| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 332.1 | | ANT::ZARLENGA | Mary, Mary, why [are] ya buggin'? | Mon Jul 25 1988 11:06 | 17 |
|
.0> Can anyone tell me how many miles you would need to walk to loose
.0> one pound if you walk 3.5 miles/hr?
The speed (3.5 mph) is unimportant. Your body weight and the
distance are the dominant variables (remember work = force * distance).
For a 150 lb person, in good shape, the estimates of calories
expended range from 100 cal/mile to 120 cal/mile. For a 120 lb
person, the range is 80 cal/mile to 100 cal/mile.
So, to lose 1 lb fat (approx 3500 cals), a 150 lb person would
need to walk approx 32 miles, a 120 lb person would need to walk
approx 39 miles.
-mike z
|
| 332.2 | Continue burning calories faster? | SOFBAS::RHODES | | Tue Jul 26 1988 15:05 | 11 |
| re: -1
Do this figures take into account the fact that you raise your
metabolism by walking at a brisk pace, which in turn causes you
to burn more calories? If not, how much weightloss could be attributed
to this effect?
If a person burns 100 calories per mile and walks 35
miles a week, will s/he lose one pound (3,500 calories)? Or, is
walking synergistic?
|
| 332.3 | | ANT::ZARLENGA | but I drive very well, officer! | Tue Jul 26 1988 17:52 | 20 |
|
.2> Do this figures take into account the fact that you raise your
.2> metabolism by walking at a brisk pace, which in turn causes you
.2> to burn more calories?
They should, if they were measured correctly.
.2> If a person burns 100 calories per mile and walks 35
.2> miles a week, will s/he lose one pound (3,500 calories)? Or, is
.2> walking synergistic?
You may not lose 1lb fat. You should lose 3500 calories. It
may not come from fat. Doing it at a relaxed pace will allow for
fat metabolism for energy, and you should realize a loss of close
to 1lb fat.
How can one activity (walking) be synergistic? Explain.
-mike z
|
| 332.4 | synergy | ANT::ZARLENGA | Randolf! What, Mortimer? We're back! | Sat Jul 30 1988 22:01 | 26 |
|
.3> How can one activity (walking) be synergistic? Explain.
I'll answer my own question.
A single activity cannot be synergistic. Synergy is, by
definition, 'combined action whose total effect is greater than
the sum of the individual actions'.
Synergistic is the new buzzword in exercise. It is used
incorrectly in most cases. There are no known exercises which
are truly synergistic. If calorie expenditure is calculated
correctly, that is.
Given two exercises that are really synergistic, would mean
that the combined caloric expenditure is greater than the indi-
vidual numbers added together. This isn't so.
The common (incorrect) usage applies only when caloric figures
are incorrect. An example of this would be having someone walk
one mile, measuring the heat given off. Then after the person stops,
the measuring stops. WRONG. Calories are still being expended even
after the activity stops.
-mike z
|