Fastest to burn 1000calories challenge

[Podie]

chrisobrien54 said:

Thank Christ.

I thought I was just being a cynical, miserable sod.

I figured on half? But anyways, how many people will jump off these machines and stick a Mars Bar down their throat claiming they'd earnt it?

Now I am being a cynical, miserable sod ; )

I asked earlier whether a dedicated HR monitor would more accurate.

I agree the accuracy may be dubious, but as long as it's consistently dubious...

[Efbe]

Podie said:

chrisobrien54 said:

Thank Christ.

I thought I was just being a cynical, miserable sod.

I figured on half? But anyways, how many people will jump off these machines and stick a Mars Bar down their throat claiming they'd earnt it?

Now I am being a cynical, miserable sod ; )

I asked earlier whether a dedicated HR monitor would more accurate.

I agree the accuracy may be dubious, but as long as it's consistently dubious...

Haha, yes the machines are way out. After 40 mins, no matter how hard I have worked out, I reckon 500 calories would be far more reasonable. On the other hand, after trying this a few times a week on top of my usual routine I am losing about 1lb extra a week.

What it does give you though is a very good way of gauging your progress.

[BarryGibb]

chrisobrien54 said:

Am I the only one reading these machines calorie burning measurements and thinking massive, massive overestimation?

Not questioning the effort put into the exercise, just thinking 1000 calories in 40 minutes is a little ambitious?

You think the Concept 2 calories calcs are inaccurate?

[chrisobrien54]

BarryGibb said:

You think the Concept 2 calories calcs are inaccurate?

Are you being sarcastic?

[chrisobrien54]

BarryGibb said:

You think the Concept 2 calories calcs are inaccurate?

Are you being sarcastic?

[BarryGibb]

chrisobrien54 said:

BarryGibb said:

You think the Concept 2 calories calcs are inaccurate?

Are you being sarcastic?

No, I'm wondering why you think the numbers are an overestimation.

[Podie]

Isn't 1 calorie the energy needed to increase 1 gram of water by 1C?

Not sure I can mentally model that in terms of exercise!

[Meoricin]

BarryGibb said:

You think the Concept 2 calories calcs are inaccurate?

Given that everyone burns calories at different rates, yes. Do they even take into account your actual (properly measured) body fat %? That'd surely have to be the minimum starting point for information to get remotely close. I would imagine you'd need blood tests as well, to assess sugar levels etc.

I don't think this is the thread for this discussion though. It's not fair on those who are using it as a motivator, and measurement for competition (still valid uses for the number the machines give).

[BMWBen]

Meoricin said:

BarryGibb said:

You think the Concept 2 calories calcs are inaccurate?

Given that everyone burns calories at different rates, yes. Do they even take into account your actual (properly measured) body fat %? That'd surely have to be the minimum starting point for information to get remotely close. I would imagine you'd need blood tests as well, to assess sugar levels etc.

I don't think this is the thread for this discussion though. It's not fair on those who are using it as a motivator, and measurement for competition (still valid uses for the number the machines give).

I assumed that it was actually calculating the energy that you had put through the machine.

It can calculate that very accurately. On a bike it knows the weight of the wheel, and how fast it's spinning and for how long. Simple. Rower you can do something very similar. For a treadmill, you can't.

[Meoricin]

BMWBen said:

I assumed that it was actually calculating the energy that you had put through the machine.

It can calculate that very accurately. On a bike it knows the weight of the wheel, and how fast it's spinning and for how long. Simple. Rower you can do something very similar. For a treadmill, you can't.

It probably does, but that isn't equal to calories burned. Different people can output different amounts of energy for different amounts of calorie intake.

[s3fella]

Surely then the energy expelled must be at least as high as the energy shown as used by the machine, assuming the machine is accurate?

Otherwise it would break the laws of physics.

So are you saying that the person could have used up more energy that the machine says, in which case I would agree, (but should only be a relatively small extra amount due to the body moving, the grunting, heat generation etc). If you are saying someone could use less than the rowing machine says, (and assuming the machine is accurately calibrated), I dont think that is possible. Conservation of energy, cannot be created nor destroyed, and all that.
Or are you saying that the machines "assume" an extra ammount of energy expelled in the grunting, sweating etc, and show that on screen, and people will differ etc, in which case, I would agree.

[BMWBen]

s3fella said:

Surely then the energy expelled must be at least as high as the energy shown as used by the machine, assuming the machine is accurate?

Otherwise it would break the laws of physics.

So are you saying that the person could have used up more energy that the machine says, in which case I would agree, (but should only be a relatively small extra amount due to the body moving, the grunting, heat generation etc). If you are saying someone could use less than the rowing machine says, (and assuming the machine is accurately calibrated), I dont think that is possible. Conservation of energy, cannot be created nor destroyed, and all that.
Or are you saying that the machines "assume" an extra ammount of energy expelled in the grunting, sweating etc, and show that on screen, and people will differ etc, in which case, I would agree.

[Efbe]

Whatever the answer, I just got told that at 12.5% Bodyfat, If I lose any more it would be dangerous....

[Meoricin]

s3fella said:

Surely then the energy expelled must be at least as high as the energy shown as used by the machine, assuming the machine is accurate?

Otherwise it would break the laws of physics.

So are you saying that the person could have used up more energy that the machine says, in which case I would agree, (but should only be a relatively small extra amount due to the body moving, the grunting, heat generation etc). If you are saying someone could use less than the rowing machine says, (and assuming the machine is accurately calibrated), I dont think that is possible. Conservation of energy, cannot be created nor destroyed, and all that.
Or are you saying that the machines "assume" an extra ammount of energy expelled in the grunting, sweating etc, and show that on screen, and people will differ etc, in which case, I would agree.

I think it's quite likely that the machine assumes that people are burning energy extremely inefficiently, as you say (this is assuming the machine gets its calorie calculation from the power output, and doesn't simply use a random number generator based on time/distance/user weight). EG it assumes that anyone using it has a very high bodyfat %, in order to make the figures more attractive to people - this has the side effect of making people who are slightly fit and energy efficient register absurdly high counts on the machine.

ETA:

Efbe said:

Whatever the answer, I just got told that at 12.5% Bodyfat, If I lose any more it would be dangerous....

I have heard similar - along the lines of it being dangerous to drop too far below 10% for too long. Your body not having enough energy in storage in case of emergencies/illness etc.

Edited by Meoricin on Thursday 2nd February 00:44

[gmh23]

Efbe said:

Whatever the answer, I just got told that at 12.5% Bodyfat, If I lose any more it would be dangerous....

nonsense, can barely see abs at 12.5%

[Halb]

When I was running regularly I could burn 1000 in 50-60 minutes at around 10kph at around 120kg.

[chrisobrien54]

Halb said:

When I was running regularly I could burn 1000 in 50-60 minutes at around 10kph at around 120kg.

Sorry, I just don't buy this at all. Even with sprints a the end of a run, I'd expect to burn 500 / 550. Even that would be optimistic.

I'd add an hours bike ride, at maybe 18miles, then you're looking nearer 1000.

[chrisobrien54]

chrisobrien54 said:

Sorry, I just don't buy this at all. Even with sprints a the end of a run, I'd expect to burn 500 / 550. Even that would be optimistic.

I'd add an hours bike ride, at maybe 18miles, then you're looking nearer 1000.

Thinking about it, I remember when I used to put in 10 miles per run my Run Keeper app would claim 1000 calories - I called bullst on that back then. An hour and a bit's effort could make an entire meal disappear? Just doesn't compute with me.

Of course, if you're ripped to the tits - sporting 250lbs of sheer muscle - and eating a low carb, mostly fat diet and able to do it, then perhaps...

[goldblum]

BMWBen said:

Meoricin said:

BarryGibb said:

You think the Concept 2 calories calcs are inaccurate?

Given that everyone burns calories at different rates, yes. Do they even take into account your actual (properly measured) body fat %? That'd surely have to be the minimum starting point for information to get remotely close. I would imagine you'd need blood tests as well, to assess sugar levels etc.

I don't think this is the thread for this discussion though. It's not fair on those who are using it as a motivator, and measurement for competition (still valid uses for the number the machines give).

I assumed that it was actually calculating the energy that you had put through the machine.

It can calculate that very accurately. On a bike it knows the weight of the wheel, and how fast it's spinning and for how long. Simple. Rower you can do something very similar. For a treadmill, you can't.

The above is correct.I have heard some frankly rather odd statements from other posters who have no idea what a valid calorie expenditure test is. Muscle uses only about 5 more cals per pound than fat at rest.Nothing to do with bodyfat % or people burning calories at a different rates,a largely insignificant difference.There's a standard ratio of cals vs energy expenditure in relation to bodyweight and if you're not burning enough you need to work harder.

Here's three tests..I did mine 3 times and took the mean..it was 40 cals different from the treadmill value I previously mentioned,not bad at all.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/energyexp.htm

http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculato...

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/Calories.html

Edited by goldblum on Friday 3rd February 00:43

[Halb]

chrisobrien54 said:

Thinking about it, I remember when I used to put in 10 miles per run my Run Keeper app would claim 1000 calories - I called bullst on that back then. An hour and a bit's effort could make an entire meal disappear? Just doesn't compute with me.

Of course, if you're ripped to the tits - sporting 250lbs of sheer muscle - and eating a low carb, mostly fat diet and able to do it, then perhaps...

I didn't think what I typed was that crazy, others have managed the same calories with less time but more speed.
I do have muscle but I am not ripped in any sense! What makes up my weight thought doesn't matter, nor does what I eat for what I burn at running. 120 kg is 265 lbs which is about right. I did sprint out at the end but only for a couple of mins at max.

running for an hour at 6pmh is 1208 cals according to this calc.
http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculato...
sounds right.

Edited by Halb on Friday 3rd February 01:07