1,000 calories in 1 hour? Almost

Replies

  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Bam!!!
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    I'm spoiled. I have a machine called a "strider" which has all my limbs moving together. For an hour of not particularly difficult exertion I can burn 1000 calories. If I put some vigor into it, I can get up to 1200.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    Do you lift at all?
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    The perks of having lots of mass to move around... I'd have to run over 10 miles to burn 1000 cals!
  • dimitriusgladi
    dimitriusgladi Posts: 13 Member
    edited December 2018
    The size of your body also affects the amount of calories you burn for a given workout.
  • Noreenmarie1234
    Noreenmarie1234 Posts: 7,492 Member
    edited December 2018
    The stridor at my gym set to my weight gives me like 1500 calories for 90 minutes, yet according to my apple watch I only burn 450. Machines notoriously overestimate burns.
  • golfchess
    golfchess Posts: 63 Member
    Like @leanjogreen18 , I thought @werewolf1388 ate 1000 calories in an hour, too. It reminded me when we would go to Jack in the Box and see who can eat the most calories (btw, the real ice cream shake really makes it easier)
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    @golfchess I thought it was going to be a fad diet where you could eat as many calories as you can in an hour. :)
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,097 Member
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    @golfchess I thought it was going to be a fad diet where you could eat as many calories as you can in an hour. :)

    23:1 IF?
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
    I'm spoiled. I have a machine called a "strider" which has all my limbs moving together. For an hour of not particularly difficult exertion I can burn 1000 calories. If I put some vigor into it, I can get up to 1200.

    Greta to get some work in. Sorry though but if the exercise isn't particularly difficult, it's doubtful you are burning 1000 calories in an hour.

    I thought so too. Then for several months I logged calories and weight in a spreadsheet. The agreement between predicted weight actual weight was 99%. For all the good reasons to doubt it, I don't.

    By the way @Packerjohn, what does "Greta" mean in that sentence?
  • golfchess
    golfchess Posts: 63 Member
    @leanjogreen18 i am sure there are fad diets that have you eat whatever you want then fast the next diet.
  • pierinifitness
    pierinifitness Posts: 2,226 Member
    I did 940 calories in less than 30 minutes about one hour ago except it was my first meal.
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    @golfchess I thought it was going to be a fad diet where you could eat as many calories as you can in an hour. :)

    23:1 IF?

    Perfect!
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    werewolf1388 wrote: »
    😑

    Though I don't know anything about those machines, no doubt a serious effort!

    JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
    I'm spoiled. I have a machine called a "strider" which has all my limbs moving together. For an hour of not particularly difficult exertion I can burn 1000 calories. If I put some vigor into it, I can get up to 1200.

    If you can burn 1000 an hour without difficult exertion, you need to get into professional sports. For most mortals it's going to be difficult at the least, and closer to tortuous for many.

    sijomial wrote: »
    Almost 1000 cals in an hour and a bit of cycling....

    q9oscmkqri8f.png

    Except the machine is quite frankly telling lies, the true net energy expended is more like 780 net cals.
    (It measures power accurately but uses a ridiculous algorithm to guessimate gross calories or maybe the intention is just to stroke the ego of users).

    I just don't get this with machines. If they can accurately measure power, how do they come up with such calorie burn info? What machine were you using that you can trust the wattage that give you such a gross number?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited December 2018
    robertw486 wrote: »
    werewolf1388 wrote: »
    😑

    Though I don't know anything about those machines, no doubt a serious effort!

    JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
    I'm spoiled. I have a machine called a "strider" which has all my limbs moving together. For an hour of not particularly difficult exertion I can burn 1000 calories. If I put some vigor into it, I can get up to 1200.

    If you can burn 1000 an hour without difficult exertion, you need to get into professional sports. For most mortals it's going to be difficult at the least, and closer to tortuous for many.

    sijomial wrote: »
    Almost 1000 cals in an hour and a bit of cycling....

    q9oscmkqri8f.png

    Except the machine is quite frankly telling lies, the true net energy expended is more like 780 net cals.
    (It measures power accurately but uses a ridiculous algorithm to guessimate gross calories or maybe the intention is just to stroke the ego of users).

    I just don't get this with machines. If they can accurately measure power, how do they come up with such calorie burn info? What machine were you using that you can trust the wattage that give you such a gross number?
    @robertw486
    It's a Wattbike Pro that very accurately measures power output (it's a high end trainer used by many elite sportsmen - and also by ordinary riders like me!) but their algorithm is plain silly. I queried it with their Helpdesk asking why they didn't use the standard formula for converting power to calories and they couldn't explain why.

    I get round it by linking my Garmin Edge which gives me the net calories or just work it out manually with the common average watts per hour x 3.6 formula.


    PS - I also doubt the claims of an easy 1000/cals per hour too, I've never met someone who averages 278w an hour without being an exceptional athlete pushing really hard.
    It's a common misconception that finding the right calorie balance means all the various estimates involved are accurate (BMI, activity multiplier, exercise and food logging) when the likelihood is that the under and over estimates are fortunately cancelling each other out.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    werewolf1388 wrote: »
    😑

    Though I don't know anything about those machines, no doubt a serious effort!

    JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
    I'm spoiled. I have a machine called a "strider" which has all my limbs moving together. For an hour of not particularly difficult exertion I can burn 1000 calories. If I put some vigor into it, I can get up to 1200.

    If you can burn 1000 an hour without difficult exertion, you need to get into professional sports. For most mortals it's going to be difficult at the least, and closer to tortuous for many.

    sijomial wrote: »
    Almost 1000 cals in an hour and a bit of cycling....

    q9oscmkqri8f.png

    Except the machine is quite frankly telling lies, the true net energy expended is more like 780 net cals.
    (It measures power accurately but uses a ridiculous algorithm to guessimate gross calories or maybe the intention is just to stroke the ego of users).

    I just don't get this with machines. If they can accurately measure power, how do they come up with such calorie burn info? What machine were you using that you can trust the wattage that give you such a gross number?
    @robertw486
    It's a Wattbike Pro that very accurately measures power output (it's a high end trainer used by many elite sportsmen - and also by ordinary riders like me!) but their algorithm is plain silly. I queried it with their Helpdesk asking why they didn't use the standard formula for converting power to calories and they couldn't explain why.

    I get round it by linking my Garmin Edge which gives me the net calories or just work it out manually with the common average watts per hour x 3.6 formula.


    PS - I also doubt the claims of an easy 1000/cals per hour too, I've never met someone who averages 278w an hour without being an exceptional athlete pushing really hard.
    It's a common misconception that finding the right calorie balance means all the various estimates involved are accurate (BMI, activity multiplier, exercise and food logging) when the likelihood is that the under and over estimates are fortunately cancelling each other out.

    I thought it was you that trained on the Wattbike. I would think that the higher end machines would just display watts or net calories, but it seems to not ever happen. I have a similar frustration with the elliptical we own, and similar to you I just find a workaround method to try to figure out my true calorie burn. At least with the Wattbike it's giving you accurate wattage to work with.

    Also agreed on the methods of tracking ensuring everything is accurate. As often as not, it probably just ends up being the inaccuracies evening out and somewhat cancelling each other.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories