3 ms·

Air conditioning can increase metabolic rate to keep you warm, it’s mostly heating that reduces energy expenditure and 1950’s factories had heat. A 150lb offi

by Retric 3y ago

Air conditioning can increase metabolic rate to keep you warm, it’s mostly heating that reduces energy expenditure and 1950’s factories had heat. A 150lb office worker at their desk is burning ~100 calories an hour, but people only spend about 70% of their time act their desks instead moving around a fair bit over the workday. Step counters end up counting a surprising amount of activity on average. What I think the article is missing is people doing light factory work in 1928/9 generally lacked cars. People just walked far more in their non working life.

Kirby64 3y ago
I'd need a citation on 100cal/hr for sitting at a desk. Are you removing BMR from that calculation? That would imply people are spending 800cal/day on JUST sitting during a workday (no other movement, no BMR, no walking, etc). If you extend this to a whole day, you would be burning 1600cal/day from sitting ... without even counting BMR which is ~1200-1600 or more. Numbers I've seen is that sitting is much closer to 10-20cal/hr from sitting (vs. literally asleep).
- Retric 3y ago
  Most sources include BMR in these figures. I found several secondary sources for the 100/hour figure at 150lb, but no primary sources. One study had lying down while awake at 86 calories per hour so typing/using a mouse/etc would need to be 15c/h to hit 100 which seems likely. But again that's excluding time spent getting up and moving around at the office which adds up. There was also outliers like: *But the National Institutes of Health tells us that in an hour, the average 170 lb. person burns: 134 calories sitting 206 calories standing 296 calories walking at a moderate pace
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    Right, and the 1950s study was measuring ~132cal/hr above BMR for their 'light' work. So, clearly, if someone burns ~100cal/hr (including BMR) for sitting in an office, then the 'light' work is much, much, much more strenous regardless of what BMR is.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Again sitting is part of the office activity, a more realistic figure is probably 110-130 per hour averaged over the day simply because walking and standing use significantly more energy. Also, subtracting BMR doesn’t make sense from a calorie per day standpoint. A 5% increase in calorie expenditure doesn’t explain a 25-50lb increase in weight especially when that weight increases BMR.
      - Kirby64 3y ago
        Granting your position of 110-130/hr on average for an office job, including BMR, then that still is far lower than the quotes in the study. BMR for men is roughly 1700cal, or 70cal/hr, so if you burn an additional 130 over BMR (what the study says for “light work”), then the “light work” was closer to 200cal/hr, or 800cal/day extra over an office job assuming a 10 hour day. 800cal/day is an enormous difference in expenditure.
        Retric 3y ago
        Your calculations are off, but so are mine. I had initially assumed a 10 hour work day which makes a big difference in how large the gap is, but it looks like working hours dropped from 10h/day in 1890 to ~8.2 by 1929. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ Still a 6 day workweek. Anyway, they don't actually list light in terms of calories per hour just 838/day without saying number of hours worked. Further they list BMR at 1550c/day. https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdfde9d4d-9f1a-4df8-b939-362da9feffca_1544x408.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... edit: 1954 is 5 days but hours are up to 8.4. So ~838 / 8.4 + (1550/24) = 164 calories per hour during work. If office workers are at 120/h +/- 10 and they are working the same 8.2h days that's a deficit of (164 - 120) * 8.4 +/- 10 * 8.2 = 369.6 +/- (82) which is quite large but half your 800cal/day. Though again, I had assumed a longer work day which puts the numbers a lot closer. (838/10 + 65) = 149/h vs 120/h.
        3y ago

by Retric 3y ago

Kirby64 3y ago

I'd need a citation on 100cal/hr for sitting at a desk. Are you removing BMR from that calculation? That would imply people are spending 800cal/day on JUST sitting during a workday (no other movement, no BMR, no walking, etc). If you extend this to a whole day, you would be burning 1600cal/day from sitting ... without even counting BMR which is ~1200-1600 or more. Numbers I've seen is that sitting is much closer to 10-20cal/hr from sitting (vs. literally asleep).

Retric 3y ago
Most sources include BMR in these figures. I found several secondary sources for the 100/hour figure at 150lb, but no primary sources. One study had lying down while awake at 86 calories per hour so typing/using a mouse/etc would need to be 15c/h to hit 100 which seems likely. But again that's excluding time spent getting up and moving around at the office which adds up. There was also outliers like: *But the National Institutes of Health tells us that in an hour, the average 170 lb. person burns: 134 calories sitting 206 calories standing 296 calories walking at a moderate pace
- Kirby64 3y ago
  Right, and the 1950s study was measuring ~132cal/hr above BMR for their 'light' work. So, clearly, if someone burns ~100cal/hr (including BMR) for sitting in an office, then the 'light' work is much, much, much more strenous regardless of what BMR is.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Again sitting is part of the office activity, a more realistic figure is probably 110-130 per hour averaged over the day simply because walking and standing use significantly more energy. Also, subtracting BMR doesn’t make sense from a calorie per day standpoint. A 5% increase in calorie expenditure doesn’t explain a 25-50lb increase in weight especially when that weight increases BMR.
    - Kirby64 3y ago
      Granting your position of 110-130/hr on average for an office job, including BMR, then that still is far lower than the quotes in the study. BMR for men is roughly 1700cal, or 70cal/hr, so if you burn an additional 130 over BMR (what the study says for “light work”), then the “light work” was closer to 200cal/hr, or 800cal/day extra over an office job assuming a 10 hour day. 800cal/day is an enormous difference in expenditure.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Your calculations are off, but so are mine. I had initially assumed a 10 hour work day which makes a big difference in how large the gap is, but it looks like working hours dropped from 10h/day in 1890 to ~8.2 by 1929. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ Still a 6 day workweek. Anyway, they don't actually list light in terms of calories per hour just 838/day without saying number of hours worked. Further they list BMR at 1550c/day. https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdfde9d4d-9f1a-4df8-b939-362da9feffca_1544x408.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... edit: 1954 is 5 days but hours are up to 8.4. So ~838 / 8.4 + (1550/24) = 164 calories per hour during work. If office workers are at 120/h +/- 10 and they are working the same 8.2h days that's a deficit of (164 - 120) * 8.4 +/- 10 * 8.2 = 369.6 +/- (82) which is quite large but half your 800cal/day. Though again, I had assumed a longer work day which puts the numbers a lot closer. (838/10 + 65) = 149/h vs 120/h.
        3y ago