Content deleted Content added
JamesMLane (talk | contribs) suggested wording re aerobic - anaerobic |
3 additions |
||
Line 30:
:*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)
::::*So you're admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about, that your "sources" don't agree with what you've stuffed into the article, and that you don't have any interest in applying to truth to this argument, just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping people will get so bored with you that they'll stop fixing what you break. You've proved several times that you can't comprehend what you're reading, and don't read what others give you to read. Your claim that "facts rule the day" is laughable irony. The EXRX.net article shows that a little exercise with a large EPOC burns far more fat (energy) than more exercise with a small EPOC. You have never refuted that in the slightest, and your attempt to muddy the facts and mislead readers is a disservice to this encyclopedia. My only recourse is to conclude that you intend to provoke other editors; that makes you a troll. [[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to reduce these points to items we can agree or disagree with individually, because I see this discussion as wandering between a few non-equivalent points of view.
Line 40 ⟶ 42:
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]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sup> 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)
:I agree with [[User:Demi|Demi]]. In addition, I think it's easier to explain the general principles involved without trying to present specific numbers, like the 51-127 data. Those figures could be included in a subsequent paragraph if adding an example is thought to be useful.
Line 48 ⟶ 52:
:Some of the prior disagreement seems to have been caused by use of the term "energy". [[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] refers to "total energy use (as measured by fat loss)", while [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] is talking about calories. To avert any confusion to the reader, let's avoid the term "energy" and just present the information about fat loss and calorie expenditure. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 07:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::* A couple of things:
#Calories are energy; 3500 calories per pound of fat lost (4400 calories per pound of lipid but what's lost isn't all lipid, there's some non-energy related water and some lower-energy protein and carbohydrate stored in that adipose tissue). Energy, fat, and calories are not confusing, they're the same thing.
#The 51-127 kcal number is not related to any particular exercise expenditure; it is not possible to know how much exercise produced that amount of EPOC, nor whether that measurement is accurate and does not miss much of the actual energy depleted during EPOC. As I posted long ago, it proves nothing in any way on either side of this argument.
[[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
| |||