0

votes

Is working out for 16 hours per day too much?

Commented on April 28, 2014
Created April 28, 2014 at 3:46 AM

Why or why not?

Defining working out as the contraction of muscles.

Wasn't paleo man pretty much active all day, hunting and gathering and what not?

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on April 28, 2014
at 05:13 PM

I suppose it's just an issue of semantics then. I wouldn't call contracting muscles for the sake of movement and walking around talking to the neighbor's / building things a 16hr workout. If that's the case, then I workout 18hrs some days.

Perhaps the better question would have been "Is spending 0-2hrs a day being sedentary (ie. not moving a muscle) too few?"

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on April 28, 2014
at 03:29 PM

"I think a better question is where the asymptote lies for diminishing returns on duration under various levels of intensity." That is definitely a better question, and one I would love to know the answer to.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on April 28, 2014
at 03:05 PM

Following that logic train if working out is different from 'normal daily activity' then doesn't that mean that paleo men and women never worked out/exercised since all of their activity was just normal daily activity?

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on April 28, 2014
at 12:11 PM

1) You're assuming an unannounced intensity in my workouts. 2) You're assuming that leisure paleo time was spent void of muscle contractions, however, without TV or internet they likely spent their leisure time relatively physically active (as defined by muscle contractions), playing games, walking around talking to neighbors, wrestling, building toys/jewelry, etc. 3) People who spend the most time sedentary per day are 14 times more likely to die in the following 3 years before controlling for everything, after controlling they're 6 times more likely to die: Study here.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on April 28, 2014
at 12:02 PM

Lol, +1 for not jumping to conclusions about the intensity of the workouts I'm referring to. I'm referring more to the standing than the running and weight lifting. In particular though, I'm liking muscle contractions to the point of lactic acid buildup but no soreness the next day. I definitely don't want 16 hours of cardio or traditional weight lifting, tbh 16 hours of standing is even way too unpleasant for me, Yikes!

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on April 28, 2014
at 06:19 AM

Hunter-gatherer societies work less than those practicing other means of subsistence, while still providing all their needs, and thus increase their leisure time. ~44.5hrs for men and 40.1 hours for women -- less than the hours spent on work in many modern Western households.

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-you-shouldnt-burn-more-than-4000-calories-a-week-through-exercise/

"After ~45-60m/d, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and at some point, you risk toxicity."

  • Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

    asked by

    (10989)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1542D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

best answer

0
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on April 28, 2014
at 03:06 PM

As you have defined working out, I would argue that working out for fewer than 24 hours would too little. As you have defined it, not working out is the same as being dead.

If this is in relation to your low level training question. I think it is difficult to respond because I don't understand how much intensity you are planning.

I think a better question is where the asymptote lies for diminishing returns on duration under various levels of intensity.

However, being relatively active for 16 hours a day is not a problem. When I camp, we are typically hiking for 12 hours a day with a sack -- never felt it was too draining. if course I've only done this for 5 days max -- who knows if long term it could be damaging.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on April 28, 2014
at 03:29 PM

"I think a better question is where the asymptote lies for diminishing returns on duration under various levels of intensity." That is definitely a better question, and one I would love to know the answer to.

0
3491e51730101b18724dc57c86601173

(8395)

on April 28, 2014
at 02:52 PM

I would say that the term "working out" is different from normal daily activity which is part of a job or active life. Working out implies exercise for exercise's sake. And no, 16 hours a day is not healthy, it's extremely obsessive.

Not even professional atheletes would push it that far. They recognize the value of rest as part of the equation to build strength and endurance.

I've also read that hunter gatherers did plenty of sitting and resting, too. 16 hours a day of anything is too much.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on April 28, 2014
at 03:05 PM

Following that logic train if working out is different from 'normal daily activity' then doesn't that mean that paleo men and women never worked out/exercised since all of their activity was just normal daily activity?

0
Medium avatar

on April 28, 2014
at 01:41 PM

It depends on how much calories to be burn?

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)

This is the most interesting point the resource that Paleot has given in the comment section

0
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on April 28, 2014
at 10:24 AM

Obviously. There's 24h in a day, you'd spend 8 (or more) of them sleeping, if you spend the rest as exercise, it's too much.

But of course, that depends on what you mean by exercise. Just being awake means you're contracting some muscles somewhere. Just standing up means you're balancing constantly and shifting your weight around - does that count as exercise under your question?

Or do you mean that you're running for 16 hours a day, or weight lifting 16 hours a day? Rhabdomyolysis isn't any fun - and can be infact deadly, and chronic cardio leads to heart damage.

So it depends on what exactly you're doing.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on April 28, 2014
at 12:02 PM

Lol, +1 for not jumping to conclusions about the intensity of the workouts I'm referring to. I'm referring more to the standing than the running and weight lifting. In particular though, I'm liking muscle contractions to the point of lactic acid buildup but no soreness the next day. I definitely don't want 16 hours of cardio or traditional weight lifting, tbh 16 hours of standing is even way too unpleasant for me, Yikes!

0
Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on April 28, 2014
at 05:20 AM

4000kcal of energy burned steadily over the course of a day might have been doable for Paleolithic man (I'm thinking of the most active members of the Hazda tribe), which you could call being active for 16 hours all day everyday and bordering on the upper limit of what might be considered "too much" and sub-optimal for health and wellness. But, I wouldn't call that "working out" for 16hrs.

Sisson has a good article on why you shouldn't want to burn more than 4000kcal working out over the course of a week.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-you-shouldnt-burn-more-than-4000-calories-a-week-through-exercise (“After about 45 to 60 minutes a day, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and at some point, you risk toxicity.”)

It looks like forestry workers / lumberjacks at the peak of winter labor in the cold pull off 5,000 kcal or so a day at the top of human energy expenditure with 48hr work weeks.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!