Welcome to being a female. It sucks.
Kidding of course. I love being a female. But seriously, you’ll never burn as many calories as a male or larger person in general. My calories are usually high 300s/low 400s. And it’s loose math too. The numbers are reliable. Don’t get hung up on it.
It seems like their formula is based on average heart rate (along with gender, weight, and possibly age). If your max HR is 165, your average heart rate will be lower than someone whose max HR is 175, 185, or 195 so the calculated (but not necessarily actual) calorie burn will be lower. I'm fairly similar to you in age, paces, resting HR, etc. but my max HR is 185 and my calorie burn is closer to 550 in a typical class. It doesn't mean I'm working harder and it may not even mean I burn more calories. It just means my genetically-determined max HR and thus my average HR when working at a similar intesity level is higher.
Because of this, I think that number is another part of the "you vs. you" mentality. You can compare it for yourself across workouts but you can't really compare it to someone else.
I’m not sure but everyone is different.
I’m 35F and at a healthy weight but I have a low heart rate even when I’m running—usually anywhere from 5.5 - 8 mph. I do Tread50 3 times a week and regular classes 3 times a week.
I’m lucky to burn 450 calories, and I usually burn about 300-400 calories in a regular class. Low 400s for Tread50. My HR hangs out at 130 bpm. When I look at the board, most of the class is 150+. My max HR is around 165 but rarely do I ever get there and it’s usually just a minute after an all out during an endurance block.
I just think my HR is a lot lower than a normal persons. I also think my metabolism is bit slower too. It just takes me longer to lose weight, but when I keep an eye on nutrition, I eventually do.
This was a helpful link about the calorie formula. https://www.reddit.com/r/orangetheory/comments/b02zri/formula_used_by_otf_for_calculating_calories/
Basically as women, the older we are, the less we burn according to the formula on the assumption that older women have less muscle mass.
Hmmm…seems very dependent on max heart rate. I am a 39F with a max HR of 199. I do hit that max every few months. My resting HR is about 75. I am pretty fit, normal weight, and go to OTF 6x per week for the last 5 years. I regularly “burn” 550-600 calories per class, even though I struggle to sometimes hit 12 splat points. I think I am on the higher end because of my max heart rate which means I am usually around 160/green zone for most of the class. I think it is genetic, honestly.
450 calories sounds about right from my own burn and from what I see of other women in my class. I don't think it's as bad at all. Unfortunately, if you want to burn more then you need to work EVEN harder than you are, which may not be feasible since sounds like you are already at your max. Maybe focus less on the calories burned in class and more on the calories you consume. That's where I see the difference in weight loss. Good luck!
OTF is not a weight loss diet, just a tool to help shed weight if you are consuming fewer calories than you output. 450 is a big deficit to have in a single day just with exercise. 450 is also a lot for a female to burn depending on your height and weight. If you've been a member for a short amount of time, you won't see big changes overnight. You're getting the perfect amount of splats, you like the progress you're making, so are you looking to lose weight or body fat? There's a difference. In a calorie deficit, if you want to just lose body fat and little to no muscle mass, you've got to prioritize protein. A good place to start is as close to .7-.9g of protein per pound of body weight.
Welcome to being a female. It sucks. Kidding of course. I love being a female. But seriously, you’ll never burn as many calories as a male or larger person in general. My calories are usually high 300s/low 400s. And it’s loose math too. The numbers are reliable. Don’t get hung up on it.
It seems like their formula is based on average heart rate (along with gender, weight, and possibly age). If your max HR is 165, your average heart rate will be lower than someone whose max HR is 175, 185, or 195 so the calculated (but not necessarily actual) calorie burn will be lower. I'm fairly similar to you in age, paces, resting HR, etc. but my max HR is 185 and my calorie burn is closer to 550 in a typical class. It doesn't mean I'm working harder and it may not even mean I burn more calories. It just means my genetically-determined max HR and thus my average HR when working at a similar intesity level is higher. Because of this, I think that number is another part of the "you vs. you" mentality. You can compare it for yourself across workouts but you can't really compare it to someone else.
I’m not sure but everyone is different. I’m 35F and at a healthy weight but I have a low heart rate even when I’m running—usually anywhere from 5.5 - 8 mph. I do Tread50 3 times a week and regular classes 3 times a week. I’m lucky to burn 450 calories, and I usually burn about 300-400 calories in a regular class. Low 400s for Tread50. My HR hangs out at 130 bpm. When I look at the board, most of the class is 150+. My max HR is around 165 but rarely do I ever get there and it’s usually just a minute after an all out during an endurance block. I just think my HR is a lot lower than a normal persons. I also think my metabolism is bit slower too. It just takes me longer to lose weight, but when I keep an eye on nutrition, I eventually do.
This was a helpful link about the calorie formula. https://www.reddit.com/r/orangetheory/comments/b02zri/formula_used_by_otf_for_calculating_calories/ Basically as women, the older we are, the less we burn according to the formula on the assumption that older women have less muscle mass.
Hmmm…seems very dependent on max heart rate. I am a 39F with a max HR of 199. I do hit that max every few months. My resting HR is about 75. I am pretty fit, normal weight, and go to OTF 6x per week for the last 5 years. I regularly “burn” 550-600 calories per class, even though I struggle to sometimes hit 12 splat points. I think I am on the higher end because of my max heart rate which means I am usually around 160/green zone for most of the class. I think it is genetic, honestly.
450 calories sounds about right from my own burn and from what I see of other women in my class. I don't think it's as bad at all. Unfortunately, if you want to burn more then you need to work EVEN harder than you are, which may not be feasible since sounds like you are already at your max. Maybe focus less on the calories burned in class and more on the calories you consume. That's where I see the difference in weight loss. Good luck!
I think the less you weigh and the shorter you are the less calories you will burn I’m 5’7 and 155 lbs and I usually burn about 500/class
I rarely observe women breaking 450 calories, regardless of their size, etc. That seems to be the top end.
OTF is not a weight loss diet, just a tool to help shed weight if you are consuming fewer calories than you output. 450 is a big deficit to have in a single day just with exercise. 450 is also a lot for a female to burn depending on your height and weight. If you've been a member for a short amount of time, you won't see big changes overnight. You're getting the perfect amount of splats, you like the progress you're making, so are you looking to lose weight or body fat? There's a difference. In a calorie deficit, if you want to just lose body fat and little to no muscle mass, you've got to prioritize protein. A good place to start is as close to .7-.9g of protein per pound of body weight.