What will make me slimmer? Zone 3 or zone 4 training?

[gregf83]

From what I've read it would be next to impossible for your body to be that inefficient

You need to be clear on whether you're talking about gross efficiency or delta efficiency. According to "No differences in cycling efficiency between world-class and recreational cyclists." [Int J Sports Med. 2004] - PubMed result the mean Gross Efficiency @ 165W was around 18.6% for all athletes tested (some were over 22%, some in the 14-15% range). So Tony's numbers seem quite reasonable although probably not well suited for 10hr+ excursions

 

[lanierb]

So here's my response: you guys are neglecting the fact that all of the numbers in these lab tests are measured with error. The power output, for example, could easily be 3-5% off, as could the other numbers. You need to take this into account when you interpret the data.

You need to be clear on whether you're talking about gross efficiency or delta efficiency. According to "No differences in cycling efficiency between world-class and recreational cyclists." [Int J Sports Med. 2004] - PubMed result the mean Gross Efficiency @ 165W was around 18.6% for all athletes tested (some were over 22%, some in the 14-15% range).

You're right about this. His 18kcal/minute is gross not delta, so that's part of the difference, but the numbers are still pretty extreme. His gross efficiency was measured at 17.5%, less than any subject in either that article or in the well known Coyle 1992 article (citation 8 in the article you cited).

Furthermore, let's imagine that Tony's base metabolism is a pretty high 2400kcal/day (this would be for someone about 6'4" and 230 lbs). That would put his delta efficiency at 18%, again lower than any subject in either article.

Now, remember these things are MEASURED WITH ERROR, both in Tony's case and in the data in the articles. That means that if you cherry pick the lowest number in the data sample, you have with probability approaching one (as the sample increases) chosen the one with the biggest underestimate. This means that the min in the sample is a biased and inconsistent estimate of the true population min (i.e., it is not a good estimate, it is downward biased, and the bigger the sample the worse the bias so a larger sample will not get you the right answer).

You can't therefore say that in the data there was one person with a DE of 18.3% and declare that as the reasonable range for humans. You picked the data point that with very high probability had the largest downward error in it. It is very very likely that that person's true DE was actually higher than 18.3%.

OK so you can make of this what you want. The fact that Tony's number is even smaller than the min in either sample suggests that his data is in error. However, that said, like all things in statistics, we can't know for sure. All we can say is that it's highly unlikely. He can go on believing that he's burning 1150kcal from 220w (actually even then it's only 1050kcal because 100kcal would be his base metabolism), but I'm pretty sure he isn't. My reasoning: noone else is, and lab tests are pretty noisy so it's more likely that the test was wrong than that Tony is some super-special guy.

 

[gregf83]

You're right about this. His 18kcal/minute is gross not delta, so that's part of the difference, but the numbers are still pretty extreme. His gross efficiency was measured at 17.5%, less than any subject in either that article or in the well known Coyle 1992 article (citation 8 in the article you cited).

Any discussion about measurement errors is a red herring. It sounds like you only read the abstract and not the paper. The abstract lists the mean efficiency of the group. The figure below shows everyone tested:

 

[tonyzackery]

OK so you can make of this what you want. The fact that Tony's number is even smaller than the min in either sample suggests that his data is in error. However, that said, like all things in statistics, we can't know for sure. All we can say is that it's highly unlikely. He can go on believing that he's burning 1150kcal from 220w (actually even then it's only 1050kcal because 100kcal would be his base metabolism), but I'm pretty sure he isn't. My reasoning: noone else is, and lab tests are pretty noisy so it's more likely that the test was wrong than that Tony is some super-special guy.

Pal, you can either impress people with your intellect, or you can baffle them with your bullshyt. Quite obviously, you've chosen the latter...get your head out that book and into an actual lab...

 

[swampy1970]

Don't be so pessimistic, bud. Inefficiency is good in the respect that it will take much concerted effort for me to get fat and/or obese, unlike an almost majority of the population. Applying this to cycle racing, shorter, flatter races are definitely better for me - and I have no issue with this, so neither should you.

Hmmm, am I a sprinter?? Perhaps. A few clues: long jumped almost 26 feet; run a 40yd dash in less than 4.4secs, 100m in 10.7secs; vertical jump of 35", etc...not too hard to figure out. I've done ~1800w uphill...

You're right, it isn't too hard to figure out.

To be a sprinter you'll need to put out 1500+ watts quite a few times during the last few minutes during the run in and still have the legs to pop out one last effort of similar output when going over the line.

 

[swampy1970]

Pal, you can either impress people with your intellect, or you can baffle them with your bullshyt. Quite obviously, you've chosen the latter...get your head out that book and into an actual lab...

Similarly, before you try and persuade the world that you're inept at burning fat and have to stay under 3.7watts in order to do so, try going to a few labs. It'd suck if the last time 'your' lab calibrated it's equipment was, like, never. Even Chatenay Malabry forgot to remove parts off their equipment tagged as 'must remove before use' before condeming Landis to zero from hero, imagine what goofs could be redefining your training.

 

[tonyzackery]

^^^ Networld, just so you're aware, the above anonomous little person follows me around different threads to interject his lunacy. I've requested his cronies PM him to conduct an intervention, but alas he still feels the need...

If I've told him once, I've told him a thousand times that the only proper and correct response that should come from his mouth after I get him jumping is, "How high?". Sometimes he follows orders, sometimes not...

Just another one of the several jealous and envious pissants on this forum that feel the need to share their infinite idiocy with the rest of world...never allow a few bad apples to spoil your bunch...

 

[tonyzackery]

You're right, it isn't too hard to figure out.

To be a sprinter you'll need to put out 1500+ watts quite a few times during the last few minutes during the run in and still have the legs to pop out one last effort of similar output when going over the line.

LOL! Above is the "logic" that comes from this twitnit...
That's right folks - in order to consider yourself a "climber" you'll need to be able to hold 7+w/kg while ascending Alpe d'Huez. Furthermore, to consider yourself a "time trial specialist" you'd better not allow Cancellara to put more than 30secs into you over 40k, otherwise you're telling tall tales...

Couldn't resist......of course, the above comes from a nobody who couldn't sprint to save a child's life, let alone his own...

 

[cyberlegend1994]

Is there any way possible to continue this discussion without the name-calling?

 

[tonyzackery]

Is there any way possible to continue this discussion without the name-calling?

Absolutely! I understand how "pissant" and "twitnit" can be considered pretty offensive to most.

How about getting this dingleberry (oops, I shouldn't say that) off my a$$? It's been 18 months now of this constant lunacy. Or to put it more politically correct - can you direct this person to cease and desist his stalking of me on this forum? His ad hominem act is getting lamer and lamer by the month...Thanks.

 

[cyberlegend1994]

I've said this before many times, I'll say it again...

Ignore the trolls and they will go away on their own. Don't feed them.

...How about getting this dingleberry (oops, I shouldn't say that) off my a$$?

< sarcasm >
To answer that question, we're adults here, I would hope we're all perfectly capable of wiping our own butts...
< /sarcasm >

 

[tonyzackery]

I've said this before many times, I'll say it again...

Ignore the trolls and they will go away on their own. Don't feed them.


< sarcasm >
To answer that question, we're adults here, I would hope we're all perfectly capable of wiping our own butts...
< /sarcasm >

LOL! Adults, eh? You know what assumptions do for you...

Don't feed the trolls, eh? You tryin' to suggest I should stop posting altogether on this site?

I'll continue wiping my butt how I see fit. Thanks for your assistance.

 

[cyberlegend1994]

...You tryin' to suggest I should stop posting altogether on this site?

Not necessarily. The point of the 'Don't feed the trolls' message which has been said time and time again, is that if someone makes a post for the sole purpose of annoying or provoking someone else, don't respond to that post, it will only make the author of that post continue doing their thing.

I'll continue wiping my butt how I see fit. Thanks for your assistance.

That's fine, just don't ask me to do that for you. I'm not a healthcare worker and I don't play one on TV, so I don't wipe anyone's butt except my own.

Now, with that being said, at the risk of sounding like Rodney King...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlopjHepEw]Can we all just get along?[/ame]

 

[tonyzackery]

Not necessarily. The point of the 'Don't feed the trolls' message which has been said time and time again, is that if someone makes a post for the sole purpose of annoying or provoking someone else, don't respond to that post, it will only make the author of that post continue doing their thing.


That's fine, just don't ask me to do that for you. I'm not a healthcare worker and I don't play one on TV, so I don't wipe anyone's butt except my own.

How about untwisting your riddle and apply it to this particular situation which has caused you to carry on this dialogue with me today. Whom do you consider the provocatuer and provokee with respect to the above comments between myself and the little person?

Seeing as you couldn't get past my politically incorrect request, I'll request again that you direct this little person to cease and desist stalking me on this forum. If you can/will not comply, then I will continue handling this person as I see fit. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Your Rodney King addition was lame.

 

[cyberlegend1994]

Right now, I don't care 'who started it', I'm 'finishing it'. The request to stop the name-calling is directed at both parties involved in the incident.

There will be no further discussion about the previous incident. Now let's get this thread back on topic so it can stay open.

 

[tonyzackery]

Right now, I don't care 'who started it', I'm 'finishing it'. The request to stop the name-calling is directed at both parties involved in the incident.

There will be no further discussion about the previous incident. Now let's get this thread back on topic so it can stay open.

Nice cop-out. I understand this is the best you could do with the situation.

I further understand there will no further discussion from you about the previous incident, but if the little person chooses to continue giving in to his urges, then as I stated, I will continue to handle him as I see fit as you can't/won't do anything to "finish it"...

 

[swampy1970]

Tony,

Question. If you could long jump 26 feet, why not take that sport up... given that 26 feet is the 'b' qualifying distance for the US Olympic team?

 

[tonyzackery]

Tony,

Question. If you could long jump 26 feet, why not take that sport up... given that 26 feet is the 'b' qualifying distance for the US Olympic team?

Answer: I was lying about jumping 25'11" at the 1985 Pac-10 Championships in Tucson, AZ that I won as a freshman. It is also a lie that I was invited to compete at the US National Track and Field Championships in '85 as well.

Now where is that damn toilet paper???

 

[swampy1970]

... ask a simple question in the hopes of a simple answer.

 

[tonyzackery]

Again, your illogic and lack of reasoning show themselves. When you start a question by asking "If you could...", by default the implication is there that you question the veracity and/or my credibility when I made such disclosure of personal information.

There are plenty things simple with you, this question wasn't one of them. Thing is, I'm just more than a few steps ahead of you...

With that said, I'm not particularly interested in carrying on anything that resembles meaningful dialogue with you as I know you'll continue on anyway with what's been your M.O. for the past 18+ months...I'll continue to keep my toilet paper handy...