Talk:Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:46, 2 April 2005

Latest revision as of 14:58, 1 February 2024

(19 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Physiology |importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Sports }}

}}

==Untitled==

Well since you clearly haven't learned anything that reverts don't help, I'll discuss here. That the fact you just removed is true is very simple to show. Simply do the calculation for the caloric expenditure that is claimed for the EPOC effect. Then calculate the caloric expenditure from a given amount of time of anaerobic training then for the same amount of time of aerobic training. Let's use an hours worth of each. An hour of primarily anaerobic weightlifting would run to about 200 calories or so being generous, mostly because you can't do it continuously for the whole hour by definition. Then lets ignore the fact that the EPOC effect does not raise the entire metabolism, and divide a day's metabolic rate into an hour, lets use 2400/24=100. Then lets say EPOC accounts for 25% more for 4 hours (an amount and duration high enough that I don't think any peer reviewed science would support, but lets use it for illustration.) That adds to another 100 calories over normal metabolism, for a total of 300. An hour of moderate to slow jogging burns about 600 calories. So its 600 vs 300 using very generous assumptions on the EPOC side. Therefore the added fact is correct. I misplaced the paper I had making the calculations, but no matter what reasonable numbers you use, the fact remains correct. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 00:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Line 42 ⟶ 48:

#One study showed a regime of interval training (mostly anaerobic) to be superior to endurance training (mostly aerobic) in terms of fat loss.

What we should all be looking for here is to find the passage that we ''can'' include without argument--merely reverting edits isn't going to get us anywhere. In particulary, let's avoid accusations of lying or vandalism. [[User:Demi|Demi]] ^{[[User_talk:Demi|T]]}/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</supsub> 07:24, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

:::* Taxman has proved in this and other articles that he doesn't understand the facts; he's just trying to pretend that citing anything with the words in it is a reference to the truth. [[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Line 100 ⟶ 106:

::And just to make this clear, I am not 129.223.115.87. Any developer could check that. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 00:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

What I learnt in medical school was that anaerobic metabolism is inefficient, and would lead to a higher energy consumption. The [[lactic acid|lactate]] formed would need [[gluconeogenesis]] in the liver, with additional energy expenditure (and, supposedly, catch-up oxygen consumption).

Taxman is correct that the exrx.net page does not establish a causal link. Blair P. is right that for all intents and purposes, energy=calories=fat. It just takes a fair amount of exercise to deplete [[glycogen]] stored in muscles and to initiate lipolysis (fat decomposition). I'm happy to look at specific articles from the Len Kravitz page; I may have full-text access to some of the ''Metabolism'' articles. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 19:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Well, energy may equal calories (by definition, of course) and it ''can'' equal fat, but the study in question is about ''fat loss''--and really, subcutaneous fat loss. That's not the same thing: as you say, there are many stores of energy in the body that are non-fat. Frankly, I'm not sure there's any conclusion to be drawn from the study ''that is useful in explaining EPOC''. [[User:Demi|Demi]] ^{[[User_talk:Demi|T]]}/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</supsub> 18:10, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Oh, and in this ({{PMID |14599232}}) review the authors state that EPOC is very poorly defined and may be much less of a factor than previously thought. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]]

== Protected and discussion page ==

Line 115 ⟶ 121:

:I think that response makes it clear where the problem lies. As asked multiple times, back up your point of view with regards to the article with facts and evidence. There are a number of people that do not agree with you on your interpretation of the exrx.net information. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 19:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

::Your response is again nothing but a false and pat denial of the truth. I pointed out several times where you are wrong, and I will not do so again. If you wish to pollute the Wikipedia with your POV and vandalism, you go right ahead. [[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] 22:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::No, in fact you've simply repeated the same conclusion you are drawing from the data at the exrx.net page, and are ignoring the fact that that study does not support your claim. Not only that, but you have not brought a single other source in support of your claim. You have also ignored multiple discussion points where you are wrong. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 13:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

==Moving forward==

The link to a review article that was recently added was very helpful. Check it out [http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbme/v10n2/en_a06v10n2.pdf here] I can't tell if it was peer reviewed, but it surveys and summarizes the results from 58 other academic papers. For one it found "In summary, EPOC resulting from a single resistance exercise session does not represent a great impact on energy balance; however its cumulative effect may be relevant." It noted a lot of other interesting results such as a few more that estimate the size of the effect and one that I had previously seen that found the effect to last at least to a small degree up to 48 hours. It also mentions lipid metabolism effects of strength training. Some studies found greater utilization of fat for energy production (as a percentage of total energy use it seems, not necessarily greater total energy use), but one by Melanson "demonstrated that 24-h fat oxidation (measured in a calorimetry chamber) was not statistically different between days when subjects performed aerobic or resistance exercises and no exercise, the control situation." I will try to work these into the draft or regular article when I get a chance, but anyone else feel free. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 18:07, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

:Seeking to find as many sources as I can to answer the issue either way, I found a few more in a row that did not support the finding of greater fat loss of resistance training over endurance training. [http://www.acsm-msse.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-200211000-00016.htm;jsessionid=CV878JwBdW2r0EiJEKeJ22717PWZEyjkQu8tI5P6lfOHfrWlv5o1!884695698!-949856031!9001!-1 Here's] the abstract for the Melanson study that specifically did measure the participants in a calorimeter and concluded "24-h fat and protein oxidation were the same on BK [aerobic], WTS [weight training], and Con [control - non exercise] days." Info in brackets is mine for explanation. Further "Conclusion: In men, resistance exercise has a similar effect on 24-h EE and macronutrient oxidation as a comparable bout of aerobic exercise. Neither exercise produced an increase in 24-h fat oxidation above that observed on a nonexercise control day." The abstract describes the exercise protocol and gives the summary data of the tests. [http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-199609000-00009.htm;jsessionid=CV7MNKv8ljYE7B2JmjqOMX7h3KJl8fC6GmZy9PFFfK5PFuj0wPOs!884695698!-949856031!9001!-1 Another study] found no difference in lipid oxidation between a low intensity and a high intensity workout of equivalent work output, though the HI regime did find greater 24hr overall energy use. From the definition of work, I think that means the exercise regimes themselves were not time or calorie equivalent, but I'd have to check that. And finally [http://www.ncsf.org/tools/articles/articles-restistancetrainginwomen.aspx another] that "hypothesized that women would demonstrate increased energy expenditure in addition to increased fat oxidation post-exercise." found instead "The results from the study were somewhat surprising. Although energy expenditure for the twenty-four hour period surrounding the resistance training program was significantly elevated, both fat and protein oxidation values were not significantly different." I'll try to work these in as appropriate, but so far I haven't seen any other studies that find greater fat loss in weight training vs aerobic. They could be out there though. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 18:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

== Unprotect ==

Blair P. Houghton says he has lost interest in editing here, and I see no movement at all on the Draft article, so I am unprotecting. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|''explains it all'' ®]] 22:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Oxygen Deficit and Oxygen Debt ==

Both redirect to here, however this is a different, albeit related, thing. I think either this should be expanded to something more general, or seperate articles need to be written. I'm leaning more towards the latter, and if I can get around to it, I'll lay down some basic articles. [[User:ObsidianOps|ObsidianOps]] ([[User talk:ObsidianOps|talk]]) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:I think there should definitely be a separate article for that concept. EPOC is a pretty specific one and can't really be generalized without losing something. If I'm thinking about it right, oxygen deficit is what happens during and immediately after intense exercise. EPOC is specifically defined as after exercise. Though maybe technically experiencing extended EPOC is defined as an oxygen deficit too. Either way, I think this is a case that they are just redirected because no one got around to dealing with them yet. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] ^{<small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small>} 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Studying the oxygen deficit and getting redirected here. It is not the same thing. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.157.140.152|81.157.140.152]] ([[User talk:81.157.140.152|talk]]) 18:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Oxygen debt in Torture Victims and Asthmatics==

I am not sure that all forms of [[torture]] in which an oxygen deficit is induced to build up an oxygen debt can be called "[[exercise]]" & in some people (i'm thinking of asthmatics and people with some blood conditions) i think the debt may be caused not so much by the use of ATP rising above the maximum rate at which the system that produces it is able to do so but the maximum capacity at which the system can create ATP falling below the rate at which the ATP is being used up; the system being one that includes not only the blood but also the breathing. Breathing becomes difficult in asthmatics during an asthma attack.[[Special:Contributions/109.158.139.223|109.158.139.223]] ([[User talk:109.158.139.223|talk]]) 14:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

== Actual paper that is summarised on www.exrx.net ==

Found a PDF of the study that's summarised on http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html.... http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf. Might be a better reference for the wikipage. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Glen newell|Glen newell]] ([[User talk:Glen newell|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Glen newell|contribs]]) 03:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->