I was wrong about Bush

Quoted message said:

Went to this website:

http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/jumpsite/calculat.htm

plugged in 190lbs/90 minutes

It returned 1368 calories for bicycling for that length of time, and
called it "Bicycling: 12-13.9 mph, leisure, moderate effort".

So if we plug in data points for weight, time and calories, we find
that Bush was engaged in leisurely cycling at a moderate effort. This
would tend to support Hickey's theory that Bush's HR was not pegged
for the entire duration. If his HR was pegged the entire time, it is
probably an indicator of poor fitness to the point that his doctors
should be wrrying about it. My mistake was not looking up the data on
fitness chart, and instead relying on a comparison to myself. I didn't
realize that packing 30lbs more than me would cause him to burn that
many more calories.

Note that the mph is still not important. The description of the type
of cycling, though, is: "leisure, moderate effort." It is interesting,
also, to note the difference between his mtb ride and 90 minutes of
running at a 7min/mile pace: 2394 calories, instead of 1368, which
would seem to confirm my contention that he has not demonstrated much
in the way of endurance at the high output he produced during his
famous 21 minute 5k runs.

All in all, based on this new info, I would say that Bush is suffering
for the effects of the extra pounds he's packing. His cycling
expedition on his ranch was not remarkable, and compared to the
50-somethings most of us know, yes, he is slow, but in his defense, he
is a relative newcomer to the sport. Dropping about 20 pounds would
also probably do wonders for his level of performance.

Bravo. (Really.)

A big factor with cycling (mtb or road) is the ability to take breaks. Even
on a moderately quick, hard ride, one won't burn as many calories as on a
hard run (and 7-min. miles is /hard/ in my book). Heartrate will get/stay
elevated I would think, but not at the constant "fuel-burning" levels as
when running.

Former SLOW Runner Bill

Bill Sornson said:

A big factor with cycling (mtb or road) is the ability to take

breaks. Even

Quoted message said:

on a moderately quick, hard ride, one won't burn as many calories as

on a

Quoted message said:

hard run (and 7-min. miles is /hard/ in my book). Heartrate will

get/stay

Quoted message said:

elevated I would think, but not at the constant "fuel-burning" levels

as

Quoted message said:

when running.

Interpolating the charts, riding at about a 20mph average (presumably
on level pavement), should get a burn rate about the same as seven
minute miles. The chart places this in between "Bicycling: 16-19 mph,
very fast, not drafting" and "Bicycling: > 20 mph, racing, not
drafting".

I doubt that Bush could knock off seven minute miles, anymore, either,
even if he didn't have "bad knees". He wasn't 20 lbs. overweight when
he was posting those numbers, and he was four years younger.

I'm not sure why, maybe because of my poor running mechanics, but I
don't seem to be able to run for any length of time at the HR that I
can maintain while cycling. I suspect that basically if you match HR
between sports, you're going to get close on the calorie burn rate.

Quoted message said:

Went to this website:

http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/jumpsite/calculat.htm

plugged in 190lbs/90 minutes

It returned 1368 calories for bicycling for that length of time, and
called it "Bicycling: 12-13.9 mph, leisure, moderate effort".

Calorie counters are notorious. Here are three more, picked at random:
http://pages.prodigy.net/jack.loganbill/calorie.htm
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6434/CalCalcApplet.html
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

I haven't looked carefully, but I'm guessing you'll see a fair amount of
variability across them.

Quoted message said:

<snip>
All in all, based on this new info, I would say that Bush is

suffering

Quoted message said:

for the effects of the extra pounds he's packing. His cycling
expedition on his ranch was not remarkable, and compared to the
50-somethings most of us know, yes, he is slow, but in his defense,

he

Quoted message said:

is a relative newcomer to the sport. Dropping about 20 pounds would
also probably do wonders for his level of performance.

Oh geez there we go with that 20 pounds [censored]. How many times
during the thread about bush did I read that. As someone who, at
5'10/175lbs, is perpetually 20 pounds overweight, except when I'm
10 or 15 or 25 pounds overweight, I tell ya, it don' make hardly no
difference at all. A few percent of a maximum effort (race time),
that's all.

What matters is what I've been doing lately. If I haven't been riding,
then I won't be fast on the bike(<18). If I have been riding a little,
and did 100 miles last week, then I'll get around fine (20-21) but not
fast. If I have been riding lots or commuting and did 200 miles last
week, then I'll feel pretty strong and my times will be fairly good
(for me, that is. 22-24 around town/commuting). If I've been riding
a whole lot and got 300 miles in last week then I'll fly up hills and
around town (26) and up hills and pass everyone I see on my old lugged
steel, no matter what they're riding.

Yeah the 20 lbs makes a difference - a little bit in the way when on
the drops, and it's a little more weight to hump uphill. Big deal.
It's trivial compared to what I did last week/month.

Same story with my rowing. the 20 pound gut makes it a bit harder
to reach forward at the top of the stroke. It also slow my boat
down by 2/9 of the additional weight, in seconds. So 2/9ths of 10%
or 2%. So between 1 and 2 minutes on a 60 minute race. BFD. Yeah,
I would need to lose the 20 to win the race. But it does not change
the fact of whether or not I can hold my heartrate at 170 for an hour,
or more interesting, whether or not I can put out 250 watts for an
hour.

The same reasoning is why I don't believe that Bush held 250 watts for
90 min let alone 60. I can hold 250 watts on a Concept-II rowing
machine for 1 hour -- IF I have been rowing a C-II for 1 hour per day
lately. If I haven't, then I can't. But it doesn't matter if I weigh
160 or 180. And I am guessing that Bush doesn't have time to train
for an hour daily/consistently.

dkl

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

A big factor with cycling (mtb or road) is the ability to take

breaks. Even

Quoted message said:

on a moderately quick, hard ride, one won't burn as many calories as

on a

Quoted message said:

hard run (and 7-min. miles is /hard/ in my book). Heartrate will

get/stay

Quoted message said:

elevated I would think, but not at the constant "fuel-burning" levels

as

Quoted message said:

when running.

Interpolating the charts, riding at about a 20mph average (presumably
on level pavement), should get a burn rate about the same as seven
minute miles. The chart places this in between "Bicycling: 16-19 mph,
very fast, not drafting" and "Bicycling: > 20 mph, racing, not
drafting".

First, congrats on the mea culpa - I truly appreciate it. Now if we
can just get Mr. Chung to realize that running a 7 minute pace does
not a Cat 1/2 racer make...

Now that we're back on relatively common ground, let me tear into the
below... ;-)

Quoted message said:

I doubt that Bush could knock off seven minute miles, anymore, either,
even if he didn't have "bad knees". He wasn't 20 lbs. overweight when
he was posting those numbers, and he was four years younger.

I believe that he's been losing that weight (I don't really follow his
weight very closely - it's not like he's Oprah or sumthin'...). Maybe
he couldn't - I don't know... it's been a couple years since I heard
about his running exploits. But FWIW, if you DO get in cycling
workouts your running doesn't really diminish much. I had run a grand
total of 14 miles in TWO YEARS prior to entering a half-marathon (high
altitude, hilly and some gravel roads), and took second in my age
group (thoroughly pissing off all the real runners I went with).

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure why, maybe because of my poor running mechanics, but I
don't seem to be able to run for any length of time at the HR that I
can maintain while cycling. I suspect that basically if you match HR
between sports, you're going to get close on the calorie burn rate.

Possibly - I know I have a HR that's 5bpm or so higher at a perceived
effort level while running. I'm not sure, but it seems to be related
to the pounding.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

A big factor with cycling (mtb or road) is the ability to take

breaks. Even

Quoted message said:

on a moderately quick, hard ride, one won't burn as many calories as

on a

Quoted message said:

hard run (and 7-min. miles is /hard/ in my book). Heartrate will

get/stay

Quoted message said:

elevated I would think, but not at the constant "fuel-burning" levels

as

Quoted message said:

when running.

Interpolating the charts, riding at about a 20mph average (presumably
on level pavement), should get a burn rate about the same as seven
minute miles. The chart places this in between "Bicycling: 16-19 mph,
very fast, not drafting" and "Bicycling: > 20 mph, racing, not
drafting".

First, congrats on the mea culpa - I truly appreciate it. Now if we
can just get Mr. Chung to realize that running a 7 minute pace does
not a Cat 1/2 racer make...

Now that we're back on relatively common ground, let me tear into the
below... ;-)

Quoted message said:

I doubt that Bush could knock off seven minute miles, anymore, either,
even if he didn't have "bad knees". He wasn't 20 lbs. overweight when
he was posting those numbers, and he was four years younger.

I believe that he's been losing that weight (I don't really follow his
weight very closely - it's not like he's Oprah or sumthin'...). Maybe
he couldn't - I don't know... it's been a couple years since I heard
about his running exploits. But FWIW, if you DO get in cycling
workouts your running doesn't really diminish much. I had run a grand
total of 14 miles in TWO YEARS prior to entering a half-marathon (high
altitude, hilly and some gravel roads), and took second in my age
group (thoroughly pissing off all the real runners I went with).

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure why, maybe because of my poor running mechanics, but I
don't seem to be able to run for any length of time at the HR that I
can maintain while cycling. I suspect that basically if you match HR
between sports, you're going to get close on the calorie burn rate.

Possibly - I know I have a HR that's 5bpm or so higher at a perceived
effort level while running. I'm not sure, but it seems to be related
to the pounding.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Dear Mark,

Page B1 of the Monday 04-18-2005 Wall Stree Journal has a
picture and article that will undoubtedly refine all
calculations beyond question.

The article is about how presidents have always ended up
endorsing products whether they liked it or not and how Bush
was asked in Montana, "What kind of mountain bike do you
ride?" and replied, "I'm not supposed to endorse products,
but it's called a Habanero."

Oops, that was a typo: " . . . called a Trek."

(Sorry, I get all these brands confused. The Habanero is
made in Lantana, Florida, out of titanium, while the
lesser-known Trek is made in Waterloo, Wisconsin, out of
charbroiled animal remains glued to strings.)

The picture is captioned "President Bush rides his Trek bike
on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, last summer." A rather flat
landscape is visible in the background, but might not be
typical of the area, judging by the topo maps mentioned
elsewhere. The bike resembles a Fury Roadmaster, except that
it has less aggressive knobby tires, the bar-end doohickeys
favored by some off-road riders, and--

And toe-clips with plainly visible foot-straps!

So this is how Matt Drudge feels!

Carl Fogel

RonSonic said:

He also seems
to be a bit of an endorphin junkie (don't drink, don't smoke, what do

ya do?).

Beleaguer the downtrodden of the world, evidently.

Chalo Colina

Mark Hickey said:

First, congrats on the mea culpa - I truly appreciate it. Now if we
can just get Mr. Chung to realize that running a 7 minute pace does
not a Cat 1/2 racer make...

Wait a sec. I've never said that running a 7 minute pace makes a Cat 1/2
racer. I merely showed that 1300 Calories burned in 90 minutes is 238
watts. You're the one who's saying that the President's 20 minute power is
50% higher than that.

Mea culpas are good.

chalo colina said:

RonSonic said:

He also seems
to be a bit of an endorphin junkie (don't drink, don't smoke, what
do ya do?).

Beleaguer the downtrodden of the world, evidently.

Would that be the millions who no longer have to cover their faces, or the
millions of voters with ink-stained fingers? (Or in a related sense the
Lebanese...or Ukrainians...or hopefully soon the Palestinians...or...?)

quote='chalo colina'RonSonic said:

He also seems
to be a bit of an endorphin junkie (don't drink, don't smoke, what do

ya do?).

Beleaguer the downtrodden of the world, evidently.

Chalo Colina[/QUOTE]

Play that victim card...is that your only comment?

Would the downtrodden of the world include the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that he is doing nothing to stop in their LAW BREAKING immigration to the United States?

Oh, excuse me. The downtrodden are the Palestinian Muslims...funny how the Torah mentions Jerusalem over 700 time yet the Koran mentions it never.

Or the downtrodden are those no longer able to kill women for wearing makup. Or showing their faces. Or seeing a doctor.

Robert Chung said:

Mark Hickey said:

First, congrats on the mea culpa - I truly appreciate it. Now if we
can just get Mr. Chung to realize that running a 7 minute pace does
not a Cat 1/2 racer make...

Wait a sec. I've never said that running a 7 minute pace makes a Cat 1/2
racer. I merely showed that 1300 Calories burned in 90 minutes is 238
watts. You're the one who's saying that the President's 20 minute power is
50% higher than that.

Then explain this:

http://www.runbmrc.org/caloriescalculator.asp

Based on (sigh, is there an echo in here???) GWB's well-documented
running times (sub 21 minute 5K), he's burning 1245 calories per hour
at that rate. Compare that to 1300 calories burned during a ride of
90 minutes and explain why I shouldn't assume he can burn calories at
nearly 150% that rate for 20 minutes during his known effort in a 5K
race.

Then explain how that makes him capable of output worthy of a Cat 1/2
racer. He'll be out of work in another three years, so he may be
interested in picking up where Lance left off.

Quoted message said:

Mea culpas are good.

Then I'll be waiting.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted post said:

Spat Weisse Luft:

Quoted message said:

Would the downtrodden of the world include the ILLEGAL >IMMIGRANTS

that he is doing nothing to stop in their LAW >BREAKING immigration to
the United States?

Hell no, he's actually trying to pass legislation so that border
factories can bring them in and pay them much less than they would have
to pay citizens for the same work.

This is a complex issue (we in the border states recognize this).
There are millions of illegals already here - Bush's proposal (which
isn't a panacea by any means) claims that it's better to work out a
way to deal with the reality and make it easier for them to be
"legitimate" than to have them sneaking back and forth across a huge
border.

I disagreed with this position for quite a while, but the more I think
about it the more I realize it's the lesser of two evils.

My main point is this isn't about bringing in a horde of workers, it's
about creating some controls for the ones already here, and about
freeing up the border patrol to go after the dangerous folks who might
be trying to sneak across. It's also about reducing the significant
number of Mexicans that die in Arizona's desert every summer, or who
are horribly abused by the "coyotes" who bring them across.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Robert Chung said:

Mark Hickey said:

First, congrats on the mea culpa - I truly appreciate it. Now if we
can just get Mr. Chung to realize that running a 7 minute pace does
not a Cat 1/2 racer make...

Wait a sec. I've never said that running a 7 minute pace makes a Cat
1/2 racer. I merely showed that 1300 Calories burned in 90 minutes is
238 watts. You're the one who's saying that the President's 20 minute
power is 50% higher than that.

Then explain this:

http://www.runbmrc.org/caloriescalculator.asp

Oh dear. That page uses the formula in McArdle, Katch, and Katch. Want me
to write it down for you, or do you want to look it up yourself?

Okay, the short answer is, that's a rough rule-of-thumb estimation formula
to get calories from running pace, and it's not a terribly good one 'cuz
the goodness of fit isn't terribly good. Better ones use lean body mass,
not total body mass (and the President appears to have a BMI of 27 so the
difference between the two could be important); but there's still two
other deeper problems with your argument: in the President's cycling case,
we're *already told* what his caloric expenditure was, so we get to bypass
the whole estimation procedure. When you're given the calories, it's
pretty simple to get to watts--oops. Sorry. I forgot that you don't know
how to do that. Touchy subject, I know. Anyway, the last problem is that
you're comparing two different activities: running and cycling. The energy
expenditure models for cycling are much better understood than the energy
expenditure models for running (see for example, the Martin et al. paper
in J. Appl. Biomech), particularly now that there are on-bike power
meters. That's why it's possible to put together power profiling tables
for cyclists like the one that Coggan has.

Quoted message said:

explain why I shouldn't assume he can burn calories at nearly
150% that rate for 20 minutes during his known effort in a 5K
race.

Hmmm. That's a tough one. How about: basically, you were 1) using a crappy
estimation formula, 2) switching from cycling to running, and 3) trying to
pass it off as equivalent to being given the caloric expenditure directly.
That's why.

Quoted message said:

Then explain how that makes him capable of output worthy of
a Cat 1/2 racer.

You're the one claiming that the President could produce 150% of 240 watts
= 360 watts for 20 minutes. All I was doing was pointing out the
implication of that, and how difficult that would be to believe. Although
I'm impressed with the President's power output, I don't think he can hang
with Cat 1/2 racers.

I have a data file from a 70kg domestic pro whose average during a
one-hour P/1/2 crit was 260 watts. I know you have some difficulty with
doing calculations so let me help you out: that's 3.7 W/kg.

Ahhh, Mark, my old political nemesis -

We in the non-border states know that this is a complex issue as well.

I agree that people dying by the semi-trailer load 'cuz they were
locked in and the trailer left in the desert sun for seven hours is
bad. I agree that heroin and cocaine traffickers should be more of a
focus than illegal workers.

But it isn't all that surprising that the Bushco solution is one that
results in the loss of American jobs to low-wage foreign workers, now
is it?

App

App

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All in all, based on this new info, I would say that Bush is suffering

for the effects of the extra pounds he's packing. His cycling
expedition on his ranch was not remarkable, and compared to the
50-somethings most of us know, yes, he is slow, but in his defense, he
is a relative newcomer to the sport. Dropping about 20 pounds would
also probably do wonders for his level of performance.

But President Bush is a cross trainer. He runs and lifts weights. Apparently
he has a 200 pound bench press, which is pretty respectable for a man his
age. He's carrying more muscle than the average cyclist, I guess.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ahhh, Mark, my old political nemesis -

We in the non-border states know that this is a complex issue as well.

I agree that people dying by the semi-trailer load 'cuz they were
locked in and the trailer left in the desert sun for seven hours is
bad. I agree that heroin and cocaine traffickers should be more of a
focus than illegal workers.

But it isn't all that surprising that the Bushco solution is one that
results in the loss of American jobs to low-wage foreign workers, now
is it?

See, it's not that illegals take jobs Americans won't do. Illegals do jobs
for a wage Americans won't accept. Hiring them is wrong. I don't blame the
illegals as much as those who exploit them for personal gain. The American
worker who is trying to own a home, car, and save for his kid's education
cannot compete with 10 Mexicans who live in one apartment.

Robert Chung said:

Mark Hickey said:

Robert Chung said:

Mark Hickey wrote:
> First, congrats on the mea culpa - I truly appreciate it. Now if we
> can just get Mr. Chung to realize that running a 7 minute pace does
> not a Cat 1/2 racer make...

Wait a sec. I've never said that running a 7 minute pace makes a Cat
1/2 racer. I merely showed that 1300 Calories burned in 90 minutes is
238 watts. You're the one who's saying that the President's 20 minute
power is 50% higher than that.

Then explain this:

http://www.runbmrc.org/caloriescalculator.asp

Oh dear. That page uses the formula in McArdle, Katch, and Katch. Want me
to write it down for you, or do you want to look it up yourself?

Maybe you could explain how your own estimates of the apparently
highly variable "efficiency factor" varies so dramatically depending
on who the subject of the study is (increasing by 25% when it happens
to be the POTUS).

http://www.cyclebanter.com/q-t_19241-Polar-S720i-calorie-measurement-seems-way-off.html

Quoted message said:

Okay, the short answer is, that's a rough rule-of-thumb estimation formula
to get calories from running pace, and it's not a terribly good one 'cuz
the goodness of fit isn't terribly good.

Yet your 25%, errrr, 24%, errrr, 20%... "conversion factor" is cast in
concrete? Heh heh heh...

Quoted message said:

Better ones use lean body mass,
not total body mass (and the President appears to have a BMI of 27 so the
difference between the two could be important); but there's still two
other deeper problems with your argument: in the President's cycling case,
we're *already told* what his caloric expenditure was, so we get to bypass
the whole estimation procedure. When you're given the calories, it's
pretty simple to get to watts--oops. Sorry. I forgot that you don't know
how to do that. Touchy subject, I know.

This coming from a guy whose ability to convert calories to watts
changes with (apparently) the political persuasion of the subject?

http://www.cyclebanter.com/q-t_19241-Polar-S720i-calorie-measurement-seems-way-off.html

Quoted message said:

Anyway, the last problem is that
you're comparing two different activities: running and cycling. The energy
expenditure models for cycling are much better understood than the energy
expenditure models for running (see for example, the Martin et al. paper
in J. Appl. Biomech), particularly now that there are on-bike power
meters. That's why it's possible to put together power profiling tables
for cyclists like the one that Coggan has.

Yes, running is a very new and misunderstood phenomenon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

explain why I shouldn't assume he can burn calories at nearly
150% that rate for 20 minutes during his known effort in a 5K
race.

Hmmm. That's a tough one. How about: basically, you were 1) using a crappy
estimation formula,

http://www.cyclebanter.com/q-t_19241-Polar-S720i-calorie-measurement-seems-way-off.html

Quoted message said:

2) switching from cycling to running,and 3) trying to
pass it off as equivalent to being given the caloric expenditure directly.
That's why.

Yes, it's important to realize that one switches to an entirely
different cardiovascular system when one parks the bike and laces on
running shoes. NOT.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then explain how that makes him capable of output worthy of
a Cat 1/2 racer.

You're the one claiming that the President could produce 150% of 240 watts
= 360 watts for 20 minutes. All I was doing was pointing out the
implication of that, and how difficult that would be to believe. Although
I'm impressed with the President's power output, I don't think he can hang
with Cat 1/2 racers.

Your whole argument is that the caloric burn rate should be much less
than 1245 calories per hour to propel a 190 pound man through 6:40
miles. How much less do you think it DOES require to do this?

We start with a presumed 1300 calories expended in a 90 minute effort.
You calculate (today) that this is the equivalent of about 240 watts.

I use another calculator to estimate GWB's running times indicate an
expenditure of 1245 calories per hour, which you presume is around 360
watts. This calculator is based on well-documented research (McArdle,
WD et al in Exercise Physiology 3rd Ed., Lea and Febiger eds., 1991),
not some back of a napkin SWAG. Yet by your SWAG, this should convert
to the equivalent of 360 watts. Or to 288 watts if one uses your
conversion factor from the other thread I reference above (and I'm the
one who has trouble with conversion???!!!)

Quoted message said:

I have a data file from a 70kg domestic pro whose average during a
one-hour P/1/2 crit was 260 watts. I know you have some difficulty with
doing calculations so let me help you out: that's 3.7 W/kg.

What's your point? Perhaps you should do a running race some time.
You'd realize you don't get to draft or coast through corners. You
might also realize that there's a strong correlation between running
and cycling ability since the two are bounded the same physiological
limitations.

So, ball's in your court. How many calories / watts DOES it take to
send a 190 pound man down the road running 6:40 miles?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted post said:

Ahhh, Mark, my old political nemesis -

We in the non-border states know that this is a complex issue as well.

I agree that people dying by the semi-trailer load 'cuz they were
locked in and the trailer left in the desert sun for seven hours is
bad. I agree that heroin and cocaine traffickers should be more of a
focus than illegal workers.

But it isn't all that surprising that the Bushco solution is one that
results in the loss of American jobs to low-wage foreign workers, now
is it?

That's kinda how I was looking at it too... Thing is, the jobs we're
talking about are those that are already being done by Mexicans, and
will be done by Mexicans whether they are "guest workers" or
"illegals". And they're by and large jobs that Americans don't want
to do - if we could export every illegal and seal the border, we'd
essentially kill the produce industry overnight.

Essentially it's a question of whether it's better to document and
control those who will be doing the work, or allowing the current
well-established "system" to continue.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Yet your 25%, errrr, 24%, errrr, 20%... "conversion factor" is cast in
concrete? Heh heh heh...

You do understand that the efficiency is easy to measure don't you?
(VO2, VCO2, and power output is all you need) There is some
variability, but not much mystery surounding the efficiency of
cycling. I have never seen a published figure as low as 20%, have
you?