Any 300cal burn, indoor workout, quick effective efficient?
Replies
-
springlering62 wrote: »I would humbly submit, if it’s that easy, it probably won’t burn 300 calories.
If there was such a unicorn exercise, it’d
be all over social media with lots of awkwardly posing women and a bazillion knockoff devices by hard-to-pronounce sellers on amazon.
^^^
THIS! If it’s easy and you only do it for 30 min, there is no possible way you would burn 300 calories.
I would also submit that exercise is for health and CICO is for weight loss. It’s much easier for me to avoid eating 300 calories than it is for me to burn it off. That said, I enjoy exercising and do like getting the few extra calories that I can use to eat a treat 😊1 -
B_Plus_Effort wrote: »the most effective cal burn is jump rope, I did read your post so I will let you be the judge if that is intensity you can handle, you don't need much space, you can do it indoors or out doors, see if you can even do it at first, then see if you can do it for a minute, then rest then do it for another minute then rest, you know the drill, if you can build up to 20 minutes non stop you will burn 300 cals its that effective
20 minutes non stop?..i recall as a kid I could only skip hop instead of the neat vertical jumps, will that count? Either way, I have a jump rope, so I'll try this:)Thanks..0 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »springlering62 wrote: »I would humbly submit, if it’s that easy, it probably won’t burn 300 calories.
If there was such a unicorn exercise, it’d
be all over social media with lots of awkwardly posing women and a bazillion knockoff devices by hard-to-pronounce sellers on amazon.
^^^
THIS! If it’s easy and you only do it for 30 min, there is no possible way you would burn 300 calories.
I would also submit that exercise is for health and CICO is for weight loss. It’s much easier for me to avoid eating 300 calories than it is for me to burn it off. That said, I enjoy exercising and do like getting the few extra calories that I can use to eat a treat 😊
I'm not sure who stated 30mins requirement, But it wasn't me. Also there are lots of easy body movements that with exertion or increased pace will burn lots of calories in a quicker amount of time, than others, That's why I asked for suggestions..I personally love exercise(endorphins;)but I dont want to do intense varied works for an hour I prefer steady state stuff.0 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »An hour on the exercise bike burns about 300 calories for me, going 24 or so miles. Or 30-40 minutes running on the TM.
Yes, I burn 400 cals in 38 minutes on the elliptical at my gym LUV it! That was AN awesome go to for me, but since the Covid im afraid to go, I feel like people heavy breathing indoors isn’t so smart to subject one's self to(right now) Last time I went it was people walking around w/ NO masks and staff allowed it...I said no..no..no thanks0 -
Kaysmile012015 wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »An hour on the exercise bike burns about 300 calories for me, going 24 or so miles. Or 30-40 minutes running on the TM.
Yes, I burn 400 cals in 38 minutes on the elliptical at my gym LUV it! That was AN awesome go to for me, but since the Covid im afraid to go, I feel like people heavy breathing indoors isn’t so smart to subject one's self to(right now) Last time I went it was people walking around w/ NO masks and staff allowed it...I said no..no..no thanks
But did you actually burn that much or did the machine tell you this? How did you check this number is correct? 300 calories is a hefty workout. It's not something that just happens. Sjiomal probably offers the most realistic suggestion on how to get 300 net calories. Anything that is not weight bearing and uses wats will give you a good estimate. Everything else is just a guess.
Just as an example, as a 170lbs person you'd need to run nearly 4 miles to get 400 calories running. 4 miles in 38 minutes would be a pace of 9.5min/mile or 6.3 mph, which is a good running pace. And running outside is likely a lot more difficult than moving elliptical pedals around because your feet stay on these the whole time, there's no wind, no uneven surface, traffic or other things.
I would think: just do what you like and enjoy, what aids in your goal, and be very conservative with calorie estimates.3 -
Kaysmile012015 wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »An hour on the exercise bike burns about 300 calories for me, going 24 or so miles. Or 30-40 minutes running on the TM.
Yes, I burn 400 cals in 38 minutes on the elliptical at my gym LUV it! That was AN awesome go to for me, but since the Covid im afraid to go, I feel like people heavy breathing indoors isn’t so smart to subject one's self to(right now) Last time I went it was people walking around w/ NO masks and staff allowed it...I said no..no..no thanks
But did you actually burn that much or did the machine tell you this? How did you check this number is correct? 300 calories is a hefty workout. It's not something that just happens. Sjiomal probably offers the most realistic suggestion on how to get 300 net calories. Anything that is not weight bearing and uses wats will give you a good estimate. Everything else is just a guess.
Just as an example, as a 170lbs person you'd need to run nearly 4 miles to get 400 calories running. 4 miles in 38 minutes would be a pace of 9.5min/mile or 6.3 mph, which is a good running pace. And running outside is likely a lot more difficult than moving elliptical pedals around because your feet stay on these the whole time, there's no wind, no uneven surface, traffic or other things.
I would think: just do what you like and enjoy, what aids in your goal, and be very conservative with calorie estimates.
^^
Second all of this! The machine tells you you burn x amount and then you think BAM look at all the calories I burned. Then you eat them back and gain weight. Why? Because you didn’t burn that many calories in the first place.
I caution to ALWAYS err on the lower side with calorie burn so that you don’t undo all of your hard work eating in a deficit in the first place. 😊0 -
I have a spin bike and for me to burn 300-350 calories, I have to ride for about 40+ minutes. It depends on the difficulty of the class I take. This is why I can’t depend on exercise to lose weight lol. It’s a nice topper for me, but it definitely isn’t an end all be all for me. I am short and not that far from being at a healthy weight for my height so it makes sense. It’s a vicious cycle of the more weight you lose, the less amount of calories you’ll burn for the same amount of effort.0
-
Drat - missed adding the quotes - but as to needing balance for a rebounder, they do make them with a balance rail and amazingly, rebounding actually improves your balance. I didn't realize it until I'd been using the rebounder for several months, went to put on a pair of pants and to my astonishment, did it standing up! I hadn't had the balance to do that in decades!
Check out the bennies:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/nasa-the-trampoline-and-you/
I'd love to be able to jump rope, but these old bones couldn't take the impact. However, I can jump for days on the mini-trampoline. I wonder what the calorie dif is? Anybody know?0 -
Kaysmile012015 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »springlering62 wrote: »I would humbly submit, if it’s that easy, it probably won’t burn 300 calories.
If there was such a unicorn exercise, it’d
be all over social media with lots of awkwardly posing women and a bazillion knockoff devices by hard-to-pronounce sellers on amazon.
^^^
THIS! If it’s easy and you only do it for 30 min, there is no possible way you would burn 300 calories.
I would also submit that exercise is for health and CICO is for weight loss. It’s much easier for me to avoid eating 300 calories than it is for me to burn it off. That said, I enjoy exercising and do like getting the few extra calories that I can use to eat a treat 😊
I'm not sure who stated 30mins requirement, But it wasn't me. Also there are lots of easy body movements that with exertion or increased pace will burn lots of calories in a quicker amount of time, than others, That's why I asked for suggestions..I personally love exercise(endorphins;)but I dont want to do intense varied works for an hour I prefer steady state stuff.
You did say "quick" in your thread title, which may be why people started talking about half an hour. (Obviously, of course, your definition of "quick" may be different, but it isn't irrational for people to try to quantify IMO.)
There aren't many things that are going to burn 300 calories (accurately estimated) in half an hour for a smaller-sized person, especially once factoring in the fitness level that will be involved in reaching that intensity and holding it for that amount of time. Yiyara's comments about running - usually one of the better calorie-burners - are relevant in this regard. I just did a rowing machine workout - also regarded as generally a good calorie-burner, well power metered so better than average calorie estimates. That took 30:06, and (for me at 126 pounds) the weight-adjusted machine estimate was 285 calories. It wasn't super fast (it was 2:30.5 pace, for 6000m total) . . . but not superslow, either, and "cost" a heart rate that maxed a little above 75% reserve from someone fairly well conditioned to it.
I know you don't have access to a rowing machine, but I'm trying to support the idea that "300 calories" and "quick" are objectives that may interfere with each other a bit, depending on various factors. You may be a well-conditioned athlete, I'm not sure - that would make a difference, of course. So would being a larger person, if we're talking about activities that move the body through spaces as a bigger part of the work.
Intensity and steady state are not opposites - I hope that's what you're saying in the bolded? Yes, varied implies something sort of opposite to steady state, but something can be at any intensity level (low to ultra-high) and still be done as steady state. "Steady state" just means generally unvarying intensity across the workout length. By definition, no one does high intensity (for them) steady state for a long time period. High intensity limits calorie burn via exhaustion (physiologically, eventually, not just mentally). Low intensity limits calorie burn first via time limitations, mostly (or boredom).
Endorphins are more likely to kick in at relatively higher intensities, too, of course. So, if you don't want to do intense AND varied workouts for an hour, but you want to burn 300 calories without taking an hour . . . it might need to be higher intensity, especially if you like the endorphins.
I think most of us don't feel that "easy body movements" will get us to high exertion or increased pace, if "easy body movements" means low effort, rather than low complexity . . . but I'm not sure which you had in mind. We may just be talking past each other.1 -
bump1
-
Kaysmile012015 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »springlering62 wrote: »I would humbly submit, if it’s that easy, it probably won’t burn 300 calories.
If there was such a unicorn exercise, it’d
be all over social media with lots of awkwardly posing women and a bazillion knockoff devices by hard-to-pronounce sellers on amazon.
^^^
THIS! If it’s easy and you only do it for 30 min, there is no possible way you would burn 300 calories.
I would also submit that exercise is for health and CICO is for weight loss. It’s much easier for me to avoid eating 300 calories than it is for me to burn it off. That said, I enjoy exercising and do like getting the few extra calories that I can use to eat a treat 😊
I'm not sure who stated 30mins requirement, But it wasn't me. Also there are lots of easy body movements that with exertion or increased pace will burn lots of calories in a quicker amount of time, than others, That's why I asked for suggestions..I personally love exercise(endorphins;)but I dont want to do intense varied works for an hour I prefer steady state stuff.
You did say "quick" in your thread title, which may be why people started talking about half an hour. (Obviously, of course, your definition of "quick" may be different, but it isn't irrational for people to try to quantify IMO.)
There aren't many things that are going to burn 300 calories (accurately estimated) in half an hour for a smaller-sized person, especially once factoring in the fitness level that will be involved in reaching that intensity and holding it for that amount of time. Yiyara's comments about running - usually one of the better calorie-burners - are relevant in this regard. I just did a rowing machine workout - also regarded as generally a good calorie-burner, well power metered so better than average calorie estimates. That took 30:06, and (for me at 126 pounds) the weight-adjusted machine estimate was 285 calories. It wasn't super fast (it was 2:30.5 pace, for 6000m total) . . . but not superslow, either, and "cost" a heart rate that maxed a little above 75% reserve from someone fairly well conditioned to it.
I know you don't have access to a rowing machine, but I'm trying to support the idea that "300 calories" and "quick" are objectives that may interfere with each other a bit, depending on various factors. You may be a well-conditioned athlete, I'm not sure - that would make a difference, of course. So would being a larger person, if we're talking about activities that move the body through spaces as a bigger part of the work.
Intensity and steady state are not opposites - I hope that's what you're saying in the bolded? Yes, varied implies something sort of opposite to steady state, but something can be at any intensity level (low to ultra-high) and still be done as steady state. "Steady state" just means generally unvarying intensity across the workout length. By definition, no one does high intensity (for them) steady state for a long time period. High intensity limits calorie burn via exhaustion (physiologically, eventually, not just mentally). Low intensity limits calorie burn first via time limitations, mostly (or boredom).
Endorphins are more likely to kick in at relatively higher intensities, too, of course. So, if you don't want to do intense AND varied workouts for an hour, but you want to burn 300 calories without taking an hour . . . it might need to be higher intensity, especially if you like the endorphins.
I think most of us don't feel that "easy body movements" will get us to high exertion or increased pace, if "easy body movements" means low effort, rather than low complexity . . . but I'm not sure which you had in mind. We may just be talking past each other.
"Easy body movements" by that I meant little to no complexities i guess.. And mustn't one put in effort, and exert themself, in order to burn more calories, faster during exercise? I thought that was a given, and went without saying,sorry if it wasn't. However I've gotten good suggestions like stepper, rope jumping and rebounding, that i look fwd to trying but, thanks for your input:)1 -
Kaysmile012015 wrote: ».. And mustn't one put in effort, and exert themself, in order to burn more calories, faster during exercise? I thought that was a given, and went without saying,sorry if it wasn't. However I've gotten good suggestions like stepper, rope jumping and rebounding, that i look fwd to trying but, thanks for your input:)
Oh Kay, Kay, Kay. Pardon us.
After you’ve been on MFP for a while, you will think the whole world wants in on your magic fat melting diet tea and 10-minute mega toning exercise plan.
I’m afraid us old-timers automatically go into bombastic defense mode!!!! 😂
Hoping you’ll hang around long enough to make “SMH” your official MFP necks-ercise.
1 -
I definitely second whatever poster above me that mentioned Youtube workouts. I'm a single mom, no gym membership and no free time and I used Youtube workouts last year and dropped 30 lbs in a few months. I used to do a ton of Popsugar workouts - they're free, they have just about any kind of workout youd be interested in and they have a wide range in length. Some of them (to me) aren't even worth doing, but there are a few instructors I really liked- Christa DePaulo has some workouts on there called "The Cut" that I did for a long time and loved. Jeannette Jenkins also had some great ones.
The magic happened though when I realized that Les Mills offers some free workouts on Youtube. eventually I purchased Les Mills on Demand for like, $100 a year or something, and that's been WELL worth it, but if you're not interested in purchasing, its definitely worth looking into on Youtube. I'm about 209 at the moment and a 30-35 minute Body Combat workout (when I REALLY put in the effort) puts me at about a 400 calorie burn per heart rate monitor (and yes, I know that's not exact....).They offer modications and you can really make it as hard as you want. I think they offer all (or most?) of their programs (Body Pump, Body Combat, etc etc) in sort of "trial" versions on youtube. LMOD is totally worth it - but if you're looking for just free stuff, definitely look up the Popsugar channel on Youtube.0 -
Kaysmile012015 wrote: »Kaysmile012015 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »springlering62 wrote: »I would humbly submit, if it’s that easy, it probably won’t burn 300 calories.
If there was such a unicorn exercise, it’d
be all over social media with lots of awkwardly posing women and a bazillion knockoff devices by hard-to-pronounce sellers on amazon.
^^^
THIS! If it’s easy and you only do it for 30 min, there is no possible way you would burn 300 calories.
I would also submit that exercise is for health and CICO is for weight loss. It’s much easier for me to avoid eating 300 calories than it is for me to burn it off. That said, I enjoy exercising and do like getting the few extra calories that I can use to eat a treat 😊
I'm not sure who stated 30mins requirement, But it wasn't me. Also there are lots of easy body movements that with exertion or increased pace will burn lots of calories in a quicker amount of time, than others, That's why I asked for suggestions..I personally love exercise(endorphins;)but I dont want to do intense varied works for an hour I prefer steady state stuff.
You did say "quick" in your thread title, which may be why people started talking about half an hour. (Obviously, of course, your definition of "quick" may be different, but it isn't irrational for people to try to quantify IMO.)
There aren't many things that are going to burn 300 calories (accurately estimated) in half an hour for a smaller-sized person, especially once factoring in the fitness level that will be involved in reaching that intensity and holding it for that amount of time. Yiyara's comments about running - usually one of the better calorie-burners - are relevant in this regard. I just did a rowing machine workout - also regarded as generally a good calorie-burner, well power metered so better than average calorie estimates. That took 30:06, and (for me at 126 pounds) the weight-adjusted machine estimate was 285 calories. It wasn't super fast (it was 2:30.5 pace, for 6000m total) . . . but not superslow, either, and "cost" a heart rate that maxed a little above 75% reserve from someone fairly well conditioned to it.
I know you don't have access to a rowing machine, but I'm trying to support the idea that "300 calories" and "quick" are objectives that may interfere with each other a bit, depending on various factors. You may be a well-conditioned athlete, I'm not sure - that would make a difference, of course. So would being a larger person, if we're talking about activities that move the body through spaces as a bigger part of the work.
Intensity and steady state are not opposites - I hope that's what you're saying in the bolded? Yes, varied implies something sort of opposite to steady state, but something can be at any intensity level (low to ultra-high) and still be done as steady state. "Steady state" just means generally unvarying intensity across the workout length. By definition, no one does high intensity (for them) steady state for a long time period. High intensity limits calorie burn via exhaustion (physiologically, eventually, not just mentally). Low intensity limits calorie burn first via time limitations, mostly (or boredom).
Endorphins are more likely to kick in at relatively higher intensities, too, of course. So, if you don't want to do intense AND varied workouts for an hour, but you want to burn 300 calories without taking an hour . . . it might need to be higher intensity, especially if you like the endorphins.
I think most of us don't feel that "easy body movements" will get us to high exertion or increased pace, if "easy body movements" means low effort, rather than low complexity . . . but I'm not sure which you had in mind. We may just be talking past each other.
"Easy body movements" by that I meant little to no complexities i guess.. And mustn't one put in effort, and exert themself, in order to burn more calories, faster during exercise? I thought that was a given, and went without saying,sorry if it wasn't. However I've gotten good suggestions like stepper, rope jumping and rebounding, that i look fwd to trying but, thanks for your input:)
Absolutely.
I don't, in fact, assume that people mean what I'd mean if I used the same words, if those words have multiple interpretations. 😉 Long history on MFP has led me to believe that not everyone shares the same assumptions, even when they seem like common sense (not that I have the slightest reason to doubt your common sense 🙂!). I'm also not assuming you're the only one reading the thread, y'know?
I think I was one of the people who gave you some of those suggestions, waaay up at the top of the thread, BTW.
No offense intended, truly. 😊0 -
Les Mills app! So many variety of workouts, 30/40/55 mins. You can chose your level of fitness but most of their workouts burn 300 cals in 30 mins.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 900 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions