4 ms·

Conclusion: "These results challenge the current recommendation that expenditure of at least 1000 kcal per week is required to achieve exercise-induced protecti

Conclusion: "These results challenge the current recommendation that expenditure of at least 1000 kcal per week is required to achieve exercise-induced protection against premature cardiovascular mortality." Just as a note -- that's a good amount of exercise, even if once a week. Burning 1,000 calories is a lot of physical movement.

rybosworld 3y ago
Obviously everyone's different (weight, fitness etc.), but 100 calories is a decent estimate for expenditure while running a mile. So 1000 calories might be somewhere around 10 miles.
- nkingsy 3y ago
  Meanwhile an e-bike could probably go 50 miles at the same speed with the same energy (about 1.2kwh)
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    Yes, but you won't gain much cardiovascular health from that.
  - tiltowait 3y ago
    The point is to improve cardiovascular health, not debate the most efficient transportation methods.
  - networkchad 3y ago
    [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tekla 3y ago
Running a 5k 3x a week is more or less a minimum standard and is roughly 1k calories for a average person.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- opportune 3y ago
  I know the Apple Watch can be very inaccurate in measuring energy expenditure, but I weigh about 175-180lb and my ~6k runs almost always register at 450-600kcal.
  - version_five 3y ago
    I have a simple gps watch that uses my weight to estimate calories and doesn't measure heart rate. It gives me the same as you, just under 100kcal/km for the same weight. But I'm convinced this is a dramatic overestimation, I run a lot and have for years, and I'd be eating way more if I really burned that much. I think with regular exercise we become extremely efficient and the calorie burn goes way down. I don't know if heart rate accounts for that or not, but overall I'm sceptical about calorie counts.
    - civilitty 3y ago
      It definitely depends a lot on metabolic adaption which already varies significantly person to person but I think for beginners just moving from a sedentary lifestyle it's a good estimate for a while (six months to a year is the number I've heard, depending on training intensity). The last few months I've gone from a sedentary lifestyle to calorie counting and using an Apple Watch to track exercise with an intense 7-10 mile walk/run/hike 5-7x a week. With the weightloss I've experienced it seems relatively accurate (within 20%) but that's with 2-3 hours of exercise (not including weight lifting) per session.
  - 015a 3y ago
    When playing beat saber, I always assumed the Apple Watch over-estimates calorie burn if only because the watch is on the part of your body that's the most mobile (your wrist). So, getting 300kcal for a 30 minute session felt like cheating. But, there's at least "more legit than an Apple Watch" evidence that the calorie burn is that high; 6-8kcal per minute on Expert difficult [1], and some of the Expert+ tracks could easily burn more than that (and, I weigh much more than their Standard Reference Person). I'm not the most fit person, but I've seen surprisingly little hard evidence that the Apple Watch grossly under or over-estimates calories burned. I imagine it starts getting worse at the extremes, and nothing is perfect, and everyone is different; its an area where more research would have unbelievably high leverage (Apple has sold, hundreds, of millions, of watches) (in fact: I'm sure they've done some of this research themselves). [1] http://vrhealth.institute/portfolio/beat-saber/ http://vrhealth.institute/portfolio/beat-saber/
cpncrunch 3y ago
It's saying the previous recommendations were 1000 calories a week. This study found that a 45 min workout using 631 kcal produced similar cardiovascular benefits. But yes, 631 kcal during a 45 min high intensity workout is still quite a lot.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  Yes, it is quite a lot. The average American would probably need months of training to even be able to complete such a workout.
  - version_five 3y ago
    Yeah that's somewhere between a 5km and 10km run. If you're in shape to pick up and do that once a week, you're in better shape than most people and so it's not really a surprise that such people have lower cardiovascular mortality.
    - pc86 3y ago
      I'm not sure I would agree that most people are physically incapable of running 3 miles once a week. Unless you've got a physical disability or some very bad respiratory ailment you can do that in well under 40 minutes at a pace barely faster than walking.
wl 3y ago
That's 1.5-3 hours a week of aerobic exercise for most people.
Aurornis 3y ago
> Burning 1,000 calories is a lot of physical movement. Divide that by 7 days per week and it’s only 142 calories per day. The average person can burn that many calories walking a mile or mile and half. If you take your phone and answer emails while walking you’ll get there. Some of the estimates in this thread claiming 10 mile runs are necessary are way, way off the mark.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > The average person can burn that many calories walking a mile or mile and half. If you take your phone and answer emails while walking you’ll get there. I think most people who are in jobs where they have to answer emails would be better off, physically as well as mentally, by unplugging and learning to be connected to their surroundings, at least for that mile walk.

rybosworld 3y ago

Obviously everyone's different (weight, fitness etc.), but 100 calories is a decent estimate for expenditure while running a mile. So 1000 calories might be somewhere around 10 miles.

nkingsy 3y ago
Meanwhile an e-bike could probably go 50 miles at the same speed with the same energy (about 1.2kwh)
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  Yes, but you won't gain much cardiovascular health from that.
- tiltowait 3y ago
  The point is to improve cardiovascular health, not debate the most efficient transportation methods.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tekla 3y ago

Running a 5k 3x a week is more or less a minimum standard and is roughly 1k calories for a average person.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
opportune 3y ago
I know the Apple Watch can be very inaccurate in measuring energy expenditure, but I weigh about 175-180lb and my ~6k runs almost always register at 450-600kcal.
- version_five 3y ago
  I have a simple gps watch that uses my weight to estimate calories and doesn't measure heart rate. It gives me the same as you, just under 100kcal/km for the same weight. But I'm convinced this is a dramatic overestimation, I run a lot and have for years, and I'd be eating way more if I really burned that much. I think with regular exercise we become extremely efficient and the calorie burn goes way down. I don't know if heart rate accounts for that or not, but overall I'm sceptical about calorie counts.
  - civilitty 3y ago
    It definitely depends a lot on metabolic adaption which already varies significantly person to person but I think for beginners just moving from a sedentary lifestyle it's a good estimate for a while (six months to a year is the number I've heard, depending on training intensity). The last few months I've gone from a sedentary lifestyle to calorie counting and using an Apple Watch to track exercise with an intense 7-10 mile walk/run/hike 5-7x a week. With the weightloss I've experienced it seems relatively accurate (within 20%) but that's with 2-3 hours of exercise (not including weight lifting) per session.
- 015a 3y ago
  When playing beat saber, I always assumed the Apple Watch over-estimates calorie burn if only because the watch is on the part of your body that's the most mobile (your wrist). So, getting 300kcal for a 30 minute session felt like cheating. But, there's at least "more legit than an Apple Watch" evidence that the calorie burn is that high; 6-8kcal per minute on Expert difficult [1], and some of the Expert+ tracks could easily burn more than that (and, I weigh much more than their Standard Reference Person). I'm not the most fit person, but I've seen surprisingly little hard evidence that the Apple Watch grossly under or over-estimates calories burned. I imagine it starts getting worse at the extremes, and nothing is perfect, and everyone is different; its an area where more research would have unbelievably high leverage (Apple has sold, hundreds, of millions, of watches) (in fact: I'm sure they've done some of this research themselves). [1] http://vrhealth.institute/portfolio/beat-saber/ http://vrhealth.institute/portfolio/beat-saber/

cpncrunch 3y ago

It's saying the previous recommendations were 1000 calories a week. This study found that a 45 min workout using 631 kcal produced similar cardiovascular benefits. But yes, 631 kcal during a 45 min high intensity workout is still quite a lot.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
Yes, it is quite a lot. The average American would probably need months of training to even be able to complete such a workout.
- version_five 3y ago
  Yeah that's somewhere between a 5km and 10km run. If you're in shape to pick up and do that once a week, you're in better shape than most people and so it's not really a surprise that such people have lower cardiovascular mortality.
  - pc86 3y ago
    I'm not sure I would agree that most people are physically incapable of running 3 miles once a week. Unless you've got a physical disability or some very bad respiratory ailment you can do that in well under 40 minutes at a pace barely faster than walking.

wl 3y ago

That's 1.5-3 hours a week of aerobic exercise for most people.

Aurornis 3y ago

> Burning 1,000 calories is a lot of physical movement. Divide that by 7 days per week and it’s only 142 calories per day. The average person can burn that many calories walking a mile or mile and half. If you take your phone and answer emails while walking you’ll get there. Some of the estimates in this thread claiming 10 mile runs are necessary are way, way off the mark.

gottorf 3y ago
> The average person can burn that many calories walking a mile or mile and half. If you take your phone and answer emails while walking you’ll get there. I think most people who are in jobs where they have to answer emails would be better off, physically as well as mentally, by unplugging and learning to be connected to their surroundings, at least for that mile walk.