Meat, no hula-hoop Wrote:
Elvis Fu Wrote:
According to this calculation, it works out to (200 x 17) =
3400 to maintain. Subtract the 500 daily caloric deficit to lose a pound per week, and you are at 2900 calories, which places you--
well hot damn would you look at that--between the 2894-3075 from my spreadsheet.
Would you like to play again, or can we just sit down and have pie?

Most people fall into the "sedentary" range - I've only known one person in my entire life who actually does the 3-4 times a week of aerobic exercise a week, and that's generally the norm for most of the US (and hence our generally overweight status.) Good for you if you actually do this much exercise - I can't imagine how anyone fits that in, but if you do, I applaud you. Remember - the goal is 3500 calories burnt a week, which doesn't work out to 500 a day if you only do it 3-4 times a week. It's more like burning 1000 calories each exercise-day. If you can do that, well, I bow to you.
It's not 3500 calories
burnt per week, but a 3500 caloric
deficit, either through exercise or a decrease in consumption. If you decrease your caloric intake by 500 per day, you will be on pace for a one pound loss per week, and the calories burned during exercise contribute to that goal. Plus, if you engage in something that retains lean muscle mass, i.e. weight training, then you raise your basal metabolic rate, allowing your body to burn more calories throughout the day, even at rest.
It's only common sense to realize that if you take Rob Reiner off his usual 5000 calorie per day diet and throw him on 1800 per day, his body is going to immediately thing he is starving and not only do everything possible to retain the fat stores for energy later, but it will also break down muscle for energy now, thus lowering his basal metabolic rate. I'd bet Lance Armstrong consumes over 4000 calories a day, since his BMR has got to be through the roof.