4 ms·

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 sitt

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.
        Kirby64 3y ago
        Please read the actual study, it's linked, and you've replied to another one of my comments where I have stated some of the study assumptions: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/nutrition-of-male-industrial-workers-with-particular-reference-to-intake-and-expenditure-of-calories/B1B13E37A5A70EF2B98DEC45E459AA63 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n... They state 2.2cal/min of 'light work', and have other details on assumptions. They also state 27.9% of whole day spent on work, which would imply either 6.7 hours spent on working, or... more likely... if you include one day off, it would be 7.8 hours per day for 6 days a week. Pretty close to ~8hrs/6days/wk. The difference between 1550 and 1700cal for BMR is only 5cal/hr, so my calculations on difference in exertion between sitting (120cal/hr) and the 'light work' of the paper is essentially the same. It's still ~195cal/hr. My assumption was 10hrs/day for 5 days... so 8 hours/6 days is nearly the same amount of total time. Makes an office job even worse in comparison. Also, another note that is very different from today's assumptions buried in the paper: 13.1% of average day that wasn't sleep or work was spent walking, and 20.6% was spent on cycling. That's ~1h10m a day walking, and ~1h50m a day of cycling. 3 hours of walking/cycling a day alone could account for much of the difference in total calories burned.

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.
      - Kirby64 3y ago
        Please read the actual study, it's linked, and you've replied to another one of my comments where I have stated some of the study assumptions: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/nutrition-of-male-industrial-workers-with-particular-reference-to-intake-and-expenditure-of-calories/B1B13E37A5A70EF2B98DEC45E459AA63 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n... They state 2.2cal/min of 'light work', and have other details on assumptions. They also state 27.9% of whole day spent on work, which would imply either 6.7 hours spent on working, or... more likely... if you include one day off, it would be 7.8 hours per day for 6 days a week. Pretty close to ~8hrs/6days/wk. The difference between 1550 and 1700cal for BMR is only 5cal/hr, so my calculations on difference in exertion between sitting (120cal/hr) and the 'light work' of the paper is essentially the same. It's still ~195cal/hr. My assumption was 10hrs/day for 5 days... so 8 hours/6 days is nearly the same amount of total time. Makes an office job even worse in comparison. Also, another note that is very different from today's assumptions buried in the paper: 13.1% of average day that wasn't sleep or work was spent walking, and 20.6% was spent on cycling. That's ~1h10m a day walking, and ~1h50m a day of cycling. 3 hours of walking/cycling a day alone could account for much of the difference in total calories burned.