1,000 calories in 1 hour? Almost.
werewolf1388
Posts: 10 Member
Replies
-
aside from the fact that machine estimates tend to be inflated and not actual lol
i guess depending on height/weight its possible. but even at my heaviest (300 pounds) i didnt burn that much in an hour.13 -
If you jogged up stairs for an hour, you'd probably hit 1000 calories in an hour.
2 -
Just remember that elipticals can vastly overestimate the calories burned. Be cautious about eating all of those back...5
-
Running 9 miles at 170lbs is in the neighborhood of 1000 calories, so I'd say that estimate is as reasonable as any estimate given no additional information/context.10
-
It would take me close to two hours to that much. Yep, good economy of time spent.
Do you eat back most of those calories?
Do you do anything else other than cardio?0 -
2 calories more than when you posted the same in December, that's progress.23
-
I have a saying, "The cardio pony can build a stallion appetite." "The calories I burn in an hour can be eaten in 5 minutes, maybe 15 minutes in your case. Keep up the good work and stay in the steady lane for best results.9
-
-
I can tell you my treadmill states I burn 120 cals a mile at 3.125 mph... actually burn by a year of tracking 75 cals...6
-
psychod787 wrote: »I can tell you my treadmill states I burn 120 cals a mile at 3.125 mph... actually burn by a year of tracking 75 cals...
You mean, "by a year of estimating..."
But regardless, your numbers/experience have nothing to do with OP's numbers.11 -
My FTP is around 275w, which means I can burn almost 1,000 kcals in an hour ... if I want to take the next three days off.2
-
psychod787 wrote: »I can tell you my treadmill states I burn 120 cals a mile at 3.125 mph... actually burn by a year of tracking 75 cals...
How is your burn so high? I only burn 35-45 per mile at faster speeds.1 -
Nice work!2
-
I thought the post was about eating 1000 calories in an hour. I was about to say I can do that easily.24
-
Congratulations - you burned more calories than any activity on LiveStrong's list of the 10 best cardio workouts in terms of calorie burn:
https://www.livestrong.com/article/18777-cardio-workout-burns-calories/
I have see lists that go higher with elite athletic activities going over 1000.4 -
Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.6
-
I see that you have that winkie in there, OP. (
).
And you have every right to be proud of an intense hour's workout (as long as it's not blowing out your energy level for the rest of the day, or if it is, then not being repeated very often . . . because that would be counter-productive, wouldn't it?).
Beyond that, I'll see that and raise you two: 6 -
Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
I think Michael was being rather disingenuous with that comment (as he also used to be about his diet). 15 cal/min is low for an elite athlete.
I do agree with your comment in that most people won't be able to sustain that (for long anyway) - the range between a normal person and the elite is far wider than most realise.
It's not uncommon for the top elite cyclists to be sustaining over 400watts, that's 1,440 net cals for an hour or 25 cal/min.
Short duration max is far higher than that.
6 -
psychod787 wrote: »I can tell you my treadmill states I burn 120 cals a mile at 3.125 mph... actually burn by a year of tracking 75 cals...
You mean, "by a year of estimating..."
But regardless, your numbers/experience have nothing to do with OP's numbers.
Fair enough.... estimations only. Just like food tracking in off. It's just an example how much machines can actually be off. As a side note.. my "estimation" was actually 75.65, but, the .65 felt like bragging...Next time I will have to do a Vo2...Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »I can tell you my treadmill states I burn 120 cals a mile at 3.125 mph... actually burn by a year of tracking 75 cals...
How is your burn so high? I only burn 35-45 per mile at faster speeds.
Could be differences in incline, body comp, I am male... ect...1 -
Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.8 -
MHarper522 wrote: »Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
Which is true.. but I doubt that most of us would manage to reach the intensity of an athlete either.
I mean, I'm sure that 1000 calories an hour is possible, but actually running at an incline (and probably being over 200 pounds)... Ellipticals overestimate calories by quite a bit, as you don't actually propel your body weight, as it's completely supported by the machine.6 -
MHarper522 wrote: »Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
Which is true.. but I doubt that most of us would manage to reach the intensity of an athlete either.
I mean, I'm sure that 1000 calories an hour is possible, but actually running at an incline (and probably being over 200 pounds)... Ellipticals overestimate calories by quite a bit, as you don't actually propel your body weight, as it's completely supported by the machine.
I wasn't referring to the 1000cal/hr at all, since I know nothing about OP's stats and elliptical displays are notoriouly BS. I was literally just talking about the 15cal/min - someone who has an excess of 50-100 or more pounds, as do a lot of people on MFP would not have to match an athlete intensity to match that burn per minute. But they also wouldn't be able to go as long as an athlete could, so they're unlikely to reach the same total burn.1 -
MHarper522 wrote: »Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
For a lot of kinds of exercise your weight has little effect on your calories. Biking, rowing, etc, aren't weight bearing. Bench pressing 200 lbs doesn't require more energy from s 300 pound person than a 180 pounder.
But walking and running for sure.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
For a lot of kinds of exercise your weight has little effect on your calories. Biking, rowing, etc, aren't weight bearing. Bench pressing 200 lbs doesn't require more energy from s 300 pound person than a 180 pounder.
But walking and running for sure.
Rowing boats is weight bearing. Machines are a little bit, if you're doing it right: You unweight the seat and most of the body weight goes between feet and handle; plus you're moving your body through space on the rail (less so, perhaps, if the rowing machine's on slides or a C2 dynamic).
I would've thought moving a 250 pound cyclist uphill would be more work than moving a 100 pound cyclist up the same hill, too . . . but I'm not a cyclist. Stationary bike, not so much difference, for sure.
I agree with your main point, though: Body weight is a factor in activities where you're moving that body weight, not when you're not.4 -
Thanks for keeping me honest!
I've been told that weight is only a small handicap on the water, it makes your boat sit lower and have more friction. Thanks for explain the technique, it helps me appreciate that there's more to it than it looks or than you'd think.
You're right about hills too. I should have qualified what I was saying. On flat ground the bike bears your weight as you sit; you stand occasionally but it's much rarer than in a spin class.1 -
A long time ago in a galaxy far away, I was a raft guide out west. A lot of times I would do oar boats, where the guide sits in a rowing frame in the middle of the raft. I worked for an outfitter who used the old style rafts without floating floors. They took on water and had to be bailed between rapids. In a lot of the rapids I had to go over one drop and move across the current before the next one which was only a few yards down stream. I had up to 8 passengers on a 17' raft partially full of water from the wave at the bottom of the first drop. For several strokes in a row, my butt would only tough the seat between strokes. We called that standing on the oars. Body weight definitely was part of that equation.3
-
NorthCascades wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
For a lot of kinds of exercise your weight has little effect on your calories. Biking, rowing, etc, aren't weight bearing. Bench pressing 200 lbs doesn't require more energy from s 300 pound person than a 180 pounder.
But walking and running for sure.
Rowing boats is weight bearing. Machines are a little bit, if you're doing it right: You unweight the seat and most of the body weight goes between feet and handle; plus you're moving your body through space on the rail (less so, perhaps, if the rowing machine's on slides or a C2 dynamic).
I would've thought moving a 250 pound cyclist uphill would be more work than moving a 100 pound cyclist up the same hill, too . . . but I'm not a cyclist. Stationary bike, not so much difference, for sure.
I agree with your main point, though: Body weight is a factor in activities where you're moving that body weight, not when you're not.
I think at least part of what NorthCascades was trying to get at is, given an average number of watts over the course of a ride, someone weighing 150lbs will have burned the same amount of calories as someone weighing 250lbs.1 -
OP, if you're eating your calories back, I would eat at the most half of those back.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
For a lot of kinds of exercise your weight has little effect on your calories. Biking, rowing, etc, aren't weight bearing. Bench pressing 200 lbs doesn't require more energy from s 300 pound person than a 180 pounder.
But walking and running for sure.
Rowing boats is weight bearing. Machines are a little bit, if you're doing it right: You unweight the seat and most of the body weight goes between feet and handle; plus you're moving your body through space on the rail (less so, perhaps, if the rowing machine's on slides or a C2 dynamic).
I would've thought moving a 250 pound cyclist uphill would be more work than moving a 100 pound cyclist up the same hill, too . . . but I'm not a cyclist. Stationary bike, not so much difference, for sure.
I agree with your main point, though: Body weight is a factor in activities where you're moving that body weight, not when you're not.
I think at least part of what NorthCascades was trying to get at is, given an average number of watts over the course of a ride, someone weighing 150lbs will have burned the same amount of calories as someone weighing 250lbs.
That would be true of watts . . . but the post he was responding to was in terms of calories per minute.
BTW: I think bodyweight must count as a factor in work anytime one's power moves one's body through space, whether vertically or horizontally, whether standing or not. How much it matters may depend on position and nature of the movements/mechanical advantage.
Just as part of the thought fodder: I expected slower machine splits and no change in boat speed with weight loss. What I got was the same machine splits (more competitive as a lightweight: yay! ), and noticeably faster boat speed. Go figure. (I know this confounds the argument I'm making above, BTW.) 0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »Elite athletes like Michael Phelps have said their burn during training is max 15 cal/min so I doubt most of us are going to exceed that.
Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
For a lot of kinds of exercise your weight has little effect on your calories. Biking, rowing, etc, aren't weight bearing. Bench pressing 200 lbs doesn't require more energy from s 300 pound person than a 180 pounder.
But walking and running for sure.
Rowing boats is weight bearing. Machines are a little bit, if you're doing it right: You unweight the seat and most of the body weight goes between feet and handle; plus you're moving your body through space on the rail (less so, perhaps, if the rowing machine's on slides or a C2 dynamic).
I would've thought moving a 250 pound cyclist uphill would be more work than moving a 100 pound cyclist up the same hill, too . . . but I'm not a cyclist. Stationary bike, not so much difference, for sure.
I agree with your main point, though: Body weight is a factor in activities where you're moving that body weight, not when you're not.
I think at least part of what NorthCascades was trying to get at is, given an average number of watts over the course of a ride, someone weighing 150lbs will have burned the same amount of calories as someone weighing 250lbs.
That would be true of watts . . . but the post he was responding to was in terms of calories per minute.
BTW: I think bodyweight must count as a factor in work anytime one's power moves one's body through space, whether vertically or horizontally, whether standing or not. How much it matters may depend on position and nature of the movements/mechanical advantage.
Just as part of the thought fodder: I expected slower machine splits and no change in boat speed with weight loss. What I got was the same machine splits (more competitive as a lightweight: yay! ), and noticeably faster boat speed. Go figure. (I know this confounds the argument I'm making above, BTW.)
No, it looks like the specific post he was responding to was about effort (or rather, "intensity"), not calories per minute.
That said, even if it was about calories per minute, that's still a matter of watts, not weight (with regards to cycling). The weight thing works well for a lot of activities, but cycling isn't one of them with regards to calculating calories. Weight will affect how fast you go (especially on climbs), but not how many watts you can put out and the calorie expenditure.Calorie burn in cardio activities varies a lot by your weight, as well as intensity. While a lot of us will never be able to match the intensity of an athlete, a lot of us on MPH [sic] are heavier than those same athletes which means more calories for the same level or lower level of effort.
With regards to rowing, I am kind of fascinated at the lightweight/heavyweight divide and how it affects boat speed (or rather, one's split) when comparing people with similar heights. I can't use myself as anecdata because any increase in speed would be more due to better technique and an increase in muscle (yay muscle atrophy from surgery taking forever to get back to normal....) than weight loss (or gain). That said, my weight targets have been based on things related to cycling up hills and now being a lightweight rower more than anything else over the past year and a half or so.
For better or worse, because I row sweep, am a novice, and the composition of my club, I won't have the option of even trying to compete in lightweight classes. In a lot of ways that's nice because it means I don't have the "must get under 160lbs NOW" thing as a temptation.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