Playing Drums = Exercise?

[Hanover]

So just how many calories can you burn playing the drums? I was playing on expert today for about two hours and I'm completely exhausted. So I wonder if I'm burning a substantial amount of calories...

[StoneyW66]

i was thinking the same thing. any Docs in the house that can tell us?????

[Feigned]

I'm no doctor, but I play one on TV! :cool:

Seriously though, I move around a lot when I'm really rocking out on the drums. I don't really know about calories or anything, but I know I get a decent workout if I play for a while.

[Paradox]

2 hours of playing real drums(because its the only thing I can compare) burns 588 calories.

Playing for 4(thats how long I usually play rockband with friends) burns 1100 calories.

playing guitar(while sitting) for 2 hours burns 196. Doing it while standing burns 392.

[shoombabi]

Wouldn't something like this be proportional to the weight of your arms and the amount of energy you expend in moving them? I imagine bigger people and less well-defined people (i fall into the latter) would wind up getting more of a work-out.

[bjorn9486]

Wouldn't something like this be proportional to the weight of your arms and the amount of energy you expend in moving them? I imagine bigger people and less well-defined people (i fall into the latter) would wind up getting more of a work-out.

Yes. Any one that is out of shape (I'm including myself here) gets more out of doing any form of exercise than someone in shape.

[Paradox]

yes it is proportional, to an extent.

The more "in shape" your body is, the less calories you'll burn by doing the same activity as someone who is way more "out of shape"

[phslax]

2 hours of playing real drums(because its the only thing I can compare) burns 588 calories.

Playing for 4(thats how long I usually play rockband with friends) burns 1100 calories.

playing guitar(while sitting) for 2 hours burns 196. Doing it while standing burns 392.

Hahaha. That post is more full of bull**** than anything I've ever read >.<

Playing Rock Band drums will not burn anywhere NEAR that amount of calories. In fact, it will barely burn any.

Running/walking a mile burns 80-100ish calories (I forget the exact number.) If this poster is right, then playing rock band for four hours burns about the same number of calories as running a marathon.

If you were being sarcastic, it was very subtle, so hats off to you :p

[ClinTrojan]

lmao running a mile burns 82 calories.....are you kidding me?

Playing drums for 2 hours burns alot of calories, you prolly never played a drumset in your life nor have the talent to play songs that uses double bass that is like running a mile when you get done. I dont know the exact calories but there is a reason drummers have water, sweat towel, and wear very loose cloths if anything other then shorts. You dont quite see a guitarist using a sweat towel from all the exercise he does shredding cords.....

[phslax]

I play the drums...I'm not denying that you can work up a sweat, I just don't think you'd burn anywhere near that many calories. I do sports that are much more difficult than playing the drums, and they don't burn that amount of calories (given, they don't last 4 hours).

[capitalfn9]

phslax clearly has no idea what hes talking about. have you ever even run a mile kid?

[Paradox]

Hahaha. That post is more full of bull**** than anything I've ever read >.<

Playing Rock Band drums will not burn anywhere NEAR that amount of calories. In fact, it will barely burn any.

Running/walking a mile burns 80-100ish calories (I forget the exact number.) If this poster is right, then playing rock band for four hours burns about the same number of calories as running a marathon.

If you were being sarcastic, it was very subtle, so hats off to you :p

Walking at the normal human pace a.ka. not speedwalking burns 360 calories an hour. Running at a slow pace burns almost 800.

Learn your facts before you call something bull****. So if you "forgot the exact number" you should probably go re-learn the real number.


Wanna try to sound smart again?

[ClinTrojan]

I play drums, use to play basketball and you prolly dont use 1100 calories but you loose more then 300 (basketball game). playing things from Slayer, old metallica, slipknot, avenged sevenfold, rush, black sabbath, lamb of god, and dream theater will make you alot more tired then playing a basketball game.

[MJDoja]

i sweat a lot playing the drums.. that must mean im burning calories.

if you forget to take your shirt off or turn the fan on... it will happen as your session rolls on

(especially if you play for 2-4 hours at a time.. OUCH! got some warriors up in here.)

[xCHRISx]

Hahaha. That post is more full of bull**** than anything I've ever read >.<

Playing Rock Band drums will not burn anywhere NEAR that amount of calories. In fact, it will barely burn any.

Running/walking a mile burns 80-100ish calories (I forget the exact number.) If this poster is right, then playing rock band for four hours burns about the same number of calories as running a marathon.

If you were being sarcastic, it was very subtle, so hats off to you :p

The general consensus is an hour of playing drums (this is playing fairly actively, mind you) burns about 200-250 calories, depending on age and weight. Playing RB drums should be in the same general ballpark.

I run a mile in about 8 minutes and I burn around 120 calories at my weight/age.

Average those out to calories burned per minute, and playing drums is about 4/min while running a mile is about 15/min. The person you quoted estimated a little on the high side for his number on playing drums, and you're a little on the low side for your number on running a mile.

Bottom line is, if you're playing RB drums for an hour, you will be burning more calories than watching TV or playing Halo. The more you put into it, the more you get out of it. If you really exaggerate your arm movements and get into the music, keep time with your left foot as if you had a hi-hat pedal, etc., you're going to burn a substantial amount of calories. Good luck!

[morik_trask]

Without you're exact height, weight, bodyfat percentage, and a metabolic test (we use breathing), no one can tell you how many calories you'll burn at ANY activity (despite all the BS in magazines or on the internet).

With that said, how much you burn playing drums depends on what you are putting into your playing. You can play the same song many different ways. Some people move more efficiently than others. If you pour as much energy into the drums as you do running a mile, guess what you'll burn.... The same as if you ran a mile. Calories are energy (well...close enough for this conversation). You can take identical twins (same height, weight, etc...) and have them both run a mile and they still will not burn the same thing. It's called Economy of Motion and plays a huge role as well.

I am a trained rehab specialist, personal trainer, and sports nutritionist. I also own multiple fitness centers. I monitor calories burned constantly.

You can certainly build stamina and burn calories playing the drums. You'll get out what you put in. Just like anything else.

[shoombabi]

Dude, you can burn 4 calories with a hearty sneeze. One minute of Rock Band even on friggin guitar is going to burn more than 4 calories.

[BhindBluEyes430]

I play guitar like pete townshead i think i burn more than 200 calories and hours lol i jump around and do the windmill not sacrcastic i can really do them fast ive gotten good lol

[ClinTrojan]

I play cowbell like will ferrell....

[phslax]

Wanna try to sound smart again?

The main point of my post was to let you know those numbers are way off. They still are.

[BhindBluEyes430]

hey i just ran 3.5 miles today it took me 42 min and i burned 555 calories im not going to post my weight on hear but at one mile i was around 190 calories at least probably more cause i walked a good amount to

[Apples]

I dont think the "Rock Band drummer" diet and exercise program is ever going to take off.

However, outside of DDR it is one of the top calorie burning video games I can think of and is certainly better than no exercise at all.

[sa_nick]

I dont think the "Rock Band drummer" diet and exercise program is ever going to take off.

However, outside of DDR it is one of the top calorie burning video games I can think of and is certainly better than no exercise at all.

Eye Toy FTW!

[evilzom]

Hahaha. That post is more full of bull**** than anything I've ever read >.<

Playing Rock Band drums will not burn anywhere NEAR that amount of calories. In fact, it will barely burn any.

Running/walking a mile burns 80-100ish calories (I forget the exact number.) If this poster is right, then playing rock band for four hours burns about the same number of calories as running a marathon.

If you were being sarcastic, it was very subtle, so hats off to you :p


wow... someone who doesn't know **** telling someone else they don't know ****...

walking for an hour burns around 400-500 calories

your post is actually one of the stupidest things Ive ever read.


before you tell someone they dont know what they are talking about... how about knowing what youre talking about yourself... you are sitting on the internet... where all information is available and you were too stupid to even do 5 seconds of research before making yourself look like a total moron...

here... Ill do it for you..

http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/calorie_calculator.htm

took 10 seconds to find that link.

p.s. you must play the weakest **** ever on the drums if you dont burn any calories or work up a sweat.

[iloveplywood]

edited to remove stupidly inflammatory comments.

[davidshek]

Well despite everyone's bickering, the bottom line is the same: playing drums, whether real or RB, is at least some limited form of "exercise".

Granted, playing real drums is FAR more of a workout, considering how much more you're moving, how much harder you have to hit them, etc. I barely tap the RB drums cause that's all that you need to make 'em work.

When I'm playing a gig with my band, if I don't have a towel, fan, and bottle of water up there, I'm gonna pass out in under an hour. Especially if it's a big place with alot of stage lights!

So between playing 2-3 gigs a month and practicing drums 2-3 times a week, I haven't set foot in a gym in probably 10 years and I'm in great shape :)

[topaz420]

My calorie guide says "active drumming" burns about 4 calories per minute.

Not bad!

[polishdog90]

Also you don't usually play RB drums as hard as real drums. When I play real drums I play HARD. When I did that during rock band everyone told me to stfu because I was being to loud.

[Paradox]

The main point of my post was to let you know those numbers are way off. They still are.

they still aren't..go look it up numbnuts.

The main point of your post WAS to try to be cool and witty, that didn't work, so now its that "the numbers are way off".

Go check them yourself.

[MuyMacho]

wow... someone who doesn't know **** telling someone else they don't know ****...

walking for an hour burns around 400-500 calories

your post is actually one of the stupidest things Ive ever read.


before you tell someone they dont know what they are talking about... how about knowing what youre talking about yourself... you are sitting on the internet... where all information is available and you were too stupid to even do 5 seconds of research before making yourself look like a total moron...

here... Ill do it for you..

http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/calorie_calculator.htm

took 10 seconds to find that link.

p.s. you must play the weakest **** ever on the drums if you dont burn any calories or work up a sweat.


Wow... Pretty negative. I checked out your link, and the truth is, at my weight, walking for an hour is also around 400 calories, so that would work out to be about 100 calories per mile, which is still around what the guy you're railing on originally said. He might have been a little low for the 'running' part of his statement but it's far closer than the original poster was with that first guess.

[WiredRacing]

Yeah just to reinterate actual reality (so there's more accurate information than misinformation).

The body is burning calories ALL THE TIME.

Anything you do outside of a sedentary "action" (i.e. sitting and.. I dunno.. reading) is going to burn more calories. Eating will burn more calories.

ergo, moving your foot and arms for any duration will burn a certain number of calories OVER what you would burn just breathing (or more to the point, just moving your fingers on a game pad).

The amount of calories you burn grossly relates to time spent doing that activity and not so much the intensity of the activity (or distance in terms of running). For instance.. running 10k and walking 10k will burn two totally different numbers (the walking will burn more)... but running 10 minutes and walking 10 minutes are just about the same.

However what calories are burned (carbs vs fat), endurance and muscle building are variations in why some people do one versus the other.

How many calories YOU will expend running 10 minutes and someone else depends on various things, though mainly it depends on your weight.

Whether or not you're going to loose any weight depends on other factors.

First off a pound = 3500 calories. So to gain or loose a pound (all things equal) you ingest, or burn 3500 calories... IN EXCESSS of your BMR.

BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate is roughly how many calories your body needs/burns in a day. This number is comprised of your age/weight/height and sex (I think that factors in even if all else is equal, though I forget now).. that covers you for being completely sedentary (just breathing).. that number gets more accurate when you consider your body fat percentage, activity level and how much sleep you get, the type of job you have (desk/standing/lifting/walking/etc..), etc.

So for instance..lets say my BMR is 2350calories. So if I ingest just enough calories in a day to maintain.. which would be 2350 calories, then I will neither gain nor loose weight. However, if I decide to have 1 more can of Coke a day, every day, I will effectively gain a pound in 23 days (3500/150cal per can=23.33). If it's a 500ml bottle, probably more like 2 weeks.

However if I CUT OUT a can of coke a day, I'll loose a pound every 23 or so days.

Conversely if I eat my maintenance calories but I walk about 30 minutes each day (which is about 150 calories) I could loose a pound about every 23 days.

In general you only want to loose about 2 pounds a week max. I suspect the guideline for this is any more and you could be starving your body which will put it into starvation mode and it will not burn fat anymore, but it will burn muscle, and you don't want that, especially considering the leaner your are, the more energy you expend.. meaning BMR is higher for someone with 10&#37; body fat than 20%. Which.. interestingly enough.. means you can eat more when you're leaner! Actually it means you, in general, HAVE to eat more. Oh the irony on the overweight masses.

Anyhow, this is why people say just even the smallest of changes (not necessarily the food you eat if you're a 'foodie') can make huge changes to your body shape/composition.

If you're just over 100 calories every day, you'll gain a pound just about every month, but little things like parking further away from a store, taking the stairs, standing up when playing guitar vs sitting down you could cover that excess of food intake or you could be loosing a pound every month...

FYI, about 4 years ago I was 195lbs, within 6 months I lost 40 pounds and exercise I think only helped a small percentage (maybe 10%) of that come off. In fact, because of the way I changed my eating, exercise was actually a little "bad" for me. I had gone to a low carb (not atkins) diet and turns out (as I found out whenI took up running) your body really needs carbs if you're going to exercise.

This is why some diets work for some types of people and other diets do not. But please know this.. starving yourself is one of the worst things you can do. Sure if you need to drop a few pounds in a flash (dangerous, do not try at home) then you can do these stupid crash diets or whatever because what you're doing is shedding water weight (your body is about 50% water), but when you go back to your regular eating habits, you'll gain back that water weight.

Anyhow I'm not a dietitian but bascially.. if you're lazy.. go low carb (you won't be "healthy" but you'll be healthier than you were) eat more frequently (like 5 times a day).

If you're active, or are going to exercise, you need carbs.. the longer your excercise session the more complex carbs you should be eating.

It can be 'difficult' to control your portion sizing in the beginning because chances are you used to eat a lot in a sitting. So when you do eat your carbs, eat complex carbs (grains.. stuff like bread.. next to no sugars.. so get used to diet soda).

Anyhow you should look at trying a meal about every 3 hours (5 meals a day) at roughly an equal amount of calories each which should be your (BMR (2350 in example) - 500) / 5 = 370 cals per meal.

Eating more frequently speeds up your metabolism and more importantly it helps portion control which is probably the biggest issue most people have.. I know when I visit the US (and therefore eat out a lot) I can see why so may are so fat (don't worry.. portion sizes are big here too). Most of us were raised to finish our plates... most plates at most chain restaurants probably have 50-75% of your BMR in them by themselves. Also the more frequently you're eating, hte less likely (after a few weeks at least) you'll feel hungry. This means you won't order or buy larger quantities of food. You'll actually get to a point where you're almost forcing yourself to eat (it can be tough to schedule 5 meals in a day.. but those meals can be anything... pack a dozen granola bars and eat 1 or 2 as a meal.. quick, easy, good carbs, good fats. This is usually what I do if I've got a days worth of errands to run..

Anyhow the sooner you see food as a drug, the differently your approach to it will be.

I used to be able to clean off a plate from a Ruby Tuesdays... now I have a hard time sharing a burger and fries with my wife. And it's no longer a conscience issue to force myselfnot to eat so much.. my body's adapted, and due to portion control my stomach has shrunk.. I just literally can not eat as much food anymore.

But I can run a half marathon. (Though that said, when you are gearing up for any kind of endurance exercise, you have to binge.. but binge on complex carbs... calorie count doesn't have to be ridiculous, you just have to eat a specific kind of energy.

Anyhow the avg person should be looking at 30% of their calories from Fat, 50% from carbs and 20% from protein. If you're active, it's more like 25/60/15.

Oh and then there's sodium....

Oh right.. so yeah.. drumming.. good exercise.. unless you're doing it instead of otherwise running or walking or playing a sport of some sort... trade it instead of TV, or.. even.. sadly.. reading. :)

[Paradox]

Wow... Pretty negative. I checked out your link, and the truth is, at my weight, walking for an hour is also around 400 calories, so that would work out to be about 100 calories per mile, which is still around what the guy you're railing on originally said. He might have been a little low for the 'running' part of his statement but it's far closer than the original poster was with that first guess.

what you're not taking into account is that I did it for "my weight".

No two peoples numbers on that chart will really be the same unless they weigh the same.

And we weren't talking about "miles" we were talking about time. Make an account at fitday.com. It's free and it has a wide range of activities you can input and for how long you did them. Thats where I got my numbers from.

2 hours playing real drums...588 calories. Its not bs and its not "a high estimate" its exactly what the formula put out. 250lb guy playing drums for 2 hours.

Pretty simple, isn't it?

[Hanover]

I think people need to calm down. I can't believe arguments have sprung up about whether Rock Band provides any physical benefit. The short answer is, it does...and how much depends on how hard and how frequent you play and who you are. That answers my original question.

[Paradox]

I think people need to calm down. I can't believe arguments have sprung up about whether Rock Band provides any physical benefit. The short answer is, it does...and how much depends on how hard and how frequent you play and who you are. That answers my original question.


I'm sorry Hanover.

Just keep rocking out and havin a ball. The more you can get some physical activity at the same time as having fun, the better off you will be. At the end of the day, its all about the experience and so for that, we've all gained a lot.

[Lareden]

2 hours of playing real drums(because its the only thing I can compare) burns 588 calories.

Playing for 4(thats how long I usually play rockband with friends) burns 1100 calories.

playing guitar(while sitting) for 2 hours burns 196. Doing it while standing burns 392.

This seems off. For one thing, I have a hard time believing the proportion of calories on guitar vs drums. Even standing up, the energy used on guitar must be far less than playing drums. Playing the guitar can't burn that much more than just standing there, unless you're really getting into it, dancing around an so forth. Also, the drum calories seem like it should be a range since heavier people will get more of a workout on drums than lighter people.

[Paradox]

This seems off. For one thing, I have a hard time believing the proportion of calories on guitar vs drums. Even standing up, the energy used on guitar must be far less than playing drums. Playing the guitar can't burn that much more than just standing there, unless you're really getting into it, dancing around an so forth. Also, the drum calories seem like it should be a range since heavier people will get more of a workout on drums than lighter people.


they were numbers for real instruments...and the "standing up" does include moving, rocking out, so on and so forth. the entry was for "guitar:rock and roll style" instead of just "standing guitar"

and as I said, the numbers were for me personally. I am 247lbs.