2011-1-3 the MATH

1 pound of fat = 3500 calories of NET burn to LOSE…takes the same to gain it if you’re curious.

A Base Metabolic Rate (BMR) is how many calories per day you burn just going around doing your normal thing not exercising. You can look these up on the InterWeb and find calculators that will tell you yours based upon current weight, age, gender and height. Mine is currently 2335 calories. This means that if I consume that many calories exactly and do not exercise, I will neither gain nor lose weight. If I take in more – my body makes more fat lumps like above, If I take in less, my body burns this calorie storage stuff called “fat”.

Here’s the PLAN: reduce my intake BELOW my BMR at the SAME TIME INCREASING my physical activity to BURN mo’ FAT.

Intake: keep it 1800-1900 so I can burn off about 450 calories per day = 1 pound/week

Exercise: burn 500-1000 calories/day in exercise (NET) = 2-3 pounds/week

Water: keep hydrated..water flushes a lot of stuff out – that you don’t want.

NET is important because I am already burning about 100 calories/hr normally according to by BMR. So like yesterday when I was on the treadmill for over an hour, it makes sense to deduct 100 calories from what the Treadmill said I burned because I would have burned that anyways – right?

By the way, you absolutely burn MORE calories running a mile than walking a mile. It’s a common untruth that is spread out there. If you can run it, run it…it burns more. The differential is about 20%. Some people say that it takes a constant amount of energy to move a constant amount of mass over the same distance…nope. It depends on HOW you move it. The biomechanics of walking are much easier for the body to perform vs. running. Don’t believe it – walk a mile on your hands, do jumping jacks for a mile, try cartwheels…yep, it’s harder. i.e. more caloric burn.

2 comments to 2011-1-3 the MATH

  • ~chris

    You know DO have a good point. I should have been more moderate in my stance and state that running is just a higher caloric burn not a greater virtue. I have been reduced to walking more times than I want to admit, but at least I’m(we’re) out there getting it done. The Galloway method is a proven method and a lot of ultra folks use it to get HUGE mileage accomplished. So let me revisit my stance a bit, caloric burn is higher running than walking per mile, however; vigorous walking is actually VERY effective in caloric burning AND is more effective than a slow run-shuffle so it is very helpful to have a good walking method practiced for both caloric burn AND for those times in a race when things don’t go the way you planned and you’ve got to finish.

  • Laura

    I think the thing about burning more calories walking versus running bears out more over longer distances. However…. to me that’s neither here nor there. I can’t do big time sustained running because it’s way hard on my joints. BUT I can walk a mean pace and keep my heart rate up high and burn a lot of calories, and go overall more distance than I can trying to jog constantly. Actually, what I’ve been sticking to lately is doing intervals. I have a run/walk timer now that I can set and then I switch paces every time it beeps. Would like to get my jog intervals a little longer, but as long as I’m moving and sweating, I’m not too worried about it… AND my knees and hips are thanking me. Have you ever read James Galloway’s book about running? He talks a lot about the run/walk method.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *