Once you get to burning around 2000-3000 calories per week, you are getting around the level where you need to start eating more to support that level of activity. So there is little benefit in terms of direct weight loss in going above this level. And any good exercise routine includes both strength training and cardio, and you may well be better off adding ST to your routine, than burning yet more calories through cardio. Without ST, up to 25% of your weight loss can come from lost muscle, rather than fat - including ST helps ensure more of your weight loss comes from fat alone.
Of course, there are significant health and fitness benefits to exercising more, and higher calorie targets are still worth pursuing on this basis.
Along with what everyone else said re: setting your own pace, some of those numbers are also a bit . . . inflated. Some people will enter things like walking to the corner store or cleaning out the garage as cardio. That sort of thing will really blow up your "calories burned" ticker without really doing much for your actual fitness level. I wouldn't worry about it!
I'm set for 3000 calories burned per week. BUT - I am at/around my goal weight and I am training for a marathon. That 3000 calories = 50 miles run per week, which is a lot. One thing to note for some people with those high values for calories burned - not only may they have higher burns due to their current weight but they also often will count exercise that others might not (i.e. gardening).
Fitness Minutes: (1,876)
11/6/12 2:46 A
I used to only burn about 1-150 extra calories per day, which would average at hardly even 700-900 per week. Now, I probably burn almost 5k per week or a tad under, but I am also maintaining and consuming 2500 calories per day. A lot of it has to do with how much you are taking in. If you're only eating anywhere from 1200-1700, then burning anymore than even 100 a day may be too much...In fact, if you're eating only 1200-1500 I wouldn't burn much at all...Most people burn about 1400 just by sitting around, plus all of the extra activities they do during the day adds more. When I was on an exercise kick and losing, I'd sometimes have about 2k calories per day, only burn about 2-300, and still lose.
30-60 minutes a day 4-6 days a week is normal and healthy for weight loss.
For bigger bodies that would equate to more calories burned. But for all bodies, that is typical and reasonable.
Don't think in terms of "how much to burn". Think more (for weight loss) in terms of "how much to eat, given what I burn", and just burn whatever you burn in 30-60 minutes 4-6 times a week. :)
Fitness Minutes: (2,857)
11/5/12 10:31 P
I agree with Coach Nancy, I know it's SO tempting to compare yourself to others, but it's ultimately about doing what's best for you. And remember that the people who exercise more don't inherently lose more weight, or lose it faster, because they are probably eating more to compensate for it (or they should be anyway!).
Also, keep in mind that people burn different amounts of calories depending on their height, weight, etc. So for example, I've set a goal to burn 3500 calories through exercise a week. That sounds like a lot, and objectively speaking, it probably is. But I'm also relatively tall and young (5'9" and 20), and I probably weigh more than a good number of women on this board. So I'll burn a lot more calories through exercise than somebody who's 5'2", in her 50s, and 110 pounds.
If that sounds unfair, just remember that SP automatically adjusts the calorie range so that you are still losing the same amount of weight per week. AKA I eat a lot more than lots of people here (judging on what I read on the nutrition boards haha) For example, I used to have mine set at 2000/wk, but I was consistently burning more than that, and SP kept saying that I wasn't eating enough to fuel my activity (I also had a really REALLY tough time with cravings.....coincidence? I think not). When I bumped it to 3500, the recommended calorie range increased to compensate. In most cases, people here are trying to lose 1-2 pounds a week, which is a 500-1000 cal deficit a day. That deficit will stay the same whether someone is working out 2 days a week or 7. I hope that makes sense!
The bottom line is that it's just best to go at your own fitness level, no matter what that is. If you're following the basic guidelines on this site and notice your fitness level improving from week to week, then you're doing awesome! :)
(btw sorry for writing a marathon of a post, I hope this helps!)
Edited by: WHITLA011 at: 11/5/2012 (22:32)
Fitness Minutes: (112,042)
46,222 11/5/12 9:12 P
I caution members not to follow the path of others, but what is most realistic for you to achieve consisitent results. It is better for you to strive to do what is best for you, I would rather have a member expend fewer calories on a weekly basis than to push herself too hard that she burns out or experiencies an injury which will keep her sidelined for days or weeks on end.
You take where you are now, not where you want to be. Remember too, that just like eating too much or not enough can lead to issues, same is true with exercising. Doing too much can actually trigger a greater appetite response which can end up slowing your progress as your body will require more calories to support this greater amount of activity and recovery.
I've been doing a lot of looking through the message boards here....specifically about how many calories people are burning during the week. I was really shocked to see on an older thread that a lot of people are burning 2,000, 3,000, and even 4,000 calories a week! Although I'm not sure if I could ever reach even 3,000 a week, I commend those that are and it's definitely motivated me to take a closer look at what I'm doing and kick it up a notch!
I've been averaging about 1,200 a week and, until now, I thought that was decent. Now I think I could be doing a lot more to achieve my weight loss goals!
I guess my question is- Around how many burned calories/week is realistic for weight loss? Now, I KNOW that there are many factors in this (diet, how much weight you want to lose/how fast, etc.), but if anyone with some experience out there can even just generally say, for example, 2500-3000 is (or isn't) a good range (or whatever it may be), I think that would be helpful.
Hopefully, I'm not setting myself up for a lot of opposing responses on this one :)
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.