Chip

iTrader: (3)

Forgive the randomness, but was thinking about the calories readout machines in a modern gym give.

Sounds a daft question, but if you eat 100 calories of food, how many calories down the gym do you have to burn on a running machine to lose that 100 calories.

Presumably, a turd has some calorific value, and the body isnt 100% efficient at using the energy it takes in, so im guessing its LESS than 100 calories?

GARETH T

it must be less,, as it takes calories to eat and digest LOL

good question though

Lee_R21Turbo

iTrader: (1)

Usually around 15mins at a medium rate on the bike will burn around that - running will be less time - 10-12 mins probably.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Congratulations on TOTALLY missing the question

What I want to know is, that 15mins, which is 100 calories of energy output by the bike user, how many calories of food input do they need to take in to counteract that, 150? 200?

Is there a massive difference between food types, ie are is 100 calories of big mac easier or harder to burn off than 100 calories of lettuce (gotta be harder getting the energy out of something like lettuce during digestion surely?)

Lee_R21Turbo

iTrader: (1)

I'll take my like a man then & retire & sit in the corner!!!!

twoblacklines

umm 100 chip ? but more likely 120 ish due to efficiency.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for you total wild guess based on utterly no knowledge of the subject, and that I could have easily come up with myslef.

Do pop by one of my threads again when you have less time.

Paul Eggleton

I don't know about any sort of rule of thumb that can be applied to digestion efficiency. I think it will also depend on an individuals metabolism, if you are hungry(energy low) in the first place etc.

If you have starved yourself prior then your body is liekly to absorb more nutrients and if you've just had a Sunday roast and are topping up with dessert then this will turn to fat. Which is a shame becuase if you body just passed through 100% food if you were full, the world would be a happier and thinner place

1gm Fat = 9calories
1gm Protein = 4cals
1gm Carbs = 4cals

I thnk you are right though in assuming there are foods that are harder to extract nutrients from........

Lee_R21Turbo

iTrader: (1)

Chip - AFAIK calories are classed as different types as I've often heard the term 'empty calories' used on a few of the gym forums I visit.

lead_foot

iTrader: (1)

Just eat some Celery, LOL:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20040107.html

twoblacklines

Not really a wild guess is it, calories are calories wether workout ones or intake ones, surely ?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

So 100 calories of celery will be burnt off without setting foot on the treadmill.

If ONLY they could make celery taste like big macs

lead_foot

iTrader: (1)

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Really, if its not a wild guess, what data did you base it on?



Wow, there you go TOTALLY missing the point.

danneth

chip i usually run for 10 minutes on the treadmill and burn off 200cals






hope this answers your question

Chip

iTrader: (3)

dojj

iTrader: (3)

celery and some other "green" foods can take more enegery to digest than they actually consume

which is why cows eat a lot

vroomtshh

Its a very leading question. I know a fair bit about these things, but i dont think theres a specific answer for you.

Everyones body processes different foods in a different way.

Some calories (i.e. brown rice, pasta etc) are taken in by the body and released slowly over a period of time, and very few of those calories are actually wasted.

Other calories (Cola, chocolate etc) are taken by the body vey quickly and most of the calorific value is wasted.

The other problem you have with working it out, is that the machines in the gym are giving an estimate based on a typical body type etc.

Someone who is fat and not very active will burn approx 7 cals per hour by sitting still doing nothing. An active muscular person will burn more than double that by sitting exactly the same.

Also (not anything to do with te question) but calorie counting is a really crap way of watching weight. As calories on there own contribute very little to a persons weight.

So, in summation, I dont know the answer but its a very interesting question.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I suspect there wont be a definitive answer to this one.

Im not interested in calorie counting as a way of losing weight or anything like that, im just interested in how efficicient a human body is.

Engines for example are only about 50% efficient typically.

vroomtshh

I think it will very much depend on the individual body.

If you take that the average man needs 2500 calories per day, then that equates to just over 100 per hour.
Sitting still burns off 10 per hour (ish) and I would say the majority of people probably spend half the day sitting still (or sleeping) so the body must be fairly efficient to be using up the rest of those calories?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I decide to give it a google.



The answer is.
































100



The reason being that the calorific value stated on a food item is not a measure of the energy in the food but of the energy available to a human being from the food after digestion anyway.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Oh, and in answer to my question about how efficient we are:

About 85% efficient it would seem

Chip

iTrader: (3)

PS

This is something else I found whilst searching:
http://www.simplefit.net/?page=estimate-calories

Quite interesting, according to that, in order to stay as fat as I am, I need to consume 2800 calories a day, if I consume any less, I risk losing weight.

lead_foot

iTrader: (1)

Is that a risk your willing to take?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Not really TBH mate, I quite like being the size I am, its useful for leaning on stuff etc

Azrael

Chip: if you're thinking about readouts of these cardio machines they tend to show very weird things. I mean two supposedly same training bicycles or whatever are they called show different readouts at similar speed/load.

Lee_R21Turbo

iTrader: (1)

I'm sure the things you are leaning on might disagree there mate!!!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Im sure thats the case mate, wouldnt expect some relatively cheap bit of gym equipment to be accurately calibrated etc.

cunt