Slashdot Mirror

You must be mistaken. That would be against the rules.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. While there have been several accusations, so far only one confirmed case.

Correction: we both stumbled over a wrong web page. One hour running burns 150 kcal, not 550. No idea why my first hit confirmed your number more or less. There is basically no human activity you can do to burn 550 kcal in one hour.

One mile of running burns 150ish kcal. One hour of running burns over 500 kcal
ashttp://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm/ seen http://www.runnersworld.com/fitness-calculators/calories-burned-calculator/ on http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/advice/a29580/workouts-that-burn-more-calories-than-jogging// websites http://running.competitor.com/2015/03/training/many-calories-running-burn_123951/
You're the one mixed up here.

Because a slice of bread is not a sandwich?! If you want to argue about how much calories or kcals a slice of bread has then say so. It is difference if I imagine a real sandwich that was 400 - 600 kcals and you simply talk about a slice of bread that indeed only has 110 - 130. Anyway, probably you are american and a slice of bread is a synonym for a sandwich :D

Now you change to an 1700 kcal diet. What you think is happening? The layman would say: the body burns 200kcal fat, or muscles if he has no fat.
Truth is: the body starts saving! Nothing is happening, for a week or two weeks minimum. In other words the body prefers to adapt to the reduced kcals instead of attacking its reserves.

Drop your diet to 1700 kcal and your body go into saving mode and burn 1800 kcal per day.
see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//

To forth your body to switch you need healthy food, and have to reduce kcal intake by about 1/3 below your burn rate. In other words: it is very difficult to eat less than you burn, because the body adjusts its burn and "waste" rate extremely heavy.

Except there is no peer reviewed scientific paper out there that says that. In every single study the body reduces its burn by less than the caloric reduction. Once again see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//

"i've been a vegetarian for 26 years. i do not take supplements. for many years i biked up to 100 miles a day, including a 3100 mile month. now it could be, i'm a stan lee superhuman, but i doubt it. my personal suspicion is that like other areas in dietary research, there's a lot of self-affirming bullshit floating around."

My personal suspicion is that you're bullshitting. What's your average speed? 15 mph? That's almost 7 hours of biking every day. Doing this for many years is unlikely unless you are "independently wealthy". 25mph? 4 hours, but that would be the Tour de France top level ( http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/07/news/186088_186088 ). Doing that without steroids - let alone supplements - would require a Stan Lee superhuman.

Sure it does. There's plenty of evidence that women are better-suited to long-distance endurance running and other events than men are.

and they're a lot cheaper.

Priced a nice bicycle lately?

No Thanks.