Which excercise is the most intense calorie burner?

I know this may be a stupid question. But given the same intensity (if that is possible) which excises would burn the most calories? For instances would an hour of biking burn more than running or swimming?

Michael,

Let's say "intensity" is your "level of exertion/effort".  I usually put the same intensity into my workouts. So...when I looked up running, cycling, and swimming for MY average speeds the calories burned/hour are approximately the same. 

Does that make sense? Maybe this answers your question - maybe not?

The one I do regularly and consistently  -- something easy that I do is better than something intense that I never quite get around to doing!

I read somewhere that running is better than walking/swimming which are almost the same. But again it depends on your intensity and what you can keep at.

When I go to the gym I found the cross-trainer burns a hell lot more calories (going by what it shows on the electronic screen) and I can keep at it for one hour.

On the other hand I am exhausted after running for 30 minutes.

IMHO Cross Trainer > Running > Swimming > Walking

If your intensity is the same, the calories burned will be the same reguardless of exercise.

Thanks all, I was just wondering because I ran a 10 k last Saturday, and burned about 750 calories. I really worked hard, my shirt was soaked and really expected to burn more calories.

The next morning, I went on my weekly mountain trek, did not really break a sweat and I burned 800 calories just on the way to the top and 700 coming down. We trekked about 14 k in about 2.5 hours. I did the 10 k in 53 min. Not a great time, but my first race. I realize that the time of the race was shorter, but when you calculate the calories burned per hour they are about the same, except that I had to work allot harder to do the race.

how did you come up with those calorie estimates?  While the 14K mountain trek should burn a bit more than the 10K run, it shouldn't be twice as much but more like 1.5 times as much (at most).

I wear a polar heart moniter. I wore the same unit on both the race and the hike  and normally each week, the trekking numbers are about the same.

You asked "Which excercise is the most intense calorie burner?", and the answer lies in intensity measured by your heart rate. Running causes a certain amount of perceived exertion. I find the elliptical burns almost as many calories per minute as running, but I can keep it up much, much longer. Less perceived exertion, roughly the same calories burned.

So, if I want to burn lots of calories, I use the elliptical because I can use it longer than I can run. My heart rate on the elliptical is roughly the same as it is when running, but since I'm on it longer it is better at burning more calories.

Good luck!

Calorie count has an activity browser which ESTIMATES the amount of calories you'd burn doing various different things. You can find that here: http://caloriecount.about.com/activities-spor ts-ac15.

According to this estimator here is what the activities you mention burn per hour: (please notice that I give 2 entries for each...one should be a much higher perceived exertion than the other). If you compare the same intensity exercises with each other you should get an idea of what burns more calories.

Hope this helps:

Biking:

Bicycling - 14-15.9 Mph, Racing or Leisure, Fast, Vigorous Effort 560 calories per hour

Bicycling - <10 Mph, Leisure, To Work or for Pleasure 224 calories per hour

Running:

Running - 8 mph (7.5 Min/mile) 756 calories per hour

Jogging - General 392 calories per hour

Swimming:

Swimming - Crawl, Fast (75 Yards/minute), Vigorous Effort 616 calories per hour

Swimming Laps - Freestyle, Slow, Moderate or Light Effort 392 calories per hour

Original Post by rwnorth:

how did you come up with those calorie estimates?  While the 14K mountain trek should burn a bit more than the 10K run, it shouldn't be twice as much but more like 1.5 times as much (at most).

That'd be true if the elevation on both was constant, but if the running was on flat terrain and the walking was up (and down) a mountain, the walking could easily burn twice the calories since it takes more effort to elevate the body (which is not totally counteracted by the 'going downhill' part).

I am not a trainer, but I've worked out all my life and played sports. I was always told that your heart rate is the determining factor on whether you are in a "zone" to burn calories efficiently.

Everyone has a base resting heart rate, your "target" heart rate for calorie burning is calculated off that.

I believe this is the only true way to measure a workout's intensity for any specific individual. Again, I am not a professional, this is just what I've been told and read.