Francois wrote:
I knew you were going to entertain us some more... ;-)Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [Francois]
[ In reply to ]
I can't stop reading this thread.
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [RChung]
[ In reply to ]
Neither can I but I have work to do...that sucks really.
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
Calorie expenditure is not based on heart rate. Caloric expenditure is a function of oxygen consumption.
Read Lusk and get back to us.
ETA: Which study were you so triumphantly quoting?
John
Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |
Read Lusk and get back to us.
ETA: Which study were you so triumphantly quoting?
John
Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
Can you even tell me what cardiac drift is? More beats does NOT equal more energy expenditure...it can mean less stroke volume is there to maintain the same cardiac output.
Second the Keytel Et al. Study is steady state exercise for 10 and 15 min...not exactly applicable to the real world.
Second the Keytel Et al. Study is steady state exercise for 10 and 15 min...not exactly applicable to the real world.
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [Devlin]
[ In reply to ]
Never said it was "based on" only related to. If I did, I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I think I've been saying what I mean all along. All I'm saying is the two are correlated well enough that you get a good estimation of energy expenditure by measuring heart rate and taking a couple other things into account. I've linked to about 4 total studies that support this claim (don't be lazy, go back and read through the thread to find them--they're in enormous type font because I've copied and pasted the titles off the articles so they stand out), and not a single valid counterclaim has been laid against it. In fact, I have yet to find a study that actually argues against the validity of using HR in estimating energy expenditure. I've been trying to find studies that support the validity of using rear wheel power to estimate energy expenditure and can't find a single one. I can't find the article you reference, perhaps you'd care to provide the full citation, or perhaps a link?
In case you're too lazy to go back and read, here's another study in favor of my opinion.
Estimation of Energy Expenditure in Healthy Adults From the YMCA Submaximal Cycle Ergometer Test
http://ehp.sagepub.com/content/30/2/138
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0163278707300628
Eval Health Prof 2007 30: 138
González-Gallego and Jose A. de Paz
Nuria Garatachea, Euclides Cavalcanti, David García-López, Javier
__________________________
I tweet!
In case you're too lazy to go back and read, here's another study in favor of my opinion.
Estimation of Energy Expenditure in Healthy Adults From the YMCA Submaximal Cycle Ergometer Test
http://ehp.sagepub.com/content/30/2/138
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0163278707300628
Eval Health Prof 2007 30: 138
González-Gallego and Jose A. de Paz
Nuria Garatachea, Euclides Cavalcanti, David García-López, Javier
__________________________
I tweet!
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [indytri]
[ In reply to ]
I do know what CVd is. I also know it's accompanied by increased blood diversion to the skin for cooling, etc. There are huge thermodynamic implications there that seem to account for a changes in calorie expenditure.
I'll concede your point about the Keytal study, but look at one of the first studies I put up, the one that used the 24hr calorimeter study.
To the rest of Slowtwitch: I will fart in your general direction if you don't put up a study supporting the argument that power is an accurate predictor of energy expenditure within the next 20 minutes. I don't understand what is so difficult about that. Fuck many of you. Seriously. The majority of you who simply write your opinion as if it is fact are frustrating. If your opinion is so easy to defend then do so, using facts. If it's so easy to document it, then post a link, don't just give vague answers like "Google it" or "read (insert 1-word article title here)". You have 20 minutes to provide substantive evidence that overtly provides evidence in favor of your claim until I ignore this thread forever (not that that really matters to ya'll but whatever).
__________________________
I tweet!
I'll concede your point about the Keytal study, but look at one of the first studies I put up, the one that used the 24hr calorimeter study.
To the rest of Slowtwitch: I will fart in your general direction if you don't put up a study supporting the argument that power is an accurate predictor of energy expenditure within the next 20 minutes. I don't understand what is so difficult about that. Fuck many of you. Seriously. The majority of you who simply write your opinion as if it is fact are frustrating. If your opinion is so easy to defend then do so, using facts. If it's so easy to document it, then post a link, don't just give vague answers like "Google it" or "read (insert 1-word article title here)". You have 20 minutes to provide substantive evidence that overtly provides evidence in favor of your claim until I ignore this thread forever (not that that really matters to ya'll but whatever).
__________________________
I tweet!
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [Paulo Sousa]
[ In reply to ]
Last edited by:
ZackCapets: Apr 3, 13 9:23
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
how many kcals do i burn laughing my ass off at zack c? my heart rate monitor says 34kcal. zack c-your thoughts?
Call of Duty
Call of Duty
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
ZackC. wrote:
Never said it was "based on" only related to. If I did, I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I think I've been saying what I mean all along. All I'm saying is the two are correlated well enough that you get a good estimation of energy expenditure by measuring heart rate and taking a couple other things into account. I've linked to about 4 total studies that support this claim (don't be lazy, go back and read through the thread to find them--they're in enormous type font because I've copied and pasted the titles off the articles so they stand out), and not a single valid counterclaim has been laid against it. In fact, I have yet to find a study that actually argues against the validity of using HR in estimating energy expenditure. I've been trying to find studies that support the validity of using rear wheel power to estimate energy expenditure and can't find a single one. I can't find the article you reference, perhaps you'd care to provide the full citation, or perhaps a link? Estimation of Energy Expenditure in Healthy Adults From the YMCA Submaximal Cycle Ergometer Test
That is a study that correlates VO2 to HR. VO2 is the predictor, not HR. At low intensities (40-50%), it's ok, but as you get closer to maximum (i.e. higher heart rate) the difference grows. If HR is a good predictor, wouldn't it narrow?
Lusk is not an article. Graham Lusk is one of (basically the main individual) that correlated oxygen consumption to caloric expenditure in the early 1900's.
Let me ask you a question in a different way. When you see a picture of an attractive person (of whatever gender you are attracted to), various physiological responses occur, one of which is an increase in heart rate. Does that increase in HR increase your caloric burn?
John
Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
ZackC. wrote:
I do know what CVd is. I also know it's accompanied by increased blood diversion to the skin for cooling, etc. There are huge thermodynamic implications there that seem to account for a changes in calorie expenditure. I'll concede your point about the Keytal study, but look at one of the first studies I put up, the one that used the 24hr calorimeter study.
To the rest of Slowtwitch: I will fart in your general direction if you don't put up a study supporting the argument that power is an accurate predictor of energy expenditure within the next 20 minutes. I don't understand what is so difficult about that. Fuck many of you. Seriously. The majority of you who simply write your opinion as if it is fact are frustrating. If your opinion is so easy to defend then do so, using facts. If it's so easy to document it, then post a link, don't just give vague answers like "Google it" or "read (insert 1-word article title here)". You have 20 minutes to provide substantive evidence that overtly provides evidence in favor of your claim until I ignore this thread forever (not that that really matters to ya'll but whatever).
No....that is one cause of cardiac drift...that is not cardiac drift.
Post deleted by ZackCapets
[ In reply to ]
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
ZackC. wrote:
I do know what CVd is. I also know it's accompanied by increased blood diversion to the skin for cooling, etc. There are huge thermodynamic implications there that seem to account for a changes in calorie expenditure. I'll concede your point about the Keytal study, but look at one of the first studies I put up, the one that used the 24hr calorimeter study.
To the rest of Slowtwitch: I will fart in your general direction if you don't put up a study supporting the argument that power is an accurate predictor of energy expenditure within the next 20 minutes. I don't understand what is so difficult about that. Fuck many of you. Seriously. The majority of you who simply write your opinion as if it is fact are frustrating. If your opinion is so easy to defend then do so, using facts. If it's so easy to document it, then post a link, don't just give vague answers like "Google it" or "read (insert 1-word article title here)". You have 20 minutes to provide substantive evidence that overtly provides evidence in favor of your claim until I ignore this thread forever (not that that really matters to ya'll but whatever).
Calm down, Howard.
-
The Triathlon Squad
Like us on Facebook!!!
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [indytri]
[ In reply to ]
I said it's "accompanied by" not "is"!
CVd is the decrease in arterial pressure and stroke volume and increase in HR that occur after a mild warmup / easy exercise.
__________________________
I tweet!
CVd is the decrease in arterial pressure and stroke volume and increase in HR that occur after a mild warmup / easy exercise.
__________________________
I tweet!
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [Paulo Sousa]
[ In reply to ]
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
I was thinking about getting one of these to track my calories burned. Would this work? http://bodybugg.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen
"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen
"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
ZackC. wrote:
I said it's "accompanied by" not "is"! CVd is the decrease in arterial pressure and stroke volume and increase in HR that occur after a mild warmup / easy exercise.
The thing to remember is it doesn't just change after warm up like the textbook definition makes it sound. It can keep drifting depending on your hydration and nutritional state. A lot of the newer studies in the past 10 years have shown those two factors have a bigger role than than the shifting to the skin. In prolonged exercise this throws a pretty uncontrolled variable into the equation that you can't account for in the field.
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [FTDA]
[ In reply to ]
FTDA wrote:
For sake of argument I will assume that your BMR = 2400Kcal = 100Kcal per hour. You walked 4mph covering one mile so based on your BMR you would have burned 25Kcal in the 15min it took you to walk the mile (had you just stood there). Leaving you with a caloric expenditure of 91Kcal above Base to travel 1 mile at 4mph walking. (116 - 25 = 91)
To travel 1 mile running at 6mph your BMR was 16Kcal (10 minutes) so your expenditure was 121 Kcal above base. (137 - 16 = 121)
So you burned 121Kcal running above BMR, and 91Kcal walking above BMR, which is only 75% of the calories burned running. This is not an insignificant difference.
(91/121)*100= 75%
This has gone ignored. I will not go away quietly after being called a Dumbass. Where are you PIGsmasher?
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [PIGsmasher]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
Dumbass, An electric motor is about 100% efficient, a cylinder motor is less and the human body is less that that.... Walk or run is about the same. There is only 1 energy pathway in our body... It's related to ATP
Still waiting. I would also like to know where you found an electric motor that has no mechanical efficiency losses from the frictions of rotating parts? That would be so fucking amazing I bet it would alter some laws of physics. I would also like for you to tell me all the various ways our body can create and utilize ATP and whether or not they are equally efficient.
Hurry up, I would like to finish my day knowing whether I am a Dumbass or not : )
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [ZackC.]
[ In reply to ]
ZackC. wrote:
The power you output in cycling is but a small fraction of the overall calorie expenditure of your body! Human beings can put out something like 3000W of power in cycling, most of which is wasted as heat. PT has to guess at exactly how much is wasted as heat. Only a small percentage of your overall calorie expenditure is accounted for by mechanical work!
I invite you to read the following article:
Measurement of energy expenditure
James A Levine*
Mayo Clinic, Endocrine Research Unit, 5-194 Joseph, 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
I'm not sure how this article supports your position. From the article:
Quote:
The conceptual limitation of this approach is that energy expenditure and heart rate are not linearly related for an individual in part because cardiac stroke volume changes with changing heart rate and even posture. There is
a substantial inter-individual variance for the relationships between heart rate and energy expenditure in terms of slope,
intercept and curve characteristics. Furthermore, variance in covariables that affect heart rate, such as emotion,also impact
the ‘heart rate/energy expenditure’ relationship.
The equation that posits cyclists are ~25% effective, dovetails quite nicely with the kilojoule to kilocalorie equation, and the end result is that 1 kj of work on a bicycle is roughly equivalent to 1 kcal energy burned. Is it exact? No, but it's proven and is much closer than heart rate.
I did come across a study that said HR had a linear relationship on an individual basis, when compared against calorimetry. However, each person had to be evaluated and graphed individually, and there were still wider variances in the error rate than there were with kilojoule measuring systems, which is basically what a powermeter is.
John
Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [FTDA]
[ In reply to ]
FTDA wrote:
Quote:
Dumbass, An electric motor is about 100% efficient, a cylinder motor is less and the human body is less that that.... Walk or run is about the same. There is only 1 energy pathway in our body... It's related to ATP
Still waiting. I would also like to know where you found an electric motor that has no mechanical efficiency losses from the frictions of rotating parts? That would be so fucking amazing I bet it would alter some laws of physics. I would also like for you to tell me all the various ways our body can create and utilize ATP and whether or not they are equally efficient.
Hurry up, I would like to finish my day knowing whether I am a Dumbass or not : )
I wondered about that 100% efficient as well. :D If you're a dumbass, I'm right there with you on that one.
John
Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [Devlin]
[ In reply to ]
They may be greater than 90%, however it varies by type (brushed/brushless) and many other factors. There are also electrical efficiencies as well as the mechanical. The efficiency is as close to 100% as running a miles caloric expenditure is to walking a mile, similar enough for a person with no exercise science knowledge to equate them, but NOT THE SAME.
Post deleted by jaretj
[ In reply to ]
Re: 1000 Kcal per day (weight loss thread) [James Haycraft]
[ In reply to ]
I don't know the history of Paolo and ZackC, but clearly if Paolo has information that is relevant to this thread, he is purposefully being abstruse.
So, IMO, it just some like he is being a dick. The topic isn't one of national secrets, so if he or anyone chimes in, I don't understand the point of being so obscure in one's point or lack thereof.
I'm sure most people on this forum aren't physiologists or care to research the topic so that they can understand it as well as Paolo claims to, so if he knows it why not put it out there.
I noticed that rroof, answers questions regarding sports injuries, with clear answers. Is he getting paid to do this, doesn't seem to be. He is just being a nice guy contributing to the forum.
So, IMO, it just some like he is being a dick. The topic isn't one of national secrets, so if he or anyone chimes in, I don't understand the point of being so obscure in one's point or lack thereof.
I'm sure most people on this forum aren't physiologists or care to research the topic so that they can understand it as well as Paolo claims to, so if he knows it why not put it out there.
I noticed that rroof, answers questions regarding sports injuries, with clear answers. Is he getting paid to do this, doesn't seem to be. He is just being a nice guy contributing to the forum.
Devlin wrote:
Let me ask you a question in a different way. When you see a picture of an attractive person (of whatever gender you are attracted to), various physiological responses occur, one of which is an increase in heart rate. Does that increase in HR increase your caloric burn? John
Hey!
Don't go poking holes in Captain Canada's training plan like that.
---------------------------------------------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. ~Gandalf