HUGE Calorie Burns

2»

Replies

  • jellybaby84
    jellybaby84 Posts: 583 Member
    I imagine there are three reasons for such huge burns:

    1) Some people overestimate or wear dodgy HRMs
    2) Some people are really large
    3) Some people are real fitness enthusiasts.

    I agree that some figures get a bit mind boggling though. I'm a 5'1" female of about 112 pounds so I can work out at the gym for 3 hours and only burn 800-900 calories! It's almost annoying that some people can burn 1000 in just one hour - especially if they then let themselves have 1000 calories extra to eat :p
  • Banks01
    Banks01 Posts: 945 Member
    I'm neither of those three but I'd like to be #3. :)


    I just go and do different things to shake it up and burn a ton.


    Ps, I can never eat back the cals. I just try to stay in the 1300-1800 range.
  • juleseybaby
    juleseybaby Posts: 712 Member
    Burned 1005 in 56 minutes of Zumba last night. I wear a HRM and am still in the morbidly obese category on those fun charts... for now. :grumble:

    I :heart: ZUMBA!!
  • crazytxmom
    crazytxmom Posts: 166 Member
    Most of those 2000 calorie burns are probable men? And with large builds

    So NOT TRUE. I run about 1000/hour on my bike rides. So when I do a 2 hour one it's 2k plus. Oh and I wear a HRM.

    Yep. Same here. I was amazed to find out that the activity I love the most could burn so many calories.

    Of course, that's not a ride around the block with the kiddos at 6 mph. I average 14 to 15 mph and hit a lot of hills too. I've got a 50 miler scheduled for Saturday. That'll be my longest distance so far this year. I can't wait!
  • Maggie_Pie1
    Maggie_Pie1 Posts: 322 Member
    I do long bike rides on the weekends sometimes - I'm talking 60 miles or more. You can get a huge calorie burn that way.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Huge calorie burns are honestly over-rated. Unless you've fueled your body for them before hand, your body will most likely not be burning much fat. Higher intensity workouts cause your body to burn a little fat, but extending the workouts then cause your body to start breaking down protein and burning that instead of fat, depending on several factors, including amount of deficit, intensity of workout, and distance of fat store from the muscles that are out of glycogen (note: just because you have fat on your legs, doesn't mean the body is using the fat store on your legs to fuel your leg muscles, the location that the body retrieves fat from is genetic, and has nothing to do with current activities.)

    Not to mention that studies have shown that high intensity exercise (higher total calorie burn) and lower intensity exercise (lower total calorie burn) actually burn the same amount of fat in a 24 hour period.
  • brendant1
    brendant1 Posts: 17 Member
    I burned over 1500 calories playing squash for 11/2 hours. I love the completive nature of squash followed by a good sauna then a cold beer (winner shouts)
  • babygurl48
    babygurl48 Posts: 1,237 Member
    I would say you can burn about on average 350 calories a half hour unless you are a person of a very large frame.
    that is about how much i burn on a treadmill for half hr wearing a HRM, then i do another hr and it givese me 1000 calories.
  • cantjustcant
    cantjustcant Posts: 1,027 Member
    In just 21 pounds I have noticed a drop in what I burn on the exercise bike (wearing hrm). Was around 827 and is now around 775.

    So yeah, I can log big numbers...but I am still fat!
  • FelizMi
    FelizMi Posts: 79 Member
    They say an hour of zumba a "regular sized" person burns almost 900. I know some people stay for the 2nd session, a second hour, and do other stuff after, so I'm not shocked by someone burning 2000 extra calories in a day.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    treadmill at a 15% incline at 4.8 miles an hour for one hour is approximately 1000 calories. then just do random activities at the gym until you get the other 1000.
    As long as you don't hold on. I RARELY see anyone doing 15% without holding on. That can reduce the resistance by 50%. Might as well set it 7% and not hold on.

    Walking 4.8 mph at 15% incline is roughly equivalent to running a 6:30 mile.
  • sleepytexan
    sleepytexan Posts: 3,138 Member
    Cycling 14 - 16 mph burns about 10 calories per minute for me. I regularly ride at least that speed, and most of my rides are about 4 hours long, so I'd hit 2000 calories at about the 3 hour mark. Add in some steep hills (and I have a lot around here), and I'll hit 2000 even sooner.

    I'll be riding a century on the 24th--it's 103 miles with a 3500 ft. climb. I anticipate burning well over 4000 calories in about 7 hours.

    blessings.
  • LisaKyle11
    LisaKyle11 Posts: 662 Member
    I would say MOST of those posted 2000 cal burns are grossly overestimated.

    this too... (along with how it depends on the size/weight of the person doing the exercise).
  • sleepytexan
    sleepytexan Posts: 3,138 Member
    Huge calorie burns are honestly over-rated. Unless you've fueled your body for them before hand, your body will most likely not be burning much fat. Higher intensity workouts cause your body to burn a little fat, but extending the workouts then cause your body to start breaking down protein and burning that instead of fat, depending on several factors, including amount of deficit, intensity of workout, and distance of fat store from the muscles that are out of glycogen (note: just because you have fat on your legs, doesn't mean the body is using the fat store on your legs to fuel your leg muscles, the location that the body retrieves fat from is genetic, and has nothing to do with current activities.)

    Not to mention that studies have shown that high intensity exercise (higher total calorie burn) and lower intensity exercise (lower total calorie burn) actually burn the same amount of fat in a 24 hour period.

    I don't go cycling for 4 or more hours for the calorie burn, I go because it is fun and exhilarating and challenging. It is spectacular to be outside and see places I wouldn't necessarily see while driving in my car. To ride (if you can call it that--more likely grunt and push and hurt and push more) up a huge mountain and look down at the Pacific Ocean is awesome. I do it for the view. I do it to live and enjoy life outside of the gym.

    BTW, the fitter you are, the less you will burn during the same activity.

    blessings.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    If someone is biking hard for an hour or doing a "real" bootcamp...then 1000 calories for an hour is quite legit.

    Lots of the high calories are from machines like treadmills or ellipticals that estimate higher than reality. Wear a HRM for an hour on the same machine and compare and I guarantee they are 20% lower than the machine.

    Burning 1000 calories in an hour walking even at an incline is I think ridiculous. I'd have to see if with a HRM to believe it given that 58 minutes of the toughest P90X cardio routine is not going to burn even 800 calories.

    I would say you can burn about on average 350 calories a half hour unless you are a person of a very large frame.

    Just because there is a 20% difference between an HRM reading and a machine does not "prove" that the machine number is off.

    Just reading these comments, I can tell that at least half the people in this thread either have cheapo HRMs or their HRMs are set up incorrectly, leading to errors of at least 20%.

    I can never understand why the same people who are skeptical of machine calorie numbers (usually a good idea, but not always) can then turn around and unquestioningly accept some number generated on an HRM display.

    A fit person of a decent size can burn 1000 calories in an hour walking at an incline. Someone who weighs 90kg or above can burn 1000 calories in an hour running at around 6.5 mph.

    And I would expect a P90X session to expend fewer calories than an equivalent time of sustained activity, just because of the intermittent nature of the workout structure. And if it is a high-intensity workout, the fat loss benefits are coming from more than just the absolute number of calories during the workout anyhow.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Huge calorie burns are honestly over-rated. Unless you've fueled your body for them before hand, your body will most likely not be burning much fat. Higher intensity workouts cause your body to burn a little fat, but extending the workouts then cause your body to start breaking down protein and burning that instead of fat, depending on several factors, including amount of deficit, intensity of workout, and distance of fat store from the muscles that are out of glycogen (note: just because you have fat on your legs, doesn't mean the body is using the fat store on your legs to fuel your leg muscles, the location that the body retrieves fat from is genetic, and has nothing to do with current activities.)

    Not to mention that studies have shown that high intensity exercise (higher total calorie burn) and lower intensity exercise (lower total calorie burn) actually burn the same amount of fat in a 24 hour period.



    BTW, the fitter you are, the less you will burn during the same activity.

    blessings.

    The fitter you are, the EASIER it will be to perform the same activity, but, unless weight has changed, the calorie burn will be roughly the same.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    Huge calorie burns are honestly over-rated. Unless you've fueled your body for them before hand, your body will most likely not be burning much fat. Higher intensity workouts cause your body to burn a little fat, but extending the workouts then cause your body to start breaking down protein and burning that instead of fat, depending on several factors, including amount of deficit, intensity of workout, and distance of fat store from the muscles that are out of glycogen (note: just because you have fat on your legs, doesn't mean the body is using the fat store on your legs to fuel your leg muscles, the location that the body retrieves fat from is genetic, and has nothing to do with current activities.)

    Not to mention that studies have shown that high intensity exercise (higher total calorie burn) and lower intensity exercise (lower total calorie burn) actually burn the same amount of fat in a 24 hour period.



    BTW, the fitter you are, the less you will burn during the same activity.

    blessings.

    The fitter you are, the EASIER it will be to perform the same activity, but, unless weight has changed, the calorie burn will be roughly the same.

    Pardon me if this sounds a little sarcastic, but... isn't that what he pretty much said?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Huge calorie burns are honestly over-rated. Unless you've fueled your body for them before hand, your body will most likely not be burning much fat. Higher intensity workouts cause your body to burn a little fat, but extending the workouts then cause your body to start breaking down protein and burning that instead of fat, depending on several factors, including amount of deficit, intensity of workout, and distance of fat store from the muscles that are out of glycogen (note: just because you have fat on your legs, doesn't mean the body is using the fat store on your legs to fuel your leg muscles, the location that the body retrieves fat from is genetic, and has nothing to do with current activities.)

    Not to mention that studies have shown that high intensity exercise (higher total calorie burn) and lower intensity exercise (lower total calorie burn) actually burn the same amount of fat in a 24 hour period.



    BTW, the fitter you are, the less you will burn during the same activity.

    blessings.

    The fitter you are, the EASIER it will be to perform the same activity, but, unless weight has changed, the calorie burn will be roughly the same.

    Pardon me if this sounds a little sarcastic, but... isn't that what he pretty much said?

    Not sure what you are referring to, but I'm going to say "No".
  • jturnerx
    jturnerx Posts: 325 Member
    I burned almost 5,000 calories once. I had to run 50 miles on trail to do it. Sucks being short, light and older. Doesn't suck being fit and strong enough to pull that off.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Huge calorie burns are honestly over-rated. Unless you've fueled your body for them before hand, your body will most likely not be burning much fat. Higher intensity workouts cause your body to burn a little fat, but extending the workouts then cause your body to start breaking down protein and burning that instead of fat, depending on several factors, including amount of deficit, intensity of workout, and distance of fat store from the muscles that are out of glycogen (note: just because you have fat on your legs, doesn't mean the body is using the fat store on your legs to fuel your leg muscles, the location that the body retrieves fat from is genetic, and has nothing to do with current activities.)

    Not to mention that studies have shown that high intensity exercise (higher total calorie burn) and lower intensity exercise (lower total calorie burn) actually burn the same amount of fat in a 24 hour period.

    I don't go cycling for 4 or more hours for the calorie burn, I go because it is fun and exhilarating and challenging. It is spectacular to be outside and see places I wouldn't necessarily see while driving in my car. To ride (if you can call it that--more likely grunt and push and hurt and push more) up a huge mountain and look down at the Pacific Ocean is awesome. I do it for the view. I do it to live and enjoy life outside of the gym.

    BTW, the fitter you are, the less you will burn during the same activity.

    blessings.

    I'm not saying don't do things you enjoy, but some people look at huge calorie burns as some kind of exercise/weight loss badge of honor, and do it just for the sake of doing it. Spending 2 hours in a gym on a treadmill just to burn 2,000 calories doesn't really accomplish anything that spending 30 minutes and burning 500 calories could accomplish.
  • KC4800
    KC4800 Posts: 140 Member
    I went through hours of cardio at the gym to get from 275 to 195 so I could ride my bicycle. I really don't care what my calorie burn is but I know its great. I wore a HRM one time and went 30+ miles and it said I burned 1700 calories. Thats 56 cal/mile. Yes I believe that was way too high.

    From that point forward I enter calories burned based on what I feel my intensity level was for the ride. 45 cal/mi for agressive hills, 40 cal for moderate and 35 for nearly flat.

    10 calories/mile seems way too low for me, as some others have posted -- at my current weight and fitness level.

    Most of my rides are in excess of 2 hrs. I know I will not eat back all those calories.
    In my experience thus far, huge calorie burns are not making the fat dissappear faster than more modest burns.
    Im going to continue to ride and be outdoors seeing the sights and enjoying the wind and the sun.
    Its better that watching 12 TV's at once at the Planet Fitness while chugging on the elliptical. I only do that when its raining.;-P
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    While I can understand you need more energy to move a large body, I fail to comprehend the output of gym equipment which claims an obese woman has a work rate higher than an elite cyclist. She has less muscle, and more stuff in the way of it.

    Personally I would ignore the readout of anything with a motor in it. If it's entirely human powered the power output should be measurable accurately.
  • engineman312
    engineman312 Posts: 3,450 Member
    old thread is old
  • nickiw68
    nickiw68 Posts: 71
    I've found the more weight I have lost and the lighter I have become, the longer it takes me to burn off a large amount of calories
This discussion has been closed.

Categories