Is spending 500 cals / day in workout / physical activity feasible?

>>39876544
Sure, go ahead and try it. It's not like the sticky doesn't exist...

>>39876544
6.1km run every day if you weigh 80kg is ~500 calories. That's not particularly off the wall. You'll probably drop the weight though so it will take less and less energy to run it.

File: e375ab1d84549e5bf9f5d0c2413d7e75.jpg (24KB, 316x362px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 316x362px

Yeah, it's called sports training. During crew season, we would practice for 2 hours on the water every morning and have another 10k or so of machine distance for homework every night. And that was for a club team. Kids with scholarships do way more.

>>39876677
not OP, but are there any running workout that are 500kcals for 30 mins?

>>39876693

Unless you're ultra-fit, you're not going to break 10-12cal/min

>>39876677
Those numbers seem absurdly low. Maybe they estimate ridiculously slow paces? e.g. 10 minute miles?

I do it. I find it pretty easy. I usually walk my dog for 3-4 miles (winds up being around 250-300 calories since we live around hills) and workout at the gym for another 250-300 doing cardio and weightlifting.

>>39876727
whut? it's not very hard to reach 15cals/min

>>39876743
It's based on a body weight 155 lbs. And no, they're not absurdly low. Are you NYRfag?

>>39876795

Look at the research papers wrt energy expenditure and exercise. Good luck sustaining 15cal/min

>>39876802
No, but a 10k in under an hour at 155lbs is >1k calories according to this calculator:

http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

File: caloriesrunning.png (150KB, 1144x788px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1144x788px

>>39876870
People say things like "a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips" and "you can't outrun a bad diet" for a reason, anon.

>>39876899
1 hour to run 5 miles is absurdly slow. Which brings us to my original comment.

>>39876870

That's a runners world article, not a paper.

Energy expenditure from exercise is pitifully low, plus you've got to take into account its affect on appetite and lowering NEAT

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21178922/

(People asked to exercise until they'd burnt either 200 or 300kcal and amestimated energy expenditure of their exercise bout. The nhmbers ranged from 150kcal to 4000kcal

File: runningcalories.png (151KB, 1144x788px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1144x788px

>>39876933
Sorry, was thinking 10k was about 5 miles and didn't notice the km option. I'm american, I don't know these dumb metric measurements.

But even so:

>>39876587
Autist

>>39876951
>http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
Argh, disregard all that, I suck cocks. I accidentally had it set to 155kg.

>spending

calories aren't a currency so what are you actually asking?

>>39876982
OP probably meant expend.

>>39876839
ok so maybe the gym treadmill is lying, but if I run like 12km/h with like a 2% incline it tells me some energy expenditure along those lines (and it's not difficult to maintain this pace for 30 mins after some training)

>>39877058
Most machines overestimate.

What exactly are you trying to do? Justify eating like shit? You can't eat like shit all the time. You can eat like shit here and there.

>>39877058

That's because the machine has a massive vested interest in throwing out inflated energy expenditure figures, no fatty would use one otherwise.

>>39876982
are you retarded

>>39877131
I may be, what's you're point?

>>39877131
yes, for replying to this clearly bait thread

I workout 3 hours a day and if I eat 4500 or less I maintain. 5000 and I'm making slow gains