I found this website today that I just know the statistician in me is going to be totally obsessed by: calorie-count.com. Like it sounds, it calculates caloric intake and estimates the number of calories burned, blah blah blah. But here's the great thing: it has every food and physical activity known to man already in its database. And I do mean EVERYTHING. It is rather amusing, actually. A few of the listed activities:
- Feeding animals (272 cal/hr)
- Moving an ice house (653 cal/hr)
- Maple sugaring/sugar bushing (544 cal/hr)
- Water volleyball (326 cal/hr)
- Erecting coal mine supports (707 cal/hr)
- Pushing a plane in and out of a hangar (653 cal/hr)
- Sitting in church (163 cal/hr)
- Cooking Indian bread on an outside stove (326 cal/hr)
- Taking medication (108 cal/hr)
- Standing while reading (195 cal/hr)
- Chasing cattle or other livestock on horseback (435 cal/hr) [wait -- so are the livestock on horseback, or...]
But you know, the more I look at this, the more dubious it seems. What are the chances that moving an ice house and pushing a plane into a hangar burn exactly the same number of calories? I'm guessing they're taking a few shortcuts. But whatev'.
Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I need to go to my account and enter that I've just spent 15 minutes typing, which should work out to about 41 calories. Man, they sure make exercising easy...
Yeah, those estimates are always a little suspect. When I was riding my bike more, in training for a week-long, 500 mile ride, I tried to find one accurate estimate of how many calories riding a bike burned. They were all over the map (graph?).
And that's in a sport with notable and well-funded OCD types like Lance Armstrong, who was known for weighing every bite he ate during training, to ensure that he arrived at the start line in perfect shape and at the perfect weight.
Even he had to admit that there was no way to tell how many calories bike riding burned.
But maybe the ice house movers are better informed. Now all I have to do to lose this weight is find an ice house.
Posted by: Papa Bradstein | 03 June 2006 at 06:14 PM
Do you think feeding animals includes pouring food in the cats bowl? Oh well, at least right now I do not have to be concerned with losing weight; that will be next year.
Posted by: dear wife | 03 June 2006 at 10:25 PM
According to this, I can sit on a couch and drink half a beer an hour and basically break even. But it doesn't rate the "activity" of drinking beer, so I'll multiply that number by....let's say 20....so I think I'm OK!
Woo hoo!
Posted by: CroutonBoy | 04 June 2006 at 10:55 PM
Yeah, I apparently burned like 2,000 calories driving around looking for a sofa yesterday. I'm starting to think the pro-sitting-on-your-ass lobby came up with these numbers...
Posted by: zygote daddy | 04 June 2006 at 11:22 PM
I am dying with the suspense here. Does dw have a "she/he" or a "they"????
Posted by: andrea | 04 June 2006 at 11:46 PM
I find it peculiar (to say the least) that cleaning a church burns exactly twice as many (kilo?)calories as vigorous sexual activity...
Posted by: CP | 05 June 2006 at 02:09 AM
Addendum:
This site also claims that sitting at home reading the Bible consumes 20 calories MORE per hour that making out/heavy petting.
I don't mean to rock the boat, but c'mon!
Posted by: CP | 05 June 2006 at 02:13 AM
Well, I wasn't going to mention that, since OUR DEAR MOTHER reads this blog, but whatever...
Clearly, God is punishing evil dirty sinners by making them fat. Or something.
Oh, and thanks for increasing my readership by steering this way any pervs who Google "church" and "vigorous sexual activity". Whatever gets 'em in the door, you know?
Posted by: zygote daddy | 05 June 2006 at 02:47 AM