Another how many calories question...

I've been doing Turbo Jam for a week or so and I love it! It's basically a kickbox/dance type deal and they advertise that it burns "up to" 1000 calories an hour. From what I read the average is 700-900.

I'm 20, 5'5, 135 pounds. When I do the workout it gets my heart rate up to what it would be if I were running, about 150-180, I can guarantee it doesn't ever get below 140. It really gets me sweating. Anyway on here "high impact aerobics" burns about 430 cal/hr. That seems pretty low for the workout I'm doing.I figure it's AT LEAST 10 cal a minute, or 600/hr.

This is a commercial for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwh6yW-aD98

Also there are weighted gloves- maybe a pound each?- and if I use those how many more cals would I burn?

See, this is the crap that disgusts me, it just goes to show you how capitalist pricks lie, lie and lie.

 

 

First off - Noone, not me or someone with a PhD can a generalization of burning 1000 calories per hour to everyone.

 

Everyone is different 

First off - 1000 Calories an hour is pretty much crap - Reasons :

( Lets use you for an example )

At your age, your max heart rate is 200 - thats 100% anything over that and you start to risk a heart attack.

High intensity cardio that exceed 80% or for you - 170-185ish will NOT use calories from fat stores - it infact will first burn through your glycogenic stores (The energy your body as on hand and is easily accessed, this is typically the energy your body has recieved from the food you have eaten recently.)

The "Fat Zone" or the zone you will burn the most calories is quite a bit lower, typically if you can't carry on a converstation during your cardio becuase your breathing so hard you've surpassed this state - 

Now i don't know your fitness level, but judging from your age, and weight i'm kinda shocked that your heart rate gets that high during your cardio regardless of intensity.

430 cal/hr is VERY realstic for High Impact, Impact is not indicating intensity - 

Swimming will burn an insane amount of calories, and it is for the most part a no impact cardio work out.

Swimming, and a nice pace jog is best for purely blowing out calories - Cardio prgrams that are pushing 70-90% of your heart rate max is more targetted towards sprinters, and plymetrics.

Also, if you start off hard on your cardio, you leave little to no room of improvement - in 4-6 weeks your body will adjust and stop burnning as many calories, this will lock you out -

 

If you want pure calories look into low to no impact cardio - Personally, i love hitting the bag, 3-4 minutes on  a bag is intense cardio, Swimming, Elypetical, Circuit Training, Cross Training - Stay away from bikes, even these "Spin" Class, i've never agreed or recommend to anyone for caloric burn.

 

But those are my professional opinions :)

 

I guess my HR gets so high b/c I'm out of shape? Idk, it's always been like that, I get winded really easily and my heart rate goes up really fast. There's a lot of jumping around which is what gets it up the fastest. I used my HR monitor (it was $30, so kinda cheap...hopefully it's pretty accurate) and it said when I get to 150 bpm I end up burning about 10 cal/min. So that's why I assumed that's what I was burning w/ this...

I figured the 1000 calories was a marketing thing, but it really is an amazing workout, and a lot of fun so I'm not JUST b/c I want to work out, it really helps burn off some steam. I'm just looking for a range of cals that I actually burn since it's definitely not 1000.

10 Cal per minute is prolly close to your peak, consider 150 for your age, and what have is a good mid-line for your fat burning zone. 

Considering the above, if your heart rate is around 170-180, i'd judge you would be blowing out about 10-15 calories per minute for the first 10 minutes, and then after that it would start to decrease as your body would be switching it's energy cycle to glycogenic, and it would depend on you, and what you ate, and how well attuneded your body is to that intensity.

 

The work out sounds like a great work out and more then likely is great for cardio conditioning, which will improve your working heart rate - and muscle endurance, but for pure caloric blow up, i doubt it's burning any more and possibly less then when you run.

Sounds to me with your MHR where it is this work out is perfect for you

But i'd estimate your caloric burn out per hour to be close to 750 rather then 1000.

Thanks! I think there are only certain parts of the workout that get my HR that high, most of it I believe is 150ish. For example about halfway through there's a minute and a half of "turbo time" which is pretty much a burst of super intense cardio. I guess since halfway through the workout you're HR might level off and that helps get it back up. So I'd say toward the beginning and during "turbo time" is when it gets so high.

I was just curious about the cals in the first place because I usually eat about 1300-1500 calories, depending on if I worked out that day, and if I happen to be burning 800 calories during the workout I might want to eat a little more so I don't end up with a 1000 cal deficit. But I'll probably just stick to the 10 cal/min thing since that's what the HR monitor said.

Original Post by segiris:

The "Fat Zone" or the zone you will burn the most calories is quite a bit lower, typically if you can't carry on a converstation during your cardio becuase your breathing so hard you've surpassed this state - 

I disagree with the idea of a fat-burning zone that is only moderate intensity. If cardio burns more calories than remaining sedentary, it follows that the higher the intensity of the activity, the more calories you will burn from it.

http://www.alwyncosgrove.com/Energy-System-Tr aining.html

I'm with meryl (and alwyn) ^^

Original Post by segiris:

At your age, your max heart rate is 200 - thats 100% anything over that and you start to risk a heart attack.

Anything over the 'max heartrate' isn't possible, otherwise it wouldn't be your max heart rate.

Original Post by segiris:

The "Fat Zone" or the zone you will burn the most calories is quite a bit lower, typically if you can't carry on a converstation during your cardio becuase your breathing so hard you've surpassed this state

The 'fat burning zone' is not the heart rate range where you burn the most calories.  It's the zone where the highest percentage of the calories you burn is from fat stores, but what that theory ignores is the total calories burned during the workout and the makeup (fat vs. glycogen) of the calories you burn for the other 23 or so hours per day.

Studies have shown that (even when controled for total calories burned) higher intensity exercises (i.e. outside of the 'fat burning zone') result in more fat loss. 

Original Post by segiris:

The "Fat Zone" or the zone you will burn the most calories is quite a bit lower 

Oh no no no. That is a MYTH!

Many aerobic exercise programs and videos feature low-intensity workouts claiming to maximize fat burning. The argument is that low-intensity aerobic training will allow your body to use more fat as an energy source, accelerating the loss of body fat. While it is true that a higher proportion of calories burned during low-intensity exercise come from fat [about 60 percent as opposed to approximately 35 percent from high-intensity programs], high-intensity exercise still burns more calories from fat in the final analysis.

For example, if you perform 30 minutes of low-intensity aerobic exercise [i.e., at a level of 50 percent of maximal exercise capacity], you'll burn approximately 200 calories. About 120 of those, or 60 percent, come from fat. However, exercising for the same amount of time at a high intensity [i.e., 75 percent of your maximal exercise capacity] will burn approximately 400 calories, and 35 percent of them, or 140 calories, will come from stored fat. So by sticking to the fat-burning zone for their workouts, many individuals are wasting valuable time. Keep in mind that you lose weight and body fat when you expend more calories than you consume, not because you burn fat [or anything else] when you exercise.

 

Fat zones are NOT a myth - I don't know where your getting your fact to support this, but i got plenty.

 

High intensity Cardio resulting in 80% of MHR will result in the body drawing on it's Glycogenic cycles, this is PROVEN science you can't dispute that.

Glycogenic cycles are LIMITED to the caloric burn by macro nutrient intake, you can NOT dispute that -----

What you guys are overlooking is WHERE the calories come  from, assuming you know what energy cycles are - if you blow high intensity you blow Glycogenic, which is your carbs, and protien that you've recently taken in, if you blow all those out you risk several health factors -- Don't believe me? Get yourself to 85% MHR and go for over an hour, tell me how sick you feel after.

Also ITS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to weight loss - High %'s within MHR will kill all room for improvement --- OVERLOAD/AND IMPOSED DEMAND - Or you gonna dispute that as well?

 

Seriously, if your gonna go around trying to undercut my advice, please don't bring "internet" sources with you, my stuff comes straight from the NSCA (National Strength and Conditioning Assication), ACE (Assication of Conditioning and Exercise), and the NCAA (National Colliagte of Assiocated Atheletes), and the people who wrote this information? Only holders of PhDs. - and CCC's -- What do they know? Since obviously you just underminded there years of education with an internet source and a crazy opinion.

 

Please educate yourselves, it's this kinda none-sense that allows for ignorance to be sprend in this industry, and when you get clients who can't lose any more weight you wanna know why, curious - very curious.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by segiris:

At your age, your max heart rate is 200 - thats 100% anything over that and you start to risk a heart attack.

Anything over the 'max heartrate' isn't possible, otherwise it wouldn't be your max heart rate.

Original Post by segiris:

The "Fat Zone" or the zone you will burn the most calories is quite a bit lower, typically if you can't carry on a converstation during your cardio becuase your breathing so hard you've surpassed this state

The 'fat burning zone' is not the heart rate range where you burn the most calories.  It's the zone where the highest percentage of the calories you burn is from fat stores, but what that theory ignores is the total calories burned during the workout and the makeup (fat vs. glycogen) of the calories you burn for the other 23 or so hours per day.

Studies have shown that (even when controled for total calories burned) higher intensity exercises (i.e. outside of the 'fat burning zone') result in more fat loss. 

Exceeding MHR is quite possible the forumla (220 - Age) or the Klovian method is not exact, as such you can exceed it, which is why heart attack can ensue should you push past the threshold.

Original Post by segiris:

Fat zones are NOT a myth - I don't know where your getting your fact to support this, but i got plenty.

I'm assuming that by 'fat zones' you mean 'the fat burning zone'? (if you're going to pretend to be an expert you might at least want to get the terminology right).  I'm not disputing the idea that at certain heart rates a higher percentage of calories burned come from fat.

What I am disputing is the lousy interpretation of that information which leads people to the conclusion that working out at low intensities is the most efficient way of burning fat.

Focusing solely on the percentage of calories burned from fat during exercise ignores the total number of calories from fat burned (which is often higher at higher intensities) as well as the make up of calories burned during the rest of the day when one isn't exercising (again, higher intensity exercise leads to higher percenteges of fat burned at rest).

Original Post by segiris:

High intensity Cardio resulting in 80% of MHR will result in the body drawing on it's Glycogenic cycles, this is PROVEN science you can't dispute that.

Again, not disputing that.  Disputing the idea that that higher percentage of calories from fat = better for fat loss (see explanation above).

Original Post by segiris:

Glycogenic cycles are LIMITED to the caloric burn by macro nutrient intake, you can NOT dispute that -----

This is probably the most incoherent sentence I've ever seen.  'Caloric burn by macronutrent intake'? Is this in reference to the thermic effects of different macronutrients on total energy consumption? if so, i don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.

Original Post by segiris:

What you guys are overlooking is WHERE the calories come  from, assuming you know what energy cycles are -

I think it's been pretty clear that we aren't overlooking where the calories come from.

Original Post by segiris:

Also ITS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to weight loss - High %'s within MHR will kill all room for improvement --- OVERLOAD/AND IMPOSED DEMAND - Or you gonna dispute that as well?

I'm going to default to the study I sited in my previous post, which does dispute it. 

Original Post by segiris:

Seriously, if your gonna go around trying to undercut my advice, please don't bring "internet" sources with you, my stuff comes straight from the NSCA (National Strength and Conditioning Assication), ACE (Assication of Conditioning and Exercise), and the NCAA (National Colliagte of Assiocated Atheletes), and the people who wrote this information? Only holders of PhDs. - and CCC's -- What do they know? Since obviously you just underminded there years of education with an internet source and a crazy opinion.

By 'internet source' do you mean 'study published in a peer-reviewed achademic journal'?  Where do you think the people who write the info for the NSCA, ACE and NCAA get their information?

Original Post by segiris:

Please educate yourselves, it's this kinda none-sense that allows for ignorance to be sprend in this industry, and when you get clients who can't lose any more weight you wanna know why, curious - very curious.

The idea of the 'fat burning zone' being a efficient way of losing fat is an outdated way of thinking that isn't supported by current research and has been past by by any trainer worth their salt.  You might want to educate yourself as to what todays leading trainers are doing.  Alwyn Cosgrove has written extensively on the subject, start there. 

Original Post by floggingsully:

The idea of the 'fat burning zone' being a efficient way of losing fat is an outdated way of thinking that isn't supported by current research and has been past by by any trainer worth their salt.  You might want to educate yourself as to what todays leading trainers are doing.  Alwyn Cosgrove has written extensively on the subject, start there. 

 This about sums up everything I was about to say...sums it up quite nicely.

Segris, The Fat burning Zone is a MYTH! I'm glad you are enjoying the process of becoming a CPT. I have been a trainer for years hold a Masters of Science degree in Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, am a RD and licensed in the state of Ca....have numerous certs including nasm and ace.  Your enthusiasm for your potential job is awesome but you have a lot to learn.