Only burn 4000 calories per week?

Showing 1-44 of 44 messages
Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 10:51 AM
Has anyone seen/read this new article at Mark Sisson's site? It seems
to me like another "beware chronic cardio" speech from him to me.
Here's the link:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-you-shouldnt-burn-more-than-4000-calories-a-week-through-exercise/#axzz28v1aUBxC

tl;dr summary: Don't burn more than 4,000 calories per week in
"focused exercise". For a runner (at 185lbs), he says that is around 6
miles. That also equates to 2 hours of weight lifting per week (per
the article).

I don't buy this at all. 6 miles in a week!?! I haven't run hardly at
all this year, and I can do 6 miles per week easy. The key to his post
seems to be that you shouldn't "exert" yourself (my word, not his) for
a period longer than 4,000 calories worth of energy. I think the
advantage of MAF training is that you aren't stressing your system by
doing the miles at an excessive heart rate.

I could see how this 4,000 calorie rule would apply to people who are
in the "chronic cardio" camp, or those who end up with more heart
damage after running marathons.

What are everyone else's thoughts on a "weekly calorie limit" for your exercise?
Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 10:58 AM
Ok. Replying to my own thread (sorry), but I missed this paragraph the
first time through.

"And in a pair of recent studies, researchers found that moderate
exercise – jogging up to 20 miles a week at an 11 minute mile pace –
offered the most protection against early mortality. Running more than
20 miles a week, or running at a 7 minute mile pace, offered fewer
mortality benefits. In the second paper, Danish scientists found that
people who spent one to two and a half hours jogging at a “slow or
average pace” lived longer than those who didn’t run at all or who ran
at a faster pace. James O’Keefe, a cardiologist and presenter at the
Ancestral Health Symposium, was quoted as saying that “after about 45
to 60 minutes a day, you reach a point of diminishing returns.”
"

So, maybe what they are referring to as "jogging" actually means
"running correctly to benefit your aerobic system" aka MAF training.

Tuck, did you hear/see this guy at the AHS?
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123787] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 11:00 AM
I agree with your take, however, I note that this study does indicate that overdoing it is probably not a good thing for you:
 
"We hypothesize that human daily energy expenditure may be an evolved physiological trait largely independent of cultural differences."
 
I don't have the time to do the research to figure out whether Mark got his math wrong, though. :)

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Doug Sims <wdsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
"Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe



--
_________________________________
Tucker
 

Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? gordo 10/10/12 11:02 AM
I've read that covering a mile takes about 100 calories, running or walking. My handy dandy HR monitor estimates that I burn 90 on the flats at MAF. I'm pretty sure that 4000 divided by 90 is bigger than 6 ...  LOL 

Don't have time to read the article now, got to run.

Gordo
Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? JasonH 10/10/12 11:05 AM
I have really tried to keep an open mind reading articles on his website but it gets difficult.

I run 2-3 hrs/day and feel great when I do it.  According to articles on his website I should have major 'glucose deficiency' being on a ketosis diet.  He/they say only if you are sedentary does your body synthesize enough glucose to 'live'.  Obviously wrong.

Perhaps his 'anti-cardio' stance has more to do with the anaerobic side of things ?  He is so hard to pin down on stuff I stopped paying attention too hard.  That and him being more or less "you should not stay iin ketosis for a long period of time".

Jason

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123788] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 11:05 AM
"Tuck, did you hear/see this guy at the AHS?"
 
I did.  I also gave him the business afterward for his shoddy presentation.  He's more of the "chronic cardio" crowd (even though he's a runner himself).  all the "evidence" he presented was the usual short-term heart damage nonsense. He was completely unaware of the biggest study on runners and mortality, which totally contradicts that argument.  Even Dan Lieberman (speaking to Mark Sisson) brought this one up as a refutation of "chronic cardio".
 
Yes, I did get to bring up chronic cardio while talking to Dan Lieberman and Mark Sisson at AHS.  Don't you wish you'd gone? :)
 
"Can Running Help You Live Longer?"
--
"Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe



--
_________________________________
Tucker
 

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123791] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 11:07 AM
Huh.  44.4 miles/week.  That's almost exactly the number required to avoid heart damage when running a marathon...

--
"Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..." hosted by Barefoot Ted
 
Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe



--
_________________________________
Tucker
 

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123794] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 11:13 AM
Interesting.
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123793] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 11:14 AM
> Yes, I did get to bring up chronic cardio while talking to Dan Lieberman and
> Mark Sisson at AHS.  Don't you wish you'd gone? :)

Yep. Except I didn't even know about it until after you got back from it... :)
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123796] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 11:25 AM
Hey Gordo, for when you get back from your run...
 
"They say that for every equation you add, you lose half your audience. For the number of readers I usually receive, this post is intended for at most 1/128th of a person."
 
In a nutshell, he says that energy used is relatively constant for a given distance run.  Fascinating.
 
From here:
 
"Mythbusting: Running A Mile Always Burns The Same Calories"
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123791] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 12:15 PM

If I remember correctly running burns around 10 calories per minute. So yes, Gordo's number sounds right.

--
"Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..." hosted by Barefoot Ted
 
Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123803] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 12:20 PM
 
What's the Burn? A Calorie Calculator
You can use the formulas below to determine your calorie-burn while running and walking. The "Net Calorie Burn" measures calories burned, minus basal metabolism. Scientists consider this the best way to evaluate the actual calorie-burn of any exercise. The walking formulas apply to speeds of 3 to 4 mph. At 5 mph and faster, walking burns more calories than running.
Your Total Calorie Burn/Mile
Your Net Calorie Burn/Mile
Running
.75 x your weight (in lbs.)
.63 x your weight
Walking
.53 x your weight

.30 x your weight

Adapted from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004.


--
_________________________________
Tucker
 

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123804] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 12:32 PM

Opened the article, he is seriously wrong on those numbers.

6 mile run and 13 mile bike ride 4000 calories each, simply ridiculous.

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123804] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 12:36 PM

Olympic distance tri, around 2700 calories and the bike alone is twice that:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/294973-how-many-calories-are-burned-in-a-triathlon/

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123806] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 12:36 PM
Where did the 6 mile run come from?
From the article:
 
"Well, the simplest way I’ve found to describe it is in terms of road miles. If you’re doing 40 miles a week running or 80 miles a week cycling, you’re hitting roughly 4,000 calories. "
 
OK, that's correct...

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123804] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 12:38 PM

And Sisson knows this, guessing ghost writer...

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123808] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 12:39 PM
I thought 6 miles came from the article, but apparently it came from my inability to read.

From this part of the article:

"You could use an online calculator like FitDay or ExRx to get a better idea. For a 185 pound, 6 foot tall person to burn just around 4,000 calories a week, he could get away with:

  • Running six miles.
  • Lifting weights intensely for two hours total.
  • Biking 13 miles.
  • Playing an hour and a half of field sports (soccer, rugby, football, Ultimate)."
That list is missing a conjunction. I assumed "OR" between each item, I think Mark meant "AND" between each one.

My bad.
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123809] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 12:40 PM
Actually, the OP jumped to a conclusion...
 
Here's what he says:
 
"For a 185 pound, 6 foot tall person to burn just around 4,000 calories a week, he could get away with:
  • Running six miles.
  • Lifting weights intensely for two hours total.
  • Biking 13 miles.
  • Playing an hour and a half of field sports (soccer, rugby, football, Ultimate).

That’s a pretty solid week of activity, I’d say, but it certainly isn’t excessive, and it would provide a far more well-rounded sense of fitness than just pounding away at the road for 40 miles."

OK, as a general prescription for fitness, that's not bad.

I doubt that if you go over it if you'll come to ill; when I was doing a lot more than that I had no ill effects, other than a lack of free time.

Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Black Bear 10/10/12 12:41 PM
What do you mean by saying "thats almost exactly the number required
to avoid heart damage when running a marathon"? that doesn't really
make any sense to me.

Peace :)
Jacob.

On Oct 10, 2:07 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huh.  44.4 miles/week.  That's almost exactly the number required to avoid
> heart damage when running a marathon...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM, gordo <gaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've read that covering a mile takes about 100 calories, running or
> > walking. My handy dandy HR monitor estimates that I burn 90 on the flats at
> > MAF. I'm pretty sure that 4000 divided by 90 is bigger than 6 ...  LOL
>
> > Don't have time to read the article now, got to run.
>
> > Gordo
>
> > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:51:39 AM UTC-6, Doug Sims wrote:
>
> >> Has anyone seen/read this new article at Mark Sisson's site? It seems
> >> to me like another "beware chronic cardio" speech from him to me.
> >> Here's the link:
> >>http://www.marksdailyapple.**com/why-you-shouldnt-burn-**
> >> more-than-4000-calories-a-**week-through-exercise/#**axzz28v1aUBxC<http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-you-shouldnt-burn-more-than-4000-c...>
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123808] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 12:41 PM
Although, looking at the comments on the article, I'm not the only one who thought this. Many people were complaining about 25 mile bike rides every day being completely normal and easy. And there is the guy in the comments who runs 13 miles to work everyday (or something like that).
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123812] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 12:44 PM
You must be new. Search the archives. ;) (just kidding, it was awhile
back that we talked about this)

In summary, there was a "study" that came out a while back that said
essentially: "running a marathon cases devastating heart damage" or
something like that (I embellished the headline a little).
The conclusion was that if you ran a marathon after spending 10 years
doing nothing but 12 ounce curls (i.e. couch potato), then yes, it is
unhealthy to run a marathon. BUT if you train properly and average
around 40-45 miles per week (don't remember the actual number) for a
period time before the marathon, then you are healthy enough to not
damage your heart.
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123812] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 12:45 PM
"The Boston marathoners who had trained on less than 35 miles a week exhibited nine times the troponin leakage as those who trained over 45 miles a week. In fact, the latter group had almost no troponin leakage, according to the report in Circulation. It commented, regarding this group's troponin levels: "No appreciable change from baseline was noted.""
 
That's transient damage, from over-working a muscle (the heart).  Really good article, do read the whole thing.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Black Bear <jacobn...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
_________________________________
Tucker
 

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123811] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 12:45 PM
"Actually, the OP jumped to a conclusion..."

Yeah, that idiot can't read to save his life... Wait, who are we talking about?
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123816] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 12:46 PM
You're not the first, and you won't be the last. ;)
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123818] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 12:47 PM
Judging by the comments, I'm in good company. I hope he edits the article to clarify that his list is the total for 1 week, not just "pick one" for the week. I did read it a couple of times, but I also missed the one about 40 miles per week, so I'm just going to let the adults talk now...
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123811] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Rich Frantz 10/10/12 12:50 PM
OMG my face turned beet red trying not to explode from laughter in my cubicle!
 

On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:45:23 UTC-4, Doug Sims wrote:
"Actually, the OP jumped to a conclusion..."

Yeah, that idiot can't read to save his life... Wait, who are we talking about?
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123822] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 12:56 PM

So roughly 44.44 MAF miles for me before something falls off? Lol..

--
"Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..." hosted by Barefoot Ted
 
Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123822] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 12:58 PM
Probably your heart will stop... :)  Keep it to 44.43 and you'll be fine.--
_________________________________
Tucker
 

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123789] Only burn 4000 calories per week? John Kemp 10/10/12 1:33 PM
But what about this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19574095 ?

"It appears that elite endurance (aerobic) athletes and mixed-sports (aerobic and anaerobic) athletes survive longer than the general population"

I'll bet that elite endurance athletes often do more than 4000 calories of exercise per week, so why, statistically, do they seem to live longer than the general population?

JohnK

On Oct 10, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Tuck wrote:

> I agree with your take, however, I note that this study does indicate that overdoing it is probably not a good thing for you:
>  
> "We hypothesize that human daily energy expenditure may be an evolved physiological trait largely independent of cultural differences."
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040503
>  
> I don't have the time to do the research to figure out whether Mark got his math wrong, though. :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Doug Sims <wdsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone seen/read this new article at Mark Sisson's site? It seems
> to me like another "beware chronic cardio" speech from him to me.
> Here's the link:
> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-you-shouldnt-burn-more-than-4000-calories-a-week-through-exercise/#axzz28v1aUBxC
>
> tl;dr summary: Don't burn more than 4,000 calories per week in
> "focused exercise". For a runner (at 185lbs), he says that is around 6
> miles. That also equates to 2 hours of weight lifting per week (per
> the article).
>
> I don't buy this at all. 6 miles in a week!?! I haven't run hardly at
> all this year, and I can do 6 miles per week easy. The key to his post
> seems to be that you shouldn't "exert" yourself (my word, not his) for
> a period longer than 4,000 calories worth of energy. I think the
> advantage of MAF training is that you aren't stressing your system by
> doing the miles at an excessive heart rate.
>
> I could see how this 4,000 calorie rule would apply to people who are
> in the "chronic cardio" camp, or those who end up with more heart
> damage after running marathons.
>
> What are everyone else's thoughts on a "weekly calorie limit" for your exercise?
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123829] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 1:36 PM
Nice find!
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123830] Only burn 4000 calories per week? John Kemp 10/10/12 1:48 PM
On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Tuck wrote:

> Nice find!

There are more, similar studies :)

I am not sure how to take all of this research though. I'm tempted to say that if you feel good doing 150 miles running a week (or whatever) then just keep doing it. I can't imagine how someone could sustain huge volume _without_ doing it largely aerobically. And if you do that (exercising slowly enough), I really have trouble believing you'll get into serious health trouble.

JohnK
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123832] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 1:51 PM
"There are more, similar studies :)"
 
I know, I've just not seen that one.
 
I think Sisson's right in that you're probably not pursuing an optimal course if you're hammering away on a high-carb, high-wheat, high-seed-oil diet.
 
But the literature seems pretty clear that hammering away on the Modern American Diet is way better for you than being sedentary on the MAD

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123787] Only burn 4000 calories per week? el jefe 10/10/12 1:59 PM
you might have misread it....the six miles a week is in addition to some
other stuff...if you equate that to just running, it is about fourty miles
per week..........i still don't buy it tho.......el jefe
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123833] Only burn 4000 calories per week? John Kemp 10/10/12 2:04 PM
On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Tuck wrote:

> "There are more, similar studies :)"
>  
> I know, I've just not seen that one.
>  
> I think Sisson's right in that you're probably not pursuing an optimal course if you're hammering away on a high-carb, high-wheat, high-seed-oil diet.
>  
> But the literature seems pretty clear that hammering away on the Modern American Diet is way better for you than being sedentary on the MAD

Good point, but you're still saying that the problem is diet, not "too much" cardio. Which I agree with.

I think "too much" cardio is stressing about something that is unlikely to the extreme - that someone could sustain high volume (above 40 miles running a week) and stay healthy enough in the short-term (ie. not get injured or sick in the short-term) for a long-enough time that it causes a long-term heart problem?

Elite athletes would seem to be a prime set of people to perform that kind of study on and they seem from existing research to live longer than the general population.

My intuition tells me that Sisson is off the mark, and helping perpetuate a less-than-helpful myth that too much cardio breaks your heart ;)
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123793] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? el jefe 10/10/12 2:08 PM
i have also put in over a hundred thousand miles while eating one meal per day.....doesn't that mean that i am ketogenic for a large portion of time.......i always run on empty.....he obviously knows a lot of stuff...whassup with this disinformation.......but again, i have been known to be incorrect.......el jefe
----- Original Message -----
From: JasonH
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:05 PM
Subject: [Minimalist Runner:123793] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week?

I have really tried to keep an open mind reading articles on his website but it gets difficult.

I run 2-3 hrs/day and feel great when I do it.  According to articles on his website I should have major 'glucose deficiency' being on a ketosis diet.  He/they say only if you are sedentary does your body synthesize enough glucose to 'live'.  Obviously wrong.

Perhaps his 'anti-cardio' stance has more to do with the anaerobic side of things ?  He is so hard to pin down on stuff I stopped paying attention too hard.  That and him being more or less "you should not stay iin ketosis for a long period of time".

Jason

--
"Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..." hosted by Barefoot Ted
 
Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123835] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Tuck 10/10/12 2:12 PM
"My intuition tells me that Sisson is off the mark, and helping perpetuate a less-than-helpful myth that too much cardio breaks your heart ;)"
 
I agree, but I think he's doing it with the best of intentions.  And making the point that you can look like he does without killing yourself will get a lot of people to try.
 
I just think he's mistaken, but I can live with the fact that he's 1% or 2% wrong... ;)

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123796] Re: Only burn 4000 calories per week? gordo 10/10/12 3:13 PM
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:25:37 PM UTC-6, Tuck wrote:
Hey Gordo, for when you get back from your run...
 
"They say that for every equation you add, you lose half your audience. For the number of readers I usually receive, this post is intended for at most 1/128th of a person."

I guess that I'm 1/128 of a person. I enjoyed that article. Good find.

Gordo
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123835] Only burn 4000 calories per week? gordo 10/10/12 3:15 PM
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:12:58 PM UTC-6, Tuck wrote:
I agree, but I think he's doing it with the best of intentions.  And making the point that you can look like he does without killing yourself will get a lot of people to try.
 
I just think he's mistaken, but I can live with the fact that he's 1% or 2% wrong... ;)
 
I agree. Don't forget that Sisson's audience is non-athletes. Athletes are going to ignore him and do what they want anyway, so there's no loss.

Gordo
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123839] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 4:21 PM

I disagree, I believe Sisson is a sleazy (but sharp) salesman, here is his other website where he says endurance is good for you. Download his free book.

http://www.recovox.net/

Other bog, predates "daily apple" and has continued all along:

http://recovoxnews.blogspot.com/?m=1

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123851] Only burn 4000 calories per week? John Kemp 10/10/12 6:14 PM
Why not tell the closest story to the truth - basically, don't work too hard at this else you will get sick or injured? 

Or would we rather he treated us like idiots and told us half-truths in "our own best interests"?

Personally, I hate being lied to in this way. I can reasonably expect to do the right thing without worrying about dying from too much cardio. So can most people I know, regardless of their competence in running or other matters. 

This kind of bollocks clouds his otherwise good advice on diet. 

Cheers,

John
--
"Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..." hosted by Barefoot Ted
 
Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123857] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 6:20 PM

+1000

His other (free) book is a good one.

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123857] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Luis Manuel 10/10/12 6:25 PM

But to be fair, life has a thing for finding complications and he is a smart guy....

On Oct 10, 2012 9:14 PM, "John Kemp" <jo...@jkemp.net> wrote:
Re: [Minimalist Runner:123834] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Doug Sims 10/10/12 7:06 PM

Yeah, I'm coming to that conclusion as well. See my post about the idiot who started this thread. ;-)

Re: [Minimalist Runner:123839] Only burn 4000 calories per week? Sean Butler 10/11/12 1:53 PM
His article on training for a marathon wasn't so bad...

/Sean
More topics »