RunningAHEAD - Topic: Too much cardio... (page 8)

Dakota RR

Right on Hereford...

posted: 3/14/2009 at 1:37 PM

Quote from dgb2n on 3/14/2009 at 12:56 PM:

Road grade and, to a much lesser extent, windspeed don't belong in Trent's list.

Clearly you don't live in Boulder! We routinely have 60+ mph winds here, so my example was not hyperbole.

RunningBEHIND

posted: 3/14/2009 at 1:45 PM
modified: 3/14/2009 at 1:46 PM

Quote from Dakota RR on 3/14/2009 at 12:22 PM:

Trent, this can't possibly be true. Try running a mile on a flat road with no wind. Then run a mile up a 30% grade with a 60 mph headwind. You're saying you will burn the same number of calories in each case? Also, where are your references? I want to read the scientific literature that supposedly confirms your statement. Yes, I'm grumpy because my mom bailed on watching the kid this morning, so I'm sitting here instead of running.

He's not saying that they don't matter, he's saying that they're irrelevant to the original discussion that we were having because they are factors that are external to metabolic or stride efficiency. An efficient runner and an inefficient runner are impeded in similar proportions by negative external stressors.

For message board success, follow these three easy steps in the correct order: 1) Read, 2) Comprehend, 3) Post.

dgb2n

Dave

posted: 3/14/2009 at 2:32 PM

Quote from Dakota RR on 3/14/2009 at 1:37 PM:

Clearly you don't live in Boulder! We routinely have 60+ mph winds here, so my example was not hyperbole.

No, but I've run in some high winds and that's why I mentioned the exponential nature of wind resistance. If you were shaped like an egg, you'd probably cut right through the wind.

I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

dgb2n@yahoo.com

Dakota RR

Right on Hereford...

posted: 3/14/2009 at 2:38 PM
modified: 3/14/2009 at 2:43 PM

Quote from RunningBEHIND on 3/14/2009 at 1:45 PM:

He's not saying that they don't matter, he's saying that they're irrelevant to the original discussion that we were having because they are factors that are external to metabolic or stride efficiency. An efficient runner and an inefficient runner are impeded in similar proportions by negative external stressors.

Nope, that's not what he was saying. See his quote below:

The point is, calorie expenditure while running is a function of [A] body weight, [B] distance covered and [C] individual intrinsic variation. ALL other factors, including efficiency, ambient temperature, windspeed, road grade, etc, are all insignificant next to the confidence interval around intrinsic variation.

Trent specifically said that wind speed and road grade were insignificant when calculating calories burned per mile for an individual. For an individual on a given day, we can remove both A and C from the equation, since they won't change significantly. Therefore, Trent is saying that calorie expenditure depends solely on distance covered in this case.

RunningBEHIND

posted: 3/14/2009 at 3:13 PM

Wow. I think he made a mistake then. That can't seriously be what he meant.

For message board success, follow these three easy steps in the correct order: 1) Read, 2) Comprehend, 3) Post.

Trent

Good Bad & The Monkey

posted: 3/14/2009 at 3:55 PM

Quote from RunningBEHIND on 3/14/2009 at 3:13 PM:

Wow. I think he made a mistake then. That can't seriously be what he meant.

I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.

Poor baby

RunningBEHIND

posted: 3/14/2009 at 4:29 PM

You seriously believe that running a mile up mount whitney at badwaters requires essentially the same amount of energy as running a mile on flat road in 60 degree weather? Or are you trolling? I just thought it was safe to assume that there was some kind of miscommunication there.

For message board success, follow these three easy steps in the correct order: 1) Read, 2) Comprehend, 3) Post.

Trent

Good Bad & The Monkey

posted: 3/14/2009 at 4:39 PM
modified: 3/14/2009 at 4:41 PM

Actually, running up those hills probably requires less than running on flat cuz you'd be walking. Wink

Also, Mount Whitney is AFTER the Badwater finish line. I never said that road grade has nothing to do with it. I said that any impact from road grade (most roads, anyhow, which are not >10%) is less than the intrinsic run-to-run variability, and so its impact cannot statistically be significant. MTA: this was interesting as well - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/922272 Lore of Running does not specifically answer this question that I can find. I cannot remember my source, but it may have been my medical physiology textbooks. I'll look at them later.

I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.

Poor baby

xor

posted: 3/14/2009 at 4:44 PM
modified: 3/14/2009 at 4:45 PM

Also, Mount Whitney is AFTER the Badwater finish line.

Wholly unimportant to this thread, but this was a weird thing for Trent to call out. The summit of Mt Whitney is after the finish line, sure. But that final climb up Whitney Portal surely counts. I guess it comes down to where you want to say Mt Whitney *starts*. But that was a really weird thing to call out. From the Badwater site:

Covering 135 miles (217km) non-stop from Death Valley to Mt. Whitney, CA, the Badwater Ultramarathon is the most demanding and extreme running race offered anywhere on the planet. The start line is at Badwater, Death Valley, which marks the lowest elevation in the Western Hemisphere at 280’ (85m) below sea level. The race finishes at the Mt. Whitney Portals at nearly 8,300’ (2530m).

RunningBEHIND

posted: 3/14/2009 at 5:29 PM
modified: 3/14/2009 at 5:33 PM

The real badwater finished at the top of mount whitney.

Quote from Trent on 3/14/2009 at 4:39 PM:

MTA: this was interesting as well - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/922272

Interesting fulltext, not sure how much it means as running economy was not measured and all of the test subjects were well-trained runners with a mean vo2max of 67.4 and SD of 5.4. Not sure how much variation there is going to be in running economy as we are basically testing 15-16 minute 5Kers. Although there was something of a 8 calorie per mile (based on rough math) standard deviation amongst them. If the same study pitted this group against 20-25 minute 5K newbies then I think we'd start to see some real variation. I didn't mean to sound like a jerk earlier, I just thought that you weren't really saying that.

For message board success, follow these three easy steps in the correct order: 1) Read, 2) Comprehend, 3) Post.

Trent

Good Bad & The Monkey

posted: 3/14/2009 at 8:52 PM

Quote from RunningBEHIND on 3/14/2009 at 5:29 PM:

I didn't mean to sound like a jerk earlier, I just thought that you weren't really saying that.

No worries. Skepticism is important and I have no trouble with it. It is important to have our knowledge challenged from time to time. I may be wrong. You may be wrong. I will look further into it, time permitting. You should as well. I suspect we will all be educated as a result. That is all good! Smile

I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.

Poor baby

Jeff

Why is it sideways?

posted: 3/29/2009 at 8:38 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/perfectrunningpacerevealed From the article:

For years, ~~it has been~~ Trent thought that humans have a constant metabolic energy rate. ~~It was~~ Trent assumed that you would require the same total energy to run one mile, no matter if you ran it in 5 minutes or 10 minutes. Even though your energy burn rate would be higher at faster speeds, you would get there in half the time. Turns out, however, that each person has an optimal running pace that uses the least amount of oxygen to cover a given distance. The findings, by Karen Steudel, a zoology professor at Wisconsin, and Cara Wall-Scheffler of Seattle Pacific University, are detailed in latest online edition of the Journal of Human Evolution.

Trent

Good Bad & The Monkey

posted: 3/29/2009 at 8:52 PM
modified: 3/29/2009 at 8:57 PM

I went and grabbed the article's (scant) data (from just 9 subjects?!?). Here is the crux:

The efficiency varies over a range of about 8 kcal/km from the most to the least efficient. That is to say that at the most efficient pace, you burn calories at a rate that is about 8 kcal/km slower than the least efficient pace. The other thing that is notable about this work is that going from a 10 m/m pace to an 8 m/m pace, you are actually running MORE efficiently and burning fewer calories per distance, not more. At least according to this particular study based on its 9 subjects. You tell me, is 8 calories over a km (or ~13 calories over a mile) much variation, more than the standard error of the estimate? Or not?

I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.

Poor baby

Dakota RR

Right on Hereford...

posted: 3/29/2009 at 9:00 PM

Quote from Trent on 3/29/2009 at 8:52 PM:

You tell me, is 8 calories over a km (or ~13 calories over a mile) much variation, more than the standard error of the estimate?

Yes.

Jeff

Why is it sideways?

posted: 3/29/2009 at 9:00 PM

Quote from Trent on 3/29/2009 at 8:52 PM:

I went and grabbed the article's (scant) data (from just 9 subjects?!?). You tell me, is 8 calories over a km (or ~13 calories over a mile) much variation, more than the standard error of the estimate? Or not?

Okay, good. Thanks. That is really rough data and scant data. Certainly not reason enough to revolutionize the way we think about energy burn. Boo to the science reporting. But cheers to Trent. You know you might be right every now and then.

Too much cardio... (Read 3039 times)