Too much cardio... (Read 3039 times)

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.

Don't forget: The study was also published in the Journal of Human Evolution, which is not a sports medicine journal and so the study was not likely reviewed by experts in sports medicine or physiology, and the study done by somebody who is NOT a known sports medicine or metabolism researcher.

Yes.

When my GPS unit and my RA log and my online calculators all use exactly the same inputs to come up with calorie burn estimates that vary by 20-30 or more calories per mile, I respectfully disagree.

The research publication is not very good. But again, that was not the point. The point was that any estimate of calorie burn rates has a lot of error in it. When I estimate my caloric burn from an activity, I am not doing so based on my own measured metabolism for that activity. Rather, I am estimating it based on a lot of assumptions that take into account my effort, my gender, my age, my distance, etc. Since I do not do all my running in a metabolic lab, that is the best I can do. And the error around my estimates of caloric burn rate is likely much greater than 10 kcal/mile. Do you do all your running in a metabolic chamber?

I thought the point was that we have a study that says caloric burn varies with running pace. You have stated earlier that this is not the case.

I believe I stated earlier that any variation with pace is less than the standard error of the estimate, so it is statistically insubstantial.

So, why should we ignore this study?

The study uses 9 subjects. Just nine subjects is not enough to generalize rules about the entirety of human physiology, especially when the findings related to the nine subjects runs counter to the bulk of prior research on the question. In addition, we know almost nothing about the subjects' physical fitness, running skills or efficiency. Lastly, again, this study was done by somebody who is not a known running physiologist, performed in a lab without a track record of human running physiology research and published in a journal that is about as far from running physiology as you can get (human evolution?). These all imply that the science was not felt to be appropriate (or correct) enough for a sports physiology audience. Last, this was NOT the question:

So, why should we ignore this study?

I never suggested that we ignore the study. This was the question:

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?

And you answered:

Yes.

Okay. On what grounds?

In Puerto Rico, we mix bananas with cardio, and thus was originally born Bacardi.

I thought that was bacon and cardio...

is this thread still alive? Next you know we'll be doing ostrich running and placing wagers on whether we can make it to 50 pages. Of course, wasnt the 50th page what killed Scout?

I have a silly question... didn't read through all 9 pages but if it has already been answered please excuse me but... Isn't one of the major reasons for doing long slow cardio is to train your body at becoming better at burning fat as an energy source? Wouldn't it then make sense that if we are making our bodies better at burning fat that they probably would also as a result get better at storing fat also? It would seem as though both functions would go together.

That all depends on if you set your Garmin to "Fat Burn" or not...I accidentally set mine to "Ice Cream" this sunday and inadvertently gained 5 pounds on my long run.