Weightloss / calory burn question

[Worba]

Let's say person A is 150 lbs and burns 10 calories on a given exercise.

If person B is 225 lbs (1.5x as heavy) and does the same exercise, does that mean he/she burns 15 calories?

Or am I oversimplifying it (I'm sure I am at least to some extent, but is that at least close to right)?

EDIT: for anyone else wondering about this, yes I am oversimplifying it and you'd need a physical trainer, doctor or etc to get precise numbers, BUT if all you need is the kind of general guesstimate that a fitness machine would make based on your weight, activity time and activity type (which is all I was after), then the above ratio is valid (link below).

[zedxrgal]

Nope. Not close. The reason being is that EVERY person's physiology is different. So no two people will usually burn calories or lose weight anywhere close to the same. Even twins cannot seem to accomplish this. Yeah it's great in theory but no where near factual. The only way to know exactly how you specifically will burn calories & lose weight (or person A /B) is to actually get working on it slowly and see how it goes.

[Gimlion]

Completely agreed. However, I've noticed that bigger people, generally, burn off weight quicker at the start, because they've got so much to burn off.

I, for example, am the Varsity Heavyweight (285) wrestler for my highschool. I carry about 15 or so more pounds (300) during football season, alot in muscle. Even so, I find that I'm usually the quickest to get down to weight once I start cutting weight, unfortunately, a portion of this is muscle mass, as I do lose some strength during wrestling season, but I'm still generally the fastest at losing the extra weight needed.

I must overall agree with Zed, though. It's all different, that's why I don't count calories lost by exercises, I just count my caloric intake, and check my weight after workouts. I find that going by what the treadmill says I lost in calories usually ends up with me being off on my weight loss.

[Worba]

I'm really just looking for a rough estimate.

The reason I ask is because I just got Dance Central 2 for XBox Kinect - like the first one, it has a calory tracker mode where it gives you an estimated calory burn as you play through the various dances.

However in DC1, you had to enter your weight, and so as you moved around, you'd burn more calories / minute if you were heavier, so it was at least factoring that in even if it wasn't exact (like some stationary bikes and other such equipment do).

Whereas in DC2, you do not enter your weight. So either it's somehow guesstimating it just from looking at you (NOT likely), or else it's just going with some canned figure - I did some googling and it looks like it may be the latter, using a weight of 150 lbs (possibly some sort of projected global average for DC players).

Which means if it says you just burned 10 calories (accepting for the moment that this is quasi-reliable just for argument's sake), and you are heavier than 150 (about 225 here), it stands to reason your number should be higher. How much higher is probably impossible to say with certainty but it should be possible to at least get a rough working average.

[Gimlion]

In that case, yes, you can, generally of course, assume that being heavier will burn more calories. Especially with a dancing game, you have more weight to move around and thus more energy (which is what calories are) being burnt.

I'm not sure if this is an issue, but do NOT stop eating regular portions. Based on your intake, you may even want to increase food, while replacing unhealthy choices with healthy ones. People who want to gradually lose weight commonly believe they have to cut what their eating in half or some larger more ridiculous number. This isn't true, as doing so will shut down your metabolism. Small, healthy snacks before and/or after working out will greatly increase your metabolism, as well as having said small healthy snacks 1-3 times a day. A serving of fruit or vegetables is a great example. Also, breakfast like a king, the morning calories will jumpstart your metabolism in the AM, then lunch should be an average sized meal, and dine like a pauper, with some sort of lean protein and fruits + vegetables. The fewer carbs you take in while losing weight, the better.

Sorry for such long advice, but my weightlifting coach also gives us health courses every so often, so I know a fair deal when it comes to food choice.

TL;DR Yes, you can assume that a heavier person is burning more calories than a lighter person.

[cowmuflage]

What about the opposite and gaining weight? I had to weigh myself so I could get the cats weight before I dewormed them and man I'm 50kgs... I was 59kgs like the time before I weighed myself I need to put on a few Kgs haha.

[Gimlion]

That's about 110 pounds?

Anyways, basically just keep diet that's similar to the one for losing weight, only add in extra protein and carbs. While gaining weight, having extra carbs is alright, as long as it's not all you eat, and not more than protein intake. Also, you may want to count the average calories you eat in a day, then generally eat 1.25x to 1.5x that to gain weight, again, making sure the added calories aren't junk food.

[cowmuflage]

I have no clue what it is in pounds sorry

Anyway thanks for the advice!

[Gimlion]

That's fine. I believe 1 Kg is about 2.2 lbs, IIRC, and 110 pounds is certainly tiny (no offense), so I think my math is right. Either way, you're welcome! xD

[Worba]

I'm not sure if this is an issue, but do NOT stop eating regular portions.

No worries there mate.

Yes, you can assume that a heavier person is burning more calories than a lighter person.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of whether it's fair to say (even in a super generalized sense) that relative weight = relative calory burn, e.g. if you burn 10 cals at 150 lbs then you would burn 15 cals at 225 lbs. Yes I know there's a certain amount of quackery involved and that some people wouldn't fit into that, but there has to be some kind of a general working formula/guesstimation that goes into all the fitness machines with onboard computers...

And you are right about the pounds / kg ratio BTW.

[zedxrgal]

The only way to know is to get crackin on the workout. Obviously start out first by weighing yourself and being mindful of what you're eating. YES you can eat carbs just make sure they're healthy ones and in lower portions. One things that's most important for ANYONE to lose weight regardless of size is water. Lots and lots and lots of water. Cannot stress this enough. You need to either drink water, Gatorade, coconut water /juice in large amounts. Going this will not only keep you hydrated properly but it's amazing at aiding in shedding fat.

@ Cow - 110lbs may or may not be underweight depending on how tall you are. If you're 5' 4" (64 inches) and below you are probably ok. Ideal weight at 64 inches is about 110 - 115lb but really 120lb isn't bad or even remotely overweight.

[Worba]

I'm already working out, and I have actually cut down on my snacking, although I still sometimes have non-diet friendly stuff at regular meals (last night had a double bacon cheeseburger, fries and butter laden popcorn at the movies - yes I know that's somewhat counterproductive but I don't do it super often, heh). And yeah you can never have enough water, that is for sure.

But I think where we are kind of not connecting on this is that I want a general ratio like they use for workout machines, and you don't consider those valid. That's fine, but obviously some like to have it to keep some kind of informal tally to get a rough idea of how they're doing in a given workout.

EDIT: Ok, this is what I was looking for - http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi

Not saying this is super precise or that it applies to everyone, but for just a quick approximation using only minimal data (e.g. activity type, time spent, weight) it seems to work. And entering the same time / activity for 225 lbs returns a calorie amount that is exactly 1.5 times what you'd get for 150 lbs. Cool.

[Sesamee]

I'm really just looking for a rough estimate.

If all you want is a rough estimate then yes, the heavier a person is the more energy it will take to do various activities.

However, our bodies do not burn calories. Calories are units of heat as measured by a human engineered device called a bomb calorimeter. Actual flesh and blood living beings burn ATP molecules, not "calories", which we manufacture from food. The rate at which individuals will create and burn energy from food, vs storing it as fat, varies from person to person.

The type of food also matters. In general carbohydrates are more easily converted to fat than protein or dietary fats are because of the hormone responses they invoke. This is why the term "calories" can be used as nothing more than a general guideline not a rock hard rule.

[Worba]

Yes, I was just looking for the kind of guesstimate you get from a fitness machine, and slightly more specifically I'd been looking to confirm that the increase in calorie burn (in that generalized scenario) was relative e.g. someone who weighs 20% more will burn 20% more calories doing the same activity (which it is), and not some sliding scale.