a question about calories.

Hi,

So I calculated my basal metabolic rate, and it said that in a day I
burn 2080 calories per day at rest... So I assume that means that if
I divide that number by 24 I'll get how many calories I burn per hour
by doing nothing, which comes to 2080/24=86.

So, If I see that doing x activity burns 700 calories per hour and i
do it for an hour, I would have to do 700-86= 614 + 2080 to get what i
actually burned that day...

is this right?

Thanks.

drummer wrote:

Hi,

So I calculated my basal metabolic rate, and it said that in a day I
burn 2080 calories per day at rest... So I assume that means that if
I divide that number by 24 I'll get how many calories I burn per hour
by doing nothing, which comes to 2080/24=86.

So, If I see that doing x activity burns 700 calories per hour and i
do it for an hour, I would have to do 700-86= 614 + 2080 to get what i
actually burned that day...

is this right?

Thanks.

Almost. First off, things that say you burn 700 calories an hour are
invariably lying. Second off, things that say your BMR is 2080 are
invariably wrong. So you've got two unknowns in your two element
equation. But other then that, yes.

Dally

I don't know, what if you also burn that 86 calories on top of the 700?
Then you have 786, add that to 2080 and you get 2866. When it all comes
down to it, if you burn more cals than you eat then supposedly you lose
weight.

Good luck on the weight loss,

Paul
300/225/175

"drummer" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

So I calculated my basal metabolic rate, and it said that in a day I
burn 2080 calories per day at rest... So I assume that means that if
I divide that number by 24 I'll get how many calories I burn per hour
by doing nothing, which comes to 2080/24=86.

So, If I see that doing x activity burns 700 calories per hour and i
do it for an hour, I would have to do 700-86= 614 + 2080 to get what i
actually burned that day...

is this right?

Thanks.

Hi--
I only post rarely, but I have to disagree with this.

At 177 lbs, burning a calorie per kilogram per kilometer, I burn 130
calories per mile. I can currently run 5.5 - 6 miles in an hour. This
works out to about 712 - 780 calories.

You can take issue with the formula, I suppose, but I absorbed it from
rec.running several years ago and it was well accepted there. Doesn't prove
anything, but it's good enough for me. It accounts for the differing amount
of work it takes to move different-weight bodies over a given distance.
Only a 135ish pound person is going to burn 100 calories a mile.

I suppose you could also point out that one will only reach that calorie
level by continuing to go that long, but rest asssured I do. Anywhere from
4-8 miles at a time, 3-4 days a week.

So 700 calories an hour takes work, but I believe I achieve it routinely.

--Kim
228/177/140


"Dally" wrote in message
...

Almost. First off, things that say you burn 700 calories an hour are
invariably lying. Second off, things that say your BMR is 2080 are
invariably wrong. So you've got two unknowns in your two element
equation. But other then that, yes.

Dally

kim in cville va wrote:

"Dally" wrote in message

Almost. First off, things that say you burn 700 calories an hour are
invariably lying.

I only post rarely, but I have to disagree with this.

At 177 lbs, burning a calorie per kilogram per kilometer, I burn 130
calories per mile. I can currently run 5.5 - 6 miles in an hour.
This works out to about 712 - 780 calories.

Okay, I believe you. Most dieters here are not running 6 miles in an
hour. They're doing something else that SAYS they burned those calories
on the machine's read-out but they aren't at the right heart level or
they aren't using their arms or the machine was just over-estimating for
marketing reasons.

I've really grown to disbelieve the whole "fat burning zone" idea of
long-slow cardio as being substantially different to your body then
doing laundry or mowing the lawn. But I have no doubt that running at a
6 mph pace for an hour burns a bunch more calories.

Dally

I would even say doable for a *somewhat* fit person. I am still overweight
and still finish in the back half of races. But a 700 cal/hr workout does
not scare me or render me useless for the rest of the day. It *does* feel
like a sound and productive effort.
--Kim
228/177/140

"Ignoramus6526" wrote in message
...

700 calories per hour is doable, yes. Tiring, but doable for a very
fit person. Now, 1000 calories per hour is in the realm of Navy SEALs
working almost their hardest. A very elite level of calorie burning.

i

Dally,
I imagine it can only be a function of degree, and relative to the fitness
of the person in question. Mowing the lawn isn't going to do it for me, but
it might have when I was 228 lbs. (assuming it wasn't a rider). The
intensity just has to be adjusted appropriately as fitness improves.
LSD(istance) for me personally still implies a running effort sufficient to
elevate my heart rate and labor my breathing. Walking isn't LSD. (But
still burns calories, and I still enjoy lots of walks).
Then again, the whole "fat burning zone" thing, true or not, isn't my
motivation. My body will work out what to keep and what to flush. I run
because I enjoy it and it has helped improve my overall health and fitness.
BP about 115/70, down from about 140/100, and RHR about 55 down from 88. I
do a little bit of upper body weight work, but a few good hills seem to be
all I need for my legs. This balance of cardio to strength training doesn't
seem to hurt my metabolism--I maintain on about 2800-3000 calories a day and
lose on 2000+.
And the endorphins rock.
--Kim
228/177/140


"Dally" wrote in message
...
I've really grown to disbelieve the whole "fat burning zone" idea of
long-slow cardio as being substantially different to your body then
doing laundry or mowing the lawn. But I have no doubt that running at a
6 mph pace for an hour burns a bunch more calories.

Dally

Dally,
BTW, congratulations on your first race. It's a great bug to catch.
--Kim
228/177/140

"kim in cville va" wrote in message
...
Dally,
I imagine it can only be a function of degree, and relative to the fitness
of the person in question. Mowing the lawn isn't going to do it for me,
but
it might have when I was 228 lbs. (assuming it wasn't a rider). The
intensity just has to be adjusted appropriately as fitness improves.
LSD(istance) for me personally still implies a running effort sufficient
to
elevate my heart rate and labor my breathing. Walking isn't LSD. (But
still burns calories, and I still enjoy lots of walks).
Then again, the whole "fat burning zone" thing, true or not, isn't my
motivation. My body will work out what to keep and what to flush. I run
because I enjoy it and it has helped improve my overall health and
fitness.
BP about 115/70, down from about 140/100, and RHR about 55 down from 88.
I
do a little bit of upper body weight work, but a few good hills seem to be
all I need for my legs. This balance of cardio to strength training
doesn't
seem to hurt my metabolism--I maintain on about 2800-3000 calories a day
and
lose on 2000+.
And the endorphins rock.
--Kim
228/177/140


"Dally" wrote in message
...
I've really grown to disbelieve the whole "fat burning zone" idea of
long-slow cardio as being substantially different to your body then
doing laundry or mowing the lawn. But I have no doubt that running at a
6 mph pace for an hour burns a bunch more calories.

Dally

kim in cville va wrote:
Dally,
BTW, congratulations on your first race. It's a great bug to catch.
--Kim
228/177/140

thanks for the kind words. Us athletic chicks are starting to be the
norm rather than the exception. :-)

Dally
244/184/170

"Ignoramus6526" wrote in message
...
Mowing a lawn is a great workout if you stick to a good enough speed.

i
Hmmm - I don't remember getting a better workout when I ran the riding
mower fasterG

Beverly (who doesn't mow lawns anymore)






In article , kim in cville va wrote:
Dally,
I imagine it can only be a function of degree, and relative to the
fitness
of the person in question. Mowing the lawn isn't going to do it for
me, but
it might have when I was 228 lbs. (assuming it wasn't a rider). The
intensity just has to be adjusted appropriately as fitness improves.
LSD(istance) for me personally still implies a running effort
sufficient to
elevate my heart rate and labor my breathing. Walking isn't LSD. (But
still burns calories, and I still enjoy lots of walks).
Then again, the whole "fat burning zone" thing, true or not, isn't my
motivation. My body will work out what to keep and what to flush. I
run
because I enjoy it and it has helped improve my overall health and
fitness.
BP about 115/70, down from about 140/100, and RHR about 55 down from
88. I
do a little bit of upper body weight work, but a few good hills seem to
be
all I need for my legs. This balance of cardio to strength training
doesn't
seem to hurt my metabolism--I maintain on about 2800-3000 calories a
day and
lose on 2000+.
And the endorphins rock.
228/177/140


"Dally" wrote in message
...
I've really grown to disbelieve the whole "fat burning zone" idea of
long-slow cardio as being substantially different to your body then
doing laundry or mowing the lawn. But I have no doubt that running at
a
6 mph pace for an hour burns a bunch more calories.

Dally