Sex only burns about 21 calories, according to new university study

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/sex-only-burns-21-calories-according-university-study-224521651.html

Burning love apparently does not equate to burning fat. A new study from the University of Alabama at Birmingham says the average sex act burns only about 21 calories.

The study, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, contradicts many long-standing claims that sexual activity is a vigorous, fat-burning workout. Funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, the study results found that "false and scientifically unsupported beliefs about obesity are pervasive in both scientific literature and the popular press."

Most online claims about the calorie burning potential of sexual activity are based on one-hour increments, whereas this study worked off an average time span of six minutes per sexual encounter.

The study's director, Dr. David Allison, who also serves as director of the university's Nutrition Obesity Research Center, tested a number of theories in his study, including whether physical education classes actually improved a child's health and whether skipping breakfast or snacking contributed to weight gain.

"As health professionals, we should hold ourselves to high standards so that public health statements are based on rigorous science," Allison said in a statement. "The evidence is what matters.

However, CBS News notes that some fellow experts question the motivations behind the study, noting that some of the participants received funding from sources including Coca-Cola, the McDonald's Global Advisory Council and two obesity drug manufacturers—Vivus and Arena Pharmaceuticals.

Allison responds that his team's research was motivated by a desire to counter health theories propagated as fact by self-proclaimed health experts.

"From social media outlets like Facebook, to mainstream television news to dietetics and nutrition textbooks, these myths are perpetuated, irrespective of the scientific evidence," study co-author Dr. Krista Casazza told CBS News. "As scientists, we have the responsibility to present the evidence as it exists without inflating ideas and contributing to popular misconceptions. As a registered dietitian, I feel that providing evidence-based statements about weight loss is essential."

[PDH]

They're doing it wrong.

[Ed Anger]

How many calories in the clitoris? Lunch time is coming up.

[merithyn]

They're doing it wrong.

Well, maybe not wrong, but certainly not long enough.

[Ed Anger]

They're doing it wrong.

Well, maybe not wrong, but certainly not long enough.

Everything isn't about your needs. 

[merithyn]

They're doing it wrong.

Well, maybe not wrong, but certainly not long enough.

Everything isn't about your needs. 

Max doesn't seem to mind... or have a problem with it.

[MadImmortalMan]

My wife was doing her seXbox exercise game yesterday. She was in the living room doing all these aerobics and jumping around and other things the game was telling her for a long time. Then at the end, it told her congrats, you burned 54 calories! I was like WTF? That's like a shot glass of Mountain Dew or a lollipop or something. I burn several hundred in the same time span when I work out.

So hey, if you're only doing aerobics or whatever, tacking on another 20 calories burned is a big deal I suppose.

Edit: So tacking on some sex at the end of her workout would have made it about 38% more effective, put in those terms. 

[Admiral Yi]

If six minutes is the average that means some folks must be done in seconds. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

One of the few advantages (aside from the money) of having a doctor for a spouse is I get all these journals, was reading this article on the NEJM website just yesterday and a lot of what it says confirms most of what I've found about fitness and weight loss. If you're active on the weight lifting forums (and I am), most of them spout all kinds of crazy unscientific theories about weight loss and muscle building.

Something I often like to bring up is this "starvation mode" that a lot of diet experts talk about. Starvation mode is basically when you're starving, you enter a "low energy state" where your body uses less energy. Diet advisers always say you have to avoid this, because it lowers metabolism and makes it very hard to lose weight. I've always found that to be false, and a few years ago a study came out saying the same thing: that it takes 60 hours of fasting to truly enter "starvation mode." There is little evidence "extreme" diets like VLCDs (physician supervised diets where you eat 3-4 prescription meal-shakes each day, totaling usually under 800 calories) put your body into "starvation mode" and make you unable to lose weight, and the whole concept defies certain basic facts about physics and human biology. The truth is, 800 calories/day on a physician supervised VLCD is one of the most effective non-surgical methods for the morbidly obese to lose weight rapidly.

I've also never believed how you lose weight affects how you keep it off. Keeping weight off is a different process than losing weight. Any path to weight loss will result in weight gain if you end your loss period with a food binge period. Is it good to get into the habit of eating balanced, complete meals and having a reasonable daily caloric intake? Absolutely, but if that habit is just part of a weight loss strategy, it's just as susceptible as anything else to being thrown out the window the moment you hit your goal weight. The only way to keep weight off is to not eat to excess again once you've lost it, if you can do that the way you get to your ideal weight isn't the most important thing in the world.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Should mention, in the NEJM this sex research is just one minor piece of the whole, the whole work was about weight loss myths. Buried in that was a study about calorie burn from various exercises and that's where the sex study came in.

I pretty much believe the 21 calorie average, even vigorous sex is probably nowhere near the target range for aerobic workout unless you're extremely unfit, and will still use less energy than moving your 150-250+ lb body while walking or jogging. Most people dramatically overestimate the caloric burn of exercises in the first place, the human body is extremely energy efficient, that's why unless you're doing extreme high energy workouts diet is about 85% of the weight loss formula.

[derspiess]

Something I often like to bring up is this "starvation mode" that a lot of diet experts talk about. Starvation mode is basically when you're starving, you enter a "low energy state" where your body uses less energy. Diet advisers always say you have to avoid this, because it lowers metabolism and makes it very hard to lose weight. I've always found that to be false, 

Just based on my own experience I totally agree with you.

I've also never believed how you lose weight affects how you keep it off. Keeping weight off is a different process than losing weight. Any path to weight loss will result in weight gain if you end your loss period with a food binge period. Is it good to get into the habit of eating balanced, complete meals and having a reasonable daily caloric intake? Absolutely, but if that habit is just part of a weight loss strategy, it's just as susceptible as anything else to being thrown out the window the moment you hit your goal weight. The only way to keep weight off is to not eat to excess again once you've lost it, if you can do that the way you get to your ideal weight isn't the most important thing in the world.

Agree on this as well.

[DGuller]

Wow, just 21 calories?  Why even bother?

[MadImmortalMan]

Wow, just 21 calories?  Why even bother?

[Malthus]

Should mention, in the NEJM this sex research is just one minor piece of the whole, the whole work was about weight loss myths. Buried in that was a study about calorie burn from various exercises and that's where the sex study came in.

I pretty much believe the 21 calorie average, even vigorous sex is probably nowhere near the target range for aerobic workout unless you're extremely unfit, and will still use less energy than moving your 150-250+ lb body while walking or jogging. Most people dramatically overestimate the caloric burn of exercises in the first place, the human body is extremely energy efficient, that's why unless you're doing extreme high energy workouts diet is about 85% of the weight loss formula.

Heh, agreed. I've always gotten a good laugh at the whole diet industry - my idea was to publish my own diet book.

I'd call it "Mathus's sure-fire, 100% guaranteed weight loss method ". Inside would be 200 blank pages, except the first, on which would be written: "Stop stuffing your pie-hole, fatty".   

Actually, right now, I'm taking that advice - I gotta lose me some weight. I lost 10 pounds last month. As always, I was pretty good for a while after dieting last time, then started stuffing my pie-hole a bit too much, and gained some back.

I do work-outs but only three times a week for an hour - it's not enough to do shit, weight-loss wise.

[Barrister]

Something I often like to bring up is this "starvation mode" that a lot of diet experts talk about. Starvation mode is basically when you're starving, you enter a "low energy state" where your body uses less energy. Diet advisers always say you have to avoid this, because it lowers metabolism and makes it very hard to lose weight. I've always found that to be false, and a few years ago a study came out saying the same thing: that it takes 60 hours of fasting to truly enter "starvation mode." There is little evidence "extreme" diets like VLCDs (physician supervised diets where you eat 3-4 prescription meal-shakes each day, totaling usually under 800 calories) put your body into "starvation mode" and make you unable to lose weight, and the whole concept defies certain basic facts about physics and human biology. The truth is, 800 calories/day on a physician supervised VLCD is one of the most effective non-surgical methods for the morbidly obese to lose weight rapidly.

My wife is doing something like that.  It's technically not a VLCD because she is eating 900 calories per day, and she is eating food not shakes (altthough everything is carefully weighed), but it certainly is effective.