3 ms·
> The difference in the calories burned per hour between a conditioned individual and non-conditioned is something like 100cal vs 600cal. Do you want to be able
by dpark 5y ago
> The difference in the calories burned per hour between a conditioned individual and non-conditioned is something like 100cal vs 600cal. Do you want to be able to burn 100 cal/hour or 600?
This is nonsense. A typical person will burn 100 Calories or close to it per mile walked. The set of people who cannot walk more than a mile in an hour is pretty small.
On the other side, an elite marathoner can burn well over 600 Calories per hour. Something like 2600 calories for a race in as little as 2 hours.
- dpark 5y agoCan’t edit, but this was unnecessarily combative. What I should have said is that I do not understand this claim or the numbers presented. An adult individual able to burn only 100 Calories/hours is not merely “unconditioned”, but quite ill. Someone capable of burning 600 Calories/hour would be considered quite fit by most people (especially if they do this 2-3 times/week), but is also nowhere near maximum caloric burn per hour.
- algoatecorn 5y agoNo worries and I should have been more descriptive. But since the context was within aerobic threshold and endurance, I was referring to the amount of calories burned from fat grams, per hour. Elite athletes can recruit energy from over 1g of fat per minute. At 9cal/g, we are looking at around 600 cal/hour. Poorly conditioned individuals (i.e. low thresholds) are less efficient and therefore their bodies resort anaerobic glycolysis much sooner.
- dpark 5y agoThat’s an interesting bit of info. I was not aware that the elite athletes were that much more efficient in releasing energy from fat. Makes sense, though. Thanks.