Slashdot Mirror

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//

Actually, no. The cause is not enough exercise/work. You can eat as many calories as you want as long as you expend enough energy to compensate, anything less makes you fat.

See how easy it is too justify the exact opposite. I can actually say that my version is more accurate to real life because you eventually reach a point where you are spending so much time expending energy that you cannot consume more calories and the system can reach equilibrium. You cannot go the other direction and expend so little energy that you can eat nothing. Besides, sitting on your ass all day and eating almost nothing will have its own consequences (poor circulation, bed sores, atrophied muscles, etc) whereas leading an active lifestyle generally prevents those problems.

While your rhetoric is impeccable, the reality is that it is difficult to burn enough calories through exercise. (The may have been your point, but it is hard to tell.) If you want to lose weight, you have to eat less than you burn (which is the point the GP was trying to make in an abbreviated fashion.) I have been training in tae-kwon-do for about 30 years now, and the caloric burn for my weight is about 800/hour, which is pretty high up on this list. In spite of this, I found it far more effective for weight loss to simply reduce snacks and meals,, swap carbs for protein and fat, and reduce sugar than to try to add more workouts. You get a lot more weight loss for your time and willpower. I mean think about it - a couple of doughnuts, vs an hour's workout plus travel time? If you have a life outside of the gym, it's a no brainer.

Exercise as the main feature of staying fit is also a cop-out even if you DO go to a gym. One can of mountain dew has 700 Calories. Assuming you're jogging at 5 mph, that one can is going to take you an hour of jogging to burn off.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It would be a hell of a lot easier to just not drink the soda. You'll stop even craving it before too long, it's the caffeine that is addictive, not the soda or sugar. And the caffeine addiction gives you a headache if you go off of it, not heroin withdrawal induced seizures. If you can't take the time to go all biggest loser and spend 10 hours a day on a treadmill, you've got to change your diet. Eat the junk food if you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking you'll make up for it in your office chair.

Hold on now, the city bus and asparagus (or food) both need fuel to get to their destination. The difference is the bus directly utilizes the fuel to move people around while the asparagus needs fuel for the farm equipment (till, plant,harvest) and for its transport to market via refrigerated truck (also electric needed to keep it fresh at the market via refrigeration). How much fuel is used to harvest each kilogram of asparagus to fuel the cyclist vs. fuel needed to move a bus the same distance? The fuel for both the bus and farm equipment/trucking is diesel and has the same carbon foot print. If they could calculate how much fuel was needed to harvest a kg of asparagus and how far that kg could "fuel" the cyclist, then you have a better comparison. Plus a bus does not move one person but possibly hundreds during its route.

For fun I just looked up some numbers. Asparagus contains 27 calories per 134 grams (http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-asparagus-i11011). Cycling calories burnt varies greatly but I found some numbers here(http://www.nutristrategy.com/fitness/cycling.htm) and then average both the light and moderate numbers and got 530 calories burnt per hour of riding (sounds a bit low). 1 hour of riding would consume about 2.6kg of asparagus at an average speed of 19.3 km/hr. If your place of work was 20 km away you would burn the full 530 calories and thus consume 2.6kg of asparagus. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to find any numbers directly pertaining to the fuel consumption of both harvesting, delivery and maintaining freshness. How much fuel does a bus consume? About 3.5 mpg for an average city bus and around 4.5 for a hybrid bus (MTA NY statistics: http://alttransport.com/2011/05/hybrid-buses-save-money-and-fuel-while-improving-the-transit-experience/. So we are looking at around 10 liters of fuel to move the hybrid bus the same distance. But the bus moves upward of 40+ people depending on the route. how do we factor in the number of people who rode the bus and for how far? Its gets convoluted and I have to get back to work.

by the time you factor in the fuel to grow, harvest and transport the food you might approach the fuel consumption of a bus moving a number of people. But then again, the people are eating daily to live. Its a tough comparison.

Walking is a terrible form of exercise, because it's too easy. Unless you're doing olympic speed walking, in which case you might as well go jogging, you aren't getting your heart/respiration rate up high enough to really qualify as exercise. Sure if you're 200 lbs overweight, it can have some advantages, but for most people it's just not strenuous enough to qualify as exercise. A quick Google brought me to this chart. Walking at a moderate pace only burns about 60 calories more per hour than darts, billiards, or "sitting playing with animals". Some surprising things that burn more calories than walking are Tai-Chi, Hacky Sack, Stretching, and general house work. Cycling is actually quite good at burning calories, and it's the kind of activity that you can do for hours on end, as opposed to something like running an 8 minute mile (which in terms of calories burned equates to biking at 16-19 mph (25-30 km/h))

I'd be surprised if it was more than 500kcal total.

People often underestimate the effects of just one hour of exercise - an hour of running, for many people, will exceed 1000 calories. If you do that every day it makes a huge difference.

I'd be surprised if it was more than 500kcal total.

People often underestimate the effects of just one hour of exercise - an hour of running, for many people, will exceed 1000 calories. If you do that every day it makes a huge difference.

Running for an hour could burn only 200 or so.

This is the second post I've seen in this conversation that makes this claim. It is false. Running at a 5mph pace if you weight 170 pounds and run a 5mph pace (hardly qualifies as "running" at all) for an hour, you burn nearly 700 calories. That is 1/3 of what the recommended daily intake is per day! 700 calories, 700 calories, 700 calories, holy crap 700 calories. PS This is why I supplemented my weight-training regime (squats, deadlifts, bench, overhead press, rows, etc.) with training for a half marathon. I now have a "number" to aim for every running day (four times per week): X miles. I have motivation to do so, and it makes things easier. Incidentally, in two months running, my blood pressure dropped from 145/90ish to 115/75 with no change in anything other than the fact that I'm running more. I eat the same, lift the same, sleep the same.

I can provide sources for the running calories assertion:

http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/calculators/caloriecounter.asp
http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm

well, start with a human burning 704 kcal/hour going 15 mph on a bike, about 47 kcal/mile. petrol has 31,548 kcal/gallon, meaning that on the equivalent energy from one gallon of petrol our biker goes about 671 miles. i'm not sure what small engine you think you're going to be able to mount on a bike and have it to better than that.

there's plenty of good reasons to drive a car, too (like being able to carry two mates and our respective bike gear out to the mountain). but you seem to be claiming that having people switch to bikes for much of our driving, where practical, wouldn't have an appreciable effect. that's just stupid.

Well:

From this graph, the price of corn in 2004 peaked at approximately $3.35/bushel. The latest price of corn on there was approximately $4.30/bushel.

From this site, the approximate weight of one bushel of corn is 56 lbs. According to Google that's 25'401 grams.

If you cut all of the kernels off of the cob, boil them, and eat them without salt or any other seasonings, according to this chart, it will contain 66 calories per 82 grams.

This means one bushel contains approximately 20'445 calories.

According to this list, a 190 lb person running at 10mph (6 minute mile) will burn 1380 calories.

So, you'll get 14.8 miles worth of calories out of one bushel of corn.

So, in 2004 you'd be paying $0.226 per mile. Today you'd be paying $0.291 per mile. That's an increase of about 22.3%.

An increase from $75 (GURPS 4e, 2004) to $105 (D&D 4e, 2008) is 28.6%.

So given the questionable sources, estimations, etc I've used, I'd say that those numbers are close enough to conclude that the cost of the books has approximately followed the market.

ND

Ok, you are a typical idiot, but I will even elaborate with a story. I had a girlfriend in high school. We dated for a little over three years. Being young and nieve, I always wanted to be with her. Before I go further, she was heavy... ~5' 6", 200lbs. I was 5' 7", 130lbs. After school, she would WALK from her house to pick me up, we would WALK back to her house, she would WALK me home, then WALK home herself. Now this is the part where you have to pay attention. I am not exaggerating in the slightest... in my parents car, one way to her house was 6.2 miles. We walked on the very sidewalks along said roads. That is almost 25 miles of walking... in ONE DAY. And we did this practically EVERY DAY (I liked the sex, she was needy). And here is the best part... she never ate lunch at school. She usually had dinner at my house.

Exercise and diet always cut it, unless your girlfriend was a perpetual motion machine. According to this chart, walking at 3.0 mph for a 190-pound person burns 300 calories per hour. Four 6.2 mile trips at 3.0 mph is 8.3 hours of walking, or 2,500 calories. She might have been an unusually efficient walker, but there are limits, and she did other things in the day. If what you said was true (and I doubt it...eight hours of walking? really?), she ate more than 2,000 calories a day. You may not have seen her do it, but she somehow managed to cram in a lot of eating in the time between school, sex, eight hours of walking, homework, and sleeping.

An AC said further:

It's quite plausible that there are people whose body needs 20 hours a day of constant sprinting and one stick of celery a week to maintain a healthy weight.

No. In fact, it's not merely implausible, but actually impossible. Your belief system is thermodynamically unsound.

here is a list of things to do to burn your fat.

Spanking the monkey is not among them. Without trolling, I really wonder what the amount of calories is for that task. When I was a teen, I always told myself that it was a good way of losing weight : my body surely needed a lot of calories to generate new stuff so fast...