"Americans Exercise More....Obesity Rates Still Climbing"
Replies
-
deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
@deannalfisher
I think you might be underestimating your calorie burn.
An extremely low average power output of 80w would mean a net calorie burn of 1,008 net calories for three and a half hours and I very much doubt 80w would give you 16mph unless you are on an ultra-aerodynamic recumbent, wearing a skin suit and in a velodrome.
ETA - a power output of 200w for an hour and a half is 1080 net cals.
3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
@deannalfisher
I think you might be underestimating your calorie burn.
An extremely low average power output of 80w would mean a net calorie burn of 1,008 net calories for three and a half hours and I very much doubt 80w would give you 16mph unless you are on an ultra-aerodynamic recumbent, wearing a skin suit and in a velodrome.
ETA - a power output of 200w for an hour and a half is 1080 net cals.
i don't use power - but that was derived off my HR and gps settings on my polar for a race
ETA - my polar flow file from the race - https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/14648882680 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »According to Wikipedia...
The average American consumes 3750 calories per day
2nd highest in the world
PER DAY!
I believe it. When I first started on MFP I realized after tracking for a day or two, that was how much I had been eating. It was easy to cut back once I knew how much I had been consuming, and how much I should be eating.
4 -
Carrying heavy bodyweight, whether muscle or fat, has been shown to be detrimental to health.
It puts a strain on your heart in either case.
And can also affect other organs like your liver, kidneys, pancreas, lymph system, brain, vision/eyes, joints, immune system, teeth, skin etc, etc, etc.
I recall reading somewhere that people who are motivated most to lose weight are folks trying to improve or eliminate their health issues.4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
@deannalfisher
I think you might be underestimating your calorie burn.
An extremely low average power output of 80w would mean a net calorie burn of 1,008 net calories for three and a half hours and I very much doubt 80w would give you 16mph unless you are on an ultra-aerodynamic recumbent, wearing a skin suit and in a velodrome.
ETA - a power output of 200w for an hour and a half is 1080 net cals.
i don't use power - but that was derived off my HR and gps settings on my polar for a race
ETA - my polar flow file from the race - https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/1464888268
@deannalfisher
There's some calculators (like this one - http://bikecalculator.com/wattsMetric.html ) that attempt to back calculate your power from your speed/distance/weight/bike etc. etc.
Strava tries to do the same kind of thing from your stats, your bike details and elevation.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
I can run 11.5-12 miles in 90 mins, that burns me about 1k calories. I’m 33 y/o, 5’1” ~110 lbs.8 -
I'd agree that running over 10 miles in 90 min will burn around 1000 cal (depending on weight -- 100 cal per mile is about right for 150 lb), but the vast majority of people who log those kinds of stats (let alone doing so daily) aren't running 10+ miles.4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd agree that running over 10 miles in 90 min will burn around 1000 cal (depending on weight -- 100 cal per mile is about right for 150 lb), but the vast majority of people who log those kinds of stats (let alone doing so daily) aren't running 10+ miles.
Depending on your level of conditioning, it’s easier than you think to run 10+ miles daily. That’s pretty much the norm for me.5 -
Yeah I wouldn’t call a 10+ mile run the norm for many ppl - that is within range of believable
But seeing 1000+ for an hour of elliptical or similar4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
@deannalfisher
I think you might be underestimating your calorie burn.
An extremely low average power output of 80w would mean a net calorie burn of 1,008 net calories for three and a half hours and I very much doubt 80w would give you 16mph unless you are on an ultra-aerodynamic recumbent, wearing a skin suit and in a velodrome.
ETA - a power output of 200w for an hour and a half is 1080 net cals.
i don't use power - but that was derived off my HR and gps settings on my polar for a race
ETA - my polar flow file from the race - https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/1464888268
@deannalfisher
There's some calculators (like this one - http://bikecalculator.com/wattsMetric.html ) that attempt to back calculate your power from your speed/distance/weight/bike etc. etc.
Strava tries to do the same kind of thing from your stats, your bike details and elevation.
Ugh that’s just depressing! It estimated 140 watts and 1400cal1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Ugh that’s just depressing! It estimated 140 watts and 1400cal
Why depressing? You at least got a snickers bar or some bananas out of the recalculation!
5 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Ugh that’s just depressing! It estimated 140 watts and 1400cal
Why depressing? You at least got a snickers bar or some bananas out of the recalculation!
Cause it shows me just how much I slacked off with my training...lol7 -
Has anyone pointed out how it's not just a matter of food choices, but *who* is exercising?
E.g., is it the obese exercising more, or the already fit becoming more fit?8 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
90 minutes running, 1000 calories....yeah, that's about right.
Idk anything about your stats, but 16mph for 3.5hours (outside) would probably be in the same ballpark. Cycling, you aren't performing a steady effort due to downhills, momentum, etc. Switch to flat 19mph and different story...0 -
Within the exercise part too, there are too many on this site who hate cardio and only advocate lifting heavy. This may be more prevalent among women. I have several friends on here with the philosophy that they can eat pizza and ice cream as long as they are doing heavy squats. That is not healthy living, even if we dont focus on weight.5
-
The "sneaky" calories in the standard American diet are a big part of the problem. I have no problem keeping my calories/exercise ratio balanced when I cook at home and know exactly what I am putting in my mouth. Lots of sugar and extra fat calories added to restaurant food to enhance flavor along with supersized portions make eating out a minefield for me.5
-
deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
I can run 11.5-12 miles in 90 mins, that burns me about 1k calories. I’m 33 y/o, 5’1” ~110 lbs.
Ran 13.2 today in 2 hours. Steady effort, HR avg 75% max (for people who think that matters). 29, 5'7, 146, female.
Burned about 1200.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd agree that running over 10 miles in 90 min will burn around 1000 cal (depending on weight -- 100 cal per mile is about right for 150 lb), but the vast majority of people who log those kinds of stats (let alone doing so daily) aren't running 10+ miles.
Depending on your level of conditioning, it’s easier than you think to run 10+ miles daily. That’s pretty much the norm for me.
I said nothing about how easy it was, I said it's not particularly common for people logging exercise on MFP.
I am skeptical about the benefits of daily 10-12 mile runs, true -- I know age group competitor marathoners who may well run the same weekly distance, but the miles and workouts are more varied. But I'm not saying it isn't consistent with anyone's goals; it might be. I'm saying it's not the norm on MFP, including for people who think they are burning 1000 cal in 90 min. Much more often I've seen people log that based on workouts that are unlikely to come close to that.
I don't care and don't comment unless asked to, FTR.11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd agree that running over 10 miles in 90 min will burn around 1000 cal (depending on weight -- 100 cal per mile is about right for 150 lb), but the vast majority of people who log those kinds of stats (let alone doing so daily) aren't running 10+ miles.
Depending on your level of conditioning, it’s easier than you think to run 10+ miles daily. That’s pretty much the norm for me.
I said nothing about how easy it was, I said it's not particularly common for people logging exercise on MFP.
I am skeptical about the benefits of daily 10-12 mile runs, true -- I know age group competitor marathoners who may well run the same weekly distance, but the miles and workouts are more varied. But I'm not saying it isn't consistent with anyone's goals; it might be. I'm saying it's not the norm on MFP, including for people who think they are burning 1000 cal in 90 min. Much more often I've seen people log that based on workouts that are unlikely to come close to that.
I don't care and don't comment unless asked to, FTR.
i didn’t realize this was being asked to you specifically. My apologies, and thanks so much for gracing us with your comments.14 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
I can run 11.5-12 miles in 90 mins, that burns me about 1k calories. I’m 33 y/o, 5’1” ~110 lbs.
Ran 13.2 today in 2 hours. Steady effort, HR avg 75% max (for people who think that matters). 29, 5'7, 146, female.
Burned about 1200.
Right on, that’s a great run and sounds about right for calories burned. I get in 15-16 miles in 2 hours, and usually clock about 1300 or so calories burned.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd agree that running over 10 miles in 90 min will burn around 1000 cal (depending on weight -- 100 cal per mile is about right for 150 lb), but the vast majority of people who log those kinds of stats (let alone doing so daily) aren't running 10+ miles.
Depending on your level of conditioning, it’s easier than you think to run 10+ miles daily. That’s pretty much the norm for me.
I said nothing about how easy it was, I said it's not particularly common for people logging exercise on MFP.
I am skeptical about the benefits of daily 10-12 mile runs, true -- I know age group competitor marathoners who may well run the same weekly distance, but the miles and workouts are more varied. But I'm not saying it isn't consistent with anyone's goals; it might be. I'm saying it's not the norm on MFP, including for people who think they are burning 1000 cal in 90 min. Much more often I've seen people log that based on workouts that are unlikely to come close to that.
I don't care and don't comment unless asked to, FTR.
i didn’t realize this was being asked to you specifically. My apologies, and thanks so much for gracing us with your comments.
Um, I think you misunderstood. I was saying that even though I might be skeptical when someone posts 1000 cal burn based on 90 minutes circuit training and stationary biking at the gym (or house cleaning), I don't say anything unless they ask.
Not sure how you managed to interpret it as a slam on you, but I'm sorry you took it that way.13 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph
I can run 11.5-12 miles in 90 mins, that burns me about 1k calories. I’m 33 y/o, 5’1” ~110 lbs.
Ran 13.2 today in 2 hours. Steady effort, HR avg 75% max (for people who think that matters). 29, 5'7, 146, female.
Burned about 1200.
Right on, that’s a great run and sounds about right for calories burned. I get in 15-16 miles in 2 hours, and usually clock about 1300 or so calories burned.
That's awesome. Do you watch your heart rate during your runs?
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can he do at least 20 good push ups in a row? Bench 125% or so of bodyweight? If not, yes he is obese by BMI and bodyfat measure.
As I said in my initial post, if he's a big time lifter he may be at a non-obese BF% at his height and weight. If no liftimg that possibility really approaches 0%.
I can do that! I am at a BMI of 42.6. Being a least of all a bodybuilder, I haven't benched 350 lbs of weight, but I shoved my brother against a wall, and I'm guessing he weighs 380. Benching isn't good for my knees.
17 -
stevencloser wrote: »I'm 5'10'' and used to be 200 pounds. Let me tell you, I was fat. Fat, fat, fat. Borderline obese. Unless he did strength training and has good amounts of muscle because of that, so is your husband. And so are you. Denial won't make that go away.
And so are you. I am not saying I was thin or obese. I am saying my husband is not obese. I am calling you out for being an anorexic. There's been too many fat-phobic comments to my answer.
I have eight cats (yes, a long story). There are three cats in the obese category, three cats in medium category, and two cats in the skinny (cats still don't have nervous disorder like anorexia nervosa) category. I feed them all the same.
Don't categorize a person by what your BMI says, by what your prejudice is, and by your scale says.
And, by the way, a 6 foot 5 inch, weighing 265 lbs is obese according BMI standards. He wasn't. He was the discus (and shotput) thrower of a PAC12 university. He was my boyfriend previous to the husband.
23 -
Something like 30 years ago I was just under 200 pounds (I'm 5'4", I looked like a beachball on stilts) and tried to lose weight by exercising more but "eating the same amount." I happened to catch a radio broadcast by a man by the name of Paul Harvey. He said that the NIH had announced that a study had shown that people trying to lose weight were divided into four groups. One group only exercised, one group only ate a calorie-restricted diet, one group restricted calories and exercised and one did nothing. I do not remember how long the study lasted. The group that did nothing and those that only exercised showed only a slight significant difference (sorry, after all these years I don't remember the exact numbers). The group restricting calories did show a significant drop in weight but the group exercising and restricting calories showed the most drastic weight drop. We knew 30 years ago that exercise alone was not an effective weight loss strategy. I think people already know, just that some of them prefer to fool themselves. It's easier and more comfortable.1
-
candylilacs wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm 5'10'' and used to be 200 pounds. Let me tell you, I was fat. Fat, fat, fat. Borderline obese. Unless he did strength training and has good amounts of muscle because of that, so is your husband. And so are you. Denial won't make that go away.
And so are you. I am not saying I was thin or obese. I am saying my husband is not obese. I am calling you out for being an anorexic. There's been too many fat-phobic comments to my answer.
I have eight cats (yes, a long story). There are three cats in the obese category, three cats in medium category, and two cats in the skinny (cats still don't have nervous disorder like anorexia nervosa) category. I feed them all the same.
Don't categorize a person by what your BMI says, by what your prejudice is, and by your scale says.
And, by the way, a 6 foot 5 inch, weighing 265 lbs is obese according BMI standards. He wasn't. He was the discus (and shotput) thrower of a PAC12 university. He was my boyfriend previous to the husband.
Your definitions need some work. Fat phobic, anorexic, and obese do not mean what you seem to think they mean.25 -
candylilacs wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm 5'10'' and used to be 200 pounds. Let me tell you, I was fat. Fat, fat, fat. Borderline obese. Unless he did strength training and has good amounts of muscle because of that, so is your husband. And so are you. Denial won't make that go away.
And so are you. I am not saying I was thin or obese. I am saying my husband is not obese. I am calling you out for being an anorexic. There's been too many fat-phobic comments to my answer.
I have eight cats (yes, a long story). There are three cats in the obese category, three cats in medium category, and two cats in the skinny (cats still don't have nervous disorder like anorexia nervosa) category. I feed them all the same.
Don't categorize a person by what your BMI says, by what your prejudice is, and by your scale says.
And, by the way, a 6 foot 5 inch, weighing 265 lbs is obese according BMI standards. He wasn't. He was the discus (and shotput) thrower of a PAC12 university. He was my boyfriend previous to the husband.
Your definitions need some work. Fat phobic, anorexic, and obese do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
^ Seconded.
And I'm still left trying to figure out how benching could be not good for somebody's knees.14 -
Fat-phobic: 1. Fear and dislike of obese people and/or obesity. 2. Fearful of fatness or becoming fat. Check!
Anorexic: There is accumulating evidence that young men have become as concerned with their physical appearance as young women. However, different from women who want to achieve an ultra-slender body shape, most men want to increase their muscle mass and body size. Women with anorexia nervosa (AN) and competitive male bodybuilders are those who have taken the cultural standards of bodily perfection to the extreme, and both use unhealthy behaviours such as severe food restriction, excessive exercise, and steroids in pursuit of their goals. Source: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15001065 Check!
Obese: A condition characterized by the excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body. Check!
17 -
candylilacs wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm 5'10'' and used to be 200 pounds. Let me tell you, I was fat. Fat, fat, fat. Borderline obese. Unless he did strength training and has good amounts of muscle because of that, so is your husband. And so are you. Denial won't make that go away.
And so are you. I am not saying I was thin or obese. I am saying my husband is not obese. I am calling you out for being an anorexic. There's been too many fat-phobic comments to my answer.
I have eight cats (yes, a long story). There are three cats in the obese category, three cats in medium category, and two cats in the skinny (cats still don't have nervous disorder like anorexia nervosa) category. I feed them all the same.
Don't categorize a person by what your BMI says, by what your prejudice is, and by your scale says.
And, by the way, a 6 foot 5 inch, weighing 265 lbs is obese according BMI standards. He wasn't. He was the discus (and shotput) thrower of a PAC12 university. He was my boyfriend previous to the husband.
Your definitions need some work. Fat phobic, anorexic, and obese do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
^ Seconded.
And I'm still left trying to figure out how benching could be not good for somebody's knees.
Thanks. I was curious about the knees and benching thing too.4 -
candylilacs wrote: »Fat-phobic: 1. Fear and dislike of obese people and/or obesity. 2. Fearful of fatness or becoming fat. Check!
Anorexic: There is accumulating evidence that young men have become as concerned with their physical appearance as young women. However, different from women who want to achieve an ultra-slender body shape, most men want to increase their muscle mass and body size. Women with anorexia nervosa (AN) and competitive male bodybuilders are those who have taken the cultural standards of bodily perfection to the extreme, and both use unhealthy behaviours such as severe food restriction, excessive exercise, and steroids in pursuit of their goals. Source: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15001065 Check!
Obese: A condition characterized by the excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body. Check!
These findings provide causal evidence that perceptions of weight and health status are strongly influenced by the body weight of the people we see around us.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949613
The under-detection of overweight and obesity may have been in part caused by exposure to larger body sizes resulting in an upwards shift in the range of body sizes that are perceived as being visually 'normal'.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29479462
Higher regional obesity prevalence is associated with lower maternal perception, suggesting that what is common has a greater likelihood of being perceived as normal. As perception is a first step to change, it may be harder to intervene in areas with high-obesity prevalence where intervention is most urgent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2221260017
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions