calories and acting

July 8, 2005 11:18 AM

Myth or truth?: You burn as many calories playing a major theatrical role (i.e. "Hamlet") as you do running a marathon. And how DO you calculate calories, anyway?

I work out for an hour most mornings, but ever since my play opened, I haven't been able to exercise (due to lack of time). But I'm playing a HUGE part. And it certainly FEELS strenuous. I've heard that comparison between marathons and big roles many times. Is it true? How can anyone know? Obviouslty, different roles require different amounts of energy, so I'm not looking for an exact answer. But is acting Hamlet really in the ballpark of a marathon?

I guess you'd have to somehow factor in how much work you do if you continually talk and move around for three hours. That's what you're doing in a part like that.

Finally, is there some easy way to calculate calories burned during a period of time? I know there are tables that tell you how many calories you burn if you jog or do aerobics for an hour. But is there some sort of device you can attach to yourself which will tell you how many calories you've burned between time A and time B? Or is there some way to calculate this?

posted by grumblebee to health (20 comments total)

Off the cuff. . .sure it's exercise, but I'd say it just an expression - you feel wrung out due to the mental, psychic, and physical exertion, not to mention the lights/costumes. . .
posted by rainbaby at 11:51 AM on July 8, 2005

I don't have any concrete answers to give you, but having played similar roles onstage before, I seriously doubt that the two are comparable.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:56 AM on July 8, 2005

One performace? I doubt it, although it's certainly excellent exercise.

Go on tour, that's a weight-loser. When I was about 20 I toured for a year with a musical revue. We did about 100 two hour shows in about 85 cities. I came out of it about 20 pounds underweight.
posted by o2b at 11:59 AM on July 8, 2005

I'd also think that musicals would be better exercise than plays. More movement, more breathing, singing while moving, more aerobics.
posted by o2b at 12:00 PM on July 8, 2005

you could keep track of how much you eat, while trying to keep the same weight. do that while acting, over a longish period.

then do the same running a marathon every day. compare the calorific value of the food you need in the two cases.

i suspect the answer would become clear pretty quickly.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:03 PM on July 8, 2005

I'm not exactly sure - and I imagine the proper answer could be found on wikipedia.org - but I think a calorie equates to the amount of energy required to raise the tempurature of a litre of water by one degree celcius.
posted by Glum at 12:07 PM on July 8, 2005

The smart-ass in me is wondering whether you run a complete marathon during your play, but that would a poor use of AskMe space for an answer, so let me be serious here

I wouldn't equate a 3-hour play (with all the preparation beforehand, and the takedown afterwards) to a marathon. However, you are mentally, spiritually and physically as engaged as you would be during a footrace of the same duration (timewise).

Caloric-wise, my guess would be that you are burning as much as a 5k or 10k race, max, when run at leisurely pace - however, do note that you most likely are NOT eating before or during the performance, so this may be a contributing factor to the weight loss.

You don't feel like exercising because your cortisol levels are as high as they would be if you were exercising! Let the running go while the performances are in progress (unless you take down training a notch, and exercise purely to burn off stress, not calories). In any case, you don't lose much fitness even if you stop for a month. There is such a thing as muscle memory. And don't listen to any advice stating that you lose x% of fitness after a week of couch-spudliness. Fitness that was lost to a month's rest is very easily, and very quickly, regained.
posted by seawallrunner at 12:18 PM on July 8, 2005

I gained weight on my first tour - fast food. After that I traveled with a scale - that did the trick. Hey, congrats on keeping it at three hours, btw. ; )

Back to the point, depending on the size of the house you're playing and the size of the role, etc, I'm not convinced musicals are by default more aerobic. Depends on how much real dancing goes on. Yes, you are exercising. Maybe try to fit in some weight training to supplement the show?
posted by rainbaby at 12:18 PM on July 8, 2005

Thanks for the answers so far. More specifically, when you read that cycling for an hour burns 410 calories (assuming you're 150lbs), how was that worked out?

Searching the web, all I can find is tables of numbers. But the numbers must come from somewhere.

Is this something anyone could figure out or do you need to first go to MIT for eight years and have access to expensive equipement?
posted by grumblebee at 12:28 PM on July 8, 2005

FitDay reports that:

Working in scene shop, theater actor, backstage, employee

Burns 111 Cal/Hr

:)
posted by jopreacher at 12:32 PM on July 8, 2005

My understanding is that the only way to measure the precise number of calories burned is to measure the amount of oxygen consumed, and that can be done in a laboratory setting.

Long-term, you can use a program like DietPower (highly recommended!) to track your weight and caloric intake over time. Based on that data it can calculate a metabolic rate for you, which is the number of calories your body is burning a day. Theoretically, if you consume your metabolic rate of calories each day, your weight stays the same, and for each 3,500 calories more or less you lose or gain a pound. So you could use a program like DietPower to see how your metabolic rate changes as your activity and exercise patterns change. But that would really only work to compare large periods of time, such as a month of acting versus a month of exercise.
posted by Tallguy at 12:43 PM on July 8, 2005

cycling for an hour burns 410 calories (assuming you're 150lbs), how was that worked out?
Possibly by use of a power meter in the hub or the chain of a bicycle. But even for a 150lb person, 410 calories per hour is a leisurely cycling pace.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:58 PM on July 8, 2005

The USDA has a collection of caloric usage rates for a bunch of different activities, unfortunately this was all I could find on the internet. According to it, if you weigh 150lbs and collect recyclables for 30 minutes you would burn 216 calories. If you are disco dancing you would burn 206 calories. I know that singing, typing, playing the violin and many more activities have been measured but they aren't on this list.

If you are really curious most of the list has been republish in the Complete Walker IV.
posted by 517 at 1:44 PM on July 8, 2005

Wow, 517! If you can come up with a source for the COMPLETE list, you'll win the much sought and admired "best answer" checkmark.
posted by grumblebee at 2:06 PM on July 8, 2005

Here it is. It even has an acting category.
posted by 517 at 2:31 PM on July 8, 2005

Easy answer--no. No idea how caloric expenditure is calculated--I always assumed it was done by measuring oxygen consumption using monitoring devices-
posted by rmhsinc at 2:53 PM on July 8, 2005

...and thinking about it a little longer, if you wanted to know how many calories you specifically use during a performance, the easiest way to do it would be to buy a heart rate monitor that records your average heart rate. Wear it during two or three performances to get an average of the averages.

Then go to a gym and find one of the exercise bikes that will show you how many watts (some just show Kcals) of energy you are putting out. Bring your heart rate up to what the average you found from your shows was and hold it for at least twenty minutes. Find out how many watts/calories you are putting out and multiply that by how many minutes of acting you do while you perform.

I can't think of any other easy and cheap way.
posted by 517 at 3:30 PM on July 8, 2005

Heart rate monitors are excellent at this, and if you buy a good one, it will ask you to enter your weight and it will report your calories burned over time. No need to go messing around at the gym. Those treadmills and bikes have notoriously inaccurate readouts anyway.

At Fitday, you can enter some information about your body composition and relative level of activity, and get a rough guess at your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) and the number of calories you burn through your lifestyle (on continuum of active vs. sedentary).

Certainly, anyone who works on their feet most of the day (teaching, waitressing, acting) will burn much more than someone who works at a desk. It's for that reason that acting burns more calories than some other profession -- not because of the deep emotional core you're drawing upon. Sorry to be unromantic. And I must add that I'm training for a triathlon and I've also done plenty of performance, and the two are worlds apart in terms of intensity, even if they are approximately close in calories burned over the course of the day.

What has been said above about measuring oxygen depletion is the only way to determine actual calorie burn. Tables provide averages, but they're not based on your exact body composition. A good (read: expensive) heart rate monitor can indeed do a lot for you in this dept.
posted by Miko at 7:18 PM on July 8, 2005

Sorry, broken link. Here - Fitday.
posted by Miko at 7:19 PM on July 8, 2005

One word of warning: fitday tends to grossly overestimate your daily calorie burn.
The best way to figure out how many calories you actually burn in a day is to simply write down how much you eat, and track your weight. When you gain weight, you're eating more calories than you burn. When you lose weight, you're eating fewer. It's a several-week to month process, but it is the best way to figure out your actual calorie burn.
posted by ch1x0r at 7:33 PM on July 8, 2005