5 ms·

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 rou

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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 3y ago
    Table 2: Classification of activities and average number of calories expended on them by the 152men (Basal metabolism is included, the allowance for it being 1.1 Cal./min Sitting, including time spent at meal 1.6 Light games, such as darts and billiards 2.5 ... Sleeping 1.0 Light work in factories in 1950 included sitting down at a conveyor belt and removing defective items. 130 ish per hour works. 200 calories an hour * 8 hours isn't lite work by most definitions. That's someone walking constantly for the entire shift.
    - Kirby64 3y ago
      Again, read the paper. The whole thing. The specific text: > 4. The average daily calorie intake of men doing light work was about 600 Cal./day less than that of men doing heavy work. The previous failure to differentiate between intakes was thus not confirmed. The estimated calorie expenditure per minute, excluding what was require for basal metabolism, was on an average 2-2 Cal. for light work, 2-7 for light to medium work, 2.6 for medium to medium heavy work and 3-8 for heavy work.
      - Retric 3y ago
        I assumed that was a mistake as light to medium is above medium to medium heavy etc, but I almost got make their numbers work though both light medium to heavy are off by 0.1. Light: 46.5 h / week Light to medium: 46.0 h / week Medium to medium heavy: 46.6 h / week Heavy: 48.8 h / week Going back to table 7 Light 838/day Light to medium 1063 Medium to medium heavy 1013 Heavy 1585 Light is thus 838 * 7 / 46.5 = 126 calories per hour = 2.10 /min *vs 2.2?* Light to medium is thus 1063 * 7 / 46.0 = 161 calories per hour = 2.68 /min Medium to medium heavy is thus 1013 * 7 / 46.6 = 152 calories per hour = 2.536 / min *vs 2.6?* Heavy 1585 * 7 / 48.8 = 227 calories per hour = 3.79 /min Though at this point I assume there are other math errors. Still 65 + 2.1 * 60 = 191 calories per hour for light work is more realistic than some of the other numbers you where tossing around. (191 - 120) * 8 = 568 calories per day delta.

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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 3y ago
  Table 2: Classification of activities and average number of calories expended on them by the 152men (Basal metabolism is included, the allowance for it being 1.1 Cal./min Sitting, including time spent at meal 1.6 Light games, such as darts and billiards 2.5 ... Sleeping 1.0 Light work in factories in 1950 included sitting down at a conveyor belt and removing defective items. 130 ish per hour works. 200 calories an hour * 8 hours isn't lite work by most definitions. That's someone walking constantly for the entire shift.
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    Again, read the paper. The whole thing. The specific text: > 4. The average daily calorie intake of men doing light work was about 600 Cal./day less than that of men doing heavy work. The previous failure to differentiate between intakes was thus not confirmed. The estimated calorie expenditure per minute, excluding what was require for basal metabolism, was on an average 2-2 Cal. for light work, 2-7 for light to medium work, 2.6 for medium to medium heavy work and 3-8 for heavy work.
    - Retric 3y ago
      I assumed that was a mistake as light to medium is above medium to medium heavy etc, but I almost got make their numbers work though both light medium to heavy are off by 0.1. Light: 46.5 h / week Light to medium: 46.0 h / week Medium to medium heavy: 46.6 h / week Heavy: 48.8 h / week Going back to table 7 Light 838/day Light to medium 1063 Medium to medium heavy 1013 Heavy 1585 Light is thus 838 * 7 / 46.5 = 126 calories per hour = 2.10 /min *vs 2.2?* Light to medium is thus 1063 * 7 / 46.0 = 161 calories per hour = 2.68 /min Medium to medium heavy is thus 1013 * 7 / 46.6 = 152 calories per hour = 2.536 / min *vs 2.6?* Heavy 1585 * 7 / 48.8 = 227 calories per hour = 3.79 /min Though at this point I assume there are other math errors. Still 65 + 2.1 * 60 = 191 calories per hour for light work is more realistic than some of the other numbers you where tossing around. (191 - 120) * 8 = 568 calories per day delta.