Rebounding, can it be added to the cardio list?

lesliethurston18 · February 26

I have discovered an exercise routine that I, not only can do, but enjoy. Rebounding on a small trampoline. My question is, can this be added to the cardio list?

AnnPT77 · February 26

You can add your own custom exercises. The sticking point is getting a calorie estimate.

I don't know exactly what you're doing on your rebounder, but the Compendium of Physical Activities suggest that jogging on a mini-trampoline is about a 4.5 METS activity. (METS - metabolic equivalents - are a way of comparing exercises, and can be used to get a rough estimate of exercise calories.)

For general reference, the Compendium is here: https://pacompendium.com/

I found the METS above in the Running section there. The site also has a spreadsheet you can use to translate the METS into a calorie estimate. Another option, slightly less nuanced, is to plug the METS into a METS calculator like this one: https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/MetsCaloriesCalculator/MetsCaloriesCalculator.htm

You can then create a custom exercise in MFP's cardiovascular section, using that process to get a starting calorie estimate. Here's the good news: Because under the covers MFP uses the METS method in that section to estimate calories, once you set up your custom exercise that way, the next time you use it you can just put some different number of minutes into the MFP custom exercise, and behind the scenes MFP will use your then-current weight and the new number of minutes plus the implied METS value from your first entry, and give you a calorie estimate for that next session.

It's not perfect, but I think it's not crazy as a way to consider this.

If you're not doing something quite as energetic as jogging on the rebounder yet, you can scale down the METS number a bit. There's a huge number of exercises listed on the Compendium site. While I wouldn't generalize this too far, if you think you're not jogging on it yet, you might be able to - say - compare the jogging on a mini-tramp to the regular jogging and various speeds of walking, and get an idea of how much to knock off the METS value to get a semi-reasonable estimate for rebounding that's less (or more) vigorous than jogging on the rebounder.

lesliethurston18 · February 26

Thank you for your answer, very informative.
I'm not jogging, I'm only a beginner and am trying the bouncing on my heels and stepping f/b and side to side along with peppy music. I'm 74 and have lost 53 lbs. I have 70+ lbs to lose yet. The first time I did it for 4 min and now am up to 20 min.
The Mets for my weight is 3.5.

Alatariel75 · February 26

lesliethurston18 wrote: »

Thank you for your answer. I did hear one instructor mention that 5 minutes on the tramp is like 30 minutes walking.
I'm not jogging, I'm only a beginner and am trying the bouncing on my heels and stepping f/b and side to side along with peppy music. I'm 74 and have lost 53 lbs. I have 70+ lbs to lose yet. The first time I did it for 4 min and now am up to 20 min.

I would take that with an enormous grain of salt. Brisk walking burns 100-200 calories depending on the person doing it. Even taking the 100, that would mean rebounding burns 600 calories in 30 minutes, or 1200 in an hour according to the instructor. That would put it well above the current commonly agreed highest burning exercises, see here for example (and note that rebounding isn't even on the list):

lesliethurston18 · February 26

The Mets for my weight is 3.5. I looked it up. I'm looking at 73 cal fir 5 min for my weight. Does that sound right to you?

Alatariel75 · February 26

That still seems very high, it would put it up with water polo in the above table, BUT the above table is for people 125-185lbs, so if you are heavier than that it would stand to reason that your burn would be higher.

AnnPT77 · February 27

lesliethurston18 wrote: »

Thank you for your answer. I did hear one instructor mention that 5 minutes on the tramp is like 30 minutes walking.
I'm not jogging, I'm only a beginner and am trying the bouncing on my heels and stepping f/b and side to side along with peppy music. I'm 74 and have lost 53 lbs. I have 70+ lbs to lose yet. The first time I did it for 4 min and now am up to 20 min.

You're doing great: That's excellent progress with both fitness improvement and weight loss. Keep up the excellent work, and I'm certain you'll continue the strong improvements.

I'm close to your age, 69 now, started being regularly active in my late 40s while still obese, stayed quite active, then finally lost weight at 59-60. The quality of life improvement from each of those things was huge, and the combination was utterly gangbusters. I'd predict you'll find the same.

Like Alteriel, I'm very skeptical about that bolded.

If a person used 4.5 METS, at my weight of about 133 pounds currently, an hour of jogging on a mini-tramp would burn about 272 calories. I haven't ever jogged on a mini-tramp, but I've done quite a few things. That calorie number doesn't sound crazy high to me. Maybe knock off a little if doing something less than jogging, yeah. (Since you still have weight to lose, 4.5 METS would be more calories for you than for me, since I'm around goal weight, in weight maintenance.)

In contrast, if I walk at 3.5mph, brisk but not maximum fast, I'd estimate I'd burn about 170 net calories per hour, using this estimator with the energy box set on "net":

https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

That implies about a 4 MET activity, with one MET knocked off for the gross-to-net issue.

Half an hour of that walking would be 85 calories, which is also about 2.8 calories per minute. Burning 85 calories in 5 minutes would be 17 calories per minute. Elite cardiovascular athletes might burn 20ish calories per minute at high intensity (competition or workouts), maybe a bit more at the high end for elite competitors in something like cross-country skiing, possibly up to 30ish? I don't think there's any way a regular non-elite person my size would burn 17 calories per minute rebounding. It's not plausible.

I've been a recreational short-endurance athlete for over 20 years, starting when I was still obese. I'm very definitely sub-elite by far, but reasonably fit for a regular person our age. Going hard at my current body weight, rowing or cycling, is a reasonably intense workout, and might be around 400 calories per hour on a really good day, 6.6 calories per minute. With your instructor's estimate, I'd be looking at 1020 calories per hour of rebounding. I seriously, seriously doubt it.

There's approximation in any exercise calorie estimate (and in every base calorie estimate, every food diary, . . . everything). Picking a reasonable, conservative estimate seems like the way to go. The 4.5 METS doesn't seem crazy, but if what you're doing is less intense than jogging, maybe knock off a bit, maybe 1 to 1.5 METS lower. That's a guess, but I don't think it's a crazy guess. But what do I know?

AnnPT77 · February 27

lesliethurston18 wrote: »

The Mets for my weight is 3.5. I looked it up. I'm looking at 73 cal fir 5 min for my weight. Does that sound right to you?

I don't understand this. The METS is just a comparative number.

For me at 133 pounds, a 3.5 METS activity would be 212 calories per hour, or 17.6 calories for 5 minutes. To get 73 calories for 5 minutes at 3.5 METS, I'd have to tell the METS calculator I weigh 554 pounds. I know you said you have weight yet to lose, but only 70-some pounds.

I think somewhere in what I wrote, I wasn't clear, because the math isn't mathing. If you're willing to tell us how much you currently weigh - no judgement here - I'd be happy to run the arithmetic for some example METS.

MsCzar · February 27

I've been logging my rebounding as running in place (425/30 min). From what I've read, it may well be higher. I dropped 92 lbs. and rebounding reshaped my body like no other exercise. No more saddle bags!

Rebounding, can it be added to the cardio list?

Best Answer

Answers

Categories