Fury at 'fat tax' to bury obese dead people in XL graves
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
What Exercise Burns the Most Calories? We Ranked Them to Find Out
It's no secret that burning more calories than you eat is the best way to lose weight. The best way to achieve that is to exercise regularly to increase your calorie expenditure. But not all exercises are created equal and some burn more calories than others. That means that knowing the best workout for your weight loss goals is vital. It's no good forcing yourself onto the exercise bike every morning if it isn't going to get the job done. The best way to gauge calories burned is by employing an accurate heart rate monitor. Such monitors take into account your personal statistics like age, sex, weight and height. Whether you use a heart rate monitor or a different type of fitness tracker, it's still good to have an idea of how many calories the most common exercises burn. Keep reading to find out how many calories typical exercises can burn and how to figure out your calorie burn during workouts. What factors affect calorie burn during exercise? Professional fitness trainer Brooke Taylor explains that the main factors that differentiate the number of calories burned during exercise include: Heart rate training zone You'll want to figure out your target heart rate and your maximum heart rate zones to make sure you're working hard enough when exercising aerobically. Knowing your target heart rate training zone gives you a tactile number instead of going by feel, and it will help you build a solid base and endurance without burning you out. Resting heart rate A normal resting heart rate is between 60 and 100 beats per minute. Knowing your resting heart rate is important to make sure your heart is operating in a healthy manner while at rest. The higher the resting heart rate is, the more it's indicative that your stress levels or other underlying health problems may be at play. Weight In general, the more you weigh, the more calories you will burn during exercise. This is because you are working with more body mass and require more energy compared to someone lighter. Types of exercise Cardio-based workouts burn more calories than other types of workouts like strength training or yoga. What exercise burns the most calories? Even though everyone is different, there are general estimates for how many calories you can burn when you exercise. The estimates below are calculated based on someone who weighs 130 pounds through the American Council on Exercise calculator. You can use that calculator to get a close estimate of how many calories you would burn daily during many common activities. Running for 30 minutes burns about 206 calories. Getty Images 1. Running/jogging 206 calories per 30 minutes Running at even a slow pace burns a lot of calories for 30 minutes. On average, running burns between 10.8 to 16 calories per minute, putting it at the top of the list of workouts that burn the most calories. To up the calorie burn, increase the intensity or add in sprint intervals. 2. Hiking 176 calories per 30 minutes Hiking is one of the best ways to escape to the outdoors, turn off technology and get in some movement. And because you're not walking on a level path like down the street, navigating different terrains or hills challenges more muscles, so you burn more calories. 3. Biking/cycling 5.5 mph117 calories per 30 minutes If you're an avid biker, you may go faster than 5.5 mph but if you tend to bike at a leisurely pace, you can still burn 117 calories per 30 minutes. Note that this is different than if you do high-intensity interval training or classes on spin bikes. 4. Jump rope (fast pace) 115 calories per 10 minutes Let out your inner kid and take up jump rope for a surprisingly fast way to burn a ton of calories. Just 10 minutes of jumping rope burns 115 calories. Walking is a simple exercise that can help you burn calories. Getty Images 5. Walking (moderate pace) 97 calories per 30 minutes Walking is the simplest and most accessible form of exercise. And if you're anything like me, you rely on walks for much-needed breaks during the day. Even if you don't walk for 30 minutes or longer on every walk, all of the short walks you take add up. 6. Weightlifting88 calories per 30 minutes Although not the quickest way to burn calories, lifting weights increases strength and muscle tone and enhances metabolism. The more muscle mass you have, the more calories you burn at rest. 7. Stretching/Hatha yoga Getty/Halfpoint Images 73 calories per 30 minutes While stretching or restorative yoga may not burn a ton of calories, it still warrants a well-deserved spot in your weekly workout lineup for enhanced mobility, flexibility, recovery and tension relief. Exercises compared Below is an example of calories burned per exercise based on the American Council on Exercise (ACE) calculator for a 130-pound person. Please keep in mind, these numbers will change based on weight, muscle mass and body composition, the type of workout, age and gender. Exercise Time Calories Time Calories Time Calories Running/Jogging 10 mins 68 30 mins 206 1 hour 412 Hiking 10 mins 58 30 mins 176 1 hour 353 Biking/Cycling (5.5 mph) 10 mins 39 30 mins 117 1 hour 235 Jump rope (fast pace) 10 mins 117 30 mins 353 1 hour 707 Walking (moderate) 10 mins 32 30 mins 97 1 hour 194 Weight Training (normal) 10 mins 29 30 mins 88 1 hour 176 Stretching/Hatha Yoga 10 mins 24 30 mins 73 1 hour 147 How to track calories burned Although most people use smartwatches like the Apple Watch or other types of wearables that can track the number of calories they burn daily, it's important to know that they aren't always accurate. Research has shown that there are discrepancies with these figures, so take the information it collects as a guesstimate instead. Heart rate monitors and similar devices are more reliable for taking your heart rate reading, if that's something you like to track as well. However, if you're interested in having an idea of the number of calories burned, you can do so by wearing a smartwatch or try out free trackers online like and
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New Dad, 29, Was Told He Had Tonsillitis. He Died the Next Day
"Watching Jacob grow up without his daddy by his side is devastating and we miss Michael every single day," Charlotte Reynolds said NEED TO KNOW A new father died a day after he was allegedly misdiagnosed with tonsillitis Michael Reynolds, 29, actually had the potentially fatal condition epiglottitis, which causes a swelling of the flap at the top of the windpipe He had a seizure at home and later died of cardiac arrest, caused by a lack of oxygen, per his family's law firm, Irwin Mitchell A new father died a day after doctors allegedly misdiagnosed him with tonsillitis. Michael Reynolds, a 29-year-old truck driver, first sought medical care on November 29, 2023, when he complained of a lingering cough and sore throat. He was prescribed a steroid nasal spray and referred for a chest X-ray, according to a statement from the family's law firm, Irwin Mitchell. Michael's condition deteriorated the following day, and he returned to his doctor's office, where he saw a different physician. At the time, Michael said he felt like his throat was closing up, and he was spitting saliva into a bowl because he couldn't swallow. He was allegedly diagnosed with tonsillitis — inflammation of the tonsils — and prescribed oral antibiotics. The family's law firm alleges it was 'not made clear' to Michael that he should go to the emergency room. After leaving the doctor's office, Michael and his wife, Charlotte, picked up his antibiotics from the pharmacy and returned to their home in Boston, Lincolnshire, in the U.K. The next morning, Michael had a seizure; Charlotte called an ambulance which took him to the hospital, where he died on Dec. 1, 2023. According to Irwin Mitchell, the coroner found that Michael had epiglottitis, which is a swelling of the flap that covers the windpipe. As the Cleveland Clinic explains, it's an uncommon condition, most likely caused by a bacterial infection, and shouldn't be treated at home. According to the Clinic, "It's essential to get to the emergency room (ER) immediately if you or a loved one is experiencing symptoms of epiglottitis. Epiglottitis is a medical emergency." The epiglottitis and upper airway obstruction led to Michael's hypoxic cardiac arrest — aka, cardiac arrest caused by a lack of oxygen. Per Irwin Mitchell, an inquest into his death found there was a 'missed opportunity' to give Michael 'robust advice' to go to the emergency room, per the coroner, who explained that staff there would likely have been more familiar with the condition. 'This is a truly tragic case where a young dad has lost his life. Charlotte and the rest of Michael's family are understandably struggling to come to terms with losing him so suddenly and unexpectedly, and under such circumstances,' Rosie Charlton, the family's attorney, said. 'They've also had a number of concerns about the events that unfolded in the lead up to Michael's death. Worryingly, the inquest has validated those concerns.' 'Watching Jacob grow up without his daddy by his side is devastating and we miss Michael every single day,' Charlotte, whose son is now 3, said in the Irwin Mitchell statement. "Michael meant everything to us and losing him has left a huge hole in our lives that will never go away. We'd do anything to bring him back.' PEOPLE has reached out to Charlotte Reynolds for further comment. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Her statement to Irwin Mitchell continued: 'All I can hope for now is that by sharing our story, it can lead to improvements in care for others and more awareness around the signs of epiglottitis and the need for emergency treatment, as it's something I'd never even heard of before.' 'I wouldn't want anyone going through what we have.' Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Reason Why Everyone's Confused About UPFs – and What the Current Science Actually Says
The term 'ultra-processed food' (or UPF, for short) has launched into the nutritional spotlight in recent years, with study after study linking the food group to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and a multitude of other chronic conditions. And in the UK, we eat a lot of ultra-processed foods. A recent landmark study showed that UPFs made up a whopping 53% of people's energy intake in the UK, coming second only to the US, where UPFs comprised 55%. This trend has led some researchers to claim that ultra-processed foods are 'a primary causal driver of the obesity pandemic'. But is the study of ultra-processed food actually a genuine scientific breakthrough in understanding diet and disease? Or is it just a fancy new label for foods we already knew were unhealthy? What we know now is there's a lack of a clear definition for ultra-processed foods – and we could sure use one. What Are Ultra-processed Foods? The definition of ultra-processed foods has shifted a bit since the term was first coined by Brazilian researchers in 2009, but now the term basically involves a food product meeting two specific criteria. The first is that the main components of the food are a result of multiple stages of industrial processing. Examples: white sugar, white flour, vegetable oil. The second is that the food has additives not commonly used in at-home cooking. This includes preservatives like BHT, emulsifiers like soy lecithin, stabilising agents like modified corn starch, food dyes, thickening agents, and the ever mysterious 'artificial flavours'. That's a tough definition for the average person to remember, understand, and apply to their food choices. Research actually bears this out. Even people who claim to know what ultra-processed foods are often misidentify which foods are actually ultra-processed. To make things even more confusing, some foods fall into an ultra-processed grey area. Let's take bacon, for example. While bacon certainly has additives thanks to its preservatives, whether it undergoes multiple stages of industrial processing is more nebulous. As a result, bacon has been classified as ultra-processed in some scientific papers, but not ultra-processed in others. Whole-grain bread, certain aged cheeses, and tomato sauce – healthy by most definitions – have also been slapped with an ultra-processed label, only adding to consumer confusion. The (New) Science for Ultra-processed Foods Not only is the definition of ultra-processing a bit fuzzy, there's also some debate as to why ultra-processed foods promote worse health outcomes in the first place. Because not all ultra-processed foods are harmful (see whole-grain bread and tomato sauce, but also yoghurt and dark chocolate), researchers have tried to explain why only some foods categorised as ultra-processed are linked to disease. One hypothesis is that (of all things) eating speed is a central factor. Due to their processing, ultra-processed foods are often softer and easier to chew (think peanut butter vs. peanuts), which makes people eat them faster. Rapid consumption may outpace the brain's ability to signal fullness, causing people to overeat, which may eventually lead to obesity and its associated diseases. But this is only a guess. The science that has been done on eating speed as a major factor in overeating tends to be underwhelming. Another hypothesis is that food additives are the key. Some research suggests that emulsifiers commonly found in UPFs (including polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose) might harm gut health and set off a cascade of inflammation leading to disease, or that taste enhancers, like MSG and added flavours, might override satiety signals and promote overeating. But the existing evidence for these claims is weak. Plus, given that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of food additives in use, studying the long-term effects of individual additives is challenging. But here's another take: The problem with ultra-processed foods might not be due to ultra-processing at all. The (Old) Science Behind Ultra-processing and Health Before ultra-processed food was ever a buzzword, research had established that certain processed foods were low in beneficial nutrients (fibre, potassium) and high in other not-so-great-for-you things like saturated fat, sugar, and salt. This nutritional imbalance alone could explain why ultra-processed foods are dangerous for our health – with no need to bring processing into the discussion. In fact, when studies have actually analysed ultra-processed foods separately, the biggest offenders for health tend to be soda, processed meat products like hot dogs, take-out style foods like pizza and french fries, and refined grains. These are foods that most dietary guidelines and health professionals have long recommend limiting. Given this, perhaps avoiding ultra-processed foods is just a modern repackaging of the same dietary advice we've heard a million times before. So where does that leave us now –and for the future? The Path Forward for Ultra-processed Food There's a real concern over the lack of clear definition for 'ultra-processed foods'. We've seen it before with health buzzwords like 'healthy', 'all-natural', and 'plant-based'. If ultra-processed food means many different things, does it mean anything at all? After decades of fixating on individual nutrients – from fat and cholesterol to carbohydrates and gluten – it's certainly refreshing that the discussion around ultra-processed foods is a more top-down approach to figuring out what makes us sick. But it's far from perfect right now. You Might Also Like The 23 Best Foods to Build Muscle 10 of the Best Waterproof Boots to Buy in 2019 6 Ways to Improve Your Mental Health
