12

Thoretical calorie consumption question (Read 922 times)

    Lets say you have a sedentary fellow that needs 2,000 a day to maintain his weight. Said fellow decides to take up running. After a certain length of time he runs enough that it averages 500 calories a day. What now is his caloric requirment? Seems like a simple answer, but I am not sure. 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. So that even though he is burning 500 calories a day running everything else would require fewer calories. Any opinions?


    Half Fanatic #846

      I've always heard that runners eat more/consume more calories than a sedentary person, to maintain nutritional needs ... wait - what about an overweight non-runner? Confused OK, maybe we need "professional help"... Wink

      "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?
        I'm no dietician, but the way I understand it, it's not just the calorie count that is important, but the composition. Your body is not going to get the same post run benefit from half a can of Pringles that it does from a turkey sandwich on whole wheat and an apple, even if the calorie count is the same. And yes, the more fit someone becomes, they generally become more efficient, but it still takes about the same amount of calories to move the same amout of weight the same distance. The ugly truth of that is, as you lose weight, you have to run farther to burn the same amount of calories. There are of course, additional benefits to running than just burning more calories, as well. As for your initial question, it would depend on what your fellow's goals were. If his calorie deficit was 500/day, and he ate no more, he would lose about 1 lb/week. If he wanted to remain at the current weight, he would need to increase his intake by the same 500 cals. For most people in the developed world, and certainly in North America are not going to be detrimentally impacted by burning 500 more calories a day, with the exception of Paris Hilton and the anorexic Olsen twin.( I get 'em mixed up)

        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.

          I guess I can simlify the question now that I have thought about it... How does regular exercise effect your basal metabolic rate? Does it speed it up or slow it down?
          Trent


          Good Bad & The Monkey

            1. The average sedentary American requires a daily caloric intake of between 1200 and 1700 calories per day. 2000 is not correct, despite what the government says. 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), over time your body improves your basal metabolic efficiency such that you do not really need to increase your caloric intake unless you are running 50+ miles per week. 3. Most foods have far far more calories in them than you think. 4. http://runningahead.com/forums/post/5c924ce63d7443679c5b63cb98581f86#focus
            Spingoddess


              Interesting question! I always wondered why I weighed less when I was a beginning runner than after a few years of training for marathons. I'm running more, eating a little more, but maybe I should be eating less because my body is more efficient?
              If we work hard at something we are passionate about, we might be rewarded with a few thrilling moments of perfection. John Bingham
              Trent


              Good Bad & The Monkey

                You may also be adding muscle, which weighs more than fat.
                  Trent all that is great information but it doesn't answer my question. 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?
                    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414357 Okay I am doing some of my own research... I guess the answer to my question has not really been found. I will keep looking.
                      One other question that I have... We have all heard that you burn calories even after a strenuous workout. Is there anyway to know how many you burn afterwords?


                      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),
                        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?

                        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

                        Trent


                        Good Bad & The Monkey

                          We have all heard that you burn calories even after a strenuous workout. Is there anyway to know how many you burn afterwords?
                          Only through metabolic testing.
                          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?
                          Only a small amount, likely less than the standard error of the estimate of your underlying caloric burn rate per mile.
                          Trent


                          Good Bad & The Monkey

                            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?
                            Yes, with increased muscle mass, your BMR increases a bit. But the only way to know how much is through metabolic testing, and the amount by which it increases is likely fairly subtle relative to the amount you burn through the exercise itself.
                              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?
                              No doubt that running uphill requires more calories. However... ussually if you run uphill durring a workout you will also run downhill and burn fewer calories. If your total elevation change for the run is very close to 0 you will get very little increase in calories because of the hills.
                              Trent


                              Good Bad & The Monkey

                                Running uphill burns more calories per mile than running flat (but only by a very small amount). Running downhill actually burns more calories per mile than running flat, but less than running uphill. Really. This is because downhill running requires increased eccentric muscle contractions to absorb the impact when compared to flat or uphill running.
                                12