[whirlwin]

Consider the case of an individual who manages to have a stable body mass without training.

One would most certainly require more calories if he/her started training.

[silisili]

It -really- depends on what you're doing.

If you're an olympic athlete swimming 10 miles a day, you need more calories.

If you're the typical American walking or jogging even for an hour, you burn basically a can of Coke or two.

[ekianjo]

Unless you are exercising 10 hours per day you dont lose much calories by exercising

[arghnoname]

I ran 15 miles on Monday at a pretty relaxed pace (took 2.5 hours). My watch, while probably not perfectly accurate, nevertheless suggested I burned approximately 1640 additional calories during this time.

This is 1/4 as much as 10 hours and is a significant proportion of my basal metabolic expenditure.

On a more typical day, I may run closer to an hour and be closer to 600-700 calories. I'd still call this significant.

You can burn significant calories exercising, but the exercise is probably kind of unpleasant.

[ekianjo]

Good. What I mean is that it is a lot more effort than cutting down on an extra snack. Running a hour for 600 calories does not sound like its very effective since its just about the calories of 2 cookies.

[JumpCrisscross]

> One would most certainly require more calories if he/her started training

Not necessarily. Consider the calories you're burning carrying around fat or being inflamed or from a higher resting heart rate.