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

Revision as of 19:47, 26 March 2005

Revision as of 06:19, 27 March 2005

Line 22:

The two sources I gave you do not support your calculation, and it's a lie to say they do. Further, your added paragraph is directly refuted by the fat-loss results in the exrx.net table. The 51-127 kcal energy attributed to EPOC in your current version is not related to amount of exercise done and therefore means nothing. The only study comparing the two regimes showed that short, high-intensity exercise plus EPOC has a much greater effect on total energy use (as measured by fat loss) than does longer endurance-type exercise. Just posting citations without understanding them does not constitute supporting your position. I am--again--removing the falsehood. [[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] 19:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:So you're again reverting when you have no idea what is going on here. Now that the fact I added is supported by a third ([http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/epoc.html]), fourth (Haltom) and fifth( Burleson) source, and I have added it again you can now trouble yourself to respond to talk. I take that back, you haven't responded to what I wrote above, you've ignored it, again. What I added is so well supported by the data and that you apparently still do not understand that is pretty hilarious. You are making yourself look silly by being so clouded by your POV that you can't see the facts. Lets try this again, and make it clear to even you. Your first source (with data that agrees with others I've seen) has 690 cal/hr for the lightest running effort there for the heavier person, compared with 259 cal/hr for light/moderate weight lifting. Or we can compare vigorous efforts, which depending on your definition of vigorous would range from 1078 to 1553 cal/hr for running to 518 cal per hour for vigorous weight lifting. Again, directly quoting from your sources. Then lets take the [http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/epoc.html external link] from the article ''Resistance Training and EPOC'' by Jeff M. Reynolds and Len Kravitz, Ph.D. which is where I quoted "51 (Haltom et al. 1999) to 127 (Burleson et al. 1998) kilocalories" '''directly''' from. Again, your link. That article cites 11 studies and the size of the effect is summarized in the quote just given. So basically what we have is

:'''Moderate effort''' (for one hour)

:*Endurance training: 690 cal

:*Weight training plus EPOC effect: 310 cal (259 cal + 51 cal)

:'''Vigorous effort''' (also one hour) (Just being generous calling 8 min mile vigorous for anyone that can run for an hour)

:*Endurance training: 1078-1553 cal

:*Weight training plus EPOC effect: 645 cal (518 cal + 127 cal)

:And just to make this really simple, that means that for a given amount of time, the endurance training burns more calories. Ok, so that is pretty obvious. The second source, the "exrx.net table" as you call it, which is from the study listed at the bottom. (With names and words misspelled) Even spells out the fact that the endurance training burned twice as many calories during exercise. But plain english apparently is not good enough for you. It does not claim the '''EPOC effect''' is so large that it alone accounted for the subcu fat loss. Why? Because apparently the study wasn't controlled for that. It did not measure the pre and post RMR, the recovery oxygen consumption, or various other factors that would ahve been needed for that. So there is one study showing greater fat loss that never claims it is from EPOC, and over 11 studies supporting the numbers I have added. You're going to have to come up with something better to support your position than just that you say it. In fact, if you yank this material out again I'm going to ask for intervention against you from the dispute resolution process. You need to understand something very simple: facts, and references to support those facts, rule the day. I have provided those. If you do not bring any to the table to support your view, you don't get to just remove what disagrees with your view. I'll give you a day to come up with something that supports your view, and then the material is going back in. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 06:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)