If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Woman takes up jogging to make her bum perkier; just kidding, she actually GIVES UP jogging, and IT ACTUALLY MAKES HER BUM PERKIER (w/pics)   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 130
    More: Spiffy, University of Central Lancashire, London Marathon, oxidative stress, free radicals, cellulite, cortisol, sports medicines, Long-distance track event  
•       •       •

20651 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2013 at 1:01 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-17 08:32:15 PM
So one person is a genetic outlier.  Everybody else, put the Cheetos down and stay on the farking treadmill.
 
2013-12-17 08:40:51 PM
That ain't no pic of her bum!
 
2013-12-17 09:00:35 PM
Habitual joggers have no asses and stick legs.  Sprinters....they got asses.
 
2013-12-17 09:28:40 PM
No pictures of her bum? Fail.
 
2013-12-17 09:49:52 PM
She looks cold
 
2013-12-17 10:28:59 PM
Booo subby! Boo!

/Mainly bookmark for potential bum thread though
 
2013-12-17 10:47:05 PM
OK, let's get this bum thread going...

www.bbc.co.uk
 
2013-12-17 10:50:58 PM
Article has no pics of her bum ... but, based on what perkiness is visible, it sure looks like it was a cold day when those pics were taken.
 
2013-12-17 10:56:25 PM
Daily Fail, so it must be true

But her bum isn't the only perky thing on her...
 
2013-12-17 10:58:19 PM
*checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising
 
2013-12-17 11:02:55 PM

Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising




Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.
 
2013-12-17 11:18:31 PM
That was almost lamer than most of my submissions.
 
2013-12-17 11:24:43 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising



Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.


Or that. Either way it was chilly as has been noted
 
2013-12-18 01:03:23 AM
Why are there no pics of her fanny??  We need pics of her fanny!  Right??
 
2013-12-18 01:05:44 AM
Maybe she just needed a little fat on her ass to fill it out.
 
2013-12-18 01:05:48 AM
Dear Daily Fail,

If you run a story about a girl's ass, make sure you actually take pictures of her ass.  Before and after pictures would be preferable.

That is all.  Thank you.
 
2013-12-18 01:06:21 AM
FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'


Sounds like bullshiat to me
 
2013-12-18 01:06:39 AM

Dee Snarl: Why are there no pics of her fanny??  We need pics of her fanny!  Right??


If her fanny is perky, I definitely want to see it.
 
2013-12-18 01:06:52 AM
I didn't see any bum.  Attention whore
 
pc
2013-12-18 01:07:25 AM
Nipples
 
2013-12-18 01:07:48 AM
Well, looks like I got the "dumbest thing I'm going to read today" out of the way nice and early this time.
 
2013-12-18 01:08:06 AM

WeenerGord: FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'


Sounds like bullshiat to me


A pound of fat is 3500 calories. Covering a mile is somewhere around 100 calories, more if you are heavy. It's not too far off, but most people aren't aiming to lose 2.2 pounds in a week without any dietary change.
 
2013-12-18 01:08:19 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising

Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.


Or she never worked in power exercises in so that her body body responded laid down a nice marbling in her thighs so that the energy could be stored closer to muscle.
 
2013-12-18 01:08:27 AM
The body adapts to respond. If a great ass is how you need to run, all to you. But it's more likely you need to do squats.

Or nothing. Move enough from day to day and your body will adapt to everything.
 
2013-12-18 01:10:23 AM
"Some even argue that running may cause cellulite, by stimulating the production of free radicals"

Free Radicals? Somehow I blame Obama!
 
2013-12-18 01:11:50 AM
Nice green light, Subby. My next one will be like "Jogger has tighter vagina after not farking" with pics.
 
2013-12-18 01:11:52 AM
aie?

eip
 
2013-12-18 01:11:59 AM

RogermcAllen: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising

Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.

Or she never worked in power exercises in so that her body body responded laid down a nice marbling in her thighs so that the energy could be stored closer to muscle.


Lets try that again:
Or she never worked in power exercises.   Her body responded by laying down a nice marbling in her thighs so that the energy could be stored closer to muscle.  No more running = no more need for fat stored next to the muscle.
 
2013-12-18 01:13:23 AM
"Save the Rhino"?  I think it's pretty much too late, for that. Unless she talking about her strap-on. But, why would that need to be saved?

/She not bad.  Not bad at all.
//Nice bit of crumpet.
 
2013-12-18 01:14:51 AM

Frederick: Habitual joggers have no asses and stick legs.  Sprinters....they got asses.


This.

Is she really wants a perky ass, take up dancing.
 
2013-12-18 01:15:57 AM

WeenerGord: FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'


Sounds like bullshiat to me


You're gonna burn about a 100 calories a mile.  And you need to burn about 2,800 calories to lose a pound.  But that's just the effects from the running.  The running will also boost your metabolism so you're body is burning calories at rest all of the time.  It's my experience that a person running 25 miles a week will lose about 2 pounds more than the person doing no exercise (assuming they are both eating an identical amount).  That's 10 pounds a month.
 
2013-12-18 01:19:08 AM
I call BS until I see pics.  Pics, or it didn't happen.
 
2013-12-18 01:20:56 AM
i.dailymail.co.uk

"Perkier" isn't the word I'd use to describe her bum.  (I'm assuming this is the after photo.)

I'd go with something like "almost not non-existent for once".
 
2013-12-18 01:22:24 AM

Jument: WeenerGord: FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'

Sounds like bullshiat to me

A pound of fat is 3500 calories. Covering a mile is somewhere around 100 calories, more if you are heavy. It's not too far off, but most people aren't aiming to lose 2.2 pounds in a week without any dietary change.



I can lose 2.2 pounds a week just by eating slightly less. Something tells me that if I went out and ran 80 to 90 miles, I'd lose more than just 2.2 pounds. I bet I'd lose 5 to 10 pounds. But hey, you got those numbers, so, it must be the same for all metabolisms.

Meanwhile, if it's a perky butt she wants, how about taking up twerking.
 
2013-12-18 01:22:53 AM

Dee Snarl: Why are there no pics of her fanny??  We need pics of her fanny!  Right??


Those'll be in the Daily Sport.
 
2013-12-18 01:24:49 AM
Came for ass pics. Leaving disappoint
 
2013-12-18 01:27:39 AM
Nipples are fine though
 
2013-12-18 01:28:32 AM
img.fark.net

She casts no shadow and there are white outlines around her image. I suspect a photoshop.

That or she's a vampire.
 
2013-12-18 01:29:19 AM
Oh, wow, she's tiny. Probably 5'0". Of course she didn't have an ass when she was jogging, petite women need a little ass fat. Just not too much.
 
2013-12-18 01:30:38 AM
Cute girl either way.
 
2013-12-18 01:32:12 AM
I hear you can improve your health and your sex life by eating rubber and washing it down with gasoline. Thanks Daily Mail!
 
2013-12-18 01:32:57 AM

WeenerGord: Jument: WeenerGord: FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'

Sounds like bullshiat to me

A pound of fat is 3500 calories. Covering a mile is somewhere around 100 calories, more if you are heavy. It's not too far off, but most people aren't aiming to lose 2.2 pounds in a week without any dietary change.


I can lose 2.2 pounds a week just by eating slightly less. Something tells me that if I went out and ran 80 to 90 miles, I'd lose more than just 2.2 pounds. I bet I'd lose 5 to 10 pounds. But hey, you got those numbers, so, it must be the same for all metabolisms.

Meanwhile, if it's a perky butt she wants, how about taking up twerking.



The question was losing weight through running.  If you're looking at the exercise in isolation, the numbers cited aren't wrong.  The side benefits from running are increased metabolism which means you're burning off more calories at rest than when you're not exercising.  But you get that from any cardio.
 
2013-12-18 01:34:23 AM

Frederick: Habitual joggers have no asses and stick legs.  Sprinters....they got asses.


Ding Ding Ding!  YOu got that right.  I've yet to see a sprinter who didn't have ass.
 
2013-12-18 01:37:20 AM
It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.

The numbers in that article looked iffy to me, so I ran some math.

1 kg => 2.2 pounds => 7,700 calories

7,00 calories in 80 miles is 96 calories per mile.

I just ran 3.72 miles after work and I use one of those expensive ass watch/chest sensor/foot sensor combos (a gift from my employer), and it says I burned 833 calories (224 calories per mile)

// go to google, search for "calories burned per mile" punch in the numbers and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did (that 96 calories burned per mile of running is way too damn low of an estimate).

// the calories burned per mile depends on a person's weight to begin with, so maybe it is 96 per mile for _her_ (doubtful), but if it were, you don't turn around and make statements about the general populace based on that outlier.
 
2013-12-18 01:38:01 AM
Complete waste of time, but I guess Daily Fail has to get their hits.
 
2013-12-18 01:40:05 AM
^

"7,00 calories in 80 miles is 96 calories per mile."

7,700

//typo
 
2013-12-18 01:40:27 AM
I've been doing squats and lunges and other weights.

My ass hasn't looked this good since I played volleyball in high school.
 
2013-12-18 01:40:53 AM
What a perky bum might look like, if GIFfy goodness.

NSFW
 
2013-12-18 01:42:44 AM
Cardio does drop fat, but it also drops muscle (especially fast twitch muscle fibres).  Most of the aesthetic things we like about athletic people come from them having muscle mass (this includes the arse), which is why joggers tend to look flat bummed and ropy muscled.
 
2013-12-18 01:44:03 AM

911Jenny: I've been doing squats and lunges and other weights.

My ass hasn't looked this good since I played volleyball in high school.


Exactly!
 
2013-12-18 01:45:20 AM
How do we, the viewer at home, know she has a perky fanny.

I'm going to submit an article "hot woman says she can't stop making out with other hot women (w/pics)" in protest
 
2013-12-18 01:46:23 AM

Frederick: Habitual joggers have no asses and stick legs.  Sprinters....they got asses.


Overtraining distance runners are tards.

/if any of you love running that much though, have at it :)
 
2013-12-18 01:46:48 AM

Lamadin: What a perky bum might look like, if GIFfy goodness.

NSFW


What are those things on her spine? Piercings?
 
2013-12-18 01:49:02 AM

RogermcAllen: RogermcAllen: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising

Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.

Or she never worked in power exercises in so that her body body responded laid down a nice marbling in her thighs so that the energy could be stored closer to muscle.

Lets try that again:
Or she never worked in power exercises.   Her body responded by laying down a nice marbling in her thighs so that the energy could be stored closer to muscle.  No more running = no more need for fat stored next to the muscle.


Call me ignorant, but I have never once heard of significant fat redistribution around more heavily used muscles.

Especially not in the lowest fat % type of exercisers: the distance jogger.
 
2013-12-18 01:54:58 AM
bedroomfreak.com
 
2013-12-18 01:58:17 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising



Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.


She could have gotten the same results doing squats with a proper technique.

Girlfriend didn't believe me. Added squats to her routine, and now she has a nice firm posterior that isn't flat. She is a jogger as well.
 
2013-12-18 02:11:26 AM
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-18 02:11:36 AM

SunsetLament: It's my experience that a person running 25 miles a week will lose about 2 pounds more than the person doing no exercise (assuming they are both eating an identical amount). That's 10 pounds a month.


You are bad at math.
 
2013-12-18 02:17:46 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: "Some even argue that running may cause cellulite, by stimulating the production of free radicals"

Free Radicals? Somehow I blame Obama!


BECAUSE A REAL MURCAN PRESIDENT WOULD LOCK UP THOSE RADICALS!!!!!
 
2013-12-18 02:21:50 AM
How does the Mail even get these stories?

What would motivate a person to stop jogging, examine their butt, and immediately report their findings to the nearest tabloid?

It boggles the mind.
 
2013-12-18 02:27:19 AM
Stop running your ass off, your ass comes back. MAGIC!

20% body fat looks hotter than 10% body fat, in women. She looks like she's rockin' it at about 15%.
 
2013-12-18 02:29:49 AM

WeenerGord: [img.fark.net image 306x576]

She casts no shadow and there are white outlines around her image. I suspect a photoshop.

That or she's a vampire.


neither - it's Britain in December. There is no sun.
 
2013-12-18 02:35:17 AM

super_grass: How does the Mail even get these stories?

What would motivate a person to stop jogging, examine their butt, and immediately report their findings to the nearest tabloid?

It boggles the mind.



Maybe they have a submit a story like Fark.


"Dear Daily Mail, I work out. Want to take a picture of me in spandex? We can do it in the cold, I don't mind."
 
2013-12-18 03:23:52 AM

lordargent: It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.

The numbers in that article looked iffy to me, so I ran some math.

1 kg => 2.2 pounds => 7,700 calories

7,00 calories in 80 miles is 96 calories per mile.

I just ran 3.72 miles after work and I use one of those expensive ass watch/chest sensor/foot sensor combos (a gift from my employer), and it says I burned 833 calories (224 calories per mile)

// go to google, search for "calories burned per mile" punch in the numbers and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did (that 96 calories burned per mile of running is way too damn low of an estimate).

// the calories burned per mile depends on a person's weight to begin with, so maybe it is 96 per mile for _her_ (doubtful), but if it were, you don't turn around and make statements about the general populace based on that outlier.


But how many calories do you burn at rest in the same period of time? You need that number for your base metabolism to work out how many of those 833 calories were burnt by the actual running.

/ass watch? Ewwww. :-D
 
2013-12-18 03:55:10 AM
Pinko_Commie: But how many calories do you burn at rest in the same period of time?

You would think that it would be a lot, but it's not (which is why I didn't bother with the calculation). But just to appease you.

BMR is based on 0 exertion and is usually given as calories/day.

In my case, that's ~1,800 calories/day

1800 / 24 => 75 calories per hour

I did 3.72 miles in about an hour.

so 75 calories of the 833 that were from BMR (assuming that running calculators are including BMR calories ... which I don't think they do. At the end of the day, it's a negligible difference either way.
 
2013-12-18 04:00:22 AM

WeenerGord: Jument: WeenerGord: FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'

Sounds like bullshiat to me

A pound of fat is 3500 calories. Covering a mile is somewhere around 100 calories, more if you are heavy. It's not too far off, but most people aren't aiming to lose 2.2 pounds in a week without any dietary change.


I can lose 2.2 pounds a week just by eating slightly less. Something tells me that if I went out and ran 80 to 90 miles, I'd lose more than just 2.2 pounds. I bet I'd lose 5 to 10 pounds. But hey, you got those numbers, so, it must be the same for all metabolisms.

Meanwhile, if it's a perky butt she wants, how about taking up twerking.


You can lose 1100 calories per day eating "slightly less?"

You sound fat.
 
2013-12-18 04:06:01 AM
I've only gained ~10 lbs in the last 26 years and I don't exercise at all really.

/In my 40s
 
2013-12-18 04:39:52 AM

HawgWild: That ain't no pic of her bum!


Given that she appears to have the body of a 12 year old (insert ChrisHansen.jpg), it's probably because she doesn't HAVE a bum to post pics of.
 
2013-12-18 05:33:56 AM
Sitting down works too.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-18 05:39:37 AM

inglixthemad: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: She could have gotten the same results doing squats with a proper technique



Let's hear it for squats!alittleoneonthemove.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-18 06:04:12 AM

super_grass: How does the Mail even get these stories?

What would motivate a person to stop jogging, examine their butt, and immediately report their findings to the nearest tabloid?

It boggles the mind.


She's the author so it probably went something like this.

"Hmm, i've stopped jogging and my arse is improving... I'll write about this for the DM".
 
2013-12-18 06:29:56 AM

pedobearapproved: How do we, the viewer at home, know she has a perky fanny.

I'm going to submit an article "hot woman says she can't stop making out with other hot women (w/pics)" in protest


In England, a perky fanny has quite a different look about it. I think you're referring to a perky bum. Careful there, ol' chap.
 
2013-12-18 07:20:49 AM
i26.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 07:24:15 AM

Omahawg: aie?

eip


I was going to go with Bums In Email but yours works as well. I risk pictures of homeless folks, you risk donkeys.

/EIP
 
2013-12-18 07:28:56 AM

rzrwiresunrise: pedobearapproved: How do we, the viewer at home, know she has a perky fanny.

I'm going to submit an article "hot woman says she can't stop making out with other hot women (w/pics)" in protest

In England, a perky fanny has quite a different look about it. I think you're referring to a perky bum. Careful there, ol' chap.


Let's be honest, though, I'd happily take a close look at her fanny. Only to judge perkiness, of course.
 
2013-12-18 07:34:38 AM
If she's running for an hour a day as well as marathons, she's burned off nearly all the fat on her body in the process. Butts and breasts are made up largely of fat, so I'd not be surprised at all if she got a perkier butt after resting for six weeks.

/probably got bigger breasts too
//she could use them IMO
///looks good in the photo anyway
 
2013-12-18 07:43:36 AM
This woman has no ass. I'm late for work because I clicked on a link of a woman with NO ASS.
 
2013-12-18 08:02:44 AM

Uzzah: Well, looks like I got the "dumbest thing I'm going to read today" out of the way nice and early this time.

Some say running may cause cellulite by stimulating free radical production

Yep.
 
2013-12-18 08:19:45 AM

Goimir: This woman has no ass. I'm late for work because I clicked on a link of a woman with NO ASS.



*I* am late for work because I got stuck in Omahawg's mind trap for a good fifteen minutes.
 
2013-12-18 08:50:31 AM

lordargent: Pinko_Commie: But how many calories do you burn at rest in the same period of time?

You would think that it would be a lot, but it's not (which is why I didn't bother with the calculation). But just to appease you.

BMR is based on 0 exertion and is usually given as calories/day.

In my case, that's ~1,800 calories/day

1800 / 24 => 75 calories per hour

I did 3.72 miles in about an hour.

so 75 calories of the 833 that were from BMR (assuming that running calculators are including BMR calories ... which I don't think they do. At the end of the day, it's a negligible difference either way.


To be honest, I only needed an excuse to make the "ass watch" joke :-)
 
2013-12-18 09:06:12 AM
Oh Britain, can't you come up with a better euphemism for the ass than "bum"?  I HATE that!  I picture some girl with that old guy from the cover of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album strapped to her ass.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-18 09:18:12 AM
"The problem is that my morning run often leaves me too knackered (or complacent) to do any other exercise. Since my break from running, I've been surprised to find myself more inclined to take the stairs rather than the lift - and more likely to make that after-work yoga class."

So she took a break from running and did more strength training and she developed more defined muscle tone.  Quick!  Someone right an article about this incomprehensible feat!
 
2013-12-18 09:22:03 AM

Fark In The Duck: Oh Britain, can't you come up with a better euphemism for the ass than "bum"?  I HATE that!  I picture some girl with that old guy from the cover of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album strapped to her ass.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]


We have loads, we have arse, bum, crevice or crevasse, rear/rear-end, behind, crap-factory, Lord Neville's Cave of Wonder, posterior, Scotland Yard, buttocks, derriere, crack, and i'm sure there are plenty i've forgotten. There are more words to describe someone's botty than there are words for all other things, true fact.
 
2013-12-18 09:26:26 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-18 09:38:49 AM
hehe.....nipples
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-12-18 09:40:57 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising

Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.


I'd agree with that. The clueless think that exercise is some kind of money--the more you get the better it always is. There is an optimum amount. Not enough, you get the various disorders of sedentary life. Too much, you die early anyway from wearing down the body faster than it can recuperate.
 
2013-12-18 09:46:46 AM

Slaxl: Fark In The Duck: Oh Britain, can't you come up with a better euphemism for the ass than "bum"?  I HATE that!  I picture some girl with that old guy from the cover of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album strapped to her ass.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]

We have loads, we have arse, bum, crevice or crevasse, rear/rear-end, behind, crap-factory, Lord Neville's Cave of Wonder, posterior, Scotland Yard, buttocks, derriere, crack, and i'm sure there are plenty i've forgotten. There are more words to describe someone's botty than there are words for all other things, true fact.


I always was partial to "turd cutter" myself.
 
2013-12-18 09:55:24 AM
sprinters bottom anyone??

firthfitness.com
 
2013-12-18 10:57:19 AM
img28.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 11:00:52 AM

sedric: sprinters bottom anyone??

[firthfitness.com image 177x177]


This is just too wonderful to bring under the size requirement
 
2013-12-18 11:19:19 AM

Lamadin: What a perky bum might look like, if GIFfy goodness.

NSFW


annnnnnd, I'm spent....
 
2013-12-18 11:20:12 AM

lordargent: It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.

The numbers in that article looked iffy to me, so I ran some math.

1 kg => 2.2 pounds => 7,700 calories

7,00 calories in 80 miles is 96 calories per mile.

I just ran 3.72 miles after work and I use one of those expensive ass watch/chest sensor/foot sensor combos (a gift from my employer), and it says I burned 833 calories (224 calories per mile)

// go to google, search for "calories burned per mile" punch in the numbers and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did (that 96 calories burned per mile of running is way too damn low of an estimate).

// the calories burned per mile depends on a person's weight to begin with, so maybe it is 96 per mile for _her_ (doubtful), but if it were, you don't turn around and make statements about the general populace based on that outlier.


You are either very large or that watch is way off.

224 is a huge number per mile.  100 is pretty standard guide stick for me (~180 lb male).  Less for females.  It generally works out to somewhere around .7 * weight in lbs.  Also varies by effort, but that is pretty minimal.
 
2013-12-18 01:04:48 PM
bacongood: 224 is a huge number per mile.

185, I also used several online calculators as well and came up with similar numbers.

// basically did a google search for 'calories burned while running' and tried the first handful of results.
 
2013-12-18 01:12:53 PM

bacongood: lordargent: I just ran 3.72 miles after work and I use one of those expensive ass watch/chest sensor/foot sensor combos (a gift from my employer), and it says I burned 833 calories (224 calories per mile)

// go to google, search for "calories burned per mile" punch in the numbers and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did (that 96 calories burned per mile of running is way too damn low of an estimate).

// the calories burned per mile depends on a person's weight to begin with, so maybe it is 96 per mile for _her_ (doubtful), but if it were, you don't turn around and make statements about the general populace based on that outlier.

You are either very large or that watch is way off.

224 is a huge number per mile.  100 is pretty standard guide stick for me (~180 lb male).  Less for females.  It generally works out to somewhere around .7 * weight in lbs.  Also varies by effort, but that is pretty minimal.


Agreed. I've done some lab testing on a treadmill, and my 195 lb. self burns about 140 calories per mile at a pace around 8:15. My 135 lb. GF runs closer to 9:00 miles, and burns about 115 calories per mile. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this little wisp of a gal in the article barely manages 100 cal/mi., as weight is probably the biggest factor in calorie burn. 200+ seems like measurement error, though -- I don't think I've ever seen anyone who runs regularly test out that high. (In fact, the more you run, the more efficient you become, and your burn rate goes down a little.) And gadgets/treadmill readouts, or really anything short of a controlled lab test, are notoriously unreliable in guessing calorie burn rates.

Still, I agree with the people who point out that the "80-90 miles per week to lose 2.2 lbs" comment misses the mark. It's mathematically correct, but it doesn't account for elevated metabolism post-exercise and the increased metabolic effect of building muscle. Just based on personal experience and talking to others, just about anyone going from 0-5 miles per week to 10-20 miles per week will easily lose a kg a week, so long as they don't use the increased activity as an excuse to dramatically increase food intake (which is the only point in the article that really makes sense).
 
2013-12-18 01:14:58 PM

lordargent: bacongood: 224 is a huge number per mile.

185, I also used several online calculators as well and came up with similar numbers.

// basically did a google search for 'calories burned while running' and tried the first handful of results.


Not sure where you are getting those results, but in my experience, you are vastly over-estimating calorie output.  I find if I factor it at 100/mile the math is easy and it tends to agree with what I eat and weigh.

My first couple google hits agree with me, maybe up to 150ish (runnersworld, cool running, etc.).
 
2013-12-18 01:30:03 PM
No one should be measuring calories burned for any other reason than to compare one workout to another (like did I do more on the treadmill today than yesterday, are my workouts improvingetc). Never to say 'i burned off x lbs of fat or x calories worth of food'.

There is too much inaccuracy, and it encourages bad dieting habits.
 
2013-12-18 01:39:31 PM

fatassbastard: SunsetLament: It's my experience that a person running 25 miles a week will lose about 2 pounds more than the person doing no exercise (assuming they are both eating an identical amount). That's 10 pounds a month.

You are bad at math.


Well, the math is wrong if you cut out the other half of the paragraph explaining why the math works.
 
2013-12-18 01:42:33 PM
"Perky bum".  The mods give you "perky bum" to work with and you posted what, 3 pictures?
Have I taught you nothing?

Sigh.

i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:43:29 PM
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:44:24 PM
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:45:00 PM
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:45:49 PM
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:46:07 PM
Your gu

bacongood: lordargent: bacongood: 224 is a huge number per mile.

185, I also used several online calculators as well and came up with similar numbers.

// basically did a google search for 'calories burned while running' and tried the first handful of results.

Not sure where you are getting those results, but in my experience, you are vastly over-estimating calorie output.  I find if I factor it at 100/mile the math is easy and it tends to agree with what I eat and weigh.

My first couple google hits agree with me, maybe up to 150ish (runnersworld, cool running, etc.).


Except it is completely WRONG.

Sitting on the sofa BREATHING burns almost 100 calories per hour.

For an average, inactive adult male - he can eat about 2400 calories per day and not gain weight. 24 hours in a day - so just being alive consumes about 100 calories. Any serious exercise is going to double that at the very least.
 
2013-12-18 01:47:00 PM
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:55:22 PM
img34.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 01:56:01 PM
img833.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 01:58:31 PM

madgonad: Your gubacongood: lordargent: bacongood: 224 is a huge number per mile.

185, I also used several online calculators as well and came up with similar numbers.

// basically did a google search for 'calories burned while running' and tried the first handful of results.

Not sure where you are getting those results, but in my experience, you are vastly over-estimating calorie output.  I find if I factor it at 100/mile the math is easy and it tends to agree with what I eat and weigh.

My first couple google hits agree with me, maybe up to 150ish (runnersworld, cool running, etc.).

Except it is completely WRONG.

Sitting on the sofa BREATHING burns almost 100 calories per hour.

For an average, inactive adult male - he can eat about 2400 calories per day and not gain weight. 24 hours in a day - so just being alive consumes about 100 calories. Any serious exercise is going to double that at the very least.


No.  The typical basal metabolic rate (your base burn, so to speak) is around 1600 for a male, which needs to be adjusted up a bit for daily calorie required as getting the remote still burns a bit.  So unless by "average", you mean "obese", your numbers are made up.

But caps lock is a very persuasive argumentation style, stick with that.
 
2013-12-18 02:04:24 PM
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 02:07:01 PM
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 02:14:17 PM
 
2013-12-18 02:39:20 PM

KradDrol: WeenerGord: Jument: WeenerGord: FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'

Sounds like bullshiat to me

A pound of fat is 3500 calories. Covering a mile is somewhere around 100 calories, more if you are heavy. It's not too far off, but most people aren't aiming to lose 2.2 pounds in a week without any dietary change.

I can lose 2.2 pounds a week just by eating slightly less. Something tells me that if I went out and ran 80 to 90 miles, I'd lose more than just 2.2 pounds. I bet I'd lose 5 to 10 pounds. But hey, you got those numbers, so, it must be the same for all metabolisms.

Meanwhile, if it's a perky butt she wants, how about taking up twerking.

The question was losing weight through running.  If you're looking at the exercise in isolation, the numbers cited aren't wrong.  The side benefits from running are increased metabolism which means you're burning off more calories at rest than when you're not exercising.  But you get that from any cardio.



The distance between San Francisco and Sacramento is 75 miles, or 88 miles by car. Do you really think that if you RAN from San Francisco to Sacramento, you would barely lose 2.2 pounds?

Get real. The numbers you quote are for sedentary weight watchers. They are based on losing weight while sitting around doing nothing.

Once read an article on an athlete who ate 9000 calories a day. Breakfast included a stack of chocolate chip pancakes, and other food that sounded like empty calories, but he burned it all off and did not gain weight. If he tried to exercise like that on 2000 calories a day, he might burn out and die.

Here is another athlete who eats 9000 calories a day and is the heaviest she has ever been in her life

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-12-18 02:51:44 PM

WeenerGord: The distance between San Francisco and Sacramento is 75 miles, or 88 miles by car. Do you really think that if you RAN from San Francisco to Sacramento, you would barely lose 2.2 pounds?


Of fat?  Yeah.

Of water weight?  No.

I don't bat an eye at 70+ mile weeks, and trust me, once you get in shape it is not that easy to cut off lbs. of fat.
 
2013-12-18 02:53:55 PM

Iron Chef Scottish: WeenerGord: [img.fark.net image 306x576]

She casts no shadow and there are white outlines around her image. I suspect a photoshop.

That or she's a vampire.

neither - it's Britain in December. There is no sun.



I know it's overcast but that doesn't explain the cut out lines.
 
2013-12-18 03:01:01 PM

sendtodave: You can lose 1100 calories per day eating "slightly less?"



You are really married to those Weight Watcher numbers which are based on zero activity, aren't you?  You sound like a fat lazy person who has never exercised.

Here are a couple of articles explaining how real athletes have to eat.

As the race goes on, they must take in carbohydrates at a rate of 60 grams -- or about 240 calories -- per hour.

etc.

/Dave's not here.
 
2013-12-18 03:12:59 PM
img9.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 03:13:34 PM
img34.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 03:17:21 PM
 
2013-12-18 03:21:09 PM

bacongood: I don't bat an eye at 70+ mile weeks, and trust me, once you get in shape it is not that easy to cut off lbs. of fat.



I don't see a pic of you in your profile. Post pix from some of your 70 mile runs if you want to convince anyone. All I know about you is that you like bacon.

I doubt there are many 70 mile a week runners who struggle with cutting off lbs of fat.
 
2013-12-18 03:32:53 PM
That's not British hot, that's worldwide hot!
 
2013-12-18 03:38:15 PM
img4.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 03:38:55 PM
img6.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 03:40:02 PM
img855.imageshack.us

So if they can broadcast it on NBC I can post it on Fark, right?
 
2013-12-18 04:25:56 PM

WeenerGord: bacongood: I don't bat an eye at 70+ mile weeks, and trust me, once you get in shape it is not that easy to cut off lbs. of fat.


I don't see a pic of you in your profile. Post pix from some of your 70 mile runs if you want to convince anyone. All I know about you is that you like bacon.

I doubt there are many 70 mile a week runners who struggle with cutting off lbs of fat.


weeks, not runs.

I know plenty of other 70+ mpw runners who cut weight during the last couple weeks of training prior to a marathon.  We all have to do it with diet because the fat that would disappear from running is long gone and running has long stopped being an efficient weight control device for us.

But this is getting away from the point (subpoint?  I forget where this stemmed out from) - the only way you burn 200+ calories/mile is if you weigh over 300 lbs.

/stealth hippopotamus and Banned on the Run are winning this thread.
 
2013-12-18 04:42:31 PM

bacongood: I know plenty of other 70+ mpw runners who cut weight during the last couple weeks of training prior to a marathon.  We all have to do it with diet because the fat that would disappear from running is long gone and running has long stopped being an efficient weight control device for us.



Sure, ya, ok, so there are plenty of marathon runners with pounds of unsightly fat just dangling off of them, that they cannot lose through exercise.  Whatever you say.
 
2013-12-18 05:14:32 PM

WeenerGord: bacongood: I know plenty of other 70+ mpw runners who cut weight during the last couple weeks of training prior to a marathon.  We all have to do it with diet because the fat that would disappear from running is long gone and running has long stopped being an efficient weight control device for us.


Sure, ya, ok, so there are plenty of marathon runners with pounds of unsightly fat just dangling off of them, that they cannot lose through exercise.  Whatever you say.


I train at 180 and race sub-170... I don't know what else to tell you.  This is very common for marathoners at my level (better than BQ).  Well, not the 180 to 170, but the dropping 5 to 10 lbs to get to race weight.
 
2013-12-18 05:29:44 PM
de-motivational-posters.com
 
2013-12-18 06:00:09 PM

bacongood: WeenerGord: bacongood: I know plenty of other 70+ mpw runners who cut weight during the last couple weeks of training prior to a marathon.  We all have to do it with diet because the fat that would disappear from running is long gone and running has long stopped being an efficient weight control device for us.

Sure, ya, ok, so there are plenty of marathon runners with pounds of unsightly fat just dangling off of them, that they cannot lose through exercise.  Whatever you say.

I train at 180 and race sub-170... I don't know what else to tell you.  This is very common for marathoners at my level (better than BQ).  Well, not the 180 to 170, but the dropping 5 to 10 lbs to get to race weight.



What are you complaining about? I agreed with you. There are some fat ass* runners out there who can't lose the weight, except when they do lose it, for marathons. Or so they say, on the internets. Whatever.

 * perky
** this claim is worth less without pics.
*** if you can lose 10 lbs with diet before a marathon, you can lose 10 lbs with diet when ever you want. Right?
 
2013-12-18 06:27:03 PM
moviemezzanine.com
unavailable for comment
 
2013-12-18 09:05:42 PM

HawgWild: That ain't no pic of her bum!


Yup. They also have this big speech about how running is better than any other exercise health wise yet fail to mention the damage to joints and tendons.
 
2013-12-19 12:03:26 AM
So, you're surprised you got slightly fatter in the ass when your anorexic-having self quit jogging? Tell me more!

Newsflash princess, you might get some tits if you stop sticking your finger down your throat and eat a sammich or three too!
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report