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

Revision as of 01:06, 30 March 2005

Revision as of 02:22, 30 March 2005

Line 32:

::::*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)

:::::*Again, putting words in my mouth and making grandiose claims is just making you look silly. That one study that exrx.net quotes does find greater fat loss. However it does not claim that EPOC effect is so large that it burns all the extra calories required for that. You are making the leap to that conclusion. The studies do not support that. I have already stated that, which refutes your claim. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 02:22, Mar 30, 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 44 ⟶ 45:

:::* 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)

::::*You've proved you aren't even willing to listen to the facts when they are presented plain as day. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 02:22, Mar 30, 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 54 ⟶ 55:

:::* 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.

:*Again, the study exrx.net takes its data from does not support that the EPOC effect accounted for all the calories that would be required to reduce the subcu fat by the amounts they found. They did not control for the necessary factors that would be needed to claim that the epoc effect burned that many calories. Not only does the study not support that, but the exrx.net page doesn't even attempt to claim that. You are the only one making that leap. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

#*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)

:*Then you know nothing about those studies. Do you think they just pulled the numbers out of thin air? Those studies measured the effect in a controlled environment and found the stated results, from very specific, measured exercise programs. Results from studies are what needs to be reported not your POV that the study does not support. You don't just get to discount multiple studies that disagree with your POV and cling to one that doesn't even support your claim. If you have some data from some quality studies that supports your claim, please bring that to our attention; the current ones certainly do not support it. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)