calories burned
-
ppetta8262@yahoo.com
- Paddler
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 26th, 2008, 12:40 pm
calories burned
How do I figure out how many actual calories I have burned during a rowing session? For example, my display said I burned 391 calories this morning, but how does the computer know this? The computer doesn't know how much I weigh and that would be a huge factor. A 216lb man (me) would burn more calories than a 150lb man doing the same workout. Or am I wrong? Thanks[/code]
Weight only comes in to play because of moving up and down the slide, and because of base metabolism. The rate you row at also has an effect.
Also there is some variation between people in efficiency between people when converting calories to mechanical energy (as well as between people because of technique while rowing).
Treat the calories burned as a rough approximation. C2 came up with the formula after lab testing calories burned by a specific individual. The closer you are to that person (in body size, technique and efficiency) the more accurate the calories burned will be. I think it is fairly far off for some people.
Also there is some variation between people in efficiency between people when converting calories to mechanical energy (as well as between people because of technique while rowing).
Treat the calories burned as a rough approximation. C2 came up with the formula after lab testing calories burned by a specific individual. The closer you are to that person (in body size, technique and efficiency) the more accurate the calories burned will be. I think it is fairly far off for some people.
-
tom pinckney
- 500m Poster
- Posts: 76
- Joined: August 6th, 2008, 4:07 pm
- Location: Gatihersburg, Maryland
Your theory about a heavier person burning more calories at REST is true. Well - sort of. It depends on how muscular those people are because a pound of muscle burns nine calories while a pound of fat? Just about nothing.
The computer does not know and is set for an average for someone at a given weight. Rather than worry about how many calories you burn, why not look in the mirror, take photos of yourself druing different stages of your workouts or check out the feel of your clothes? Those things will tell you the truth. A log will also tell you if you are getting stronger. The stronger you are - the more muscle you have and you burn more calories. Of course, better technique will result in faster times on the erg.
Obivously (regardless of your weight) if you burn more calories than you take in (or use at rest) you will lose weight.
The computer does not know and is set for an average for someone at a given weight. Rather than worry about how many calories you burn, why not look in the mirror, take photos of yourself druing different stages of your workouts or check out the feel of your clothes? Those things will tell you the truth. A log will also tell you if you are getting stronger. The stronger you are - the more muscle you have and you burn more calories. Of course, better technique will result in faster times on the erg.
Obivously (regardless of your weight) if you burn more calories than you take in (or use at rest) you will lose weight.
The C2 approach to calorie count is to measure exactly how much mechanical work we do on the handle, multiply this by an efficiency factor (4 - we are considered as low grade fuel-cells) and add 300kCal/h to account for work not going into the handle and generally staying alìve.
As movement on the erg is horizontal, a greater body weight will not of itself lead to higher burn rate. To see high burn rates due to body mass, you need to do something much harder than erging, climbing stairs for example.
Greater body weight should mean more muscle and height: both could let you do more work on the erg than someone shorter and lighter, but you have to put that larger amount of work into the handle to see the numbers.
However the erg is a rowing machine, not a burner. It gets you fit if you use it say 1 to 2% of your time and hard. As long solid strokes are needed for this, and lots of them, it's always best to learn to row first. Otherwise your strokes will not be of the right quality and you'll be wasting your time.
I have the impression that using exercise to burn calories is a fundamentally flawed idea. Exercise gets us fit, and the benefits of this are enormous. However we can get fit by burning less than 500 kCal a day (½h a day on the erg). This amount is insignificant when compared to the stuff that sits on supermarket shelves. If we want to get thin, the best option is to leave that stuff where it is.
As examples, if you weigh 100kg and climb a 1000m mountain every day, you're doing one million Nm every time, and burning the equivalent calories. An hour on the erg at 200W means around 700.000Nm work, 1000 kCal. Nothing; but you'll be among the fittest on the planet.
An alternative approach is heart rate. Once it's >140 you're burning. How much becomes irrelevant, because you reach the prime target of getting fit, but it will probably be around 1000 x time in hours.
As movement on the erg is horizontal, a greater body weight will not of itself lead to higher burn rate. To see high burn rates due to body mass, you need to do something much harder than erging, climbing stairs for example.
Greater body weight should mean more muscle and height: both could let you do more work on the erg than someone shorter and lighter, but you have to put that larger amount of work into the handle to see the numbers.
However the erg is a rowing machine, not a burner. It gets you fit if you use it say 1 to 2% of your time and hard. As long solid strokes are needed for this, and lots of them, it's always best to learn to row first. Otherwise your strokes will not be of the right quality and you'll be wasting your time.
I have the impression that using exercise to burn calories is a fundamentally flawed idea. Exercise gets us fit, and the benefits of this are enormous. However we can get fit by burning less than 500 kCal a day (½h a day on the erg). This amount is insignificant when compared to the stuff that sits on supermarket shelves. If we want to get thin, the best option is to leave that stuff where it is.
As examples, if you weigh 100kg and climb a 1000m mountain every day, you're doing one million Nm every time, and burning the equivalent calories. An hour on the erg at 200W means around 700.000Nm work, 1000 kCal. Nothing; but you'll be among the fittest on the planet.
An alternative approach is heart rate. Once it's >140 you're burning. How much becomes irrelevant, because you reach the prime target of getting fit, but it will probably be around 1000 x time in hours.
08-1940, 183cm, 83kg.
2024: stroke 5.5W-min@20-21. ½k 190W, 1k 145W, 2k 120W. Using Wods 4-5days/week. Fading fast.
2024: stroke 5.5W-min@20-21. ½k 190W, 1k 145W, 2k 120W. Using Wods 4-5days/week. Fading fast.
James you forgot "Exercise combined with a diet (reduction in calorie intake)". Then you will lose if you burn through exercise, a total that is higher than consumption.
Also, I am your age, but because of a leaky mitral valve (heart) my cardiologist doesn't want me to have a HR over 140. So I must increase exercise duration to burn those calories.
Also, I am your age, but because of a leaky mitral valve (heart) my cardiologist doesn't want me to have a HR over 140. So I must increase exercise duration to burn those calories.
Bob in Munich
84yrs, 85 kilos or 187 pounds, 185 cm or
6ft I Row and I ride my E-Bike.
84yrs, 85 kilos or 187 pounds, 185 cm or
6ft I Row and I ride my E-Bike.
-
tom pinckney
- 500m Poster
- Posts: 76
- Joined: August 6th, 2008, 4:07 pm
- Location: Gatihersburg, Maryland
Yep - exercise ALONE does not result in much weight loss for most people. You must have a three-pronged approach to this to do it efficiently.
Ask any fat person how to lose weight - they are experts at it. I've said this before. The trouble is keeping it off. Diet without exercise does not work for permanent weight loss. In order to keep it off permanently, one must build up their muscle AND burn calories aerobically (anerobic exercise will result in weight loss, but can also result in burning fat too, but too much can burn muscle.)
Diet without exercise only results in a smaller version of a fat person. As we lose weight we do not lose fat cells - only shirink them. As we get fatter next time (we gain weight) we have more fat cells and gain weight evern more. As the result of getting fatter with more fat cells, we become less efficient at burning calories (fat burns very little) That's why when some of us yo-yos up and down with their weight they are fatter EACH time (after they have gained weight) they try to take weight off.
Exercise: you need a three-pronged approach. Diet is only one part of it. Diets for long-term weight loss do not work because IF you do that and nothing else, generally speaking you - you are not builidng up muscle tissue or increase your metabolism to burn calories. In the case of a "starvation diet, one's metabolism may slow down to "protect you". Thus you are just a smaller version of a fat person trying even harder t lose weight. In addition, these type of diets result in a loss of muscle tissue also. That's why you will see people who have starved multiple times to lose weight and they look like crap. at the same weight, they are fatter than they were the last time.
You will not lose a lot of weight each day by exercising. However, I think of it like a bank account deposit were you accumulate muscle over time whiile at the same time lose fat. You do not replace fat with muscle - you lose fat and gain muscle.
A muscular person will burn more calories (9 calories per pound) when at rest. Thus - it is easier to maintain your new weight even though you may be eating more food than a fat person. Due to the body composition of a fat person, they burn fewer calories (fat burns almost no calories at rest), can eat less food than a muscular person and actually gain weight.
Three pronged approach for permanent weight loss:
1. Build up your muscles (weights are the way to go) to burn more calories efficiently.
2. Aerobic activity to burn calories. As mentioned elsewhere, 45 minutes rather than 30 seems to work better for me. Intervals are a good idea IF you have been exercising a while.
3. proper diet - not starving.
It is quite simple to lose weight and gain muscle. Just do the things above. IMHO many people set themselves up for failure by trying to rush things. They figure that if they lose weight by working out, working out HARDER will result in even MORE weight loss. However, due to the obese person's lousy physical condition - they set themselves up for failure by burning out on exercise they really can't handle.
It takes a while to put it on. Taking your time (you have the rest of your life to do this). It takes time to take it off. Consistancy is the key.
Ask any fat person how to lose weight - they are experts at it. I've said this before. The trouble is keeping it off. Diet without exercise does not work for permanent weight loss. In order to keep it off permanently, one must build up their muscle AND burn calories aerobically (anerobic exercise will result in weight loss, but can also result in burning fat too, but too much can burn muscle.)
Diet without exercise only results in a smaller version of a fat person. As we lose weight we do not lose fat cells - only shirink them. As we get fatter next time (we gain weight) we have more fat cells and gain weight evern more. As the result of getting fatter with more fat cells, we become less efficient at burning calories (fat burns very little) That's why when some of us yo-yos up and down with their weight they are fatter EACH time (after they have gained weight) they try to take weight off.
Exercise: you need a three-pronged approach. Diet is only one part of it. Diets for long-term weight loss do not work because IF you do that and nothing else, generally speaking you - you are not builidng up muscle tissue or increase your metabolism to burn calories. In the case of a "starvation diet, one's metabolism may slow down to "protect you". Thus you are just a smaller version of a fat person trying even harder t lose weight. In addition, these type of diets result in a loss of muscle tissue also. That's why you will see people who have starved multiple times to lose weight and they look like crap. at the same weight, they are fatter than they were the last time.
You will not lose a lot of weight each day by exercising. However, I think of it like a bank account deposit were you accumulate muscle over time whiile at the same time lose fat. You do not replace fat with muscle - you lose fat and gain muscle.
A muscular person will burn more calories (9 calories per pound) when at rest. Thus - it is easier to maintain your new weight even though you may be eating more food than a fat person. Due to the body composition of a fat person, they burn fewer calories (fat burns almost no calories at rest), can eat less food than a muscular person and actually gain weight.
Three pronged approach for permanent weight loss:
1. Build up your muscles (weights are the way to go) to burn more calories efficiently.
2. Aerobic activity to burn calories. As mentioned elsewhere, 45 minutes rather than 30 seems to work better for me. Intervals are a good idea IF you have been exercising a while.
3. proper diet - not starving.
It is quite simple to lose weight and gain muscle. Just do the things above. IMHO many people set themselves up for failure by trying to rush things. They figure that if they lose weight by working out, working out HARDER will result in even MORE weight loss. However, due to the obese person's lousy physical condition - they set themselves up for failure by burning out on exercise they really can't handle.
It takes a while to put it on. Taking your time (you have the rest of your life to do this). It takes time to take it off. Consistancy is the key.
I agree completely with your logic; and think that here the idea of exercise as essential is given. We all know there are lots of reasons, not just weight.
What strikes me is the disproportion: I can get fit on 500 kCal a day, with more effort than many will like, but to eat (or drink) 500 takes no effort at all. A pint of 5% beer alone is worth around 200. Equivalent to climbing a 200m hill; but while most would never even think of doing that, drinking a pint of beer comes very easy.
What strikes me is the disproportion: I can get fit on 500 kCal a day, with more effort than many will like, but to eat (or drink) 500 takes no effort at all. A pint of 5% beer alone is worth around 200. Equivalent to climbing a 200m hill; but while most would never even think of doing that, drinking a pint of beer comes very easy.
08-1940, 183cm, 83kg.
2024: stroke 5.5W-min@20-21. ½k 190W, 1k 145W, 2k 120W. Using Wods 4-5days/week. Fading fast.
2024: stroke 5.5W-min@20-21. ½k 190W, 1k 145W, 2k 120W. Using Wods 4-5days/week. Fading fast.
-
tom pinckney
- 500m Poster
- Posts: 76
- Joined: August 6th, 2008, 4:07 pm
- Location: Gatihersburg, Maryland
Yep and beer tastes good too! 
I am no expert on weight loss, but have learned a lot from reputable sources and have use their ideas with success.
Diet: as mentioned (although I have lost 60 pounds) I don't dieit - just eat properly and do have an occasional beer, pizza and whatever I want reasonably. Prevents binging.
With that 500 calorie reduction (whether thru additional exercise or a reduction of foor), theoretically you could be losing about one pound a week.
I am no expert on weight loss, but have learned a lot from reputable sources and have use their ideas with success. Diet: as mentioned (although I have lost 60 pounds) I don't dieit - just eat properly and do have an occasional beer, pizza and whatever I want reasonably. Prevents binging.
With that 500 calorie reduction (whether thru additional exercise or a reduction of foor), theoretically you could be losing about one pound a week.
From our website:
How are calories burned calculated?
Due to the differences in body weight and efficiency, calories on the PM are only an approximation of calories burned by the person rowing. The PM uses the following formula to calculate calories burned:
• Calories/Hour = Kcal/hr = (watts) x (4) x (0.8604) + 300
This formula assumes a person of 175 pounds (80 kg) and a base rate of 300 cal/hour to move your body through the rowing motion at 30 strokes/minute.
We sell a slide chart that has a Weight Adjusted Calorie Calculator. For example, say I'm a 200 pound person and I row a monitor-indicated 500 calories. My weight adjusted burn would be 542 calories. For a 150 pound person doing the same workout, they would burn about 457 calories.
Keeping in mind that calories burned is at best an aproximation. As you get more fit and more efficient you may actually burn fewer calories even though your weight is the same. C2JonW
How are calories burned calculated?
Due to the differences in body weight and efficiency, calories on the PM are only an approximation of calories burned by the person rowing. The PM uses the following formula to calculate calories burned:
• Calories/Hour = Kcal/hr = (watts) x (4) x (0.8604) + 300
This formula assumes a person of 175 pounds (80 kg) and a base rate of 300 cal/hour to move your body through the rowing motion at 30 strokes/minute.
We sell a slide chart that has a Weight Adjusted Calorie Calculator. For example, say I'm a 200 pound person and I row a monitor-indicated 500 calories. My weight adjusted burn would be 542 calories. For a 150 pound person doing the same workout, they would burn about 457 calories.
Keeping in mind that calories burned is at best an aproximation. As you get more fit and more efficient you may actually burn fewer calories even though your weight is the same. C2JonW
72 year old grandpa living in Waterbury Center, Vermont, USA
Concept2 employee 1980-2018! and what a long, strange trip it's been......
Concept2 employee 1980-2018! and what a long, strange trip it's been......
-
ppetta8262@yahoo.com
- Paddler
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 26th, 2008, 12:40 pm
Thanks for all your replies. I have been losing 3lbs per month rowing 5-6 times per week. I have cut back on intake (food) just a little. I figure to lose 36 lbs for the year. It will be interesting to see how close I am. What will be even more interesting is what I will look like after two years. Will I have lost 72lbs? Or will the weight loss will be more difficult as time progresses? (What I suspect). I vary my workout according to my caprice. Either 40 minutes or 8000 meters or 10000 meters. [/i][/b]
so very true and if I may add.... if you do the same workout over and over you will burn less calories as your body will adapt to it. So change up our routine periodically. If you do long distance steady state pieces work in some intervals - if you do intervals do some steady state etc.C2jonw said "Keeping in mind that calories burned is at best an aproximation. As you get more fit and more efficient you may actually burn fewer calories even though your weight is the same. C2JonW"
Also change up the type of workouts you do. Add is some weightlifting. maybe one day a week do some running or biking or whatever floats your boat (pun intended, lol)
The idea being to keep your body guessing and adapting to changes. The added benefit being you won't get bored. I love to erg (yes it's a sickness) but sometimes I cannot stand the thought of sitting on the erg...in that case I jump on a treadmill or elliptical.
NEW Calorie Calculator on Concept2.com
http://www.concept2.com/us/interactive/ ... alorie.asp
Try it out!
This calculator will give you a more accurate reading of your calories burned PER HOUR for a given weight. To find out how many calories you burned per session, you will need to do a little math (for example, for a half-hour workout, divide this number in half - get it?).
Meredith @ Concept2.
Try it out!
This calculator will give you a more accurate reading of your calories burned PER HOUR for a given weight. To find out how many calories you burned per session, you will need to do a little math (for example, for a half-hour workout, divide this number in half - get it?).
Meredith @ Concept2.