General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Quantitative Energy Analysis of Kirkman's Treadmill Data

Started by James · · Last activity · 67 posts · 3,354 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
24 April 2004
Last activity
17 May 2004
Original author
James
Posts
67
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,354
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 67
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Don reports he got to five mph on an 18% grade in his last
    treadmill test. Now, I am sure Chung will reject the science
    I am going to cover in this post. After all, his god is not
    bound by things like Newton's laws or the laws of
    thermodynamics. But, for the rest of us mortals there is
    some quantitative data easily obtained from Don's treadmill
    run. I will try my best to do this in laymans language so it
    is understandable to all.

    First of all, what is the conversion for five mph and an 18%
    grade into running on the flat? Well, the figures I have
    seen quoted say that each foot uphill you have to climb is
    equal to six feet on the flat. This means that for each 100
    feet Don ran at five mph he climbed 18 feet. Using the
    conversion factor of six this means that Don ran 100 foot on
    the flat (for the five mph portion of his run) and a second
    100 foot on the flat for his 18 foot climb. In other words
    this incline, plus the belt speed equals running about 10
    mph on the flat.

    Now it is reasonable to ask if any human can run at a speed
    of 10 mph for an hour. The answer is a resounding yes.
    People run faster then this for over two hours in every
    marathon of any significance. And marathons are not on flat
    land in general as Chung seems to think. They usually have
    lots of hills.

    Let us just deal with the energy burn of the climb portion
    of Don's run for the most of the rest of this post. The
    climb portion is the portion that lends itself to easy
    quantitative analysis.

    Any high school student who has taken first semester physics
    can calculate, based on Newton's laws, how much work Don did
    in the climb per hour. I am not going to go thru the
    detailed math. If you want the details go find a high school
    student. But briefly the results are Don would climb about
    1448 feet per hour. If I assume Don weighs 150 pounds then
    the total work of this climb is 237 Kcal. Now, in the funny
    world of biology Kcals are called calories. So, in the rest
    of this post when I say cal or calories I mean Kcal.

    Is 237 the only energy Don's body consumed in making this
    climb? Not by a long ways. For instance Chung was critcal of
    an analysis I did recently as I neglected friction between
    the foot and the surface. Well, there is also friction in
    the foot and anklke bones, in the knees and hips and a small
    amount contributed by the shoulders during any run. So let
    us just for the sake of satisfying Chung say that these
    frictions add up to an additional 10% energy requirement.
    Our total now is 260 cal.

    Of course in order to elevate his body all those feet Don's
    heart had to beat a lot harder as it had to move lots more
    blood. I am sure Chung can supply a better number for the
    calory burn of Don's heart then I have at my fingertips. But
    if your basal metabolism is 75 cal per hour I suspect 20 of
    that is simply to pump blood and operate your lungs. As Don
    is working lots harder on the treadmill then at rest his
    heart is probably going three times as fast say. So I will
    throw in another 40 cal to cover increased heart/lung
    functions. We are now up to 300 cal per hour energy burn.

    If all this seems bad there is still more to come. The laws
    of thermodynamics require that a considerable amount of
    waste heat must be generated during exercise. Exercise is
    enabled by a series of chemical reactions that start with
    glycogen stored in your liver and muscle cells. When you
    exercise your body changes this stored glycogen into
    glucose. There is an energy waste in this conversion that
    can not be used by the muscles to do useful work. The
    glucose is transported to the site where it is needed and
    reacts with oxygen to provide energy to convert a
    biochemical called ADP into ATP. From an energy standpoint
    this is a horrigbly inefficient process. Only 2/3 of the
    energy from oxidation of the glucose winds up in the ATP
    according to Mariella and Blau. The rest is waste heat your
    body must get rid of by sweating. Finally the ATP reacts
    with components in your muscle cells to cause the cells to
    contract, again with waste heat production. Actually, I have
    skipped over many, many steps and vast details of all the
    actual chemistry involved. All you really need to understand
    is that there are several reactions which occur in sequence
    and every single one of them MUST by the laws of
    thermodyanmics produce waste heat that the body can not use
    to do useful work. In fact, Mariella and Blau in the book
    they wrote "Chemistry of Life Processes" state that less
    then 50% of the total energy winds up doing useful work. The
    rest is all waste heat. This is why you sweat when you
    exercise. If it were not for all this waste heat you would
    not need to sweat.

    So, let us be generous to the poor Chung. Let us say that
    the energy efficiency is 50%. If nothing else thsi makes it
    easy to calcultate. What this means is that 300 calories of
    work above now requires a total of 600 calories per hour
    simply to do the climb. This is of course twice what Chung
    claims any normal human can possibly do. It does make a
    person pause and wonder about Chung's position I think.
    Particularly if you also add in another 500 plus calories
    per hour for the run portion of the treadmill. This is not a
    small difference between my calculated results and Chung's
    unsubtantiated assertion. This is a huge difference. But I
    am sure Chung will be able to point out where my analysis is
    incorrect.

    By the way, I also mentioned in a past post that the energy
    burn during the exercise period was not the whole story by a
    bunch. We may as well deal with that while we are here. I
    started the above chemical pathway with glycogen. Well,
    where did your body get this glycogen? It got it from the
    carbs in the food you ate. Or it made it from the fats and
    proteins in the food you ate. Well, we know now that every
    chemical process must produce waste heat. When you digest
    food and your body does the chemisty to make glycogen a
    considerable amount of waste heat is produced. Ever notice
    how warm you are after a big meal? That warmth is waste heat
    from digestion and the subsequent chemical conversions that
    occur. You do not burn these calories during exercise but
    you sure will burn them after exercise to replace the spent
    glycogen. This energy requirement that occurs after exercise
    can amount to another 10% of the total calories you burn.
    Then of course during exercise some cells are killed, both
    muscle and blood. These must be replaced. Another after
    exercise energy requirement.

    I belive the above makes the point quite clearly that Chung
    is simply wrong again.

  2. James said:


    Don reports he got to five mph on an 18% grade in his last
    treadmill test. Now, I am sure Chung will reject the
    science I am going to cover in this post.

    What I reject below are untruths.

    Quoted message said:

    After all, his god is not bound by things like
    Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics.

    God created those laws. And what He has made, He can unmake.

    Quoted message said:

    But, for the rest of us mortals there is some
    quantitative data easily obtained from Don's
    treadmill run.

    In truth, Don's treadmill run was a hypothetical so there is
    no quantitative data to be had.

    Quoted message said:

    I will try my best to do this in laymans language so it
    is understandable to all.

    First of all, what is the conversion for five mph and an
    18% grade into running on the flat? Well, the figures I
    have seen quoted say that each foot uphill you have to
    climb is equal to six feet on the flat.

    On a treadmill, there is actually neither real climbing
    upward nor real movement forward. The body stays put in
    one place.

    Quoted message said:

    This means that for each 100 feet Don ran at five mph he
    climbed 18 feet. Using the conversion factor of six this
    means that Don ran 100 foot on the flat (for the five mph
    portion of his run) and a second 100 foot on the flat for
    his 18 foot climb. In other words this incline, plus the
    belt speed equals running about 10 mph on the flat.

    Now it is reasonable to ask if any human can run at a
    speed of 10 mph for an hour. The answer is a resounding
    yes. People run faster then this for over two hours in
    every marathon of any significance. And marathons are not
    on flat land in general as Chung seems to think.

    Rest assured that I have always known that marathons are not
    run on a track.

    Quoted message said:

    They usually have lots of hills.

    Courses are usually picked to have a minimal amount of steep
    grade hills.

    Quoted message said:

    Let us just deal with the energy burn of the climb portion
    of Don's run for the most of the rest of this post. The
    climb portion is the portion that lends itself to easy
    quantitative analysis.

    Any high school student who has taken first semester
    physics can calculate, based on Newton's laws, how much
    work Don did in the climb per hour.

    Especially, when Don's body never moved from one spot being
    that he was hypothetically on a treadmill.

    Quoted message said:

    I am not going to go thru the detailed math.

    It is hardly detailed.

    Quoted message said:

    If you want the details go find a high school student.

    That's ok, I believe I can do better than a HS student :-)

    Quoted message said:

    But briefly the results are Don would climb about 1448
    feet per hour.

    In truth, Don would remain in the same location as the
    treadmill.

    Quoted message said:

    If I assume Don weighs 150 pounds then the total work of
    this climb is 237 Kcal.

    W=F*D

    Work(W) equals the applied Force(F) times the travelled
    Distance(D).

    Thus, the actual work of moving 150 pounds a distance of 0
    feet is 0 foot pounds which translates to 0 kcals.

    The energy expended in this exercise is entirely from
    frictional elements (scuffing up the treadmill belt, moving
    the belt around which scuffs up the platform, wear on the
    joints, etc).

    Whether this is 237 kcals or 100 kcals or 50 kcals depends
    on these frictional elements. This would not be a trivial
    calculation. For this reason, most knowledgeable people will
    look to an empirical determination by measuring VO2.

    Quoted message said:

    Now, in the funny world of biology Kcals are called
    calories. So, in the rest of this post when I say cal or
    calories I mean Kcal.

    Zero is zero.

    Quoted message said:

    Is 237 the only energy Don's body consumed in making this
    climb? Not by a long ways. For instance Chung was critcal
    of an analysis I did recently as I neglected friction
    between the foot and the surface.

    Yes, you did.

    Quoted message said:

    Well, there is also friction in the foot and anklke bones,
    in the knees and hips and a small amount contributed by
    the shoulders during any run.

    Yes, you neglected those frictional elements as well.
    However, for normal joints, these elements are smaller than
    the friction of the bottom of the running shoes scuffing up
    the treadmill belt and the treadmill belt scuffing up the
    running platform.

    Quoted message said:

    So let us just for the sake of satisfying Chung say that
    these frictions add up to an additional 10% energy
    requirement. Our total now is 260 cal.

    In the case of your hypothetical treadmill example,
    since Don's body never moves from one spot, it is nearly
    all friction.

    If you suspended Don in the air and have him run in place,
    flailing his arms and legs about without any frictional
    resistance, his energy expenditure would hardly exceed that
    which occurs with activities of daily living (ADLs).

    Quoted message said:

    Of course in order to elevate his body all those feet
    Don's heart had to beat a lot harder as it had to move
    lots more blood.

    The increased cardiac output (defined by a faster heart rate
    rather than a harder heart beat) is necessary for the
    increased VO2 (blood carries the oxygen that is being
    consumed) which allows the generation (via oxidative
    phosphorylation) of the increased energy required for those
    frictional elements rather than elevation of Don's body
    (which actually remains stationary on a treadmill).

    Quoted message said:

    I am sure Chung can supply a better number for the calory
    burn of Don's heart then I have at my fingertips. But if
    your basal metabolism is 75 cal per hour

    This translates to a reasonable figure of 1800 kcals
    per 24hr day.

    Quoted message said:

    I suspect 20 of that is simply to pump blood and operate
    your lungs. As Don is working lots harder on the treadmill
    then at rest his heart is probably going three times as
    fast say. So I will throw in another 40 cal to cover
    increased heart/lung functions. We are now up to 300 cal
    per hour energy burn.

    All of your numbers here (like 237 kcals) are bogus. Of
    course, you (and everyone else) probably knew that already.

    Quoted message said:

    If all this seems bad there is still more to come.

    Bogus is simply bogus. I wouldn't call it bad.

    Quoted message said:

    The laws of thermodynamics require that a considerable
    amount of waste heat must be generated during exercise.

    Which law of thermodynamics requires "that a considerable
    amount of waste heat must be generated during exercise"?

    There are only two. The First Law states that
    energy/matter is conserved. The Second Law states that
    there will be more entropy.

    Quoted message said:

    Exercise is enabled by a series of chemical reactions that
    start with glycogen stored in your liver and muscle cells.
    When you exercise your body changes this stored glycogen
    into glucose. There is an energy waste in this conversion
    that can not be used by the muscles to do useful work. The
    glucose is transported to the site where it is needed and
    reacts with oxygen to provide energy to convert a
    biochemical called ADP into ATP.

    Glucose does not react with oxygen in the body. Instead, it
    is broken down in a series of enzymatic steps known
    collectively as glycolysis and the Kreb cycle. These
    biochemical pathways lead to the direct generation of some
    ATP and much reduced NADH which in turn donate energetic
    electrons to the electron-transport chain of mitochondria
    where oxidative phosporylation occurs for the oxygen-
    dependent generation of most of the ATP our body uses.

    Quoted message said:

    From an energy standpoint this is a horrigbly inefficient
    process. Only 2/3 of the energy from oxidation of the
    glucose winds up in the ATP according to Mariella and
    Blau. The rest is waste heat your body must get rid of by
    sweating.

    This process is actually a relatively efficient process when
    compared to others that convert chemical energy to
    mechanical energy (ie internal combustion engine).

    Quoted message said:

    Finally the ATP reacts with components in your muscle
    cells to cause the cells to contract, again with waste
    heat production.

    Actually, the ATP reacts with components within muscle
    fibers to bring about conformational changes that allow the
    filaments to move past each other rather than to cause
    contraction. Take away the ATP and there is the rigor
    mortis of death.

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, I have skipped over many, many steps and
    vast details of all the actual chemistry involved.

    Actually, much of what you have written is erroneous as I
    have pointed out above.

    Quoted message said:

    All you really need to understand is that there are
    several reactions which occur in sequence and every
    single one of them MUST by the laws of thermodyanmics
    produce waste heat that the body can not use to do
    useful work.

    I suspect you do not really understand the Laws of
    Thermodynamics.

    Quoted message said:

    In fact, Mariella and Blau in the book they wrote
    "Chemistry of Life Processes" state that less then 50% of
    the total energy winds up doing useful work. The rest is
    all waste heat. This is why you sweat when you exercise.
    If it were not for all this waste heat you would not need
    to sweat.

    Sweating is one of several means of dissipating heat. The
    presence of sweating does not support your assertion that
    Don expended any amount of calories during his hypothetical
    treadmill run. Indeed, for all you know, Don may not have
    even sweated. Dogs, for example, typically do not sweat.

    Quoted message said:

    So, let us be generous to the poor Chung. Let us say that
    the energy efficiency is 50%. If nothing else thsi makes
    it easy to calcultate. What this means is that 300
    calories of work above now requires a total of 600
    calories per hour simply to do the climb. This is of
    course twice what Chung claims any normal human can
    possibly do. It does make a person pause and wonder about
    Chung's position I think. Particularly if you also add in
    another 500 plus calories per hour for the run portion of
    the treadmill. This is not a small difference between my
    calculated results and Chung's unsubtantiated assertion.
    This is a huge difference. But I am sure Chung will be
    able to point out where my analysis is incorrect.

    Of that you already should be more than certain.

    Quoted message said:


    By the way, I also mentioned in a past post that the
    energy burn during the exercise period was not the whole
    story by a bunch. We may as well deal with that while we
    are here. I started the above chemical pathway with
    glycogen. Well, where did your body get this glycogen? It
    got it from the carbs in the food you ate. Or it made it
    from the fats

    Wrong. Though carbs can be used to make fats, the converse
    is not true.

    Quoted message said:

    and proteins in the food you ate. Well, we know now that
    every chemical process must produce waste heat. When you
    digest food and your body does the chemisty to make
    glycogen a considerable amount of waste heat is produced.
    Ever notice how warm you are after a big meal? That warmth
    is waste heat from digestion and the subsequent chemical
    conversions that occur. You do not burn these calories
    during exercise but you sure will burn them after exercise
    to replace the spent glycogen. This energy requirement
    that occurs after exercise can amount to another 10% of
    the total calories you burn. Then of course during
    exercise some cells are killed, both muscle and blood.
    These must be replaced. Another after exercise energy
    requirement.

    All such energy requirements are accounted for once the
    actual VO2 is determined.

    Quoted message said:

    I belive the above makes the point quite clearly that
    Chung is simply wrong again.

    You are entitled to your beliefs.

    I personally prefer the truth.

    And, truth is simple.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  3. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    What I reject below are untruths.

    Quoted message said:

    <snip [censored]>

    You are certainly long-winded for a troll. You'll lose the
    interest of the numbnutz's if you don't keep it short. You
    chinq [censored].

  4. Quoted message said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]>
    wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    What I reject below are untruths.

    Quoted message said:

    <snip [censored]>

    You are certainly long-winded for a troll. You'll lose the
    interest of the numbnutz's if you don't keep it short. You
    chinq [censored].

    Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.

    You will be in my prayers, neighbor.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
    limitless riches of God's kingdom.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  5. Chung you really are amusingly simple minded. Surely you can
    do better then this. In my post I purposely included three
    errors for you to find. You found zero. I also ommitted one
    significant source of calory burn to see if you would find
    it. You did not.

    Lets see. You said Don's run was hypothetical. Does that
    mean you are saying he lied? I hope not.

    Now, let us get rid of the Don did not elevate his body
    nonsense. Assume for the moment I have a very long
    treadmill. Say for instance one with a 10 mile long belt.
    I will try to use little words so you can understand. Now,
    I set up this treadmill with a slope of 18% and put Don on
    it running at five MPH relative to the stationary belt.
    Don is now running uphill at five mph and burning a bunch
    of energy. As his elevation is increasing this is
    perfectly in line with my analysis. So Don must be burning
    the 600 cal/hr I calculated to get the vertical elevation.
    Can you understand this so far little one? Now, let us say
    I start the treadmill belt up at a speed of 2.5 mph. Do
    you really think all of a sudden Don's energy requirements
    drop in half? I sure hope not. Now if I speed the belt up
    to 7.5 mph Don is actually getting swept downhill by the
    belt. Do you think he is now running almost without
    effort? If you think belt speed has anything at all to do
    with the effort Don expends you are not even up to high
    school level of thinking.

    Better try again on the laws of thermodyanamics. You
    obviously have never had the subject or you could not make
    such a fundamental error. By the way, I always considered
    Thermo to be one of my weaker subjects. That must be why in
    the entrance exams to grad school I placed third from the
    top in a class of 60. I will admit I did omit any analysis
    about entropy losses. It simply is not needed to more then
    make the point. But yes, there is energy lost to entropy
    that can not be used to do useful work.

    Your "dogs do not sweat" is simply nonsense. We all know
    every organism makes waste heat. And each has evolved a way
    to get rid of the excess it does not need to keep warm, if
    it happens to even need to keep warm.

    Your drivel about frictional losses between the belt and
    theadmill undercarriage is simply irrelevant nonsense. I
    could make a high friction treadmill and it would not make
    it harder for Don to run. It would just make it harder for
    the motor to drive the belt.

    I did not bother to talk about hte Krebs cycle. I learned
    about it before you were even born. But the details of the
    biochemical pathway are not needed to understand the energy
    situation. I quoted from a college level text book on the
    waste energy from one step. I take it you are saying the
    authors of this text book lie? My oh my! I think not.

    A car engine is about 50% heat effiecient under the best of
    operating circumstances. A car engine operates over a large
    temperature change. This gives it an inherent advantage over
    a biological organism like Don. Please review the results of
    the carnot cycle to understand this. If you think any
    biological organism can possibly use a greater
    % of the inherent heat of its food to produce usefull work
    % then a car
    engine can do with gasoline you live in a dream world.

    In short Chung your response is incorrect in every detail.
    But I am sure you will deny that this is so as usual. It
    seems you really are too dumb to be able to learn.

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote
    in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    James said:


    Don reports he got to five mph on an 18% grade in his
    last treadmill test. Now, I am sure Chung will reject
    the science I am going to cover in this post.

    What I reject below are untruths.

    Quoted message said:

    After all, his god is not bound by things like
    Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics.

    God created those laws. And what He has made, He can
    unmake.

    Quoted message said:

    But, for the rest of us mortals there is some
    quantitative data easily obtained from Don's
    treadmill run.

    In truth, Don's treadmill run was a hypothetical so there
    is no quantitative data to be had.

    Quoted message said:

    I will try my best to do this in laymans language so it
    is understandable to all.

    First of all, what is the conversion for five mph and an
    18% grade into running on the flat? Well, the figures I
    have seen quoted say that each foot uphill you have to
    climb is equal to six feet on the flat.

    On a treadmill, there is actually neither real climbing
    upward nor real movement forward. The body stays put in
    one place.

    Quoted message said:

    This means that for each 100 feet Don ran at five mph
    he climbed 18 feet. Using the conversion factor of six
    this means that Don ran 100 foot on the flat (for the
    five mph portion of his run) and a second 100 foot on
    the flat for his 18 foot climb. In other words this
    incline, plus the belt speed equals running about 10
    mph on the flat.

    Now it is reasonable to ask if any human can run at a
    speed of 10 mph for an hour. The answer is a resounding
    yes. People run faster then this for over two hours in
    every marathon of any significance. And marathons are
    not on flat land in general as Chung seems to think.

    Rest assured that I have always known that marathons are
    not run on a track.

    Quoted message said:

    They usually have lots of hills.

    Courses are usually picked to have a minimal amount of
    steep grade hills.

    Quoted message said:

    Let us just deal with the energy burn of the climb
    portion of Don's run for the most of the rest of this
    post. The climb portion is the portion that lends itself
    to easy quantitative analysis.

    Any high school student who has taken first semester
    physics can calculate, based on Newton's laws, how much
    work Don did in the climb per hour.

    Especially, when Don's body never moved from one spot
    being that he was hypothetically on a treadmill.

    Quoted message said:

    I am not going to go thru the detailed math.

    It is hardly detailed.

    Quoted message said:

    If you want the details go find a high school student.

    That's ok, I believe I can do better than a HS student :-)

    Quoted message said:

    But briefly the results are Don would climb about 1448
    feet per hour.

    In truth, Don would remain in the same location as the
    treadmill.

    Quoted message said:

    If I assume Don weighs 150 pounds then the total work of
    this climb is 237 Kcal.

    W=F*D

    Work(W) equals the applied Force(F) times the travelled
    Distance(D).

    Thus, the actual work of moving 150 pounds a distance of 0
    feet is 0 foot pounds which translates to 0 kcals.

    The energy expended in this exercise is entirely from
    frictional elements (scuffing up the treadmill belt,
    moving the belt around which scuffs up the platform, wear
    on the joints, etc).

    Whether this is 237 kcals or 100 kcals or 50 kcals depends
    on these frictional elements. This would not be a trivial
    calculation. For this reason, most knowledgeable people
    will look to an empirical determination by measuring VO2.

    Quoted message said:

    Now, in the funny world of biology Kcals are called
    calories. So, in the rest of this post when I say cal
    or calories I mean Kcal.

    Zero is zero.

    Quoted message said:

    Is 237 the only energy Don's body consumed in making
    this climb? Not by a long ways. For instance Chung was
    critcal of an analysis I did recently as I neglected
    friction between the foot and the surface.

    Yes, you did.

    Quoted message said:

    Well, there is also friction in the foot and anklke
    bones, in the knees and hips and a small amount
    contributed by the shoulders during any run.

    Yes, you neglected those frictional elements as well.
    However, for normal joints, these elements are smaller
    than the friction of the bottom of the running shoes
    scuffing up the treadmill belt and the treadmill belt
    scuffing up the running platform.

    Quoted message said:

    So let us just for the sake of satisfying Chung say
    that these frictions add up to an additional 10% energy
    requirement. Our total now is 260 cal.

    In the case of your hypothetical treadmill example, since
    Don's body never moves from one spot, it is nearly all
    friction.

    If you suspended Don in the air and have him run in place,
    flailing his arms and legs about without any frictional
    resistance, his energy expenditure would hardly exceed
    that which occurs with activities of daily living (ADLs).

    Quoted message said:

    Of course in order to elevate his body all those feet
    Don's heart had to beat a lot harder as it had to move
    lots more blood.

    The increased cardiac output (defined by a faster heart
    rate rather than a harder heart beat) is necessary for the
    increased VO2 (blood carries the oxygen that is being
    consumed) which allows the generation (via oxidative
    phosphorylation) of the increased energy required for
    those frictional elements rather than elevation of Don's
    body (which actually remains stationary on a treadmill).

    Quoted message said:

    I am sure Chung can supply a better number for the
    calory burn of Don's heart then I have at my
    fingertips. But if your basal metabolism is 75 cal
    per hour

    This translates to a reasonable figure of 1800 kcals per
    24hr day.

    Quoted message said:

    I suspect 20 of that is simply to pump blood and operate
    your lungs. As Don is working lots harder on the
    treadmill then at rest his heart is probably going three
    times as fast say. So I will throw in another 40 cal to
    cover increased heart/lung functions. We are now up to
    300 cal per hour energy burn.

    All of your numbers here (like 237 kcals) are bogus. Of
    course, you (and everyone else) probably knew that
    already.

    Quoted message said:

    If all this seems bad there is still more to come.

    Bogus is simply bogus. I wouldn't call it bad.

    Quoted message said:

    The laws of thermodynamics require that a considerable
    amount of waste heat must be generated during exercise.

    Which law of thermodynamics requires "that a considerable
    amount of waste heat must be generated during exercise"?

    There are only two. The First Law states that
    energy/matter is conserved. The Second Law states that
    there will be more entropy.

    Quoted message said:

    Exercise is enabled by a series of chemical reactions
    that start with glycogen stored in your liver and muscle
    cells. When you exercise your body changes this stored
    glycogen into glucose. There is an energy waste in this
    conversion that can not be used by the muscles to do
    useful work. The glucose is transported to the site
    where it is needed and reacts with oxygen to provide
    energy to convert a biochemical called ADP into ATP.

    Glucose does not react with oxygen in the body. Instead,
    it is broken down in a series of enzymatic steps known
    collectively as glycolysis and the Kreb cycle. These
    biochemical pathways lead to the direct generation of some
    ATP and much reduced NADH which in turn donate energetic
    electrons to the electron-transport chain of mitochondria
    where oxidative phosporylation occurs for the oxygen-
    dependent generation of most of the ATP our body uses.

    Quoted message said:

    From an energy standpoint this is a horrigbly
    inefficient process. Only 2/3 of the energy from
    oxidation of the glucose winds up in the ATP according
    to Mariella and Blau. The rest is waste heat your body
    must get rid of by sweating.

    This process is actually a relatively efficient process
    when compared to others that convert chemical energy to
    mechanical energy (ie internal combustion engine).

    Quoted message said:

    Finally the ATP reacts with components in your muscle
    cells to cause the cells to contract, again with waste
    heat production.

    Actually, the ATP reacts with components within muscle
    fibers to bring about conformational changes that allow
    the filaments to move past each other rather than to cause
    contraction. Take away the ATP and there is the rigor
    mortis of death.

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, I have skipped over many, many steps and
    vast details of all the actual chemistry involved.

    Actually, much of what you have written is erroneous as I
    have pointed out above.

    Quoted message said:

    All you really need to understand is that there are
    several reactions which occur in sequence and every
    single one of them MUST by the laws of thermodyanmics
    produce waste heat that the body can not use to do
    useful work.

    I suspect you do not really understand the Laws of
    Thermodynamics.

    Quoted message said:

    In fact, Mariella and Blau in the book they wrote
    "Chemistry of Life Processes" state that less then 50%
    of the total energy winds up doing useful work. The
    rest is all waste heat. This is why you sweat when you
    exercise. If it were not for all this waste heat you
    would not need to sweat.

    Sweating is one of several means of dissipating heat. The
    presence of sweating does not support your assertion that
    Don expended any amount of calories during his
    hypothetical treadmill run. Indeed, for all you know, Don
    may not have even sweated. Dogs, for example, typically do
    not sweat.

    Quoted message said:

    So, let us be generous to the poor Chung. Let us say
    that the energy efficiency is 50%. If nothing else thsi
    makes it easy to calcultate. What this means is that 300
    calories of work above now requires a total of 600
    calories per hour simply to do the climb. This is of
    course twice what Chung claims any normal human can
    possibly do. It does make a person pause and wonder
    about Chung's position I think. Particularly if you also
    add in another 500 plus calories per hour for the run
    portion of the treadmill. This is not a small difference
    between my calculated results and Chung's unsubtantiated
    assertion. This is a huge difference. But I am sure
    Chung will be able to point out where my analysis is
    incorrect.

    Of that you already should be more than certain.

    Quoted message said:


    By the way, I also mentioned in a past post that the
    energy burn during the exercise period was not the whole
    story by a bunch. We may as well deal with that while we
    are here. I started the above chemical pathway with
    glycogen. Well, where did your body get this glycogen?
    It got it from the carbs in the food you ate. Or it made
    it from the fats

    Wrong. Though carbs can be used to make fats, the converse
    is not true.

    Quoted message said:

    and proteins in the food you ate. Well, we know now that
    every chemical process must produce waste heat. When you
    digest food and your body does the chemisty to make
    glycogen a considerable amount of waste heat is
    produced. Ever notice how warm you are after a big meal?
    That warmth is waste heat from digestion and the
    subsequent chemical conversions that occur. You do not
    burn these calories during exercise but you sure will
    burn them after exercise to replace the spent glycogen.
    This energy requirement that occurs after exercise can
    amount to another 10% of the total calories you burn.
    Then of course during exercise some cells are killed,
    both muscle and blood. These must be replaced. Another
    after exercise energy requirement.

    All such energy requirements are accounted for once the
    actual VO2 is determined.

    Quoted message said:

    I belive the above makes the point quite clearly that
    Chung is simply wrong again.

    You are entitled to your beliefs.

    I personally prefer the truth.

    And, truth is simple.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    ** Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam? makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  6. James,

    You remain in my prayers to God in Christ's name.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
    infinite riches of God's kingdom.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    James said:

    <hiss sputter hiss hiss>

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    James said:


    Don reports he got to five mph on an 18% grade in his last treadmill
    test. Now, I am sure Chung will reject the science I am going to
    cover in this post.

    What I reject below are untruths.

    Quoted message said:

    After all, his god is not bound by things like
    Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics.

    God created those laws. And what He has made, He can unmake.

    Quoted message said:

    But, for the rest of us
    mortals there is some quantitative data easily obtained from Don's
    treadmill run.

    In truth, Don's treadmill run was a hypothetical so there is no
    quantitative data to be had.

    Quoted message said:

    I will try my best to do this in laymans language so
    it is understandable to all.

    First of all, what is the conversion for five mph and an 18% grade
    into running on the flat? Well, the figures I have seen quoted say
    that each foot uphill you have to climb is equal to six feet on the
    flat.

    On a treadmill, there is actually neither real climbing upward nor real
    movement forward. The body stays put in one place.

    Quoted message said:

    This means that for each 100 feet Don ran at five mph he
    climbed 18 feet. Using the conversion factor of six this means that
    Don ran 100 foot on the flat (for the five mph portion of his run) and
    a second 100 foot on the flat for his 18 foot climb. In other words
    this incline, plus the belt speed equals running about 10 mph on the
    flat.

    Now it is reasonable to ask if any human can run at a speed of 10 mph
    for an hour. The answer is a resounding yes. People run faster then
    this for over two hours in every marathon of any significance. And
    marathons are not on flat land in general as Chung seems to think.

    Rest assured that I have always known that marathons are not run on a
    track.

    Quoted message said:

    They usually have lots of hills.

    Courses are usually picked to have a minimal amount of steep grade
    hills.

    Quoted message said:

    Let us just deal with the energy burn of the climb portion of Don's
    run for the most of the rest of this post. The climb portion is the
    portion that lends itself to easy quantitative analysis.

    Any high school student who has taken first semester physics can
    calculate, based on Newton's laws, how much work Don did in the climb
    per hour.

    Especially, when Don's body never moved from one spot being that he was
    hypothetically on a treadmill.

    Quoted message said:

    I am not going to go thru the detailed math.

    It is hardly detailed.

    Quoted message said:

    If you want
    the details go find a high school student.

    That's ok, I believe I can do better than a HS student :-)

    Quoted message said:

    But briefly the results
    are Don would climb about 1448 feet per hour.

    In truth, Don would remain in the same location as the treadmill.

    Quoted message said:

    If I assume Don weighs
    150 pounds then the total work of this climb is 237 Kcal.

    W=F*D

    Work(W) equals the applied Force(F) times the travelled Distance(D).

    Thus, the actual work of moving 150 pounds a distance of 0 feet is 0
    foot pounds which translates to 0 kcals.

    The energy expended in this exercise is entirely from frictional
    elements (scuffing up the treadmill belt, moving the belt around which
    scuffs up the platform, wear on the joints, etc).

    Whether this is 237 kcals or 100 kcals or 50 kcals depends on these
    frictional elements. This would not be a trivial calculation. For this
    reason, most knowledgeable people will look to an empirical
    determination by measuring VO2.

    Quoted message said:

    Now, in the
    funny world of biology Kcals are called calories. So, in the rest of
    this post when I say cal or calories I mean Kcal.

    Zero is zero.

    Quoted message said:

    Is 237 the only energy Don's body consumed in making this climb? Not
    by a long ways. For instance Chung was critcal of an analysis I did
    recently as I neglected friction between the foot and the surface.

    Yes, you did.

    Quoted message said:

    Well, there is also friction in the foot and anklke bones, in the
    knees and hips and a small amount contributed by the shoulders during
    any run.

    Yes, you neglected those frictional elements as well. However, for
    normal joints, these elements are smaller than the friction of the
    bottom of the running shoes scuffing up the treadmill belt and the
    treadmill belt scuffing up the running platform.

    Quoted message said:

    So let us just for the sake of satisfying Chung say that
    these frictions add up to an additional 10% energy requirement. Our
    total now is 260 cal.

    In the case of your hypothetical treadmill example, since Don's body
    never moves from one spot, it is nearly all friction.

    If you suspended Don in the air and have him run in place, flailing his
    arms and legs about without any frictional resistance, his energy
    expenditure would hardly exceed that which occurs with activities of
    daily living (ADLs).

    Quoted message said:

    Of course in order to elevate his body all those feet Don's heart had
    to beat a lot harder as it had to move lots more blood.

    The increased cardiac output (defined by a faster heart rate rather than
    a harder heart beat) is necessary for the increased VO2 (blood carries
    the oxygen that is being consumed) which allows the generation (via
    oxidative phosphorylation) of the increased energy required for those
    frictional elements rather than elevation of Don's body (which actually
    remains stationary on a treadmill).

    Quoted message said:

    I am sure
    Chung can supply a better number for the calory burn of Don's heart
    then I have at my fingertips. But if your basal metabolism is 75 cal
    per hour

    This translates to a reasonable figure of 1800 kcals per 24hr day.

    Quoted message said:

    I suspect 20 of that is simply to pump blood and operate your
    lungs. As Don is working lots harder on the treadmill then at rest
    his heart is probably going three times as fast say. So I will throw
    in another 40 cal to cover increased heart/lung functions. We are now
    up to 300 cal per hour energy burn.

    All of your numbers here (like 237 kcals) are bogus. Of course, you
    (and everyone else) probably knew that already.

    Quoted message said:

    If all this seems bad there is still more to come.

    Bogus is simply bogus. I wouldn't call it bad.

    Quoted message said:

    The laws of
    thermodynamics require that a considerable amount of waste heat must
    be generated during exercise.

    Which law of thermodynamics requires "that a considerable amount of
    waste heat must be generated during exercise"?

    There are only two. The First Law states that energy/matter is
    conserved. The Second Law states that there will be more entropy.

    Quoted message said:

    Exercise is enabled by a series of
    chemical reactions that start with glycogen stored in your liver and
    muscle cells. When you exercise your body changes this stored
    glycogen into glucose. There is an energy waste in this conversion
    that can not be used by the muscles to do useful work. The glucose is
    transported to the site where it is needed and reacts with oxygen to
    provide energy to convert a biochemical called ADP into ATP.

    Glucose does not react with oxygen in the body. Instead, it is broken
    down in a series of enzymatic steps known collectively as glycolysis and
    the Kreb cycle. These biochemical pathways lead to the direct
    generation of some ATP and much reduced NADH which in turn donate
    energetic electrons to the electron-transport chain of mitochondria
    where oxidative phosporylation occurs for the oxygen-dependent
    generation of most of the ATP our body uses.

    Quoted message said:

    From an
    energy standpoint this is a horrigbly inefficient process. Only 2/3
    of the energy from oxidation of the glucose winds up in the ATP
    according to Mariella and Blau. The rest is waste heat your body must
    get rid of by sweating.

    This process is actually a relatively efficient process when compared to
    others that convert chemical energy to mechanical energy (ie internal
    combustion engine).

    Quoted message said:

    Finally the ATP reacts with components in
    your muscle cells to cause the cells to contract, again with waste
    heat production.

    Actually, the ATP reacts with components within muscle fibers to bring
    about conformational changes that allow the filaments to move past each
    other rather than to cause contraction. Take away the ATP and there is
    the rigor mortis of death.

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, I have skipped over many, many steps and
    vast details of all the actual chemistry involved.

    Actually, much of what you have written is erroneous as I have pointed
    out above.

    Quoted message said:

    All you really
    need to understand is that there are several reactions which occur in
    sequence and every single one of them MUST by the laws of
    thermodyanmics produce waste heat that the body can not use to do
    useful work.

    I suspect you do not really understand the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Quoted message said:

    In fact, Mariella and Blau in the book they wrote
    "Chemistry of Life Processes" state that less then 50% of the total
    energy winds up doing useful work. The rest is all waste heat. This
    is why you sweat when you exercise. If it were not for all this waste
    heat you would not need to sweat.

    Sweating is one of several means of dissipating heat. The presence of
    sweating does not support your assertion that Don expended any amount of
    calories during his hypothetical treadmill run. Indeed, for all you
    know, Don may not have even sweated. Dogs, for example, typically do
    not sweat.

    Quoted message said:

    So, let us be generous to the poor Chung. Let us say that the energy
    efficiency is 50%. If nothing else thsi makes it easy to calcultate.
    What this means is that 300 calories of work above now requires a
    total of 600 calories per hour simply to do the climb. This is of
    course twice what Chung claims any normal human can possibly do. It
    does make a person pause and wonder about Chung's position I think.
    Particularly if you also add in another 500 plus calories per hour for
    the run portion of the treadmill. This is not a small difference
    between my calculated results and Chung's unsubtantiated assertion.
    This is a huge difference. But I am sure Chung will be able to point
    out where my analysis is incorrect.

    Of that you already should be more than certain.

    Quoted message said:


    By the way, I also mentioned in a past post that the energy burn
    during the exercise period was not the whole story by a bunch. We may
    as well deal with that while we are here. I started the above
    chemical pathway with glycogen. Well, where did your body get this
    glycogen? It got it from the carbs in the food you ate. Or it made
    it from the fats

    Wrong. Though carbs can be used to make fats, the converse is not true.

    Quoted message said:

    and proteins in the food you ate. Well, we know now
    that every chemical process must produce waste heat. When you digest
    food and your body does the chemisty to make glycogen a considerable
    amount of waste heat is produced. Ever notice how warm you are after
    a big meal? That warmth is waste heat from digestion and the
    subsequent chemical conversions that occur. You do not burn these
    calories during exercise but you sure will burn them after exercise to
    replace the spent glycogen. This energy requirement that occurs after
    exercise can amount to another 10% of the total calories you burn.
    Then of course during exercise some cells are killed, both muscle and
    blood. These must be replaced. Another after exercise energy
    requirement.

    All such energy requirements are accounted for once the actual VO2 is
    determined.

    Quoted message said:

    I belive the above makes the point quite clearly that Chung is simply
    wrong again.

    You are entitled to your beliefs.

    I personally prefer the truth.

    And, truth is simple.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  7. Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

    James,

    You remain in my prayers to God in Christ's name.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
    infinite riches of God's kingdom.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    James offers some solid science and all you can conjure
    is religious platitudes? You not only fall on you sword
    with science but you give religion a bad name. You remind
    me of Dahmer and Bundy - they both played cannibal in the
    name of God. You're less violent and use religion as a
    crutch. It's hypocrites like you that keep people like me
    out of churches.

    I'd suggest you go for a nice run, get some fresh air and
    clear your cobwebs. Maybe a UFO will come and give you
    another ride.

    --
    Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

  8. Doug Freese said:
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

    James,

    You remain in my prayers to God in Christ's name.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
    infinite riches of God's kingdom.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    <hiss sputter hiss hiss>

    You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  9. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Doug Freese said:
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

    James,

    You remain in my prayers to God in Christ's name.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and
    Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal
    life and the infinite riches of God's kingdom.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    <hiss sputter hiss hiss>

    You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

    I guess we knew that was coming. Doug, there is no
    reasoning with someone like this. They will use God as a
    reason/excuse for everything. They will even annoy and
    troll you in God's name. ;-)

    tkb - plonk him and keep moving

  10. Don't take this wrong you ignorant chinq, but you are a
    grade A [censored].

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote
    in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Doug Freese said:
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

    James,

    You remain in my prayers to God in Christ's name.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and
    Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal
    life and the infinite riches of God's kingdom.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    <hiss sputter hiss hiss>

    You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    ** Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam? makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  11. [email hidden] wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Don't take this wrong you ignorant chinq, but you are a
    grade A [censored].

    Let me just say this before he does - you remain in my
    prayers, neighbor.

    Phil M.

  12. Quoted message said:

    Don't take this wrong you ignorant chinq, but you are a
    grade A [censored].

    Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.

    You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too may have eternal life and the
    unparalleled richness of God's kingdom.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  13. tenkbabe said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]>
    wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Doug Freese said:

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
    > James,
    >
    > You remain in my prayers to God in Christ's name.
    >
    > May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and
    > Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal
    > life and the infinite riches of God's kingdom.
    >
    >
    > Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    <hiss sputter hiss hiss>

    You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

    <hiss hiss hiss>

    You will be in my prayers, neighbor.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  14. Phil M. said:

    [email hidden] wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Don't take this wrong you ignorant chinq, but you are a
    grade A [censored].

    Let me just say this before he does - you remain in my
    prayers, neighbor.

    Phil M.

    Who do you pray to, Phil ?

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  15. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:
    Phil M. said:

    [email hidden] wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Don't take this wrong you ignorant chinq, but you are a
    grade A [censored].

    Let me just say this before he does - you remain in my
    prayers, neighbor.

    Phil M.

    Who do you pray to, Phil ?

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
    infinite riches of God's kingdom.

    Phil M.

    --
    "Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
    everlasting." -fortune cookie

  16. Phil M. said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]>
    wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:
    Phil M. said:

    [email hidden] wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    > Don't take this wrong you ignorant chinq, but you are
    > a grade A [censored].

    Let me just say this before he does - you remain in my
    prayers, neighbor.

    Phil M.

    Who do you pray to, Phil ?

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
    infinite riches of God's kingdom.

    Already have :-)

    Now, try answering the question truthfully.

    Second chance:

    Who do you pray to, Phil?

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  17. It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    in article <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    James wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Don reports he got to five mph on an 18% grade in his
    last treadmill test. Now, I am sure Chung will reject the
    science I am going to cover in this post.

    No, not my last--one of my earlier ones. More below.

    Quoted message said:

    What I reject below are untruths.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    After all, his god is not bound by things like
    Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics.

    Quoted message said:

    God created those laws. And what He has made, He can
    unmake.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But, for the rest of us mortals there is some
    quantitative data easily obtained from Don's
    treadmill run.

    Quoted message said:

    In truth, Don's treadmill run was a hypothetical so there
    is no quantitative data to be had.

    In truth it was on April 10, 1988, conducted by the Loma
    Linda Center for Health Promotion at a clinic in Orange
    County, CA (not the home of the LLC); the technician was
    Greg Vixie, who recorded a maximum heart beat of 162 at 13
    min 45 seconds into the run (11:18 would have been
    considered high for my age at that time). I can't read the
    handwriting of the physician who oversaw the tests, and his
    name is not typed anywhere in the package, but . Maximum
    blood pressure was 184/66. I weighed 155 pounds at the time.

    Do you have any other "perceived truth" to contribute,
    Doctor?

    I hit the same HR on August 16, 1995, after ten minutes
    (discontinued because I had exceeded the doctor's original
    goal for the test which was checking something other than
    HRMax). At that time I was at 4.2 mph and 16%. The test
    was done by Dr. William Wong, MD, board certified in
    internal medicine.

    On November 11, 1998, four months following my second
    angioplasty and stenting, I stopped after 10 minutes with a
    HR of 156, at 4.2 mph/16% grade. Doctor was Hugh McIssaac,
    board certified cardiologist.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I will try my best to do this in laymans language so it
    is understandable to all.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    First of all, what is the conversion for five mph and an
    18% grade into running on the flat? Well, the figures I
    have seen quoted say that each foot uphill you have to
    climb is equal to six feet on the flat.

    Quoted message said:

    On a treadmill, there is actually neither real climbing
    upward nor real movement forward. The body stays put in
    one place.

    Let me introduce you to the concept of relativity. The
    treadmill frame stays in one place, but the belt does not.
    The subject's body stays in one place relative to the frame,
    but not to the belt--if not the subject would be thrown off
    the back end of the belt very quickly. If it were otherwise
    you would have no data to test and the market for treadmills
    would collapse.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    This means that for each 100 feet Don ran at five mph
    he climbed 18 feet. Using the conversion factor of six
    this means that Don ran 100 foot on the flat (for the
    five mph portion of his run) and a second 100 foot on
    the flat for his 18 foot climb. In other words this
    incline, plus the belt speed equals running about 10
    mph on the flat.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Now it is reasonable to ask if any human can run at a
    speed of 10 mph for an hour. The answer is a resounding
    yes. People run faster then this for over two hours in
    every marathon of any significance. And marathons are not
    on flat land in general as Chung seems to think.

    Quoted message said:

    Rest assured that I have always known that marathons are
    not run on a track.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    They usually have lots of hills.

    Quoted message said:

    Courses are usually picked to have a minimal amount of
    steep grade hills.

    I have given you a number of examples that refute that, but
    you claimed it was simply argumentation.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Let us just deal with the energy burn of the climb
    portion of Don's run for the most of the rest of this
    post. The climb portion is the portion that lends itself
    to easy quantitative analysis.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Any high school student who has taken first semester
    physics can calculate, based on Newton's laws, how much
    work Don did in the climb per hour.

    Quoted message said:

    Especially, when Don's body never moved from one spot being
    that he was hypothetically on a treadmill.

    It's all relative; I suppose a hypothetical subject on a
    hypothetical treadmill could hypothetically remain in one
    place, but that doesn't happen in the real physical world.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I am not going to go thru the detailed math.

    Quoted message said:

    It is hardly detailed.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you want the details go find a high school student.

    Quoted message said:

    That's ok, I believe I can do better than a HS student :-)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But briefly the results are Don would climb about 1448
    feet per hour.

    Quoted message said:

    In truth, Don would remain in the same location as the
    treadmill.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If I assume Don weighs 150 pounds then the total work of
    this climb is 237 Kcal.

    Quoted message said:

    W=F*D

    Quoted message said:

    Work(W) equals the applied Force(F) times the travelled
    Distance(D).

    Quoted message said:

    Thus, the actual work of moving 150 pounds a distance of 0
    feet is 0 foot pounds which translates to 0 kcals.

    Did you fail high school math? Or does Emery teach some
    special physics that doesn't apply to treadmills?

    Quoted message said:

    The energy expended in this exercise is entirely from
    frictional elements (scuffing up the treadmill belt, moving
    the belt around which scuffs up the platform, wear on the
    joints, etc).

    Laboratory grade treadmill belts are powered not by the
    subject but by a motor. Friction between the belt and the
    frame is totally outside the parameters of the problem,
    since the motor both overcomes the friction and adds enough
    energy to move the belt.

    Quoted message said:

    Whether this is 237 kcals or 100 kcals or 50 kcals depends
    on these frictional elements. This would not be a trivial
    calculation. For this reason, most knowledgeable people
    will look to an empirical determination by measuring VO2.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Now, in the funny world of biology Kcals are called
    calories. So, in the rest of this post when I say cal or
    calories I mean Kcal.

    Quoted message said:

    Zero is zero.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is 237 the only energy Don's body consumed in making this
    climb? Not by a long ways. For instance Chung was critcal
    of an analysis I did recently as I neglected friction
    between the foot and the surface.

    Quoted message said:

    Yes, you did.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Well, there is also friction in the foot and anklke
    bones, in the knees and hips and a small amount
    contributed by the shoulders during any run.

    Quoted message said:

    Yes, you neglected those frictional elements as well.
    However, for normal joints, these elements are smaller than
    the friction of the bottom of the running shoes scuffing up
    the treadmill belt and the treadmill belt scuffing up the
    running platform.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    So let us just for the sake of satisfying Chung say that
    these frictions add up to an additional 10% energy
    requirement. Our total now is 260 cal.

    Quoted message said:

    In the case of your hypothetical treadmill example, since
    Don's body never moves from one spot, it is nearly all
    friction.

    Quoted message said:

    If you suspended Don in the air and have him run in place,
    flailing his arms and legs about without any frictional
    resistance, his energy expenditure would hardly exceed that
    which occurs with activities of daily living (ADLs).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course in order to elevate his body all those feet
    Don's heart had to beat a lot harder as it had to move
    lots more blood.

    Quoted message said:

    The increased cardiac output (defined by a faster heart
    rate rather than a harder heart beat) is necessary for the
    increased VO2 (blood carries the oxygen that is being
    consumed) which allows the generation (via oxidative
    phosphorylation) of the increased energy required for those
    frictional elements rather than elevation of Don's body
    (which actually remains stationary on a treadmill).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I am sure Chung can supply a better number for the
    calory burn of Don's heart then I have at my fingertips.
    But if your basal metabolism is 75 cal per hour

    Quoted message said:

    This translates to a reasonable figure of 1800 kcals per
    24hr day.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I suspect 20 of that is simply to pump blood and operate
    your lungs. As Don is working lots harder on the
    treadmill then at rest his heart is probably going three
    times as fast say. So I will throw in another 40 cal to
    cover increased heart/lung functions. We are now up to
    300 cal per hour energy burn.

    Resting in those days was around 40 - 45 (it's now around
    35); tested max was consistently low 160s (from paced
    running it seems to be about the same now, but I haven't
    been on a treadmill for five years).

    Quoted message said:

    All of your numbers here (like 237 kcals) are bogus. Of
    course, you (and everyone else) probably knew that already.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If all this seems bad there is still more to come.

    Quoted message said:

    Bogus is simply bogus. I wouldn't call it bad.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The laws of thermodynamics require that a considerable
    amount of waste heat must be generated during exercise.

    Quoted message said:

    Which law of thermodynamics requires "that a considerable
    amount of waste heat must be generated during exercise"?

    Quoted message said:

    There are only two. The First Law states that
    energy/matter is conserved. The Second Law states that
    there will be more entropy.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Exercise is enabled by a series of chemical reactions
    that start with glycogen stored in your liver and muscle
    cells. When you exercise your body changes this stored
    glycogen into glucose. There is an energy waste in this
    conversion that can not be used by the muscles to do
    useful work. The glucose is transported to the site where
    it is needed and reacts with oxygen to provide energy to
    convert a biochemical called ADP into ATP.

    Quoted message said:

    Glucose does not react with oxygen in the body. Instead, it
    is broken down in a series of enzymatic steps known
    collectively as glycolysis and the Kreb cycle. These
    biochemical pathways lead to the direct generation of some
    ATP and much reduced NADH which in turn donate energetic
    electrons to the electron-transport chain of mitochondria
    where oxidative phosporylation occurs for the oxygen-
    dependent generation of most of the ATP our body uses.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    From an energy standpoint this is a horrigbly
    inefficient process. Only 2/3 of the energy from
    oxidation of the glucose winds up in the ATP according
    to Mariella and Blau. The rest is waste heat your body
    must get rid of by sweating.

    Quoted message said:

    This process is actually a relatively efficient process
    when compared to others that convert chemical energy to
    mechanical energy (ie internal combustion engine).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Finally the ATP reacts with components in your muscle
    cells to cause the cells to contract, again with waste
    heat production.

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, the ATP reacts with components within muscle
    fibers to bring about conformational changes that allow the
    filaments to move past each other rather than to cause
    contraction. Take away the ATP and there is the rigor
    mortis of death.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Actually, I have skipped over many, many steps and
    vast details of all the actual chemistry involved.

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, much of what you have written is erroneous as I
    have pointed out above.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    All you really need to understand is that there are
    several reactions which occur in sequence and every
    single one of them MUST by the laws of thermodyanmics
    produce waste heat that the body can not use to do
    useful work.

    Quoted message said:

    I suspect you do not really understand the Laws of
    Thermodynamics.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    In fact, Mariella and Blau in the book they wrote
    "Chemistry of Life Processes" state that less then 50%
    of the total energy winds up doing useful work. The rest
    is all waste heat. This is why you sweat when you
    exercise. If it were not for all this waste heat you
    would not need to sweat.

    Quoted message said:

    Sweating is one of several means of dissipating heat. The
    presence of sweating does not support your assertion that
    Don expended any amount of calories during his hypothetical
    treadmill run. Indeed, for all you know, Don may not have
    even sweated. Dogs, for example, typically do not sweat.

    Because as everyone knows they reduce heat by panting. Pigs
    do it by lying in cool, preferably wet places. What's the
    relevance to sweating being the human adaptation to heat
    dissipation?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    So, let us be generous to the poor Chung. Let us say that
    the energy efficiency is 50%. If nothing else thsi makes
    it easy to calcultate. What this means is that 300
    calories of work above now requires a total of 600
    calories per hour simply to do the climb. This is of
    course twice what Chung claims any normal human can
    possibly do. It does make a person pause and wonder about
    Chung's position I think. Particularly if you also add in
    another 500 plus calories per hour for the run portion of
    the treadmill. This is not a small difference between my
    calculated results and Chung's unsubtantiated assertion.
    This is a huge difference. But I am sure Chung will be
    able to point out where my analysis is incorrect.

    Quoted message said:

    Of that you already should be more than certain.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    By the way, I also mentioned in a past post that the
    energy burn during the exercise period was not the whole
    story by a bunch. We may as well deal with that while we
    are here. I started the above chemical pathway with
    glycogen. Well, where did your body get this glycogen? It
    got it from the carbs in the food you ate. Or it made it
    from the fats

    Quoted message said:

    Wrong. Though carbs can be used to make fats, the converse
    is not true.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and proteins in the food you ate. Well, we know now that
    every chemical process must produce waste heat. When you
    digest food and your body does the chemisty to make
    glycogen a considerable amount of waste heat is produced.
    Ever notice how warm you are after a big meal? That
    warmth is waste heat from digestion and the subsequent
    chemical conversions that occur. You do not burn these
    calories during exercise but you sure will burn them
    after exercise to replace the spent glycogen. This energy
    requirement that occurs after exercise can amount to
    another 10% of the total calories you burn. Then of
    course during exercise some cells are killed, both muscle
    and blood. These must be replaced. Another after exercise
    energy requirement.

    Quoted message said:

    All such energy requirements are accounted for once the
    actual VO2 is determined.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I belive the above makes the point quite clearly that
    Chung is simply wrong again.


    --
    Don [email hidden]

  18. You remain in my prayers, neighbor. *plonk*

    tkb

  19. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:
    Phil M. said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]>
    wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    "Phil M." wrote:

    > [email hidden] wrote in
    > :"]news:[email hidden]:
    >
    > > Don't take this wrong you ignorant chinq, but you
    > > are a grade A [censored].
    >
    > Let me just say this before he does - you remain in my
    > prayers, neighbor.
    >
    > Phil M.

    Who do you pray to, Phil ?

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    you too will have eternal life and the infinite riches
    of God's


    kingdom.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Already have :-)

    Now, try answering the question truthfully.

    Second chance:

    Who do you pray to, Phil?

    You will be in my prayers, neighbor.

    May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
    someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
    limitless riches of God's kingdom.

    Phil M.

    --
    "Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
    everlasting." -fortune cookie

    Phil M.

    --
    "Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
    everlasting." -fortune cookie

  20. tenkbabe said:

    You remain in my prayers, neighbor. *plonk*

    Thanks.

    Who are you praying to?

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.