I've been reading a lot about the role of exercise as it relates to heart disease. Currently, I am reading a book by Richard Stein called Outliving Heart Disease. One study he cites blew me away!

He studies 17000 Harvard alums and found that there is a direct relationship between regular exercise and heart attack reduction. By burning 2,000 calories per week through intentional exercise, one lowers her risk of heart attack by 50%. Even burning 1,000 calories per week means a significant risk reduction- about 35%.

The literature is packed with studies and scientific reasoning backing the importance of exercise. And all are saying the more is better. Although it is good to do a minimum number minutes of walking per week, it is far more beneficial to think in terms of needing to burn at least 1,000 calories per week through intentional exercise where your HR is elevated.

I am wondering if these studies influence you? Do you burn many calories per week? Do you track calories burned.

I generally figure that I burn about 100 calories per mile. If I walk, I am at a 15 min/mile rate. If I run I am at 10 min/mile.
I walk or run about 10-12 miles per week. I also do about 2 hours of cardio classes per week. I guess that I am at about 1500-1800 calories per week without weight work or yoga class.

What are other people doing?

I know I work out at the Y more than I would be able to if I were still working.
I use 4 of the machines, chest press, seated row, ab crunch and back extension. I have been doing 12 reps each (don't remember the various weights) and I do each machine twice. And I have been walking 1 mile.
Today, I started doing 13 reps each and walked 2 miles. Two miles is 34 laps so I walked 4 laps to start with then I did one of the machines. Then I did another 4 laps and another machine. By doing it this way I will have walked 2 miles by the time I do each machine twice. I rarely time it but it takes me all morning. Today, since I was starting a new routine I did remember to time it. It took me 1 hour and 45 minutes.

I have no idea how many calories that burns.

Every other day, I just walk.

quote:

Originally posted by jillybean:
[...]
One of the major re-adjustment factors for Biggest Loser contestants is entering back into the "real world". A world where exercising 5-6 hours a day is almost impossible. [...]
Jill

Once they reach their goal weight they should not have to exercise 5-6 hours a day in order to maintain, if they are eating right.
One episode, I think it was 2 seasons ago. They had to go work an 8 hour day (in a pizza place ), eat healthy while at work and then find time to work out at the end of the day.

quote:

Originally posted by jillybean:
a normal 1 hour a day workout, they may be overcome with "I am not doing enough". Jill

1 hour a day is a big committment. Plus, it means that you'll likley be burning 2,000 or more calories per week through intentional exercise- depending on your weight and exertion.

quote:

Originally posted by GoingSkiing:
I’m not sure that I TOTALLY agree with “more is better”. At some point, we hit the point of diminishing returns. Going for a walk for 30-60 minutes has GREAT benefits. I’m not sure that the benefits of exercising 2-3 hours a day, outweigh the stress this would cause on time commitments, or family time, or even the physical body (probably depends on the person and the body).

One of the major re-adjustment factors for Biggest Loser contestants is entering back into the "real world". A world where exercising 5-6 hours a day is almost impossible. I'm sure they would feel major stress working out even 2-3 hours a day(unless they break it up into sessions) and still maintaining a normal work and family life. Unfortunately I think that these contestants also would end up in "all or nothing" mentality. After spending basically all their waking hours exercising and then going to having a normal 1 hour a day workout, they may be overcome with "I am not doing enough". It's one of my issues with that show, even though I do love it.

For me, exercise is way more for mental reasons and the physical benefits are just a bonus. If I plan exercise to lose weight or look better, I just don't do it because for some reason I feel like I HAVE TO vs. WANTING TO. Exercising for mood makes me want to do it. I've been doing T-Tapp workouts, I have no idea how many calories I burn but I know with the Step Away the Inches DVD she says at the end that the workout adds about 1200 additional steps a day.

Jill

quote:

Originally posted by GoingSkiing:


I also REALLY, REALLY, REALLY enjoy eating the benefits of my exercise.


I’m not sure that I TOTALLY agree with “more is better”. At some point, we hit the point of diminishing returns.

I also REALLY enjoy being able to eat more because I exercise regularly.

As far as "reaching a point of diminishing returns"--- as far as heart attack risk, more is better. It's just a statistical reality. However, I agree that it is important to be willing to do something rather than nothing. I also see recognize that most people don't have heart disease and are not overly concerned with statistics related to heart attack risk. Unfortunately I am concerned with these statistics.

Personally, I am satisfied to get a minimum of 1500 calories burned per week. (I know that most weeks I am close to 2,000 calories or even pushing 2500.) Even though I am a very high risk patient, I can't imagine ever devoting enough time to burn over 3000 per week through intentional exercise. The time it takes would get in the way of too many other things. Like so many other things, I am looking for a balance that keeps me healthy and sane and happy.

I still average betwee 25 - 30 miles/week and I burn about 100 calories for every mile so that's 2500-3000 calories/week.

I also lift every other day but while I record that in my log, I don't usually don't worry about the calories.

Like Denise, it helps me stay saner and I enjoy being able to eat. Without the exercise, I wouldn't be able to eat as much.

When we were going for marriage counseling, the therapist cited that Harvard study. He was mostly talking about the benefits of exercise/walking and emotional/mental heath.

I think MORE in terms of fighting depression and staying a little saner… rather than heart disease.

I think that I often/usually burn some place between 700-2000+ calories worth of exercise/activity a week. Sometimes I get less. Sometimes I get more. But 1,000+ calories worth a week does a good job of keeping the blues away… and for ME… that is my more immediate concern… since a heart attack or diabetes are still (statistically, or more likely) 10, 20, or 30 years away. A deep funk can tern into a bought of depression in 3 months or so.

I also REALLY, REALLY, REALLY enjoy eating the benefits of my exercise. I find that if I do 200-300 calories worth of exercise a day… I only have to cut back 200ish calories… and I lose 1/2 to 1 pound a week fairly easily.

I also REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY enjoy eating the benefits of exercise while maintaining. If I don’t exercise… that is 1000-2000 calories I can’t eat that week and maintain. Life without exercise/activity is like taking 6 days worth of food… and rationing it out over 7 days.

I’m not sure that I TOTALLY agree with “more is better”. At some point, we hit the point of diminishing returns. Going for a walk for 30-60 minutes has GREAT benefits. I’m not sure that the benefits of exercising 2-3 hours a day, outweigh the stress this would cause on time commitments, or family time, or even the physical body (probably depends on the person and the body).

Also… being an all or nothing kind of person… if I start thinking… “I should be doing more!”, I become overwhelmed with my own expectations, and often lose touch with “realistic” or "enough" and then end up doing nothing.

PS… this is a good graph citing the study

http://www.goyaasma.com/strategies.html

PSS... goyaasma stands for "Get off your @ss, and start moving around". LOL!

Speaking of exercise recommendations, here is the government's:

2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans

http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/default.aspx

and here is their:

2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans
Be Active Your Way: A Fact Sheet for Adults

http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/fs_adult.pdf

It's only two pages long.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sheltieguy,

I track exercise to a small degree. I know that I burn about 9 calories a minute when running, so I know that I will burn about 540 calories for short run (usually 5 miles) without factoring in speed intervals and hills. Long runs are about 1100 calories for a 10 miler, again, without speed intervals or hills. The only actual numbers I track are total miles run per week.

Most other exercise just gets marked down. This week I walked on the treadmill, did a 30 minute cardio & weights combo DVD, and some punches with weights. This is down a little in intensity due to a nasty head cold, but not by a ton.

I only track this stuff because my RD expects me to with my food journal. I'd still track the miles run because I need to maintain a base of 18-20 miles per week minimum because I want to stay about 4 weeks out of half marathon shape. Plus, to keep accountable, I've been doing several online running games. And it's kind of fun to watch those numbers continue to increase as the weeks go on.

I'm not really influenced by any studies. I run because I enjoy the alone time to veg out and just listen to music. It's also a challenge to keep up the distances and schedules, and I'd eventually like to do a sub 2 hour half someday. Admittedly, that's probably a few years away.

Plus, I like to exercise, so aerobics, kickboxing, and other ways to move are fun to me. And I love to bike, so I'll get on and go for a long time if I have scenery to look at.

If I was forced to total up a normal week's exercise, I'd be looking at around 3000 calories burned per week at least, if I use the base running calories I mentioned above.

I flipped by a Dr. Amen lecture on public television the other day, and he said that physical exercise is good for your brain.

http://www.amenclinics.com/

I walk more for my mood, than I do for my heart.

Mayo Clinic - Depression and anxiety: Exercise eases symptoms

http://www.mayoclinic.com/prin...MH00043/METHOD=print

I keep track of exercise miles walked, but don't pay that much attention to calories burned.

To determine calories burned per mile, I once "reverse calculated" data from my pedometer. If memory serves, with calorie formulas, the less you weigh, the fewer calories you burn per mile.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sheltieguy,