I wonder how many calories a person can burn by just rolling out of the restaurant?

I was going to ask how much the bill was.

I'm pretty sure it was over $20. :)

Nice.

Ah, restaurants, how I remember thee.

Sounds delicious.

But you'll need to do about 3-4 of those 2 hour bike rides.

At my weight and average speed, I burn about 700-900 calories per hour.

No, you don't. Sorry.

OK, I'll bite. Why not?

I should add that the good news is eating a huge meal like that doesn't mean all those calories go right into you fat cells. Most of it simply gets passed through your system, you'll maybe see a slight weight gain mostly from your body retaining fluids from the sodium, but your weight will barely change after a huge meal like that. This is why having one cheat day or meal a week is much preferable to "cheating" this much spread out over each day or meal (not to mention this causes just a one-time insulin spike vs many mini spikes).

But yeah, the bad news is that 700-900 calorie quote you got is way over-inflated. Most of those "how many calories did I burn doing x exercise" charts are. And weight alone is a very innacurate way of determining this. To get a better idea you'd really need to know your heart rate, weight, age, height blah blah blah and even then it's only approximate. Sadly, bike riding doesn't burn a whole lot of calories unless you're doing sprints and lots of hill climbs, even then it's not all that great given it's not a weight-bearing exercise. It's sure fun though!

Right, I'm with you in your first paragraph.

But yeah, the bad news is that 700-900 calorie quote you got is way over-inflated.

Ok. My experience differs.

Your experience based on what method?

Tracking calories and regularly exercising to maintain a target heart rate.

Be warned the whole "fat burning zone" stuff is kind of a bunch of bunk. Okay, not bunk, but the reality is, getting your heart rate up past that mythical range with intervals results in greater calories burned over time (you burn more post exercise) than a long slow workout in that zone.

Well, I'm not sure what to say. If the method I've been using for the past few months is bunk, I'll take it, because it's working.

Yup, and see other comment I just posted.

I shouldn't say "bunk" - you'll burn calories that way, but you could burn them more efficiently with interval training. Everyone's trying to dig the same hole - you can dig it with a spoon, or a shovel :)

Plus I'll just add - which athlete's body would you prefer - that of an elite distance athlete or that of a sprinter? My hunch is most of us would much prefer the later. Just something to think about.

Got a good source to recommend about interval training?

Want examples of how to do it or science showing why it works or ?

http://www.rosstraining.com/articles/tabataintervals.html

(this gives both a workout example, plus links to science behind it)

Sweeeeeet! Thank you.

Since the above is more about why intervals make you a better athlete and doesn't touch on fat burning, he's one that does that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/fashion/03Fitness.html

Well that's kinda half the message - you do indeed burn a higher percentage of fat calories with lower intensity exercise, but that just doesn't make up for the difference in total calories burned at higher intensity. The fat-zone data isn't wrong, it's just not really a complete picture.

Correct.

Also to add - you seem to be happy and having sucess doing what you're doing. And that totally rocks.

There's just a lot of noise out there in regards to this stuff, even from a lot of "experts" including general practitioners, personal trainers (hey, even include me in this bunch). Keep researching on your own. Remain skeptical :)