After a 10 year break, I started playing about 2 years ago. At first, I would be sucking wind in between points, and sometimes sore for days after a hard match. Now, playing the same guy or level of opponent, I am not that winded. If I played and hour and a half of tennis when I wasn't in shape against opponent x, and play opponent x now while I am in shape, am I burning the same amount of calories?
Burning calories?
- Thread starter archman
- Start date
r2473
G.O.A.T.
I got it. It's a trick question because we don't know how long you play "now".
You almost had me on that one.
matt.flynn60
New User
The more you do something, the better you get at it. As your body becomes better at performing an exercise, it can actually use fewer calories during that exercise.
autumn_leaf
Hall of Fame
this is true, you're body does become more efficient and burn less calories because you should be making less excessive movement.
it's hard to stay if you are or are not burning as much calories as before. this is purely because of how tennis is. it's not like swimming or running that you are in constant motion or have a specific distance to measure. how much calories you burn in tennis depends on you and your opponent.
playing styles like serve and volley will burn less than grinding or pushing in the same amount of time. also take into consideration that now that you are in shape are points lasting longer because you are now on a more even level of play or shorter because now that your are fitter you can end points faster.
It's also hard to say if you are burning the same rate of calories per hour. It's possible that when you were out of shape, you spent more time retrieving balls, taking deep breaths, and generally stalling to catch your wind. If you are doing less of that between points and on changeovers, then it's possible that you are burning more calories per hour.
If you are trying to burn calories to lose weight, it's much easier to reduce the calories you eat than to try to burn the excess.
If you are trying to burn calories to lose weight, it's much easier to reduce the calories you eat than to try to burn the excess.
Technically, no, you will not be burning the SAME amount of calories since it's very difficult to burn the same EXACT amount of calories anyhow
On a serious note, you will burn more calories when you're out of shape in that scenario. Even though you are trying "as hard as you can" in both scenarios, the mile time when you were out of shape will be significantly longer, therefore your body is working at maximum output for a longer period of time.
Now, if the scenario had been based on time instead of distance, then that would be a different story. Running your hardest for 10 minutes while you're fit will definitely burn more calories than running that 10 minutes while you were out of shape.
Thanks Zachol, that makes sense. I guess when I say "the same" I don't mean exactly the same. But I am playing the same guys as I was a year ago and back then, I was gasping for air. Now, sometimes I'm hardly breaking a sweat. I know some has to do with my game being sharper, but I just wondered if I'm actually burning any calories when it doesn't really feel like I had a great workout.
polski
Semi-Pro
I have found that I burn more calories when I am in shape than when I am out of shape. I tend to believe the logic of muscle burns calories faster than fat. I also feel that it is because I am able to do more intense training activities when I am more fit.
A fun way to experiment is to measure it personally. Try this: http://www.polar.fi/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT7
My wife & I both have these & enjoy it. Not only do we get a decent guage of how hard we really worked out, but we tend to compete on things like fitness:fat-burn ratio, total caloric burn, average & max heart rate.
A fun way to experiment is to measure it personally. Try this: http://www.polar.fi/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT7
My wife & I both have these & enjoy it. Not only do we get a decent guage of how hard we really worked out, but we tend to compete on things like fitness:fat-burn ratio, total caloric burn, average & max heart rate.
jonnythan
Professional
That's not just logic, it's reality. There's no argument over whether muscle burns more calories than adipose tissue. We're talking about a few different issues. Assuming similar/same body composition (weight and body fat) the guy who has been playing longer will be more efficient and in general burn fewer calories at the same activity. It will be even more dramatic if you do a before/after once a relatively fat guy has lost a bunch of fat.
It'll be a lot more murky if you take two people of the same mass but significantly different body fat percentages.
polski
Semi-Pro
So, the point is that if person A is 6'0, 185 lbs, 18 BMI and person B is 6'0, 275 lbs, 33 BMI then person B burns more calories running a 10-minute mile than person A?
Yes, you are moving more weight the same distance so the energy required is greater.
BMI and time wouldn't really be factors.
There is a small difference due to the speed you are moving, but that is not due to the speed itself, but that certain gaits (fast running vs. jogging vs. walking) are more efficient than others - there is a table on this somewhere on the web - but it is only several % difference from least efficient to most efficient.
Also, there would be a continuous difference due to the resting calorie burn difference directly proportional to amount of muscle mass. Of course running or not running wouldn't change this amount.
Last edited:
True, but it's also proportional. If you weigh more, the excess stress on your muscles will require more calories to do the same actions, therefore you can ultimately do less and you will tire quicker. Hence why being lean is ultimately more effective than large in nearly all sports, because it equates into maximum potential of power and speed and also stamina/endurance.
