Why You Shouldn’t Burn More Than 4,000 Calories a Week Through Exercise
Everyone agrees that being sedentary is bad and unhealthy and that being active is good and healthy. The research agrees, too; regular physical activity leads to good health, longer lives, and an improved ability to function throughout normal life. When you’re able to walk to the store, carry your groceries home, take the stairs, get out of bed without struggling, pack enough lean mass to survive a stay in the hospital, and ride your bike when you want to, you’re a functional human being, and remaining active on a regular basis helps maintain this state so crucial to basic health and happiness.
But what’s often hidden amidst the blanket pro-exercise sentiment is that too much exercise can have the opposite effect on health – people can really take physical activity too far. I talk about this all the time, so much that you’ve probably got “Chronic Cardio” emblazoned across your brain and shake your head when you see some hapless soul in spandex and the latest runners heaving himself down the street, heel first. I know just how bad that stuff can be, because I did it for a large part of my life. You’ve all heard that story before, though, about how even though training cardio hard gets you “fitter” in one sense of the word, it’s actually counterproductive for a healthy long life (doubly so if you want to have some lean muscle mass and pain-free joints in your later years).
We’ve seen hints in studies over the years:
One recent study found that in overweight sedentary subjects, moderate exercise was more efficient at helping them burn body fat – including a reduction that was far greater than what could be explained by the caloric expenditure – while intense exercise induced a “compensatory” response that hampered fat loss.
Another study examined weekly caloric expenditure via aerobic exercise in a group of former athletes and non-athletes and plotted it against mortality, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. Death rate was highest in groups 1 and 2, the ones with the least amount of caloric expenditure, but group 6 (along with 1), which expended 2,500+ calories per week, had the highest rates of heart disease and high blood pressure. Those who exercised moderately lived the longest and were healthiest.
In a study on the exercise habits of college alumni and their impact on mortality, researchers found that up to 3,500 calories expended per week conferred a survival benefit, but at calorie expenditures greater than that, mortality began to tick upwards.
And in a pair of recent studies, researchers found that moderate exercise – jogging up to 20 miles a week at an 11 minute mile pace – offered the most protection against early mortality. Running more than 20 miles a week, or running at a 7 minute mile pace, offered fewer mortality benefits. In the second paper, Danish scientists found that people who spent one to two and a half hours jogging at a “slow or average pace” lived longer than those who didn’t run at all or who ran at a faster pace. James O’Keefe, a cardiologist and presenter at the Ancestral Health Symposium, was quoted as saying that “after about 45 to 60 minutes a day, you reach a point of diminishing returns.”
It’s pretty clear that once exercise gets to be “too much,” the benefits are reduced, or even reversed, and it becomes a chronic stressor that reduces overall wellness.
And so I thought it’d be helpful to give you guys a guideline for determining just how much is too much. This is a guideline I’ve had great success with, whether I’m training myself or clients: no more than 4,000 calories expended through focused exercise per week.
Is this a hard and fast rule? No, not exactly. Going somewhat above is probably okay.
Is it concretely established in numerous studies? There are hints toward its veracity in the literature, but nothing explicit. This is mostly stuff gleaned through experience (but the research does bear it out).
Does it apply to everyone, everywhere, whatever their goals may be? No. Someone training for the Hawaii Ironman Triathlon is going to require more if they hope to compete.
But as a general rule for the general population, it really does work well as a guideline. Burning 4,000 calories through focused exercise appears to be the cut off point (yeah, you could go a bit under or over, but the point is that we need to draw the line somewhere) after which health – including immune function and oxidative stress load – and quality of life – including free time, energy levels, and productivity – begin to take hits. Your performance may increase, and this might be worth it to you if your goals are primarily performance-oriented, but there’s a trade off. Keith Norris often writes about this idea, calling it the health-performance curve. I’m inclined to agree with him.
So – what does 4,000 calories worth of expenditure in a week look like, exactly?
Well, the simplest way I’ve found to describe it is in terms of road miles. If you’re doing 40 miles a week running or 80 miles a week cycling, you’re hitting roughly 4,000 calories. We don’t just run or bike, of course. We lift weights, we circuit train, we engage in metabolic conditioning, we row, we wrestle, we hike, we sprint, we box, we swim.
You could use an online calculator like FitDay or ExRx to get a better idea. For a 185 pound, 6 foot tall person to burn just around 4,000 calories a week, he could get away with:
- Running six miles.
- Lifting weights intensely for two hours total.
- Biking 13 miles.
- Playing an hour and a half of field sports (soccer, rugby, football, Ultimate).
That’s a pretty solid week of activity, I’d say, but it certainly isn’t excessive, and it would provide a far more well-rounded sense of fitness than just pounding away at the road for 40 miles. Feel free to use the (admittedly imperfect) tools linked above to figure out what your regular caloric expenditure looks like.
Not all activity “counts” toward your caloric expenditure. Taking a 30-minute stroll to the store doesn’t count as focused work. Taking a 60-minute hike up in the hills does. Going for a nice relaxing ride on the bike around the neighborhood doesn’t count, but doing twenty miles in a single day does. Carrying the groceries from the car to the house doesn’t count; carrying the groceries from the store to the house just might, though. “You know it when you see it” applies here, so use your better judgment.
I’d also suggest that expending your calories through a variety of activities is “better” than expending them through a single activity. As shown above, lifting weights, going for a run, biking a bit, and playing sports is more fun and probably less stressful than expending all your calories through running, which is veering into Chronic Cardio territory. A calorie (expended) is not a calorie (expended).
Look – exercise as often and as intensely as it pleases you. Just be aware that, in my opinion (having looked at the literature and drawn from my own experience training myself and others), 4,000 calories of focused work per week is the cut off point after which health and happiness begin to suffer for most people. If you’re an athlete whose only job is to train, and you’re privy to massages and cutting edge recovery techniques and everything else, then you’ll be able to handle more work. You’ll be far fitter than the average person and thus better equipped to mitigate the oxidative fallout from excessive exercise. But for members of the general population who have to contend with the day-to-day stress of living in this world, getting up early to feed the kids and beat traffic, balancing exercise time with work time with family time with personal time, sneaking peeks at the latest blog post, hoping to get enough sleep to make it through the next day? You’re going to have a harder time recovering from the stress of a 4,000+ caloric expenditure to make it worth your while.
That’s it for today, folks. Let me hear what you have to say about this 4,000 calories a week guideline. Do you agree? Disagree? Wholeheartedly forsake everything that I henceforth write? Let me hear all about it!
Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster
Posted By: Mark Sisson
Mark,
I have struggled all my life with my weight and i am at my wit’s end. I JUST did the math on my caloric burn per week last saturday and I just dont know what to do anymore. I am capable of burning 14cal/min for 50-60min. 11 cal/min if you include cool downtime, stretch time and shower time. Usually that takes another 40 minutes. If I total up the week, it usually adds up to about 6000 cal week. What am I doing wrong? I dont eat THAT excessively. I need advice.
Have you read any of the research done by Dr. Robert Lustig? Check out this video series (this is the link for the first of 7 short episodes).
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=23305
In terms of exercise, I believe that less is more. But being consistent with the “less” is the key. Go easy on our joint systems and focus on continually correcting/improving our bio-mechanics of movement as opposed to focusing on time or distance.
As a result of this approach my skills are constantly improving as is my speed; though I’m not even trying to go faster. It’s been a very interesting experiment.
What is your feeling about interval training, such as one minute intense, one minute relaxed, and so forth, for 20 minutes? I have read that this kind of workout a few times a week is extremely beneficial as opposed to “chronic cardiac.”
Doing High Intensity Interval Training about once per week is what Mark recommends, mixed with low intensity walks, biking, etc. It does work.
This is yet another study showing that we (Humans) were not built for constant stressful, strenuous activity. I am with Mark 100%. Even just a few years ago when these concepts were not in vogue, I decided to start weight training twice a week, instead of the usually recommended 3-6 days. I got better results as I was more recovered. And, I had a lot more time out of the gym. I was very happy to see Mark, and a few others preach this less is more concept.
I wonder if this isn’t misleading. Its not that I have any research to counteract the 4000 calories per week hypothesis, its just that there seems to be many endurance athletes who thrive when doing more. I personally know of ex pro cyclists who would have covered a lot of miles through their careers, and after retirement kept a fair amount per week, and at the age of 73/ 74 are in great shape. They could pass for 60. I wonder if its a case of just getting enough rest when you engage in high amounts of cardio ? I myself have been doing about 10000 km cycling per year for the past two years and feel great, I have not been sick once, except for the odd food intolerance episode. Am I doomed ?
I am 63 yrs old and have practiced Mark’s exercise and nutritional plan for about 8 months. I have trained most of my life. Now, my workouts are shorter, but more productive. I have added muscle, reduced fat, lost inches from my waist and gained on my chest and arms. Do not let anyone suggest that age is a limiting factor in the results achievable using this program!
Always nice to have something simplified and Mark does that for us. I don’t suspect it is intended to be taken literally for ALL individuals. “your individual result will vary”… I have been where Mark has been and at 60 + years know what it feels like when you ran or cross country skied for an hour a day for 30 plus years every day!! And averaged two to three hours a day doing hard effort work outs. Talk about Chronic! So I am paying a bit of a price for that past performance. Exercise is still important and “hard effort” workouts are still enjoyed but now it’s “all things in moderation”. Also, remember that diet is paramount in the Primal life style. As my Grandma said: “you are what you eat”…Guess she was pretty accurate after all. In any and all cases, a good guideline from Mark and “food for thought” IMHO.
I’m not sure I’ve ever really come close to that number as a short female, even when training for a half marathon. My max mileage per week was probably 20 miles, so 2000 calories or so.
Now with an infant and a six year old, I do even less. Three days of strengthening (15-20 mins per day). Two days of intervals (15-20 min). One day of a spin class (40 min), and one day either walking or swimming.
Does this 4000 calories apply for athletic children and growing teenagers?
Mark, I know what you mean about overtraining. I used to burn well more than 4000/week. I would train 15 hours a day, 7 days a week for years. And all that did for me was land me in the hospital repeatedly. It takes me a while to learn. lol
15 hours a day of training?
That left you 9 hours for everything else, how did you manage it? Even if you only slept 4 hours per day, that leaves you with 5 hours for everything else.
The reason it’s counterproductive to burning fat because your body starts release cortisol. So if you are doing too much, your body stops burning fat. From a composiiton standpoint, you’re getting fatter and losing muscle.
I think it makes sense, but how do you figure it for people significantly above the norm. I’m overweight now but when I’ve been in great shape I’m pushing 240 lbs (at 6’3)
My guess is 5000 would be a better guide for me doing the exact same activities Mark lists at the end of the article.
Very sound advice – i believe way to many of us over train especially those not in “sport specific training – While not enough emphasis goes into proper eating lifestyle. I would also make the correlation that if loosing 2 lbs a week seems reasonable you could extrapolate that of that choloric adjustment appropriating about 50% to activity/exercise and 50% to caloric reduction that you would theoretically would come to the support of this 4K expenditure conclusion
I believe dancing should be included in any healthy activity. It is a time-honored remedy for ailments. (think traditional healers) Plus, if you are doing it with joy, it’s a whole lotta fun! It is my firm belief that any of these activities if done with joy have value added! Thanks Mark for bringing another thoughtful topic. Now let’s dance!!
hmmm. I tend to run four days out of the week. Of late they have been 3 mile runs paced around 6:30/mi. Being on a very physically active night crew schedule has left me wanting to spend less time on my feet; however, even when I run 5+ miles I tend to still push a 7:00/mi. I don’t like to take it easy. 7:30/mi is my relax pace. Can this, over a prolonged time, affect vascular or arterial health or elasticity/internal organs/heart rhythm or vigor?
I am about 175lbs, 22 years of age, and generally have prehypertension during systole (avg bp 130/80). Max heart rate during my runs is usually about 180.
Apologies for the intricate question, but I gather, from your dialect in previous posts, that you enjoy queries such as this.
Wow,I guess this is just what I needed to read…After years of chronic cardio (90 mins. plus most days, sometimes 3-4 hours), I’ve started cutting back as there are more and more signs that my immunity is suffering, including a low wbc count. I also used to crave sweets and nuts with the outmost intensity. There were days when I’d eat 3-4 lbs of nuts in the space of a few hours! Right now I do 45 mins. spinning twice a week, intense crosfit type training 3 times, weights 3 times. Apart from that I cycle arond 45-50 mins. 5 times a week (picking up my son from school) and walk about 1.5 hrs 5 days a week.( I’m 5’6″ and weigh around 110 lbs, which I’m happy with, so my weight is not an issue). Does anyone know if it’s still too much or is it ok?
I just left a 70-hour-work-week-job, to find more balance in my life… including to re-introduce a regular exercise program back in! (I’ve stayed on-board with a more primal way of eating, Thank God!) In light of this, I truly find it a comfort — and a relief! – to be reminded here that the opposite extreme (too Much hard exercise) is neither helpful nor productive for the 53 year old non-athlete that I’ve become! This is a Great time for me to hear Mark’s words on Exercise Moderation for the general public. Thanks, Mark!
I started the Primal workout back in early July and promptly snapped my Achilles tendon in the 2nd series of sprints. I used to fall into the Chronic Cardio zone, running 30+ miles a week, so I probably overdid it transitioning back to sprints (I was a 400M sprinter 34 years ago). I’ve had 2 Orthopedists tell me that sprints should be out due to a bad lower back and now the Achilles repair, so I guess I’ll be looking for alternatives to burn my 4K calories a week.
Most people generally over-estimate how many calories they are burning. I am fitness pro teaching 15 classes per week. I average 150 -400 calories per class depending on format which ranges from senior fitness to hard core cycle classes. Even at this level if I average 250/class this only takes me to 3750/wk.
My point being, the average grok does not need to worry about this. I also have my own fitness plan going on which probably adds another 1000 calories per week. I rarely experience signs of over-training (repressed immune function, insomnia, joint pain) I am 52 and plan to keep moving like this as long as I feel good about it physically and mentally. I may be the exception to the rule. Thanks mom and dad for the hearty peasant stock I come from!
This post is a little confusing to me. It seems to focus a lot on how to incorporate the right amount of chronic cardio/endurance training? After 20+ years as a distance runner and triathlete, I almost exclusively walk a sprint now (for locomotion training). I agree with Mark (or thought I did?) that these are more likely the natural gaits for homosapiens most of the time – that we were, in fact, NOT “born to run”, at least not long distances at a time. Isn’t PB and PBF about getting away from medium/high exertion, long duration? Long being more than a minute or so?
This is so funny because I can tell the age by the commentary. The under 40′s are fighting to defend their chronic cardio as I would in my 20′s & 30′s back when I would do 2-a-days and was never sore or injured. Invincible, believing it would never end!
Then the 40′s arrive… Sometimes, I lie awake wondering if my hamstrings will ever completely heal, or if I just pushed too hard for too many years…
+1
Agree. Never thought I would, but I solidly agree. I love, love, love running, and for my entire adult life, I thought it was normal for me to get 4-6 bad colds followed by bronchitis per year. Still love an occasional longer run with a friend, but mainly walk and sprint and do pullups and lots of incidental movements. I lost 10 pounds, co-workers say I look really younger, I’ve been told I have a “slammin’ body” and I got one brief cold back in February that I knocked down in FOUR DAYS. That was 2 months after quitting regular running and wheat and high carbs. I’m 47. And I endorse this article. And I can STILL kick most twenty-somethings’ butts in any given race whenever I choose. And I do.
Excessive exercise can lead to a host of problems. Excessive cortisol, increased inflammation, depletion of micro nutrients, leptin imbalance, stress of the GI because of the constant need for more cal then normal. All of which can lead to fat gain, a halting of fat loss, and health problems. Everyone varies as to when exercise loses is benefits and starts actually hurting your body, but that 60 min per session as a guideline is very good.
Also stop running on pavement!
I am 64 year old woman, eating primal since last November. I have been working Dr. Sears P.A.C.E. interval program–using my basement stairs–since first of June. My resting heart rate was 72 at that time. After 3 months of just 2 or 3 times a week, varying my interval and recovery times, and taking less than 1/2 hr. total per workout, my resting heart rate was and is 60 bpm now. I do some Nordic walking and a little lifting–which I plan to increase some. We went hiking up and down (including some climbing)very hilly and rocky wooded areas on Monday and I just smoked it. My heart stayed steady and slow and my legs wanted to do more I felt so energetic and incredible. My husband was amazed. I used to be guilty of chronic cardio and was a jogger from 1968 through middle 1980′s. Glad I quit that because I might be looking at knee replacement by now. Now that it’s cooler I will return to some sprinting but keep the stair climbing intervals. I feel and look 20 years younger and will probably be sending in my story eventually.
I look forward to reading it! Sounds like it’ll be full of some useful data.
I think this is a good study, but it ready is not relevant to most people. Most people find it difficult to get in that much exercise. But, for those people that do sometimes go overboard, these types of studies are great ways to show people to slow down, do a reasonable amount of exercise. I love being active, but I am in agreement with this article. And it follows the great general rule that everything should be in moderation.
Wholly Crap, according to ExRx between MMA training and S&C I’m expending 6290 calories a week. No wonder my energy is low at times. Its time to make some changes.
Wow this goes with what I have been concerned about my 55 year old husband who is a machanic. He burns so much at work and comes home and crashes from working so hard. I feed him 3000 to 4000 calories a day and he is still dropping weight. he is 145 lbs. 5’9″ wearing 28″ pants
We need a better metric for “healthy” – since when is mortality the gold standard? Longer life thru chemistry (statins!) and limping along isn’t “healthy.” We need to push for a better health indicator.
Who said anything about statins? Longer life is, in fact, an indicator of health. The healthier you are, the longer you’ll live.
Personally, the reason I’m following the Primal lifestyle is so that I can live to be 90 or 100 or longer and be physically and mentally functional at that age. Over exercise is not conducive to that goal.
Couldn’t agree more–I spent years running 6-8 miles a day, about 42+ miles a week, barely eating 1500 calories a day, weight training 2-3 days a week — all I did was burn out my metabolism and adrenal glands which has taken years to repair, but I am on the mend.
Even 4000 a day for a smaller female is probably excessive. I am 5’4″, 130-135 and maintain right around 20% body fat. I’m very fit. I Crossfit 5 days a week, run about once ( short distance- sometimes sprints to 3 miles tops) and practice hot yoga 2-3 days a week which I do count as exercise since its a vinyasa flow.
At Crossfit I burn about 350- 400 calories during exercise and an additional 50 – 100 in EPOC, so lets call it 450. Including 5 crossfit workouts, 1 run and 2 yoga sessions I’m barely meeting 2000 calories a week.
When I have trained for bikini competitions I was closest to 2500 and I couldn’t sustain that. My body ached and my joints suffered. I was cranky, tired and overtrained.
In conclusion, I think 4000 may be a bit high for women.
I have been seeing these studies pop up all over the blogosphere. I still have a hard time accepting that less is more especially since I work out for like an hour and a half a day. I have cut down my cardio a little and am doing more HIIT.
Excellent article, as usual, Mark. I dream of running an ultra-marathon barefoot, so perhaps I will have to exceed these guidelines. I guess we all have our individual drivers and, at least for me, it would be too stressful to put that dream aside. Many runners I’ve spoken to have the same attitude. Stop them running and the stress levels go through the roof. No-one ever made a difference doing things “in moderation”. I dislike that phrase…
Keep up the excellent posts. My cholesterol level is down, my body is practically fat-adapted, thanks to you and a few other luminaries.