Not that much more food really. Half an hour of pretty hard cardio five or so days a week will result in decent fitness and will burn roughly 300 calories each of those days; more than made up for by one bagel with cream cheese or one Starbucks latte. Even add in some weight training … really not that many more calories burned each day.
I gotta tell ya, I saw plenty of very heavy folks when I did tris - passing me by in the swim.
more like 500 cal per half hour of worthwhile cardio, based on my current experience as a 55-year old triathlete.
overweight/obese = exposure to higher cholesterol, almost regardless of fitness. Just one example.
Exercise burns cals, which is great if you’re maintaining weight. If the goal of exercise is also to lose weight then, of course, diet is as fundamental as the exercise itself. All this is common sense, right?
60s as well.
All you see is those tiny little old ladies who seem to go on forever - great mobility.
Aren’t they calling Obesity a recent epidemic? something about changing dietary habits of our modern world, more processed sugars in everything, supersized meals etc
BOOM! … let’s assume you are right, call it 500 (I had specified pretty hard cardio). Just change it to a large bagel with cream cheese or a Frappacino. Or a medium to large blueberry muffin.
DSeid - Or put another way 500 cal is 20-25% of the average adult male daily calorie burn.
Not sure yours is a helpful way to look at it. It’s like saying a meal is two snickers, or a big mac - sure, but it’s also a nice plate of chicken and brown rice, etc.
The thing is that few people will be eating an extra dinner because they’re hungry, but tons of people will eat fatty/sugary snack that’s about the same number of calories.
Fwiw, I don’t know anyone who would put in that kind of workout and then waste it on chocolate bars.
DSeid’s point was that 30 mins of hard exercise was “Not that much more food really”.
Whatever way you choose to ingest that, it’s 20-25% of the average adult male burn - in just 30 minutes.
Ahahaha. Ahaha. Ahaha.
I’d write something more profound but I’m too busy unwrapping my third candy cane Hershey’s kiss of the morning, post-run.
You’re seriously delusional about the amount of calories exercise burns. There are basically no forms of exercise ordinary people can do that burn 1000 calories an hour. Maybe – maybe – you’d burn that summitting k2.
Running and walking burn 100 calories a mile. 30 minutes of running (about 2.5 miles ) completely destroys me and burns a whopping 250 calories. I’ve been training for 8 months to reach this level.
Somehow I don’t think so.
10.3k (in 60 minutes - and it’s barely running, almost jogging) at age 55 weighing 210 = 1027 cal:
Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas! You’re being kinda rude in this thread.
Age 55, weighing 210 pounds, is not exactly describing the average runner.
I’m trying to figure out where you got your speed from because the calculator you posted does not include speed…
Aha!
[QUOTE=Your link]
There is, therefore, no need to take running speed into consideration when estimating calories burned while running.
[/QUOTE]
There is, however, a need to take running speed into consideration when you’re trying to calculate how many miles a person can reasonably run in 60 minutes. A running speed of 9:30 would be something like a lifetime goal for me, sorry to say. I’m overweight, but not obese, and my opening pace when I first started running was something like 16:00/mile. I once miraculously ran a 10:30 mile, and that was at a significantly lower weight with months of training. If we’re talking about the average obese person, I promise it would take significantly longer to run that 10.3k than 60 minutes.
Oh, commenting on this thread more generally. I’ve heard a lot of claims that the ‘‘fit and fat’’ science has been discredited, but nobody has yet produced the evidence that supposedly trumps it. This study is a good example of misinterpretation of the data. The problem is that there are very few studies that look at participant behavior. We can’t assume in this study that those obese people who were shown to lack adverse health indicators were living healthy lifestyles. What we need is a longitudinal study that directly compares obese/overweight persons with healthy behaviors to people of normal weight who engage in those same behaviors. If such a study exists, I haven’t seen it.
10k in 60 minutes, while being a 49 year old 135lb female, 635 calories. Of course I couldn’t run that. I’m not sure I could run 10k at any pace, but my 5k pace is 12:20 on a good day.
And a very happy solstice to you.
That person might be building muscle mass, but metabolism also slows with age. Even people of a healthy weight naturally put on weight as they get older. Plus, the more active you are, the more you are likely going to eat. It’s not hard to overeat, even healthy food, if you are very physically active. I’m assuming the person maintaining obesity for decades is not attempting calorie restriction or anything like that.
What I do find unlikely is a person - any person, regardless of weight - successfully changing unhealthy behavior and maintaining a healthy lifestyle for decades. It’s possible but I would imagine very rare. So we essentially end up with the same problem, regardless of whether fatness is the real culprit - how do we (as individuals or a society) create an environment that will sustain these changes over the long term? Behavioral scientists still haven’t figured it out, as far as I know.
BOOM!,
Heffalump and Roo wonders how someone who exercises regularly could possibly eat enough to remain obese. The only point is that even with a large person exercising intensely burns no more than can be easily made up with a modest daily snack, even just with a the reward/recovery smoothie. Here, http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/exercise/art-20050999?pg=2 is an hourly rate per activity and weight. Get a 220 pounder running and yes 450 calories plus in a half hour at rates over than 5 mph is not outrageous. Most exercises, more common weights is more like the 300. No matter. It really isn’t too hard to make it up and many would without thinking if, well, they aren’t consciously thinking about it. And even with exercise once someone has been obese for a while the body (really the brain centers in charge) work to maintain the weight. Exercise helps alter those set points some but maintaining weight loss is still a major ongoing conscious effort even with exercise.
Improved and/or maintained fitness does not automatically mean fat loss and conversely, lack of fat loss does not mean there is no fitness. And of course fat loss does not mean gained fitness either. To my read the current evidence shows that both are important and that if one had to be chosen as more important it would be level of fitness over fatness. Again, having poor levels of both is a bad combination.
For a minute there I thought you were starting to get really bold about presenting your (generally very well-informed) opinions. I thought gee, if anyone deserves to be cocky on this subject, it’s DSeid.
Then I remembered this is a person’s username.
Oh BOOM!
“500 cal is 20-25% of the average adult male daily calorie burn.” - but not necessarily of the typical obese adult male daily calorie burn/intake.
The edge of the “obesity epidemic” is indeed hitting the elderly. See figure 4 for trends over time. Obesity in women over 75 has increased from 23.6% in 1999 to 2002, to 28.7% in 2007 to 2010. Same age group and time periods for males from 17.7% to 26.5%.
Fitness and strength protects from disabilty btw. I suspect that many of the elderly obese are disabled but the question is if such is because of their obesity per se, or the likely comorbid lack of baseline fitness.