Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If it's all CICO - why can't you outrun a bad diet?
Options
Replies
-
This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
You can... but you'll probably end up "skinny fat." Here are some simple explanations of why:
- If you're running and your heart rate is over about 140bpm, you're going to burn more calories, but a lower percentage of those calories will be fat. Your body will burn high octane fast burning carbs to maintain that heart rate instead of slow burning, low octane fat.
- If you're eating more fat calories than anything else, you will end up with excess stores of fat, which will make you look fat. You may be losing weight, but you will look fat
- If you're eating more carbohydrates than anything else and not doing enough exercise to burn them off, your body will convert the carbs to sugar, triggering the insulin response. Too much of this is proven to cause weight gain.
- If you are strength training to try and gain muscle, but are not eating enough protein to allow your body to rebuild the cellular structures that are broken down by training, you won't show any muscle gains and will stay skinnyfat
- The body is naturally geared toward homeostasis. If you run every day, and eat the same breakdown of calories, it will get harder and harder to lose weight (especially fat) because we are biologically predisposed to compensate for consistent activities. Your body will learn that you run every day and attempt to store more fat and burn more carbs. It's what's kept us alive as a species. This is why changing up your exercise routine is so effective for plateau busting. This is also why carb cycling works.
- The body breaks down carbs first, fat second, and protein last. So again, if you want to look thinner, reduce the carbs and the fat, your body will burn every available calorie before it moves on to protein. Eat too many carbs and you've given your body too much freely available energy
The phrase "you can't outrun a bad diet" is used most commonly by people who are trying to cut or shred, and at least anecdotally, I can tell you its true. I've been on a 1200 calorie diet + 30 minutes of running for 4 months with no results. Two months ago I threw in weight training and intervals, last month i completely rejiggered my macros so i'm eating 100gm of protein a day and minimal carbs and then carb cycling on the weekends to confuse my body. The change in these 8 weeks vs the 4 months before has been enormous.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
If you're eating at maintenance, you are maintaining your weight. If you are eating the same level of calories as you maintenance at a sedentary level of activity and then adding in exercise, you're eating at a deficit, not at maintenance.
If you're at a 500 calorie deficit but trying to maintain, it's a "bad diet" because you won't be able to maintain your weight eating that.2 -
This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
You can... but you'll probably end up "skinny fat." Here are some simple explanations of why:
- If you're running and your heart rate is over about 140bpm, you're going to burn more calories, but a lower percentage of those calories will be fat. Your body will burn high octane fast burning carbs to maintain that heart rate instead of slow burning, low octane fat.
- If you're eating more fat calories than anything else, you will end up with excess stores of fat, which will make you look fat. You may be losing weight, but you will look fat
- If you're eating more carbohydrates than anything else and not doing enough exercise to burn them off, your body will convert the carbs to sugar, triggering the insulin response. Too much of this is proven to cause weight gain.
- If you are strength training to try and gain muscle, but are not eating enough protein to allow your body to rebuild the cellular structures that are broken down by training, you won't show any muscle gains and will stay skinnyfat
- The body is naturally geared toward homeostasis. If you run every day, and eat the same breakdown of calories, it will get harder and harder to lose weight (especially fat) because we are biologically predisposed to compensate for consistent activities. Your body will learn that you run every day and attempt to store more fat and burn more carbs. It's what's kept us alive as a species. This is why changing up your exercise routine is so effective for plateau busting. This is also why carb cycling works.
- The body breaks down carbs first, fat second, and protein last. So again, if you want to look thinner, reduce the carbs and the fat, your body will burn every available calorie before it moves on to protein. Eat too many carbs and you've given your body too much freely available energy
The phrase "you can't outrun a bad diet" is used most commonly by people who are trying to cut or shred, and at least anecdotally, I can tell you its true. I've been on a 1200 calorie diet + 30 minutes of running for 4 months with no results. Two months ago I threw in weight training and intervals, last month i completely rejiggered my macros so i'm eating 100gm of protein a day and minimal carbs and then carb cycling on the weekends to confuse my body. The change in these 8 weeks vs the 4 months before has been enormous.
sortof
no
no
no one sane eats that low protein
no
no3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
If you're eating at maintenance, you are maintaining your weight. If you are eating the same level of calories as you maintenance at a sedentary level of activity and then adding in exercise, you're eating at a deficit, not at maintenance.
If you're at a 500 calorie deficit but trying to maintain, it's a "bad diet" because you won't be able to maintain your weight eating that.
Let's try it this way. Forget about exercise for a moment.
Glossary:
Bad diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends opposite of a stated weight goal.
Good diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends in support of a stated weight goal.Does eating at maintenance constitute a "bad diet"?
ETA: "weight" to definitions. and to add quotes to the question.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
If you're eating at maintenance, you are maintaining your weight. If you are eating the same level of calories as you maintenance at a sedentary level of activity and then adding in exercise, you're eating at a deficit, not at maintenance.
If you're at a 500 calorie deficit but trying to maintain, it's a "bad diet" because you won't be able to maintain your weight eating that.
Let's try it this way. Forget about exercise for a moment.
Glossary:
Bad diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends opposite of a stated weight loss goal.
Good diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends in support of a weight loss stated goal.Does eating at maintenance constitute a "bad diet"?
ETA: "weight loss" to definitions. and to add quotes to the question.
If the goal is to lose, yes.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
If you're eating at maintenance, you are maintaining your weight. If you are eating the same level of calories as you maintenance at a sedentary level of activity and then adding in exercise, you're eating at a deficit, not at maintenance.
If you're at a 500 calorie deficit but trying to maintain, it's a "bad diet" because you won't be able to maintain your weight eating that.
Let's try it this way. Forget about exercise for a moment.
Glossary:
Bad diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends opposite of a stated weight loss goal.
Good diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends in support of a weight loss stated goal.Does eating at maintenance constitute a "bad diet"?
ETA: "weight loss" to definitions. and to add quotes to the question.
If the goal is to lose, yes.
yeah, I meant "weight" goal, not "weight loss".0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
moe, I'm not picking on you, but this thread is at the ridiculous point, so I'm going all in!
The problem is that Christine used "maintenance" in a confusing way (a way I often do too, so I'm not criticizing her either). She doesn't mean "maintenance," she means "the number I believe my maintenance would be if I were sedentary."
So she's actually eating at 500 calories less than her current maintenance, with exercise.
I agree with you that that's not a "bad diet" as used in the saying we are all dissecting.
However, let's say Christine becomes an elite marathoner who wants to drop a few lbs. At her normal level of training she maintains on 1500 calories more than she would if sedentary (let's say 3000 calories instead of 1500). She then eats 2500 calories. Bad diet? Not necessary, and if so only because it's a bit low for that aggressive level of training and she might be better off losing more slowly. But there's nothing inherently wrong with eating 1000 calories more than your sedentary maintenance.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
If you're eating at maintenance, you are maintaining your weight. If you are eating the same level of calories as you maintenance at a sedentary level of activity and then adding in exercise, you're eating at a deficit, not at maintenance.
If you're at a 500 calorie deficit but trying to maintain, it's a "bad diet" because you won't be able to maintain your weight eating that.
Let's try it this way. Forget about exercise for a moment.
Glossary:
Bad diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends opposite of a stated weight goal.
Good diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends in support of a stated weight goal.Does eating at maintenance constitute a "bad diet"?
ETA: "weight" to definitions. and to add quotes to the question.
I misread the whole line of debate. I thought it initially said if I eat at maintenance and then add exercise would it count as outrunning, and the answer was only if at maintenance.
Which is not what it says at all.
Ignore me. We are in agreement on this.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...
It is too steep to go horizontally; there is a high risk the mower will just tip over / roll towards the downhill side. It's rather difficult to keep it stable when the handles are to the side rather than either uphill or downhill, preventing it from rolling too quickly or actually pushing forward up the hill. It is hard enough to walk without a mower sideways on the steep incline, but it is nearly impossible to hold and push a mower without it tipping and rolling over onto its side.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
If you're eating at maintenance, you are maintaining your weight. If you are eating the same level of calories as you maintenance at a sedentary level of activity and then adding in exercise, you're eating at a deficit, not at maintenance.
If you're at a 500 calorie deficit but trying to maintain, it's a "bad diet" because you won't be able to maintain your weight eating that.
Let's try it this way. Forget about exercise for a moment.
Glossary:
Bad diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends opposite of a stated weight loss goal.
Good diet - a diet that creates a caloric surplus or deficit which trends in support of a weight loss stated goal.Does eating at maintenance constitute a "bad diet"?
ETA: "weight loss" to definitions. and to add quotes to the question.
If the goal is to lose, yes.
yeah, I meant "weight" goal, not "weight loss".
Okay, that's all confused now with the edit, but we agree.
The saying is circular, really.
Or just should not be taken literally! ;-)0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...
It is too steep to go horizontally; there is a high risk the mower will just tip over / roll towards the downhill side. It's rather difficult to keep it stable when the handles are to the side rather than either uphill or downhill, preventing it from rolling too quickly or actually pushing forward up the hill. It is hard enough to walk without a mower sideways on the steep incline, but it is nearly impossible to hold and push a mower without it tipping and rolling over onto its side.
Perfect place for buffalo grass?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.
The goal is never stated. The question has a control (eating at maintenance) and a variable (exercise). The variable is irrelevant to the question because the question has a qualifier of a "bad diet". Eating at maintenance would not be a "bad" diet regardless of your goal as it would be "neutral" at its most detrimental. The situation you present does not address the question because it changes the control. In other words, the person would no longer be "eating at maintenance", they would be eating at a deficit.
PS
I love semantics
The goal was stated.
You said "it wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance."
A person at maintenance is attempting to neither gain nor lose weight.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...
It is too steep to go horizontally; there is a high risk the mower will just tip over / roll towards the downhill side. It's rather difficult to keep it stable when the handles are to the side rather than either uphill or downhill, preventing it from rolling too quickly or actually pushing forward up the hill. It is hard enough to walk without a mower sideways on the steep incline, but it is nearly impossible to hold and push a mower without it tipping and rolling over onto its side.
Perfect place for buffalo grass?
Or git sum goats, I reckon;)2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...
It is too steep to go horizontally; there is a high risk the mower will just tip over / roll towards the downhill side. It's rather difficult to keep it stable when the handles are to the side rather than either uphill or downhill, preventing it from rolling too quickly or actually pushing forward up the hill. It is hard enough to walk without a mower sideways on the steep incline, but it is nearly impossible to hold and push a mower without it tipping and rolling over onto its side.
Perfect place for buffalo grass?
Or git sum goats, I reckon;)
Oooh, then you can have goat cheese.1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...
It is too steep to go horizontally; there is a high risk the mower will just tip over / roll towards the downhill side. It's rather difficult to keep it stable when the handles are to the side rather than either uphill or downhill, preventing it from rolling too quickly or actually pushing forward up the hill. It is hard enough to walk without a mower sideways on the steep incline, but it is nearly impossible to hold and push a mower without it tipping and rolling over onto its side.
Perfect place for buffalo grass?
Or git sum goats, I reckon;)
Oooh, then you can have goat cheese.
Can you outrun goat cheese?1 -
thorsmom01 wrote: »BruinsGal_91 wrote: »No matter how far or fast you run, if you still eat more calories than you burn, you will put on weight.
This is how I've always understood it when I would hear the saying.
THIS!
I know people who go to the gym and think they can eat whatever they want (calorie wise not nutrition wise...or actually both I guess...) because they went to the gym.
I'm talking like fast food for every meal when they worked out at the gym (barely worked out mind you) for a mere half-an -hour!
Basically their mentality is I exercised so I can eat what ever I want?
Ummm not if what your eating still makes you eat more than the calories you actually burned.
Now if you're talking equal parts in, equal parts out, then yeah it could totally work!
But again, that's not what MOST people do!
0 -
RollTideTri wrote: »
Because most people don't have 4-6 hours a day to devote to running and our bodies aren't meant to handle that much punishment. Toenail clipper manufacturers would go out of business and nail polish companies would see a 50% decrease in sales almost overnight. Don't even start me on the chafing... Also even if everyone did have the time, maaaybe 0.005% of the population would have the willpower to even attempt 30+ miles daily.This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
Exactly. Michael Phelps eats 8-10K calories a day. Saw a story on it a while back. The dude literally shoves in Big Macs with both hands in between workouts, but how many people work out like him? To burn even 2000 calories in a 24 hour period is far beyond the capacity of almost everyone. Even 1000 per day has to be worked up to over months/years. And relatively few people have the desire and/or time to exercise that much.
I ran or an hour this morning and burned ~600 calories. I could cancel that out with food soooooo easily.
He claims that he does not eat 8-10,000 calories a day.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/05/michael-phelps-12000-calorie-diet-just-a-myth/1#.VyKNeoR1TEA
1 -
No one that didn't want to be confused by Christine's comment was confused by it...
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...
It is too steep to go horizontally; there is a high risk the mower will just tip over / roll towards the downhill side. It's rather difficult to keep it stable when the handles are to the side rather than either uphill or downhill, preventing it from rolling too quickly or actually pushing forward up the hill. It is hard enough to walk without a mower sideways on the steep incline, but it is nearly impossible to hold and push a mower without it tipping and rolling over onto its side.
Perfect place for buffalo grass?
Or git sum goats, I reckon;)
Oooh, then you can have goat cheese.
Can you outrun goat cheese?Carlos_421 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...
It is too steep to go horizontally; there is a high risk the mower will just tip over / roll towards the downhill side. It's rather difficult to keep it stable when the handles are to the side rather than either uphill or downhill, preventing it from rolling too quickly or actually pushing forward up the hill. It is hard enough to walk without a mower sideways on the steep incline, but it is nearly impossible to hold and push a mower without it tipping and rolling over onto its side.
Perfect place for buffalo grass?
Or git sum goats, I reckon;)
Oooh, then you can have goat cheese.
Can you outrun goat cheese?
Not if you keep stopping and eating it all....nom nom nom.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions