Naturally thin?
Discussion
J4CKO said:
Saw an article this morning saying that a huge percentage of people do no physical activity, at all which is scary for the future of the NHS.
Edit, this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630
Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.
I know it'll feel like semantics but you missed the key word "brisk" there.Edit, this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630
Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.
This morning on the way into work I did 49 minutes, 4.13km, 877 cals and 5,596 steps and practically none of it was "brisk" (though it does average out at 5.05km/h, which is barely over the definition of brisk). And I'm a mother-loving ultra-running, ironman. It's no surprise to me that loads don't manage it.
A brisk walking pace is 3.0 miles per hour or about 20 minutes per mile, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In International units, that is about 5 kilometers per hour or 12 minutes per kilometer.
bigandclever said:
J4CKO said:
Saw an article this morning saying that a huge percentage of people do no physical activity, at all which is scary for the future of the NHS.
Edit, this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630
Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.
I know it'll feel like semantics but you missed the key word "brisk" there.Edit, this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630
Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.
This morning on the way into work I did 49 minutes, 4.13km, 877 cals and 5,596 steps and practically none of it was "brisk" (though it does average out at 5.05km/h, which is barely over the definition of brisk). And I'm a mother-loving ultra-running, ironman. It's no surprise to me that loads don't manage it.
A brisk walking pace is 3.0 miles per hour or about 20 minutes per mile, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In International units, that is about 5 kilometers per hour or 12 minutes per kilometer.
The CDC definition of brisk walking seems odd. I've recently decided to measure my daily lunchtime walks using Strava, and without trying to walk briskly I'm averaging about 15-17 minutes per mile. I do get overtaken as well. 20 minutes per mile seems extremely slow to me. Were they referring to elderly people or something?
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 25th August 10:30
bigandclever said:
J4CKO said:
Saw an article this morning saying that a huge percentage of people do no physical activity, at all which is scary for the future of the NHS.
Edit, this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630
Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.
I know it'll feel like semantics but you missed the key word "brisk" there.Edit, this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630
Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.
This morning on the way into work I did 49 minutes, 4.13km, 877 cals and 5,596 steps and practically none of it was "brisk" (though it does average out at 5.05km/h, which is barely over the definition of brisk). And I'm a mother-loving ultra-running, ironman. It's no surprise to me that loads don't manage it.
A brisk walking pace is 3.0 miles per hour or about 20 minutes per mile, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In International units, that is about 5 kilometers per hour or 12 minutes per kilometer.
I walk most days with the dog, 30 mins, cycle to work and go to the gym, still a stone overweight.
J4CKO said:
I guess anything is better than nothing, some folk can barely manage a shuffle, then they end up in a mobility scooter as walking is too hard, I see it with the work I have been doing at the airport, whole families on scooters and poles, vaping like air would kill them, its tragic, brisk is impossible,
I walk most days with the dog, 30 mins, cycle to work and go to the gym, still a stone overweight.
Must eat too much sugar then. That's the only possible explanation!I walk most days with the dog, 30 mins, cycle to work and go to the gym, still a stone overweight.
RobM77 said:
877 calories walking 4.13km in 49 minutes?! Are you sure about that?
No idea, it's just what google fit said this morning. Garmin connect says 920 calories. To be fair, I ignore them anyway, it was more for 'well this is what I do and I'm not exactly sedentary'. I don't know whether "?!" means you think the numbers are low or high 
bigandclever said:
RobM77 said:
877 calories walking 4.13km in 49 minutes?! Are you sure about that?
No idea, it's just what google fit said this morning. Garmin connect says 920 calories. To be fair, I ignore them anyway, it was more for 'well this is what I do and I'm not exactly sedentary'. I don't know whether "?!" means you think the numbers are low or high this BUPA calculator says I'd burn 229 calories. Even if I was morbidly obese (BMI of 40), I'd only burn 408.
RobM77 said:
bigandclever said:
RobM77 said:
877 calories walking 4.13km in 49 minutes?! Are you sure about that?
No idea, it's just what google fit said this morning. Garmin connect says 920 calories. To be fair, I ignore them anyway, it was more for 'well this is what I do and I'm not exactly sedentary'. I don't know whether "?!" means you think the numbers are low or high this BUPA calculator says I'd burn 229 calories. Even if I was morbidly obese (BMI of 40), I'd only burn 408.
RobM77 said:
bigandclever said:
RobM77 said:
877 calories walking 4.13km in 49 minutes?! Are you sure about that?
No idea, it's just what google fit said this morning. Garmin connect says 920 calories. To be fair, I ignore them anyway, it was more for 'well this is what I do and I'm not exactly sedentary'. I don't know whether "?!" means you think the numbers are low or high this BUPA calculator says I'd burn 229 calories. Even if I was morbidly obese (BMI of 40), I'd only burn 408.
... but, it's a running total of calories for the day, not for the specific activity, because while typing this and eating a cake it's gone up to 1006 calories When I go into the activity it shows 160 calories, so that's much more reasonable. I is a bit fick (and apparently more active than 89% of Reading).bigandclever said:
RobM77 said:
bigandclever said:
RobM77 said:
877 calories walking 4.13km in 49 minutes?! Are you sure about that?
No idea, it's just what google fit said this morning. Garmin connect says 920 calories. To be fair, I ignore them anyway, it was more for 'well this is what I do and I'm not exactly sedentary'. I don't know whether "?!" means you think the numbers are low or high this BUPA calculator says I'd burn 229 calories. Even if I was morbidly obese (BMI of 40), I'd only burn 408.
... but, it's a running total of calories for the day, not for the specific activity, because while typing this and eating a cake it's gone up to 1006 calories When I go into the activity it shows 160 calories, so that's much more reasonable. I is a bit fick (and apparently more active than 89% of Reading).
Weight loss would be very easy if a mild walk burnt over a 1000 calories an hour I just walked four miles in a little over an hour. MyFitnessPal is crediting me with 130 calories
That is just based on carrying my phone, though. If I wear my Apple Watch, it usually comes out in the region of 60 calories per mile.
Some of the numbers being quoted seem awfully high - are they perhaps estimates of total calorie expenditure over duration of exercise, rather than additional expenditure due to exercise?
That is just based on carrying my phone, though. If I wear my Apple Watch, it usually comes out in the region of 60 calories per mile.
Some of the numbers being quoted seem awfully high - are they perhaps estimates of total calorie expenditure over duration of exercise, rather than additional expenditure due to exercise?
They're mostly going to be flat out wrong.
To burn 1k cals in an hour its going to be a fair effort. It takes me about 240w on my bike to do that sort of number (using a powermeter that gives a read out of watts and the KJ required), most people that were not used to cycling would find that very difficult indeed I would have thought.
To burn 1k cals in an hour its going to be a fair effort. It takes me about 240w on my bike to do that sort of number (using a powermeter that gives a read out of watts and the KJ required), most people that were not used to cycling would find that very difficult indeed I would have thought.
Basic point is that, unless you're an exercise nutter cycling miles and miles, the number of calories you burn through exercise in a week is likely to be almost negligible relative to your food intake.
I always think 'Better to spend the mental energy sticking to a diet' when I see very fat people doing cardio. A bit harsh, maybe, but the numbers do sort of back it up. All sorts of other reasons to exercise, but it's not a great way of generating a calorie deficit.
An hour of very hard work in the gym burns about 300 calories for me. A snack, in other words.
I always think 'Better to spend the mental energy sticking to a diet' when I see very fat people doing cardio. A bit harsh, maybe, but the numbers do sort of back it up. All sorts of other reasons to exercise, but it's not a great way of generating a calorie deficit.
An hour of very hard work in the gym burns about 300 calories for me. A snack, in other words.
ORD said:
Basic point is that, unless you're an exercise nutter cycling miles and miles, the number of calories you burn through exercise in a week is likely to be almost negligible relative to your food intake.
I always think 'Better to spend the mental energy sticking to a diet' when I see very fat people doing cardio. A bit harsh, maybe, but the numbers do sort of back it up. All sorts of other reasons to exercise, but it's not a great way of generating a calorie deficit.
An hour of very hard work in the gym burns about 300 calories for me. A snack, in other words.
I find exercise to be a very good way. Once you get fit enough to burn a lot of calories in an hour (7min per mile running for example) it gets much easier to burn through a lot of calories. I always think 'Better to spend the mental energy sticking to a diet' when I see very fat people doing cardio. A bit harsh, maybe, but the numbers do sort of back it up. All sorts of other reasons to exercise, but it's not a great way of generating a calorie deficit.
An hour of very hard work in the gym burns about 300 calories for me. A snack, in other words.
ORD said:
Basic point is that, unless you're an exercise nutter cycling miles and miles, the number of calories you burn through exercise in a week is likely to be almost negligible relative to your food intake.
I always think 'Better to spend the mental energy sticking to a diet' when I see very fat people doing cardio. A bit harsh, maybe, but the numbers do sort of back it up. All sorts of other reasons to exercise, but it's not a great way of generating a calorie deficit.
An hour of very hard work in the gym burns about 300 calories for me. A snack, in other words.
If you are already controlling your diet tightly, and the weight isn't coming off as quickly as you'd like, it gives you something additional you can do. And it increases your fitness, which helps make you feel that the changes you are making are worthwhile. And it builds habits likely to help you maintain your weight. And even if you're ultimately going to stay fat, better to be fat and fit than fat and unfit. Spending an hour a day cycling to and from work makes a big difference, and if it would take you as long to drive it's essentially free.I always think 'Better to spend the mental energy sticking to a diet' when I see very fat people doing cardio. A bit harsh, maybe, but the numbers do sort of back it up. All sorts of other reasons to exercise, but it's not a great way of generating a calorie deficit.
An hour of very hard work in the gym burns about 300 calories for me. A snack, in other words.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff