Concept 2 Rowing Calories
Replies
-
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.0
-
gearhead426hemi wrote: »...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.
For a defined period of time, or a defined distance?0 -
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 moved the same mass over the same distance.
0 -
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? [/quote]
Yes, you've moved the same mass over the same distance.
[/quote]MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »...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.
For a defined period of time, or a defined distance?
So lets not bring up basic physics hoping it will deter someone from and intellectual argument.
Here is my calculation.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= 138.56 calories = 2.309 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 69.27 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH = 54.12 calories = .902 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 27.06 calories
So again I am not a physicist but if it 39% more calories to move the same mass for a set time then in turn you will have to exert more energy to move that mass. To exert more energy your muscles will have to work harder which will require more blood and oxygen which will require your heart to beat faster.0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Here is my calculation.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= 138.56 calories = 2.309 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 69.27 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH = 54.12 calories = .902 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 27.06 calories
So moving faster for a fixed period of time, you've moved the mass for a greater distance?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
Here is my calculation.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= 138.56 calories = 2.309 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 69.27 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH = 54.12 calories = .902 cal/min. For 30 minutes that's 27.06 calories
So moving faster for a fixed period of time, you've moved the mass for a greater distance?
Yes. If you change the calculation for a set distance lets say 5 miles then this is how it converts.
200 lbs @ 8 MPH= For 5 miles its 86.6 calories
200 lbs @ 5 MPH =For 5 miles its 54.1 calories
0 -
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?
For the most part, yes. As long as you are running (as opposed to running vs walking), the increased calories burned per minute at the higher speed will be offset by the shorter time it takes to run the distance.
There is no need to speculate. This is settled science. There are energy prediction equations for running which, while not 100% accurate, are perfectly suitable for this purpose.
The energy cost of running 6 mph is approx 10 METs (MET is a shorthand term for oxygen uptake).
The energy cost of running 8 mph is approx 13 METs.
An 80 kg person will expend roughly 400 calories running 3 miles (30 minutes, 13.3 cal/min)
The same weight person will expend roughly 397 calories running 3 miles (22.5 min, 17.7 cal/min)
There are some rounding differences, but it is essentially the same number.
One of the worst things HRMs have done is to perpetuate the idea that calorie burned is DIRECTLY influenced by heart rate, rather workload/oxygen uptake. It has raised an entire generation of physiologic illiterates.
1 -
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".
3 -
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.
2 -
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.
You're confusing means of locomotion. Running burns roughly double the calories er mile than walking does but that is not a result of heart rate but the differences in mechanics. You're sort of correct about more blood flow & oxygen but ignoring the fact that 7 minute mile takes less time, you may expend a little more energy per minute but for fewer minutes.
2 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions