Reading burns Calories

muziclver
muziclver Posts: 145 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So there was a yahoo article today that was talking about ways to burn extra calories (not in an extreme amount but more than usual or whatever without actually exercising). Well, anyways, the number 2 "tip" said that reading a book actually burns more calories than watching tv. Is there any truth in this? I just thought that was interesting.

Replies

  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    So there was a yahoo article today that was talking about ways to burn extra calories (not in an extreme amount but more than usual or whatever without actually exercising). Well, anyways, the number 2 "tip" said that reading a book actually burns more calories than watching tv. Is there any truth in this? I just thought that was interesting.

    Probably the truth is that when you read a book you are holding it up, when you watch tv, you generally are holding up nothing but your head.

    Dear lord, people write this stuff.
  • muziclver
    muziclver Posts: 145 Member
    So there was a yahoo article today that was talking about ways to burn extra calories (not in an extreme amount but more than usual or whatever without actually exercising). Well, anyways, the number 2 "tip" said that reading a book actually burns more calories than watching tv. Is there any truth in this? I just thought that was interesting.

    Probably the truth is that when you read a book you are holding it up, when you watch tv, you generally are holding up nothing but your head.

    Dear lord, people write this stuff.

    I just thought in general, you're still practically not doing anything. lol
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    Tons of variables, and the difference between the two is negligible. I guess some people can go below sleep burn while doing a vegetable impression in front of the tv.
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    Here's a better tip. Consider any tip list on weight loss as bull honky.

    Calories, macros. That's everything in the end.
  • Thomasm198
    Thomasm198 Posts: 3,189 Member
    I really nailed it in the gym today. I did 2 chapters of "The Shining". I have one more chapter to do and I can move on to "The Shawshank Redemption".

    :noway:
  • kimmymayhall
    kimmymayhall Posts: 419 Member
    I probably burn more calories sitting at my desk browsing MFP than I do watching TV. Because I'm sitting upright with good posture, clicking on a keyboard, and searching for drama rather than just laying on the couch. But the difference is negligible.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Yeah...this would be part of your NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)...you burn calories just driving to work...taking a dump...typing in MFP. You also burn calories doing nothing but being alive...in fact, the vast majority of your caloric needs go to just being alive. If you are a rather sedentary individual, about 80% of your "burn" is just being alive...pumping your heart...pumping your lungs, etc. For someone lightly active to moderately active, it's about 65%-70% of their daily "burn" just being alive. Exercise actually accounts for very little in the grand scheme of things...roughly 10-15% of your daily calorie requirements for the average person (obviously more if athlete).

    The thing that annoys me about stuff like this is that it makes it appear that people are ignorant of the fact that they burn these calories day to day and always have...and then they just look for ways to work around actually doing hard work...and they start logging vacuuming the house and such as exercise. It's pretty sad and pathetic.
  • muziclver
    muziclver Posts: 145 Member
    Yeah...this would be part of your NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)...you burn calories just driving to work...taking a dump...typing in MFP. You also burn calories doing nothing but being alive...in fact, the vast majority of your caloric needs go to just being alive. If you are a rather sedentary individual, about 80% of your "burn" is just being alive...pumping your heart...pumping your lungs, etc. For someone lightly active to moderately active, it's about 65%-70% of their daily "burn" just being alive. Exercise actually accounts for very little in the grand scheme of things...roughly 10-15% of your daily calorie requirements for the average person (obviously more if athlete).

    The thing that annoys me about stuff like this is that it makes it appear that people are ignorant of the fact that they burn these calories day to day and always have...and then they just look for ways to work around actually doing hard work...and they start logging vacuuming the house and such as exercise. It's pretty sad and pathetic.

    I wasn't really insinuating that I wanted to log reading. I was just wondering if there was any particular scientific reason that reading would burn more calories than watching tv. Just as random knowledge to know.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    I've heard this before. I think the theory is that you're using more of your brain for reading than you are for t.v. Brain function does use calories. (I've also heard that you burn more calories sleeping than watching t.v. :noway: … but that was more about how t.v. decreases brain function? It's been a while).

    I doubt that the difference is meaningful at all. Is it a good idea to turn of the t.v. and read a book? Of course. Will that let you eat more Oreos? I doubt it.






    oops, now I want Oreos. :laugh:
  • dawn_h_d
    dawn_h_d Posts: 184 Member
    Are you standing while reading? :noway: :drinker:
  • muziclver
    muziclver Posts: 145 Member
    Supposedly your brain uses about 20% of your normal maintenance calories, so I'm guessing the idea behind it is that reading requires more activity from your brain--reading the words themselves, comprehending their meaning, and picturing/imagining the events in the book, whereas when you watch tv everything is pretty much spelled out for you and requires less effort.

    That's my best guess, anyway.

    Yeah I can see how that would make sense.
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    I make sure that reading burns calories by doing it on a stationary bike. I keep up a pretty good pace, even though it's really about the reading, not the exercise.

    Reading is a pretty passive activity. I would think that solving problems, like math problems, would take more energy.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    I make sure that reading burns calories by doing it on a stationary bike. I keep up a pretty good pace, even though it's really about the reading, not the exercise.

    Reading is a pretty passive activity. I would think that solving problems, like math problems, would take more energy.

    mmm … yep! :wink:

    Not that I've done any empirical research. But a day of classes and homework could really wipe me out!! :laugh:
  • PATLK10
    PATLK10 Posts: 1 Member
    If you search the web, many health sites do say you burn calories while reading. You are using the brain, hence you are using glucose and burning calories metabolically. It seems the more you weigh the more you burn. But there are definitely better ways to burn calories.

    Basic common sense will tell you, no matter what activity you are doing, you are burning calories, it just a matter of how many calories are being burned. And what is going in your mouth at the same time.
  • oxers
    oxers Posts: 259 Member
    If reading burned anything but a *kitten* negligible amount of calories, I'd weigh 90 pounds.

    I HAVE started coaxing myself back out on longer walks by taking a book with me, though. All I ever do is read and I get really cranky when workouts cut into that, so moving my body while reading is pretty darn excellent.
  • annangelich
    annangelich Posts: 402 Member
    If this was true I would be in perfect shape.....Sigh.... Why can't this be true? :(
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    This was probably their source:
    https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/inactivity

    Watching tv is found to have a MET value of 1, so you burn your BMR amount. Reading is 1.3, so 1.3 times BMR.

    So for an hour of tv, I'd burn about 60 calories. An hour of reading, about 78. Walking 3mph, about 210.

Categories