Concept 2 Rowing Calories
Replies
-
We have totally jacked this thread so I will finish with this. Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one just some are louder than others. We are all so called experts behind a keyboard and in our own mind.
Good for you MilesAddie keep up the hard work on the rower. They are a great way to burn calories and get into shape!!!!MilesAddie wrote: »Quick Question:1 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
There is no "agreement" or "disagreement". There is no opinion or speculation here--any more that arguing whether "one foot" means 12 inches or 13 inches.
You also changed the parameters of argument from rate to distance.
RATE of calorie expenditure is affected by intensity (which is indirectly reflected in heart rate). So, someone working harder will burn more calories per minute.
CALORIES BURNED FOR DISTANCE (e.g. Running 5K distance) is a completely different discussion. In this case, while distance is fixed, time varies. As I stated earlier, while the *rate* of calorie burn for running 8 mph is higher, the faster speed means the distance is covered in less time, resulting in a total burn *for the distance* being the same.
Whether you multiply 2 x 6, 3 x 4, or 4 x 3--the answer is still going to be "12".
To say that there is no direct correlation between heart rate and calories is just a false statement. If you walk a mile vs run a mile there is roughly 30-40% increase in calories burned. You are right that once you get close to the 7-8 mph pace there is little difference in calories burned because the pace is relatively small between the two. Compare a 12 minute mile to 7 minute mile and workload on the muscles is dramatically increased. More workload on the muscles requires more blood flow and more oxygen therefore the heart rate will have to increase to supply the demand.
I know the basics of exercise physiology. I have also tried to outline, in quite a bit of detail, the scientific foundation for what I have been writing to get away from the idea that this is in any way a debate. Once again, you have mixed at least three different concepts into one statement--and you have left out at least two more that are relevant.
3 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
There is no "agreement" or "disagreement". There is no opinion or speculation here--any more that arguing whether "one foot" means 12 inches or 13 inches.
You also changed the parameters of argument from rate to distance.
RATE of calorie expenditure is affected by intensity (which is indirectly reflected in heart rate). So, someone working harder will burn more calories per minute.
CALORIES BURNED FOR DISTANCE (e.g. Running 5K distance) is a completely different discussion. In this case, while distance is fixed, time varies. As I stated earlier, while the *rate* of calorie burn for running 8 mph is higher, the faster speed means the distance is covered in less time, resulting in a total burn *for the distance* being the same.
Whether you multiply 2 x 6, 3 x 4, or 4 x 3--the answer is still going to be "12".
To say that there is no direct correlation between heart rate and calories is just a false statement. If you walk a mile vs run a mile there is roughly 30-40% increase in calories burned. You are right that once you get close to the 7-8 mph pace there is little difference in calories burned because the pace is relatively small between the two. Compare a 12 minute mile to 7 minute mile and workload on the muscles is dramatically increased. More workload on the muscles requires more blood flow and more oxygen therefore the heart rate will have to increase to supply the demand.
I know the basics of exercise physiology. I have also tried to outline, in quite a bit of detail, the scientific foundation for what I have been writing to get away from the idea that this is in any way a debate. Once again, you have mixed at least three different concepts into one statement--and you have left out at least two more that are relevant.
A thousand years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew the Earth was flat.
Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one just some are louder than others. We are all so called experts behind a keyboard and in our own mind.
-1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Best thing to do is get a heart rate monitor and take all the general stats and guessing out of the equation.
You mean take an estimate from a second order proxy, rather than a primary measure?
Do you assess your driving speed based on your revcounter and which gear you're in?
This wasn't directed at me, but I actually do use the tach as a speedometer (one of my cars has the tach front and center, the other car's speedometer gets blocked by the steering wheel so it's easier to just look at the tach). Once you become well-acquainted with your car, the gear/RPM/speed relationships become second nature (for normal speeds at least).1 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
There is no "agreement" or "disagreement". There is no opinion or speculation here--any more that arguing whether "one foot" means 12 inches or 13 inches.
You also changed the parameters of argument from rate to distance.
RATE of calorie expenditure is affected by intensity (which is indirectly reflected in heart rate). So, someone working harder will burn more calories per minute.
CALORIES BURNED FOR DISTANCE (e.g. Running 5K distance) is a completely different discussion. In this case, while distance is fixed, time varies. As I stated earlier, while the *rate* of calorie burn for running 8 mph is higher, the faster speed means the distance is covered in less time, resulting in a total burn *for the distance* being the same.
Whether you multiply 2 x 6, 3 x 4, or 4 x 3--the answer is still going to be "12".
To say that there is no direct correlation between heart rate and calories is just a false statement. If you walk a mile vs run a mile there is roughly 30-40% increase in calories burned. You are right that once you get close to the 7-8 mph pace there is little difference in calories burned because the pace is relatively small between the two. Compare a 12 minute mile to 7 minute mile and workload on the muscles is dramatically increased. More workload on the muscles requires more blood flow and more oxygen therefore the heart rate will have to increase to supply the demand.
I know the basics of exercise physiology. I have also tried to outline, in quite a bit of detail, the scientific foundation for what I have been writing to get away from the idea that this is in any way a debate. Once again, you have mixed at least three different concepts into one statement--and you have left out at least two more that are relevant.
A thousand years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew the Earth was flat.
Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one just some are louder than others. We are all so called experts behind a keyboard and in our own mind.
PSSSST... Some here are experts, though. You're arguing with at least one that I know of. Additionally, if you go back and review your posts here, you may find that you've contradicted yourself a couple of times. Just something to ponder.2 -
I never have and never will claim to be an expert. I found that people who claim to be experts in something are experts in nothing. I enjoy debating that's the best part about open forums. For the most part people are fun and enjoy the banter back and forth. Then some troll comes along and ruins it.
0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
There is no "agreement" or "disagreement". There is no opinion or speculation here--any more that arguing whether "one foot" means 12 inches or 13 inches.
You also changed the parameters of argument from rate to distance.
RATE of calorie expenditure is affected by intensity (which is indirectly reflected in heart rate). So, someone working harder will burn more calories per minute.
CALORIES BURNED FOR DISTANCE (e.g. Running 5K distance) is a completely different discussion. In this case, while distance is fixed, time varies. As I stated earlier, while the *rate* of calorie burn for running 8 mph is higher, the faster speed means the distance is covered in less time, resulting in a total burn *for the distance* being the same.
Whether you multiply 2 x 6, 3 x 4, or 4 x 3--the answer is still going to be "12".
To say that there is no direct correlation between heart rate and calories is just a false statement. If you walk a mile vs run a mile there is roughly 30-40% increase in calories burned. You are right that once you get close to the 7-8 mph pace there is little difference in calories burned because the pace is relatively small between the two. Compare a 12 minute mile to 7 minute mile and workload on the muscles is dramatically increased. More workload on the muscles requires more blood flow and more oxygen therefore the heart rate will have to increase to supply the demand.
I know the basics of exercise physiology. I have also tried to outline, in quite a bit of detail, the scientific foundation for what I have been writing to get away from the idea that this is in any way a debate. Once again, you have mixed at least three different concepts into one statement--and you have left out at least two more that are relevant.
A thousand years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew the Earth was flat.
Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one just some are louder than others. We are all so called experts behind a keyboard and in our own mind.
PSSSST... Some here are experts, though. You're arguing with at least one that I know of. Additionally, if you go back and review your posts here, you may find that you've contradicted yourself a couple of times. Just something to ponder.
Hint wasn't taken. It's quite funny actually3 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Their calories burned wouldn't be the same if those were their actual heart rates. Your heart rate has to increase and stay elevated during training to burn calories. So the guy with the 130 bpm is in far better shape than 180 and will burn less calories over the same amount of time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....assuming they were all approximately the same weight their caloric expenditures would be be virtually identical. It's mass over distance.....remember physics?
There is not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure hence the questionable estimates HRMs give (they measure time & HR, nothing else). If you were talking about a GPS unit that also measured distance traveled I would be more inclined to trust the estimates (you have no idea how disappointed I was when I switched from a Polar HRM to a Garmin GPS unit for my runs and the estimates dropped ramtically)
So if I run a 5k and keep my heart rate at a constant 130 bpm then do the same 5k and keep my heart rate at 180 bpm the calories burned will be identical?
Yes.
You've just expended the energy more quickly.
It's basic physics.
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. If you can tell me that it you burn the same amount of calories pushing 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace vs pushing 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace maybe we learned different physics.
You are leaving a very important figure out of that is being mentioned - distance.
If distance is the same - yes, almost the same calorie burn.
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
0 -
Never mind.0
-
gearhead426hemi wrote: »I never have and never will claim to be an expert. I found that people who claim to be experts in something are experts in nothing. I enjoy debating that's the best part about open forums. For the most part people are fun and enjoy the banter back and forth. Then some troll comes along and ruins it.
Serious question: would you consider an engineer an expert in physics?
He may know physics but an expert would be up for debate. Expert compared to whom? I would have to say that unless you have written a theory that is used on a daily basis in engineering, physics, or any field then you have learned it from someone who was an expert so at best you may consider yourself a lead apprentice.
1 -
Just want to finish by saying thanks everyone for the entertainment, some much needed laughing and a reason to wipe the dust off the physics book at work. TR0Roberts, heybales, Azdak, sijomial, BrianSharpe and MeanderingMammal hope you all the best on your fitness journey.
MilesAddie the guy who started this jacked thread. Man just row like there is no tomorrow!!1 -
Again, Thanks to everyone. Row is posted in the WOD tomorrow.0 -
@gearhead426hemi
I'll make the assumption from your user name you know a little about engines so here's an analogy that might make the penny drop....
Engine A produces 300 bhp @ 6000rpm
Engine B produces 150 bhp @ 6000rpm
Engine A is clearly burning more energy to produce double the power but their revs are the same.
The key to the analogy is that:
Engine A is an elite athlete.
Engine B is an ordinary athlete.
Revs is heart rate.
Engine A is taking in double the fuel and double the oxygen to produce double the power (energy).
Just like engines are different so are hearts and CV systems in their entirety.
When I was merely fit my resting HR was 60, now I'm very fit it's dropped by 20% to 48.
You must realise I'm not burning 20% less energy than I used to?
My heart is stronger and has a better flow rate.
I can measurably produce more power at a far lower HR than I used to. I've put a turbo on my engine if you like - "revs" the same but more power.0 -
Something was bothering me about this yesterday, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I realized later what it was.gearhead426hemi wrote: »Now I am not a physicist but I run a power plant and by my calculations to move 200 pounds at a 8 mile per hour pace takes 580.1475 joules. To move 200 pounds at a 5 mile per hour pace takes 226.6201 joules. Converting joules to calories means it takes 138.56 calories to move 200 pounds at an 8 mile per hour pace and 54.12 calories to move at 5 mile per hour pace. If it requires more calories then it requires more energy which will make your muscles have to work harder which in turn will increase your heart rate.
You're using an equation for kinetic energy of a particle, which isn't applicable to this scenario. This is simply the energy contained at any one point in the 200 lb object while moving. It's also just how much energy is required to move something from rest to that speed. It doesn't amass any more kinetic energy while it's moving at a constant velocity. As such, later, when you tried to apply these values to the object moving 5 miles, it doesn't actually work that way. You need to use the equation W = F*d, which doesn't involve speed.
Additionally, 54 calories = 0.054 kilocalories, while 139 calories = 0.139 kilocalories, so any difference in getting the object moving is negligible anyway - less than 1 Calorie.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions