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 1221 times)

TWTIGER03


    posted: 8/9/2007 at 9:41 AM
    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


      posted: 8/9/2007 at 9:54 AM
      va123 aka Stephen wrote a very nice calculator for just this very thing. Here's the thread in the Jiggly Jogger's group.

      When it’s all said and done, will you have said more than you’ve done?

      Trent


      Good Bad & The Monkey

        posted: 8/9/2007 at 9:58 AM
        modified: 8/9/2007 at 9:59 AM
        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.
        Jeff


        Why is it sideways?

          posted: 8/9/2007 at 10:19 AM
          Why are calories burned a function of distance covered and not time spent running? Does pace matter?
          mikeymike


            posted: 8/9/2007 at 10:40 AM
            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.

            Runners run

            Jeff


            Why is it sideways?

              posted: 8/9/2007 at 10:53 AM
              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.
              jEfFgObLuE


              I've got a fever...

                posted: 8/9/2007 at 11:09 AM
                modified: 8/9/2007 at 11:11 AM
                Quote from Jeff on 8/9/2007 at 10:19 AM:
                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.

                On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

                Trent


                Good Bad & The Monkey

                  posted: 8/9/2007 at 11:25 AM
                  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.
                  Jeff


                  Why is it sideways?

                    posted: 8/9/2007 at 11:31 AM
                    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?
                    Trent


                    Good Bad & The Monkey

                      posted: 8/9/2007 at 11:34 AM
                      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?
                      Jeff


                      Why is it sideways?

                        posted: 8/9/2007 at 11:37 AM
                        Interesting. Thanks, Trent.
                        TWTIGER03


                          posted: 8/10/2007 at 2:46 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


                            posted: 8/10/2007 at 2:55 PM
                            modified: 8/10/2007 at 3:02 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!)

                            Vim


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

                            © 2024 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved.
                            Terms of Service|Privacy|Feedback|Help