Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
SLYSAM SparkPoints: (43,184)
Fitness Minutes: (110,991)
Posts: 1,474
5/16/11 12:50 P

5/16/11 10:45 A

Ah, but Silverette, the benefit of the kettlebells is that as YOU lose the weight and no longer have to carry that much weight into the workout, you add more weight with a heavier BELL. Beauty! So you keep working out at that intensity or higher.

I use my bell workout as a combo workout. I use sets of swings as intense cardio, that happens to work muscles for strength, and take breaks swinging the bells around my body then move right into another set of exercises. I don't take more then a few seconds now and then to have some water, so it really is very cardio involved for me.

I'm probably not burning 1200 calories per hour, but I know when I'm doing the bells I'm burning more calories per minute then any other exercise I do. And the fact that I can do a workout in a lot less time makes me happy. I don't particularly like being in the gym.

It definately is doing something for me. I've got some serious definition in my shoulders and arms now and that has never been there. And I'm steadily able to move up in weight with the bells. I've got great tunes on my iPod and the workout just seems like a moving meditation for me now.

3/14/11 11:27 P

Any attempt to apply the results of a controlled laboratory experiment to an individual is an exercise in futility. First you have to match exactly the demographics of the individuals in the study then you need to replicate the laboratory experimental conditions in all respects.

Notwithstanding that Spark may choose to consider kettle bell workouts as cardio throughout the history of the the tool kettle bells have been considered strength work. In the late 19th and 20th Century there were strength competitions using them. If you research the workouts from that period they were strength workouts and in Russia they still are.
Worrying about and assigning a calorie burn to a kettle bell workout for an individual even with a heart rate monitor is simply chasing numbers which are not relevant to getting fit.

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
3/14/11 10:57 P

Well, when I said heavier people burn more, someone with 11kgs to lose is really not included in that group. Unless your tracker indicates a stage goal, you are not a "heavier person" and since you have so little to lose will probably notice very little change in burn rate of any activity as you achieve that goal.

I was thinking more of someone 200+lbs tends to burn more than someone 130lbs. Obese versus not, not so much someone with a little weight still to lose.

Edited by: UNIDENT at: 3/14/2011 (22:59)
SILVETTE SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (1,835)
Posts: 266
3/14/11 10:49 P

Yeah - it's dicey to me, too. 1200 just seems a bit steep for me - but that's how it logs with the site when I enter it in (here at Sparkpeople). Maybe I shouldn't care too much - if it works for me it works. I should just log my minutes to make sure I get enough exercise *time* in every week.

Right now though it might be accurate because, as you said, heavier people burn calories faster - when I lose some weight it'll reduce, probably.

The ACE study was done scientifically and with a mixup of participants (men and women) and monitored each carefully.

Before they did this study it was *impossible* to figure this out - there was absolutey nothing to go by, not a whisper - and the pros would say "it's very efficient" but never gave any accurate statistics.

Another few studies that confirm this would be nice - hopefully, as it gains popularity, more will be learned about the body-science behind it.

You know - a heartrate monitor is probably a very good idea for me. I'll look into the types out there and do some research. Thanks for the advice.

Edited by: SILVETTE at: 3/14/2011 (22:51)
UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
3/14/11 10:29 P

I haven't read the study, is it available online? Was it conducted on 200lb muscular men?

It seems generally unlikely that any activity at all can burn 20 cal/min for that kind of duration. Some extremely high intensity moves might do so for a few minutes, but would be so high intensity that they couldn't be sustained for 60 minutes.

Personally, while I haven't done and measured kettlebells with my HRM, I have used it for a variety of cardio classes, running, biking, gym work, etc, and find that the highest intensity exercise tends to max out at about 12-13 cal/min.

And while heavier people burn more (and maybe someone quite a lot heavier than me can burn closer to 20cal/min more easily), there's a trade-off there. Most people that heavy, also aren't that fit. Someone grossly obese now is less likely to be able to sustain a 20cal/min burn rate for a full hour, so 1200/hour is still looking very dodgy.

SP_COACH_NANCY SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (112,042)
Posts: 46,222
3/14/11 10:13 P


I take a kettlebell class at my gym and while I do get quite the workout I do find that burning 1200 calories in an hour seems rather inflated. I am really on the fence about this because, I, too have read that article. In my class we do have many cardio conditioning moves, we also have moves that are more related to strength training than cardio. I guess this is where a heart rate monitor may help.

I wish you well!

SILVETTE SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (1,835)
Posts: 266
3/14/11 10:00 P

I read the ACE study and knew that the calories burned for a workout were high but I was still surprised that it's just so high - I'd have to bike for an hour and a half to get that calorie burn.

I don't know why, then, that I just don't stick with things - I get lazy, slack off, and gain it all back. ARG

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Yoga with an injured shoulder 11/9/2016 8:44:53 AM
Biggest Loser Challenge - Winter Season! 11/1/2016 9:35:54 AM
Work Equals Fitness? 9/12/2016 11:03:49 AM
Plateau? Or muscle? 5/4/2016 9:58:53 AM
What is your favorite thing about exercise? 6/11/2016 1:12:10 PM