The numbers for rapid weight loss

"Ignoramus5468" wrote in message
...
On 9 Nov 2004 08:38:56 -0800, TenKBabe wrote:
Think of the 200 lbs man (I entered 5'11" for weight) who is doing the
walking.

Would you think that such a man would not be able to walk 6 hours per
day?

My guess is that a 200-lb person who is not already doing regular
walking/running, would be pretty sore after a 6-hr steady state 3 mph walk.
And yes, very possibly injured after doing this every day for a week. If you
are walking for 6 hours, a blister is a pretty major injury! (If you doubt
me on that, go read lanceandrew's "2.5 miles in bloody socks" NYC marathon
race report.) It's not reasonably to expect to go from 0 to 126 mpw without
hurting yourself.

Furthermore, I think your numbers are a bit off as far as total calories
burned per day by a 200 lb person walking 6 hours @ 3mph and doing regular
activities the rest of the time. I think a "basal" rate of 2700 cal/day is
on the high side for a 200 lb person (at 175, fitday says I burn about
2150/day without exercise). Second, when you add in 6 hrs of exercise
calorie burn, you need to essentially subtract 6 hrs of basal-level
activity.

Using www.caloriesperhour.com, I came up with a figure of 3,788 calories/day
for a 200 lb, 5'11' male who spends a day doing: 6 hrs walking, 8 hrs office
work, 8 hrs sleeping, 30 minutes eating, 30 minutes engaged in "personal
care/grooming" and 1 hr engaged in quiet sitting (watching tv, reading,
etc.). So consuming 1,500 cal/day and burning 3,788 would create a deficit
of about 2,300 calories, or 4.6 lbs/wk.

I would agree with you if we talked about very heavy people, but the
man in my example is merely somewhat overweight.

I personally do not know the chances of injury for this sort of
person, but, I would suppose, they are not overwhelming. Also, perhaps
someone could build up the walking distance slowly. My calculation did
not assume that it was the first week of weight loss.

If a person built up to it slowly, sure--a person can walk for 6 hrs a day
without getting injured, so long as they have absolutely the right shoes,
are scrupulous about footcare, pray correctly to the blister gods, etc. But
the OP was talking about the situation in reality shows, etc., where they
show people who are just starting on their diet/exercise journeys, usually
significantly overweight and totally sedentary.

Just as a point of reference, in the world of hiking, 8 mi/day is considered
pretty easy, 10-12 mi/day is moderate, and 15+ mi/day is considered a pretty
long tough haul. That's for daytrips, with a daypack, but it also is
considering that most hikers/backpackers are reasonably fit and active.
Appalacian trail through-hikers usually start off at 5-10 mi/day at the
beginning (with a loaded pack, obviously), and may make it up to 15 mi/day
after a couple months of daily backpacking. Backpackers who hike faster than
that are pretty hardcore. Even so, a survey of successful AT through-hikers
indicated that 82% of them had medical problems on the trail, with
musculo-skeletal injuries being the most common one (affecting 62% of all
hikers).

Finally, you did not address the question of appetite, but my guess is that
a person burning huge amounts of calories through exercise and consuming
only 1,500--running the sort of calorie deficit, IOW, necessary to create
5-10 lbs of FAT loss in a week--would be painfully, ravenously,
crazy-makingly hungry. I don't think it'd be possible for most people to
have normal mental function on a sustained 3,000 calorie deficit.

"DrLith" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus5468" wrote in message
...
On 9 Nov 2004 08:38:56 -0800, TenKBabe wrote:
Think of the 200 lbs man (I entered 5'11" for weight) who is doing the
walking.

Would you think that such a man would not be able to walk 6 hours per
day?

My guess is that a 200-lb person who is not already doing regular
walking/running, would be pretty sore after a 6-hr steady state 3 mph
walk.
And yes, very possibly injured after doing this every day for a week. If
you
are walking for 6 hours, a blister is a pretty major injury! (If you doubt
me on that, go read lanceandrew's "2.5 miles in bloody socks" NYC marathon
race report.) It's not reasonably to expect to go from 0 to 126 mpw
without
hurting yourself.

Furthermore, I think your numbers are a bit off as far as total calories
burned per day by a 200 lb person walking 6 hours @ 3mph and doing regular
activities the rest of the time. I think a "basal" rate of 2700 cal/day is
on the high side for a 200 lb person (at 175, fitday says I burn about
2150/day without exercise). Second, when you add in 6 hrs of exercise
calorie burn, you need to essentially subtract 6 hrs of basal-level
activity.

Using www.caloriesperhour.com, I came up with a figure of 3,788
calories/day
for a 200 lb, 5'11' male who spends a day doing: 6 hrs walking, 8 hrs
office
work, 8 hrs sleeping, 30 minutes eating, 30 minutes engaged in "personal
care/grooming" and 1 hr engaged in quiet sitting (watching tv, reading,
etc.). So consuming 1,500 cal/day and burning 3,788 would create a deficit
of about 2,300 calories, or 4.6 lbs/wk.

I would agree with you if we talked about very heavy people, but the
man in my example is merely somewhat overweight.

I personally do not know the chances of injury for this sort of
person, but, I would suppose, they are not overwhelming. Also, perhaps
someone could build up the walking distance slowly. My calculation did
not assume that it was the first week of weight loss.

If a person built up to it slowly, sure--a person can walk for 6 hrs a day
without getting injured, so long as they have absolutely the right shoes,
are scrupulous about footcare, pray correctly to the blister gods, etc.
But
the OP was talking about the situation in reality shows, etc., where they
show people who are just starting on their diet/exercise journeys, usually
significantly overweight and totally sedentary.

Just as a point of reference, in the world of hiking, 8 mi/day is
considered
pretty easy, 10-12 mi/day is moderate, and 15+ mi/day is considered a
pretty
long tough haul. That's for daytrips, with a daypack, but it also is
considering that most hikers/backpackers are reasonably fit and active.
Appalacian trail through-hikers usually start off at 5-10 mi/day at the
beginning (with a loaded pack, obviously), and may make it up to 15 mi/day
after a couple months of daily backpacking. Backpackers who hike faster
than
that are pretty hardcore. Even so, a survey of successful AT
through-hikers
indicated that 82% of them had medical problems on the trail, with
musculo-skeletal injuries being the most common one (affecting 62% of all
hikers).

Finally, you did not address the question of appetite, but my guess is
that
a person burning huge amounts of calories through exercise and consuming
only 1,500--running the sort of calorie deficit, IOW, necessary to create
5-10 lbs of FAT loss in a week--would be painfully, ravenously,
crazy-makingly hungry. I don't think it'd be possible for most people to
have normal mental function on a sustained 3,000 calorie deficit.


Excellent points!

Also, it's not just out of shape folks who would have trouble walking that
far!

My primary exercise is bicycling, and I am very fit - I average 3-4,000
miles per year, and regularly do long rides in the mountains where I live.
Last summer, I went to France with my bike to see the Tour de France and
ride some of the famous mountain passes, including the Col d' Glandon, and
the legendary Alpe d'Huez, both in the same day - pictures he
http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliS...DF2004_007.htm
or he http://tinyurl.com/3qfnn .

But, on the final weekend in Paris, I spent 3-4 hours walking each day, and
found myself quite sore the next morning!! Also, my feet hurt (though,
thankfully, no blisters). Apparently, walking uses some different muscles
than cycling, so even though someone is very fit in one sport/activity does
not mean they'll be able to walk for 6 hours, without a substantial buildup
(weeks, at least).

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

"DrLith" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus5468" wrote in message
...
On 9 Nov 2004 08:38:56 -0800, TenKBabe wrote:
Think of the 200 lbs man (I entered 5'11" for weight) who is doing the
walking.

Would you think that such a man would not be able to walk 6 hours per
day?

My guess is that a 200-lb person who is not already doing regular
walking/running, would be pretty sore after a 6-hr steady state 3 mph
walk.
And yes, very possibly injured after doing this every day for a week. If
you
are walking for 6 hours, a blister is a pretty major injury! (If you doubt
me on that, go read lanceandrew's "2.5 miles in bloody socks" NYC marathon
race report.) It's not reasonably to expect to go from 0 to 126 mpw
without
hurting yourself.

Furthermore, I think your numbers are a bit off as far as total calories
burned per day by a 200 lb person walking 6 hours @ 3mph and doing regular
activities the rest of the time. I think a "basal" rate of 2700 cal/day is
on the high side for a 200 lb person (at 175, fitday says I burn about
2150/day without exercise). Second, when you add in 6 hrs of exercise
calorie burn, you need to essentially subtract 6 hrs of basal-level
activity.

Using www.caloriesperhour.com, I came up with a figure of 3,788
calories/day
for a 200 lb, 5'11' male who spends a day doing: 6 hrs walking, 8 hrs
office
work, 8 hrs sleeping, 30 minutes eating, 30 minutes engaged in "personal
care/grooming" and 1 hr engaged in quiet sitting (watching tv, reading,
etc.). So consuming 1,500 cal/day and burning 3,788 would create a deficit
of about 2,300 calories, or 4.6 lbs/wk.

I would agree with you if we talked about very heavy people, but the
man in my example is merely somewhat overweight.

I personally do not know the chances of injury for this sort of
person, but, I would suppose, they are not overwhelming. Also, perhaps
someone could build up the walking distance slowly. My calculation did
not assume that it was the first week of weight loss.

If a person built up to it slowly, sure--a person can walk for 6 hrs a day
without getting injured, so long as they have absolutely the right shoes,
are scrupulous about footcare, pray correctly to the blister gods, etc.
But
the OP was talking about the situation in reality shows, etc., where they
show people who are just starting on their diet/exercise journeys, usually
significantly overweight and totally sedentary.

Just as a point of reference, in the world of hiking, 8 mi/day is
considered
pretty easy, 10-12 mi/day is moderate, and 15+ mi/day is considered a
pretty
long tough haul. That's for daytrips, with a daypack, but it also is
considering that most hikers/backpackers are reasonably fit and active.
Appalacian trail through-hikers usually start off at 5-10 mi/day at the
beginning (with a loaded pack, obviously), and may make it up to 15 mi/day
after a couple months of daily backpacking. Backpackers who hike faster
than
that are pretty hardcore. Even so, a survey of successful AT
through-hikers
indicated that 82% of them had medical problems on the trail, with
musculo-skeletal injuries being the most common one (affecting 62% of all
hikers).

Finally, you did not address the question of appetite, but my guess is
that
a person burning huge amounts of calories through exercise and consuming
only 1,500--running the sort of calorie deficit, IOW, necessary to create
5-10 lbs of FAT loss in a week--would be painfully, ravenously,
crazy-makingly hungry. I don't think it'd be possible for most people to
have normal mental function on a sustained 3,000 calorie deficit.


Excellent points!

Also, it's not just out of shape folks who would have trouble walking that
far!

My primary exercise is bicycling, and I am very fit - I average 3-4,000
miles per year, and regularly do long rides in the mountains where I live.
Last summer, I went to France with my bike to see the Tour de France and
ride some of the famous mountain passes, including the Col d' Glandon, and
the legendary Alpe d'Huez, both in the same day - pictures he
http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliS...DF2004_007.htm
or he http://tinyurl.com/3qfnn .

But, on the final weekend in Paris, I spent 3-4 hours walking each day, and
found myself quite sore the next morning!! Also, my feet hurt (though,
thankfully, no blisters). Apparently, walking uses some different muscles
than cycling, so even though someone is very fit in one sport/activity does
not mean they'll be able to walk for 6 hours, without a substantial buildup
(weeks, at least).

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

When I was young, my friends and I used to walk everywhere. I always liked
walking. Now-days, I still go for the occasional two hour stroll and don't
end up with blisters or anything.

I think that walking two to three hours a day is not unreasonable at all for
a middle aged fat guy like me to walk, possibly more, given the time,
reasonable health, and the fact that you have to work up to it. If I were in
my twenties and had all afternoon to walk, I don't think five or six hours
would be a problem.

Daven Thrice wrote:
When I was young, my friends and I used to walk everywhere. I always
liked
walking. Now-days, I still go for the occasional two hour stroll and
don't
end up with blisters or anything.

I think that walking two to three hours a day is not unreasonable at
all for
a middle aged fat guy like me to walk, possibly more, given the time,

reasonable health, and the fact that you have to work up to it. If I
were in
my twenties and had all afternoon to walk, I don't think five or six
hours
would be a problem.

Sure, 2 or 3 times a week. But not every day as Ig suggests in his
example. No time for recovery.

tkb

Daven Thrice wrote:
When I was young, my friends and I used to walk everywhere. I always
liked
walking. Now-days, I still go for the occasional two hour stroll and
don't
end up with blisters or anything.

I think that walking two to three hours a day is not unreasonable at
all for
a middle aged fat guy like me to walk, possibly more, given the time,

reasonable health, and the fact that you have to work up to it. If I
were in
my twenties and had all afternoon to walk, I don't think five or six
hours
would be a problem.

Sure, 2 or 3 times a week. But not every day as Ig suggests in his
example. No time for recovery.

tkb

"Ignoramus5468" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:28:49 -0800, Daven Thrice
wrote:
When I was young, my friends and I used to walk everywhere. I always
liked
walking. Now-days, I still go for the occasional two hour stroll and
don't
end up with blisters or anything.

To me, blisters are mostly a question of how well shoes fit.

If you walk 6 hours, you have a good chance of getting blisters, regardless
of how well your shoes fit. I've backpacked for 2 weeks at a time. Did I get
blisters? Most certainly.

Martha

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:39:26 GMT, "MH"
wrote:


If you walk 6 hours, you have a good chance of getting blisters, regardless
of how well your shoes fit. I've backpacked for 2 weeks at a time. Did I get
blisters? Most certainly.

Martha

I would usually wear walking boots to hike all day, rather than shoes
- I have 2 pairs, one lightweight fabric and one leather depending on
the weather and, mostly, the terrain. Have you tried those socks that
are made in 2 separate layers, so that they move over each other
rather than against your skin? I love them. They say they more or
less guarantee to prevent blisters, and I very seldom get one even on
a week of hiking every day.

janice

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:39:26 GMT, "MH"
wrote:


If you walk 6 hours, you have a good chance of getting blisters, regardless
of how well your shoes fit. I've backpacked for 2 weeks at a time. Did I get
blisters? Most certainly.

Martha

I would usually wear walking boots to hike all day, rather than shoes
- I have 2 pairs, one lightweight fabric and one leather depending on
the weather and, mostly, the terrain. Have you tried those socks that
are made in 2 separate layers, so that they move over each other
rather than against your skin? I love them. They say they more or
less guarantee to prevent blisters, and I very seldom get one even on
a week of hiking every day.

janice

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:56:03 +0000, (janice) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:39:26 GMT, "MH"
wrote:


If you walk 6 hours, you have a good chance of getting blisters, regardless
of how well your shoes fit. I've backpacked for 2 weeks at a time. Did I get
blisters? Most certainly.

Martha

I would usually wear walking boots to hike all day, rather than shoes
- I have 2 pairs, one lightweight fabric and one leather depending on
the weather and, mostly, the terrain. Have you tried those socks that
are made in 2 separate layers, so that they move over each other
rather than against your skin? I love them. They say they more or
less guarantee to prevent blisters, and I very seldom get one even on
a week of hiking every day.

janice

The only time I ever got blisters from walking was the one time I wore
socks like that :-). I don't know why this was, but I haven't worn
them again.

Chris