really have to go full out, and bring enough time along. Remember it's roughly weight * distance, for example for running lbs * miles * 0.68 or for walking lbs * miles * 0.3. Now think about how long you'd need for that. It's honestly easier to create a meaningful calorie deficite in the kitchen, and do sports to get a handful of calories extra and for your wellbeing and health
Research studies don't use heart rate to measure calories.
They do do it either indirectly by measuring oxygen uptake, or more directly by using metabolic chambers. So the calorie burns reported in the study are accurate.5 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »Thanks, i have got a gym membership i havent used for a while.. whats the best excercise to do at the gym?
Cardio for fitness and to burn calories if you want to increase calories out (allowing you to increase calories in and still be in a deficit)
Plus resistance training to help maintain muscle whilst you are in a deficit0 -
-
-
While POSSIBLE, the INTENSITY you have to put in is 100%. And 95% of the people who try this CAN'T because they aren't fit enough nor capable anyway. Not to mention, this is something you only do a couple of times a week and likely no more than 3 because your CNS needs time to recover.
People will claim to do HIIT or Tabata for an hour...........................and that's BS. They are doing INTERVALS, but it's no where near HIIT or Tabata because if done right there's no way they last beyond the actual time of 15 or less.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
I typed this once this morning, but my internet has been messed up for a couple of days and it ate my reply, so I'll try a shorter version.
The article cited reveals the problems that come up when HIIT is discussed. The facts are accurate, but the application is full of hype and misinformation. That's the problem with HIIT in general.
No, you do not burn 200 cals in 2.5 min. As stated, it took 20-25 min to accumulate that 2.5 total min of all-out effort.
Next: the work intervals are HARD. Like 95-100% effort. Most people have no idea what that feels like--and most beginners can't do it. Even non-beginners who can push themselves often only go at 80-85%--and that's not hard enough to get the advertised benefits. And the exercises shown in the article? None of those will get you anywhere close to the intensity level described.
The 200 calories reported is the "afterburn" over 24 hrs, not what was burned during the workout itself. If you could repeat this workout in the same day (unlikely given the effort required), the "afterburn" total would not increase substantially. (It's worth noting that a 200 cal afterburn is notably higher than what most studies report for this type of workout--usually it's 75-125 calories).
I have read this study and the average MET level for the whole 20-25 min workout was 5-6 METs. That means the calorie burn for the workout is 100-160, depending on weight. So you are looking at a total calorie burn of 300-360 calories in a best-case scenario. For me at least, I can burn 300-360 calories in a 20-25 min workout without doing any HIIT whatsoever. And I can sustain that effort for 45-60 minutes, which will double/triple the calorie burn.
The fact is that the people who are most capable of doing HIIT training are the ones who need it the least for weight loss.
High-intensity exercise is a *powerful* stimulus and training tool. It can stimulate transformative changes that steady-state cannot. It is an important part of a workout plan. It is just not a superior weight loss tool.11 -
Thanks everyone so much! So helpful!1
-
sophie9492015 wrote: »Damn it .. i knew it was too good to be true! Hahah. Any suggestions for excercises that burn cals quickly? Because i walk all day at work i am so tired to workout alot.
Running and Nordic (aka cross country) skiing are exercises that people can do for long periods of time, that burn calories at a pretty quick rate - which is a good combination.
But they can make you tired, too. More than walking. It's not like you can take a day off work and run for 8 hours instead. You can try it if you don't believe me.
That's why people say that weight loss is more about diet than exercise.1 -
The men in the article did sprint intervals for 18.5 minutes and burned 200 calories.
That's about 10 calories a minute. Not really all that impressive.
I work out on a stationary bike and look for an average of 12 calories/minute. Although I work hard for most of the time.2 -
I think the rules of thermodynamics don't allow it.1
-
That's way too good to be true. HIIT is also incredibly difficult. I've been doing cardio and strength long term. Tried it for 1-2 minutes and felt like I was going to collapse. And from what I gather, it's not intended a a standalone workout, but to mix into a well balanced routine.
If you're looking for some high burning cardio, I might recommend the elliptical. I hop on for 20-25, set on interval, and bump up incline alternating with resistance on each interval and burn quite a bit.1 -
I think your body composition would also play a role. Even working to fatigue, at 40 years of age & 98 lbs. I'm not going to burn what a 150lb 18 year old will in the same amount of time.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions