The 4,000 calories per week guideline page 3

[paleo-bunny]

2500 calories of exercise a day to maintain?

That would certainly not be healthy.

[NDF]

That would certainly not be healthy.

No it would not. which is why I thought I should ask for clarification.

[paleo-bunny]

No it would not. which is why I thought I should ask for clarification.

Fair enough.

I'd say that 4000 calories a week burned through activity is a healthy minimum to aim for.

[Owly]

The problem with the guideline is that it's actually not so much depending on your weight. I'm 170'ish. I have a 2-year old, active German Shepard. I run a 9ish minute mile 5k loop with him and then a second 5k same pace solo. It takes a little less than an hour. By day 5 I'm over 4000 calories. We go out nearly every day because we both need it. Throw in a few nights of heavy lifting, 45 - minutes to an hour in a week I've ran 7 days and it's over 6,000 cal easy. What in the world does an active, athletic 200 or even 300 pounder do? Lace up their shoes and then they're done? I don't do much physically with my job and I think that's why I do okay and need the activity before and after work.

I live with one of those healthy, active, big men (225 lbs at the moment, at sub 10% fat). At that size, hitting 4k in expenditure can happen fast, especially because he also has a physical job. I can't imagine him having to sit around on his days off so he doesn't go over the limit. I think the primal fitness laws are a better road map than a fixed caloric cap. I have the same issue with the carb curve. It doesn't take size, caloric intake, or any of that into account (although Mark has suggested elsewhere that some people may need to vary from the standard intakes he sets).

[sbhikes]

Fair enough.

I'd say that 4000 calories a week burned through activity is a healthy minimum to aim for.

Except 4000 calories was the maximum, not the minimum.

[paleo-bunny]

Except 4000 calories was the maximum, not the minimum.

I'd like to see some strong scientific evidence in favour of that because I just don't buy it.

The calorific restriction = longevity meme is bullshit IMO. It's been kicking around for a long time and I've yet to see any compelling evidence to support it. The only evidence I have seen that has been claimed to support this comes from some stupidly restrictive and artificial experiments on rats. I am sure that calorific restriction is advisable for those eating predominantly inflammatory junk foods, but that is irrelevant to me.

I could have kept my rabbit locked up in a hutch to reduce his calorie intake and increase his lifespan... but I haven't done so and have let him run around free-range as much as he likes and given him much more fresh food than the advised intake - and surprise, surprise he has lived longer than average for a pet or wild bunny and is still in excellent shape aged 8.5 (slightly underweight).

[NDF]

Paleo-bunny, 4000 calories max/week is the recommended exercise burn per week. It has nothing to do with food intake.

[paleo-bunny]

Paleo-bunny, 4000 calories max/week is the recommended exercise burn per week. It has nothing to do with food intake.

Yup I know.

Are you talking exercise or activity? I burn a lot of calories through leisure activities as opposed to exercise, e.g. walking around an art gallery.

Food intake to maintain is obviously related to activity level.

[Owly]

Paleo-bunny, did you read Mark's blog post on the 4000 calorie weekly exercise maximum? This discussion might make more sense if you see it in the context of that post.

[paleo-bunny]

Paleo-bunny, did you read Mark's blog post on the 4000 calorie weekly exercise maximum? This discussion might make more sense if you see it in the context of that post.

OK - thanks. I have read this. I concede that in the context of this article, my incidental activity should perhaps be disregarded. However, I suggest that for somebody with a totally sedentary job, and no incidental activity through hobbies and leisure activities, perhaps 4000 calories could be too restrictive?

Also, it is worth bearing in mind that some hobbies and leisure activities that expend extra calories are clearly chosen with a primary objective other than burning calories - however a secondary benefit is often recognised as coming from not being completely sedentary while doing them, so are they can't be clearly classified as non-exercise.

ETA: Hmm this also depends on the definition of focused exercise. I can easily burn 900 cals while watching a film at the gym and not focusing at all on the exercise.