2 ms·
> Walking "several miles per day" isn't sufficient enough to burn tens of pounds...you'd be likely burning 350-450kCal [per day] Assuming your diet (and thus y
by culturestate 5y ago
> Walking "several miles per day" isn't sufficient enough to burn tens of pounds...you'd be likely burning 350-450kCal [per day]
Assuming your diet (and thus your caloric intake) stayed exactly the same, burning an extra ~450 calories per day should net a loss of ~4 pounds per month. Over, say, a six-month span, that'd be roughly 20 pounds lost - easily within the bounds of "tens of pounds after several months."
- sasawpg 5y agoAnd yet somehow walking alone does not seem to be a sufficient weight loss method for vast majority of people (nor does moderate cardio which burns considerably more).
- caeril 5y ago> Assuming your diet (and thus your caloric intake) stayed exactly the same Correct, but how many fat people are going to "reward" their efforts with a 450kcal treat? Answer: Most.
- culturestate 5y agoPossibly, but the implication here is that you aren't specifically exercising - you're just being more active as a byproduct of being in a different environment. The impetus to "reward" yourself for that behavior would seem to be lower. On days that I go to an office, I don't (consciously) base my lunch decisions on whether I walked, took the train, or used a car service that morning, know what I mean?
- caeril 5y ago> I don't (consciously) base my lunch decisions on whether I walked Emphasis on consciously. Your leptin/ghrelin balance will do that for you, and you won't even think about it.
- sasawpg 5y agoUnfortunately, weight loss is slightly more complicated than that, 450kCal/day for a month isn't quite 4lbs/month (even for fat) and my estimate of 350-450kCal/day for walking several miles is likely an over-estimate. I would find it quite unlikely for most people to lose even 20lbs only as a result of added walking in 6 months without diet changes.