Forums  > Health and Nutrition  > When counting calories, what is the typical number burned on a normal day without excercising?

1

When counting calories, what is the typical number burned on a normal day without excercising? (Read 612 times)

TWTIGER03 view log posted: 8/9/2007 at 1:41 PM When you count and you run/workout, I assume you have a starting point so you know how many you burned, and you add that to the amount you would normally burn in a day. Then you subtract that from what you ate? Thanks http://www.freewebs.com/run4life/RA/springChallenge.htm

Bonkin view log Reboot posted: 8/9/2007 at 1:54 PM va123 aka Stephen wrote a very nice calculator for just this very thing. Here's the thread in the Jiggly Jogger's group. Your monkey gives me the creeps. - andahuff

Trent view log ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ posted: 8/9/2007 at 1:58 PM modified: 8/9/2007 at 1:59 PM About 2/3 your weight in pounds as calories per mile. You weigh 150 lbs? You will burn 100 calories or so per mile. Yeah yeah, there are fancy calculators and ways to figure it out, but with their error, this is as good as anything else. noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ

Jeff view log posted: 8/9/2007 at 2:19 PM Why are calories burned a function of distance covered and not time spent running? Does pace matter? a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

mikeymike view log posted: 8/9/2007 at 2:40 PM Because calories are a unit of energy. It takes a certain amount of energy to move your body mass a certain distance. Time is (mostly) irrelevant.

Jeff view log posted: 8/9/2007 at 2:53 PM Okay. Work = Force x Distance. Got it. So, a faster pace would be a faster work rate (more power)--and hence more calories per unit of time. a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project posted: 8/9/2007 at 3:09 PM modified: 8/9/2007 at 3:11 PM Quote from Jeff on 8/9/2007 at 2:19 PM: Why are calories burned a function of distance covered and not time spent running? Does pace matter? Well, it is a function of distance in the sense that your Cal/min burn rate is faster than mine if you're running at a faster pace than I am. If we both run the same distance, we burn the same amount of Cal despite your faster pace because you finish sooner -- I'm running for a longer duration that you are, and that compensates for the fact that I am slower. And of course what mikeymike said -- assuming equal mass, it takes the same amount of energy to move your body a given distance whether you do it slowly or quickly. However, if we both run for equal duration, you burn more calories -- you'll cover more ground than I do in the same amount of time. 20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

Trent view log ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ posted: 8/9/2007 at 3:25 PM Pace does impact calorie burn rate per mile, but just barely. Walking burns fewer calories per mile than running, but it is a different activity. Running fast or slow, you burn about the same amount of calories per mile. Jeff, you ran Monkey far faster than I did. But I probably burned way more calories because I weigh more than you do. Your pace had far less to do with calorie consumption rate than your weight. noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ

Jeff view log posted: 8/9/2007 at 3:31 PM What's the role of "metabolism"--I'm not really sure I know what that word means--in all this? I'm a little dude and for that reason burn few calories, but I eat plenty and don't seem to gain much weight, even if I'm not running. Does regular activity increase your rate of calorie burn while you are inactive? a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

Trent view log ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ posted: 8/9/2007 at 3:34 PM Metabolism impacts your daily caloric needs but does not do much for your calories needed during exertion. So somebody carrying around a lot of muscle burns more calories per hour than somebody who weighs the same but who has a greater amount of fat, given equal levels of basal activity. ...is this getting to that BMI discussion I have seen elsewhere? noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ

Jeff view log posted: 8/9/2007 at 3:37 PM Interesting. Thanks, Trent. a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

TWTIGER03 view log posted: 8/10/2007 at 6:46 PM I think you ya'll mis understood my question. Reading it again it was kind of confusing. Here it is. What is the average calories used up for a normal person doing an everyday routine. No excercise. http://www.freewebs.com/run4life/RA/springChallenge.htm

modal view log Bloody Nipple posted: 8/10/2007 at 6:55 PM modified: 8/10/2007 at 7:02 PM This what you want? resting metabolic rate... very simple calculator. Edited to add these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/calrmr.htm http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/rmr.htm (For some folks here... I assume that running a easy 12 is resting!) March 7 & 8, 2009 - Join the RunningAHEAD.com Texas Independence Relay Team [VIDEO] *online cashback tool* 2009 Goals 1. Get out the Door 2. Run ~100 miles a month or at least a 1000 miles for the year 3. Run a Marathon < 4:30 4. Run a Half < 1:54 (Benbrook, Texas Half Marathon)

1

Forums  > Health and Nutrition  > When counting calories, what is the typical number burned on a normal day without excercising?