Question about caloric consumption vis. running



<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (x-posted to rec.running)
>
> My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
> expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
> (actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
> Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
> minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
> calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.
>
> Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
> calories burned, but it didn't ask me for my weight in arriving at this
> calculation.
>
> Opinions please.

Using the standard METS tables, and assuming you're of average height and
around 45 years old, my program indicates that you would have burned 810
calories. Even this is probably a bit high, because it assumes "real"
running - I think treadmill running burns somewhat less calories than
outdoor running, so 750 might be a better estimate.

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Computer-Assisted Weight Management
 
You're reading the wrong numbers. Try plugging the NNTP host IP's from
each post into something like http://www.coolwhois.com.

Unless Josh and Bob are the same person using different ISPs, it's
pretty unlikely they're the same person....

Marengo wrote:
> Bob Garrison wrote:
> || "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> || news:[email protected]...
> ||| You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
> || Actually, he's right.
> ||
> ||
> ||
>
> I'm not surprised you think he's right, since you're the same person, as
> your message headers show:
>
>
> [email protected] Josh
>
> [email protected] Bob Garrison
 
[email protected] wrote:
> (x-posted to rec.running)
>
> My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
> expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
> (actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
> Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
> minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
> calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.
>
> Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
> calories burned, but it didn't ask me for my weight in arriving at this
> calculation.
>
> Opinions please.

It's impossible to calculate the exact energy expenditure due to
exercise. The formulas based on weight and distance are approximate
only. If you have an inefficient stride, you will burn more; if you
have efficient mechanics you will burn less.

The bigger question mark is the effect of the exercise on your
post-exercise metabolism. In general, the more intense the exercise,
the longer will be the post-exercise boost in oxygen consumption. This
is where are lot of your fat loss takes place. (In fact, adipose tissue
is ``locked in'' during endurance exercise; the fat burned during
endurance exercise is whatever is floating in your blood already and
what is in the muscle tissue).

In addition to exercise intensity, your caloric /intake/ has an effect
on the post-exercise ``burn''. If you put yourself on a low calorie
diet, particularly a low-fat one, you will find that your body goes
``cold'' soon after exercise.
Dieting excessively is counterproductive for runners, particularly
serious high-mileage people.

Measure your heart rate everyday upon waking up in the morning. After
running for 55 minutes, monitor your heart rate every 30 minutes for
the next few hours. That should give you a rough idea regarding your
metabolic boost.
 
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > (x-posted to rec.running)
> >
> > My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
> > expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
> > (actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
> > Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
> > minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
> > calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.
> >
> > Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
> > calories burned, but it didn't ask me for my weight in arriving at this
> > calculation.
> >
> > Opinions please.
>
> It's impossible to calculate the exact energy expenditure due to
> exercise. The formulas based on weight and distance are approximate
> only.

Right. Figures. Basically I'm just looking for a best estimate. Exact
won't happen.

> If you have an inefficient stride, you will burn more; if you
> have efficient mechanics you will burn less.

Makes sense.

>
> The bigger question mark is the effect of the exercise on your
> post-exercise metabolism. In general, the more intense the exercise,
> the longer will be the post-exercise boost in oxygen consumption. This
> is where are lot of your fat loss takes place. (In fact, adipose tissue
> is ``locked in'' during endurance exercise; the fat burned during
> endurance exercise is whatever is floating in your blood already and
> what is in the muscle tissue).
>
> In addition to exercise intensity, your caloric /intake/ has an effect
> on the post-exercise ``burn''. If you put yourself on a low calorie
> diet, particularly a low-fat one, you will find that your body goes
> ``cold'' soon after exercise.
> Dieting excessively is counterproductive for runners, particularly
> serious high-mileage people.

OK. Only problem is, I'm trying to lose weight. I've been running for
years without caloric restriction, and now I'm restricting calories.
How much restriction is too much?

>
> Measure your heart rate everyday upon waking up in the morning. After
> running for 55 minutes, monitor your heart rate every 30 minutes for
> the next few hours. That should give you a rough idea regarding your
> metabolic boost.

Thanks. I will try that!

Best post in this thread so far.
 
Kaz Kylheku <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Measure your heart rate everyday upon waking up in the morning. After
:> running for 55 minutes, monitor your heart rate every 30 minutes for
:> the next few hours. That should give you a rough idea regarding your
:> metabolic boost.

How does one interpret the post-exercise heart rate data in regards to
metabolic boost? Are you saying that HR will be elevated after exercise and
that will indicate a metabolic boost?
 
Kaz Kylheku <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Measure your heart rate everyday upon waking up in the morning. After
:> running for 55 minutes, monitor your heart rate every 30 minutes for
:> the next few hours. That should give you a rough idea regarding your
:> metabolic boost.

How does one interpret the post-exercise heart rate data in regards to
metabolic boost? Are you saying that HR will be elevated after exercise and
that will indicate a metabolic boost?
 
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 02:18:52 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>
>--
>Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

Any country that elects a fukin chimpanzee to run the country, then
reelects a war criminal a second time, is stupid. Of that, there can
be no debate.

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter
 
"Marengo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:V4VJe.109713$rb6.91186@lakeread07...
> Bob Garrison wrote:
> || "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> || news:[email protected]...
> ||| You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
> || Actually, he's right.
> ||
> ||
> ||
>
> I'm not surprised you think he's right, since you're the same person, as
> your message headers show:
>
>
> [email protected] Josh
>
> [email protected] Bob Garrison

No, I'm not!
 
Oh great oracle of bile, vitriol, and self-loathing, please, I pray,
enlighten me to the error of my ways. Show me the one and only path to
truth. I beg of thee, tell me exactly how I have erred so that I may
more closely match the example set by the one, the only, the perfect
and inerrant, the Great JC Der Koenig.
 
Oh great oracle of bile, vitriol, and self-loathing, please, I pray,
enlighten me to the error of my ways. Show me the one and only path to
truth. I beg of thee, tell me exactly how I have erred so that I may
more closely match the example set by the one, the only, the perfect
and inerrant, the Great JC Der Koenig.
 
"joshv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh great oracle of bile, vitriol, and self-loathing, please, I pray,
> enlighten me to the error of my ways. Show me the one and only path to
> truth. I beg of thee, tell me exactly how I have erred so that I may
> more closely match the example set by the one, the only, the perfect
> and inerrant, the Great JC Der Koenig.

I too await your answer Jerk O Neg.
 
"joshv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh great oracle of bile, vitriol, and self-loathing, please, I pray,
> enlighten me to the error of my ways. Show me the one and only path to
> truth. I beg of thee, tell me exactly how I have erred so that I may
> more closely match the example set by the one, the only, the perfect
> and inerrant, the Great JC Der Koenig.

I too await your answer Jerk O Neg.
 
Marengo wrote:
:: Bob Garrison wrote:
:::: "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:::: news:[email protected]...
::::: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
:::: Actually, he's right.
::::
::::
::::
::
:: I'm not surprised you think he's right, since you're the same
:: person, as your message headers show:
::
::
:: [email protected] Josh
::
:: [email protected] Bob Garrison

Peter -

It's really poor form to post such charges against people like this.
 
This months Runners World says adults burn about .73
calories per pound of body weight per mile, so your
number is pretty close. I think beginning exercisers
burn a little more because their bodies are less efficient
and experienced endurance athletes perhaps a little less.

Incidently the article claims that running and power walking
are not quite equal. the figure for power walking is about .55.
For practical calculations this is fairly close.
 
GaryG wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > (x-posted to rec.running)
> >
> > My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
> > expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
> > (actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
> > Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
> > minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
> > calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.
> >
> > Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
> > calories burned, but it didn't ask me for my weight in arriving at this
> > calculation.
> >
> > Opinions please.
>
> Using the standard METS tables, and assuming you're of average height and
> around 45 years old,

I'm six foot three and 31 years old...

> my program indicates that you would have burned 810
> calories. Even this is probably a bit high, because it assumes "real"
> running - I think treadmill running burns somewhat less calories than
> outdoor running, so 750 might be a better estimate.

Hm.

>
> GG
> http://www.WeightWare.com
> Computer-Assisted Weight Management
 
GaryG wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > (x-posted to rec.running)
> >
> > My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
> > expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
> > (actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
> > Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
> > minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
> > calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.
> >
> > Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
> > calories burned, but it didn't ask me for my weight in arriving at this
> > calculation.
> >
> > Opinions please.
>
> Using the standard METS tables, and assuming you're of average height and
> around 45 years old,

I'm six foot three and 31 years old...

> my program indicates that you would have burned 810
> calories. Even this is probably a bit high, because it assumes "real"
> running - I think treadmill running burns somewhat less calories than
> outdoor running, so 750 might be a better estimate.

Hm.

>
> GG
> http://www.WeightWare.com
> Computer-Assisted Weight Management
 
On 2005-08-08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> (x-posted to rec.running)
>
> My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
> expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
> (actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
> Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
> minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
> calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.

More like 950.

5.5 miles * 235 / 137 * 100

> Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
> calories burned,

600 is a bit low.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
On 2005-08-08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> (x-posted to rec.running)
>
> My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
> expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
> (actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
> Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
> minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
> calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.

More like 950.

5.5 miles * 235 / 137 * 100

> Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
> calories burned,

600 is a bit low.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
On 2005-08-09, GaryG <[email protected]> wrote:

> Using the standard METS tables, and assuming you're of average height and
> around 45 years old, my program indicates that you would have burned 810
> calories. Even this is probably a bit high, because it assumes "real"
> running - I think treadmill running burns somewhat less calories than
> outdoor running,

Why does treadmill running burn less ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
On 2005-08-09, JC Der Koenig <[email protected]> wrote:
> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

What's the correct figure, and what's your source ? My exercise physiology
text says 100cal/mile for 137lb bodyweight (so he's in the range of 950 cal)

What does your source say ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back