5 ms·

What calculator are you using? 1000/124 = 8 Eight miles is more than a couple.

• mr_luc 17y ago
  Bloops -- changed to "a few". At a leisurely 10 minutes per mile, that's 1.3.. hours of running. Well, overeating by a thousand calories is a lot. But even assuming you burned 0 other calories, still, the argument holds. You can, indeed, get thin by exercise. If one stubbornly insisted on ONLY getting thin by running, and steadfastly refused to take responsibility for what went into one's piehole, STILL -- it would be possible, if perhaps impractical, depending on just how irresponsible one's eating habits were and how much free time they had to exercise. But plenty of people get up early enough, for instance, to run for an hour. So it's not only doable, but EMINENTLY doable.
  • dkarl 17y ago
    Running an hour a day is a dicey proposition because of the possibility of injury. I would say it's impossible for the vast majority of people who are overweight, no matter how carefully they worked up to it. You'd have to be skinny, have excellent form, and not have any unfixable pre-existing injuries or weaknesses.
    • kscaldef 17y ago
      running an hour at a 10 minute mile (6 mph) is unlikely to lead to injury.
      • dkarl 17y ago
        Over forty miles per week with no rest days == too much for most people, way too much if you're overweight. Sure, some people do a lot more, but there are always exceptions. Every running trail and running club is disproportionately populated by people who have better resistance to injury. Steady running is one of the most challenging things you can do to your joints. (I find doing fartlek over a given distance a lot easier to recover from than steady running.) Running slowly isn't necessarily better, since a lot of injuries are caused by the up-and-down impact, and there's a limit to the extent you can reduce the up-and-down. The obvious solution is cross-training, but there aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running.
        • Retric 17y ago
          "aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running." All activity's at your aerobic limit burn the same number of calories. You can run, dance, row, weigh lift, or just bail hay, and you will encounter the same limit. It's basically a question of how much oxygen you can absorb though the lungs and dump into your blood stream.
          • dasil003 17y ago
            It's also a question of motivation. I'm sure I burn more calories mountain biking given the fact that several times I've gotten to the top of a hill and then puked. I've never pushed myself that hard running.
          • billroberts 17y ago
            That's true, but you have to work pretty hard on a bike to get your pulse rate as high as you do by running. (I've done a fair bit of cycling and running over the years). For an inexperienced cyclist, tired leg muscles tend to limit the effort before their heart and lungs do. And it's always tempting to take a rest on the downhills. So I reckon in most cases, you burn significantly fewer calories per hour cycling than you do running. On the other hand most people are capable of cycling for say two hours (if they have time) whereas it takes a lot of training to be able to run for two hours.
        • dasil003 17y ago
          Let's not forget the role that Nike has played in this by popularizing the running shoe based on perpetuating the notion that padded soles reduce injury when in fact the effect is the exact opposite.
        • kscaldef 17y ago
          Okay, so first, I'm certainly not saying every sedentary person should hop up and run for an hour tomorrow. I'm saying you can get there in a month or two of reasonable effort. And, if you'd prefer, get on a bike for an hour instead. It's lower impact, and you'll burn at least as many calories as running.
      • bootload 17y ago
        "... running an hour at a 10 minute mile (6 mph) is unlikely to lead to injury. ..." Over short distances maybe, but longer distances? Your modern western person isn't even setting enough time to do 20 minutes of exercise per day let alone moving a 10 minute mile. To move this speed for periods of time requires serious effort. As for injury well it depends how far, how long. I know, I've been doing 10Km on a regular basis for 770Km this year across a cross-country course and I'll tell you now, moving at the speed you suggest will cause damage unless you're conditioned, fit and motivated.
    • nico 17y ago
      You can ride a bike instead of running.
      • redcap 17y ago
        Or go for a swim. In fact I'd suggest either of those over pounding your feet against the concrete.
  • abecedarius 17y ago
    Your argument assumes invariant appetite and metabolism. Weight regulation is complex; see Gary Taubes's book _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ or this article: http://sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf http://sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf
  • anamax 17y ago
    > So it's not only doable, but EMINENTLY doable. I'll bite - how many hours/week do you run?