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.

•       •       •

20712 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2013 at 1:01 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's not British hot, that's worldwide hot!

So if they can broadcast it on NBC I can post it on Fark, right?

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.

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.

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.

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?

unavailable for comment

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.

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!

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.