Forums >Health and Nutrition>Thoretical calorie consumption question
Half Fanatic #846
"I don't always roll a joint, but when I do, it's usually my ankle" - unk. "Frankly autocorrect, I'm getting a bit tired of your shirt". I ran half my last race on my left foot!
Menace to Sobriety
You could make an argument that it is higher than 2,500 and you could make an argument that it is lower. You could say higher because the body needs calories for recovery. Making your muscles, tendons, heart, and lungs stronger must take extra calories. On the reverse side you might argue that as the person becomes more fit everything he does becomes more efficient. Any opinions?
Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.
Good Bad & The Monkey
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
De-slacking in progress
2. While running may burn approximately 90-150 calories per mile, based on your weight (not you pace, not your effort, but on weight and distance alone),
started running @ age 48 [lost 70#+, quit a 30 year pack/day habit>> ran HM] Ran a few years then quit. Gained 70#+ back and smoking like before. Time to get healthy again @ 52 years over with the C25K program and beyond again. RE-start date 1-13-14
We have all heard that you burn calories even after a strenuous workout. Is there anyway to know how many you burn afterwords?
You mean my overweight body running hills doesn't burn any more calories than running on a flat road? Huffing and puffin doesn't burn more calories?
Simply put I would like to know if regular exercise effects basal metabolic rate. If you build muscle it will go up. However on the other hand as you become more fit everything becomes more efficient. So which force wins out?