Any 300cal burn, indoor workout, quick effective efficient?

Rowing.

I row a min of 5km/day on my Concept2 rower at a moderate rate of about 600-650cals/hr which I complete in 25-28 mins, depending on how hard I want to work.

Nothing better IMO in the form of a low impact, total body exercise that you can do at home.

Get thee a rebounder (mini-trampoline). They are MAGIC!

Indoor bike perhaps?
Hour at 85 watts is 306 net cals.
Or half an hour at 170 watts.
Or 15 minutes at 340 watts.

But the intensity/time trade off is relative to your fitness capabilities.
170 watts would be impossibly hard for many people, it's a brisk but not hard pace for me but would be an easy pace for an elite cyclist - the range of capabilities is enormous.

PS - be very wary of calorie claims made for YouTube workouts. Apart from burns being very varied and individual there's a huge amount of marketing spin involved.

burpees

I’m curious: Why are you looking for “workout that burns 300+calories, thats not too intense;”?

Generally speaking, the higher the intensity, the higher the calorie burn. There are so many factors to consider, including, but not limited to:
- your goals — are you trying to lose weight? If so, then what really matters is being at a caloric deficit
- Cardio vs resistance training — cardio tends to burn more during the exercise, but resistance training builds muscle, which in the long run requires more calories to maintain
- What are you eating?
- How active are you the rest of the day?
- your starting point — height, weight, current physical abilities. Eg., if you are new to exercise, you don’t want to over do it and risk burn out or injury

Harvard did a study and has published a chart to give you a sense of how many calories are used during different activities. https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities

Take care of yourself

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

MsCzar wrote: »

I ain't lying when I tell you a rebounder will easily burn 300 calories while feeling pretty darned effortless. I've dropped 65 lbs. and my thunder thighs and saddle bags are GONE. Best of all, it's low impact and super gentle on your joints. Workouts are as easy or intense as you like - do a short burst or go low and slow for 30-45 minutes.

I do ~30 minutes a day - barely break a sweat and am losing ~2 per week.

now I have a rebounder in my amazon cart. just because it sounds like fun LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

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.

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.

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.