Burn 1000 calories or MORE in 60 minutes?
Replies
-
This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
My limit seems to be a little over 2k on a bike.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Bridgeood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
(Edited for name)0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Wood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
On a road bike, climbing hills as in the video, yes.
Probably not 33% more than them, but a bit more.
Indoor cycle, no difference. The only work I'm doing is against the resistance of the bike. Mass plays no role in that training event.
Outdoors, a larger man faces more wind resistance, and has to work harder to climb hills relative to a smaller man.
And I'll go faster down hill than a smaller man all other factors being equal.1 -
INorthCascades wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
My limit seems to be a little over 2k on a bike.
I burned 2,951 during the century I road last summer. There was also 4,900 feet of climbing involved.1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Wood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
On a road bike, climbing hills as in the video, yes.
Probably not 33% more than them, but a bit more.
Indoor cycle, no difference. The only work I'm doing is against the resistance of the bike. Mass plays no role in that training event.
Outdoors, a larger man faces more wind resistance, and has to work harder to climb hills relative to a smaller man.
And I'll go faster down hill than a smaller man all other factors being equal.
If you were going the same mph as they were then yes. If you weren't, not so much. This wasn't, however, a who can burn the most amount of calories going the same speed and same distance, challenge.2 -
Way to miss the point, my comment was humor. I thought the LOL made that point obvious.
True, I should have been more clear with my "all other factors being equal."
So all other factors being equal, the bigger man will burn more calories on the same road ride than the smaller rider.
That is same rate and distance.
He'll do about the same work on the flats. He'll work harder uphill and he'll go faster downhill.
It's incredibly hard, big man or small man to do 1000 Calories/hour, can we agree upon that?tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Wood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
On a road bike, climbing hills as in the video, yes.
Probably not 33% more than them, but a bit more.
Indoor cycle, no difference. The only work I'm doing is against the resistance of the bike. Mass plays no role in that training event.
Outdoors, a larger man faces more wind resistance, and has to work harder to climb hills relative to a smaller man.
And I'll go faster down hill than a smaller man all other factors being equal.
If you were going the same mph as they were then yes. If you weren't, not so much. This wasn't, however, a who can burn the most amount of calories going the same speed and same distance, challenge.
1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Way to miss the point, my comment was humor. I thought the LOL made that point obvious.
True, I should have been more clear with my "all other factors being equal."
So all other factors being equal, the bigger man will burn more calories on the same road ride than the smaller rider.
That is same rate and distance.
He'll do about the same work on the flats. He'll work harder uphill and he'll go faster downhill.
It's incredibly hard, big man or small man to do 1000 Calories/hour, can we agree upon that?tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Wood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
On a road bike, climbing hills as in the video, yes.
Probably not 33% more than them, but a bit more.
Indoor cycle, no difference. The only work I'm doing is against the resistance of the bike. Mass plays no role in that training event.
Outdoors, a larger man faces more wind resistance, and has to work harder to climb hills relative to a smaller man.
And I'll go faster down hill than a smaller man all other factors being equal.
If you were going the same mph as they were then yes. If you weren't, not so much. This wasn't, however, a who can burn the most amount of calories going the same speed and same distance, challenge.
Given the sheer number of people here who have tried to refute the idea that watts actually matter and given the follow up to my question, I'm not sure why I would have assumed that you were joking. But yes - burning 1k calories in an hour doing anything is a feat unless someone is an elite athlete (in which case it might be their normal).1 -
Given the sheer number of people here who have tried to refute the idea that watts actually matter and given the follow up to my question, I'm not sure why I would have assumed that you were joking. But yes - burning 1k calories in an hour doing anything is a feat unless someone is an elite athlete (in which case it might be their normal).
You didn't have to assume, I literally wrote LOL.
I've also posted watt values from workouts, and the formulas calculating calories, so not sure why you would link refuting watts while reading one of my posts.
As I said, way to miss it.
I'm not a sheer number of people, I'm me. You don't have to assume, you can use my actual words.
And if you don't understand, ask.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Given the sheer number of people here who have tried to refute the idea that watts actually matter and given the follow up to my question, I'm not sure why I would have assumed that you were joking. But yes - burning 1k calories in an hour doing anything is a feat unless someone is an elite athlete (in which case it might be their normal).
You didn't have to assume, I literally wrote LOL.
I've also posted watt values from workouts, and the formulas calculating calories, so not sure why you would link refuting watts while reading one of my posts.
As I said, way to miss it.
I'm not a sheer number of people, I'm me. You don't have to assume, you can use my actual words.
And if you don't understand, ask.
I don't keep track of every person whose posts I read and with whom I interact online. I just don't/can't. If you do then more power to you, but I highly doubt that the average person on the internet does so (that would be hundreds of people in my case). Moreover, you have written posts within the past half an hour or 45 minutes that one could not assume were in jest.
But such is life. People misunderstand each other, such is the way of human communication (both in person and asynchronously).1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Wood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
On a road bike, climbing hills as in the video, yes.
Probably not 33% more than them, but a bit more.
Indoor cycle, no difference. The only work I'm doing is against the resistance of the bike. Mass plays no role in that training event.
Outdoors, a larger man faces more wind resistance, and has to work harder to climb hills relative to a smaller man.
And I'll go faster down hill than a smaller man all other factors being equal.
A fat person inching up a hill at 100w will burn fewer calories than a lean person sprinting up the same hill at 400w. It'll take longer but not 4x longer.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »I
Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward.
I think this is a personal preference. I'd rather run outside for an hour than lift for an hour, but I recognize I need to do both.
I'm a weirdo, I love both, love the me time of running outside and love the feeling of lifting something heavier than I managed last week.
But stationary cardio (treadmill/elliptical/rower/bike) bores me to death. If I have to use those things indoors then I do intervals to make it less boring.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Wood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
On a road bike, climbing hills as in the video, yes.
Probably not 33% more than them, but a bit more.
Indoor cycle, no difference. The only work I'm doing is against the resistance of the bike. Mass plays no role in that training event.
Outdoors, a larger man faces more wind resistance, and has to work harder to climb hills relative to a smaller man.
And I'll go faster down hill than a smaller man all other factors being equal.
A fat person inching up a hill at 100w will burn fewer calories than a lean person sprinting up the same hill at 400w. It'll take longer but not 4x longer.
That's why I added the clarification all other factors being equal such as rate of speed and distance....0 -
You have to consider the energy system being used. In a spin class, it's a different demand and much higher heart rate than normal 'fat burning' zone cardio. That has a much lower heart rate and uses s different energy pathway for fuel.0
-
tbright1965 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Are you implying that calorie burn on a bike is primarily related to how heavy you are? That horse has been flogged enough here and elsewhere.
They did note yesterday on this week's GCN show that Ollie Wood's successful everesting attempt smashed the 10k calories challenge and then some.
On a road bike, climbing hills as in the video, yes.
Probably not 33% more than them, but a bit more.
Indoor cycle, no difference. The only work I'm doing is against the resistance of the bike. Mass plays no role in that training event.
Outdoors, a larger man faces more wind resistance, and has to work harder to climb hills relative to a smaller man.
And I'll go faster down hill than a smaller man all other factors being equal.
A fat person inching up a hill at 100w will burn fewer calories than a lean person sprinting up the same hill at 400w. It'll take longer but not 4x longer.
That's why I added the clarification all other factors being equal such as rate of speed and distance....
Yeah, this is why it might be a good idea to read the newest posts first, but I go in the order they're posted so I don't miss anything.0 -
You have to consider the energy system being used. In a spin class, it's a different demand and much higher heart rate than normal 'fat burning' zone cardio. That has a much lower heart rate and uses s different energy pathway for fuel.
It doesn't matter for weight loss purposes. If you burn 100 calories of fat or 100 calories of sugar, you've burned 100 calories. It's like a pound of feathers and a pound of bricks.3 -
You have to consider the energy system being used. In a spin class, it's a different demand and much higher heart rate than normal 'fat burning' zone cardio. That has a much lower heart rate and uses s different energy pathway for fuel.
Perhaps for noting as to how things work, but not really any consideration needed to the matter - unless you start reaching endurance level rides/marathons.
The high carb burn rate just means after your next meal, carbs get shuttled off to glucose stores and with more to fill, blood sugar drops back to normal quicker, insulin drops, and back to normal major fat burning mode.
The higher fat burn rate just means that doesn't happen, insulin elevated for a tad longer, more use of glucose for immediate energy needs, or perhaps fat stored if not needed.
As above though - 100 calories either way.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions