We shouldn't burn more than 4000 calories a week!

Options
MonkeyBars
MonkeyBars Posts: 266 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
ok, I've just read an interesting article and I wonder how many of us fit into this box? I'm normally over 4000 per week, I fit in a rest day every 7-10 days depending how I feel. If I've not done one by day 10, I force one.

I train 2 - 3 times per day, mainly morning/lunch or lunch/evening (and of course morning/lunch/evening).

here's the article:-

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-you-shouldnt-burn-more-than-4000-calories-a-week-through-exercise/

Replies

  • DonnaLeeCattes
    DonnaLeeCattes Posts: 492 Member
    Options
    that was very interesting, thanks for sharing
  • djmauck
    djmauck Posts: 18
    Options
    Very interesting article! I don't even come close to 4000. I train about 5 times a week, a combination of weight lifting and Muay Thai. That probably adds up to about 3000 calories a week. I couldn't really imagine doing a significant amount more than that without it really cutting into my life time-wise, not to mention how little energy I'd have left for work and all the stuff I have to do after work and before.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    You have to take this epidemiology stuff with a grain of salt. There are numerous possible confounders. Furthermore, 4000 calories per week is a lot more than your linked article seems to imply. Most people would not burn that much even if they worked out every single day!

    There were a few other things I didn't like about the article either. For one thing, it linked this study: "http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/303/6/R571.full," which is a big pet peave of mine because it's actually comparing higher intensity shorter workouts to longer lower intensity endurance workouts. Sadly the authors (and usually those who cite it as proof of anything) seem not to realize that for some reason.
  • MonkeyBars
    MonkeyBars Posts: 266 Member
    Options
    You have to take this epidemiology stuff with a grain of salt. There are numerous possible confounders. Furthermore, 4000 calories per week is a lot more than your linked article seems to imply. Most people would not burn that much even if they worked out every single day!

    There were a few other things I didn't like about the article either. For one thing, it linked this study: "http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/303/6/R571.full," which is a big pet peave of mine because it's actually comparing higher intensity shorter workouts to longer lower intensity endurance workouts. Sadly the authors (and usually those who cite it as proof of anything) seem not to realize that for some reason.

    I think you're right. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

    Limiting ourselves to a 4000 calorie a week burn is subjective. We're complex living beings with many different evolved mechanisms to keep us alive. Being fit and well is evolution demonstrated at it's best, the reason most of us exercise is to keep our mechanisms in order. Perhaps some of us are at the top end of calorie burning, but intensity vs endurance isn't a comparison in the case shown.
  • TELR85
    TELR85 Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    Interesting...good share.
  • rmcannell
    rmcannell Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    I'm not sure how I feel about that article either. Usually, Mark does a good job with what he writes, but here I feel like he's really over simplifying. For one, as someone else suggested, what he pulls from the studies isn't entirely in context. He makes it sound like the recent studies, which were covered in the NY Times and other publications, found that more exercise was worse for you, when in fact they found that more exercise didn't necessarily produce MORE positive results. It wasn't worse, it just wasn't much better.

    Additionally, what is moderate intensity or even low intensity cardio to one person may be high intensity to another. I am training for a marathon and would say that 3 out of my 5 runs each week are low - moderate intensity. My heart rate stays fairly low, I can talk easily, and have no trouble breathing. Would someone who just started running consider 15 miles at a 9 minute per mile pace to be moderate intensity? No, of course not. That would tax their system much more because they had not adapted or trained their body for the exercise yet.

    I think the article needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and if someone wanted to pull something from it, perhaps it would be not to push to your absolute limit for more than 4000 cal. per week - which I imagine would be difficult to do anyway.

Categories