Science question about fat burning

[BrokenBricks]

No no it is, you can put a person on a treadmill and hook them up to a respirometer and count the carbons that a person blows off. It gives you a very accurate picture of how much energy a person is using.

Please post a link to the study.

[Phate]

Please post a link to the study.

he probably performed the study, it's what he does for a living, and you can't compare someone walking to someone biking, you are leaving out mechanical advantage completely in that analogy or the tour de france would not be possible

[MuscleScience]

he probably performed the study, it's what he does for a living, and you can't compare someone walking to someone biking, you are leaving out mechanical advantage completely in that analogy or the tour de france would not be possible

Thanks Phate,

Actually Doctor Cooper of the Famed Copper Institute did most of the ground work in aerobic metabolism. A lot of what exercise physiologist do in the lab regarding things like VO2max testing is based off Dr. Cooper's body of work along with others.

[BrokenBricks]

he probably performed the study, it's what he does for a living, and you can't compare someone walking to someone biking, you are leaving out mechanical advantage completely in that analogy or the tour de france would not be possible

That is the *point*. I'm not comparing them I am drawing a distinction between them. I am also drawing a distinction between running and walking. The mechanisms are different. That said, if anyone is willing to present a paper from a reputable journal showing treadmill testing of subjects with respirometry I would certainly concede. Without data my intuition is that there is a difference between the two.

VO2 max has nothing to do with this question.

[MuscleScience]

That is the *point*. I'm not comparing them I am drawing a distinction between them. I am also drawing a distinction between running and walking. The mechanisms are different. That said, if anyone is willing to present a paper from a reputable journal showing treadmill testing of subjects with respirometry I would certainly concede. Without data my intuition is that there is a difference between the two.

VO2 max has nothing to do with this question.

I dont know what else to say, you learn this relationship between work and energy expenditure in year one of any exercise science/kinesiology degree.

[BrokenBricks]

I dont know what else to say, you learn this relationship between work and energy expenditure in year one of any exercise science/kinesiology degree.

What is important to realize is that distance is not a measure of work. I was going to try and explain conceptually how in principle I was on solid ground. It is easier to just find a study showing the facts. If you would like a physical explanation of how this is true I can give my thoughts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations.

PURPOSE: This study established the published prediction equations for the energy expenditure of walking and running compared with the measured values. To make this comparison we first determined whether differences exist in energy expenditure for 1600 m of walking versus running, and whether energy expenditure differences occur due to being on the track or treadmill. METHODS: Energy was measured via indirect calorimetry in 24 subjects while walking (1.41 m.s(-1)) and running (2.82 m.s(-1)) 1600 m on the treadmill. A subgroup also performed the 1600-m run/walk on the track. The measured energy expenditures were compared with published prediction equations. RESULTS: Running required more energy (P < 0.01) for 1600 m than walking (treadmill: running 481 +/- 20.0 kJ, walking 340 +/- 14 kJ; track: running 480 +/- 23 kJ, walking 334 +/- 14 kJ) on both the track and treadmill. Predictions using the ACSM or Leger equations for running, and the Pandolf equation for walking, were similar to the actual energy expenditures for running and walking (total error: ACSM: -20 and 14.4 kJ, respectively; Legers walking: -10.1 kJ; Pandolf walking: -10.0 kJ). An overestimation (P < 0.01) for 1600 m was found with the McArdle's table for walking and running energy expenditure and with van der Walt's prediction for walking energy expenditure, whereas the Epstein equation underestimated running energy expenditure (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill. For running, the Leger equation and ACSM prediction model appear to be the most suitable for the prediction of running energy expenditure. The ACSM and Pandolf prediction equation also closely predict walking energy expenditure, whereas the McArdle's table or the equations by Epstein and van der Walt were not as strong predictors of energy expenditure.

[MuscleScience]

What is important to realize is that distance is not a measure of work. I was going to try and explain conceptually how in principle I was on solid ground. It is easier to just find a study showing the facts. If you would like a physical explanation of how this is true I can give my thoughts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations.

PURPOSE: This study established the published prediction equations for the energy expenditure of walking and running compared with the measured values. To make this comparison we first determined whether differences exist in energy expenditure for 1600 m of walking versus running, and whether energy expenditure differences occur due to being on the track or treadmill. METHODS: Energy was measured via indirect calorimetry in 24 subjects while walking (1.41 m.s(-1)) and running (2.82 m.s(-1)) 1600 m on the treadmill. A subgroup also performed the 1600-m run/walk on the track. The measured energy expenditures were compared with published prediction equations. RESULTS: Running required more energy (P < 0.01) for 1600 m than walking (treadmill: running 481 +/- 20.0 kJ, walking 340 +/- 14 kJ; track: running 480 +/- 23 kJ, walking 334 +/- 14 kJ) on both the track and treadmill. Predictions using the ACSM or Leger equations for running, and the Pandolf equation for walking, were similar to the actual energy expenditures for running and walking (total error: ACSM: -20 and 14.4 kJ, respectively; Legers walking: -10.1 kJ; Pandolf walking: -10.0 kJ). An overestimation (P < 0.01) for 1600 m was found with the McArdle's table for walking and running energy expenditure and with van der Walt's prediction for walking energy expenditure, whereas the Epstein equation underestimated running energy expenditure (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill. For running, the Leger equation and ACSM prediction model appear to be the most suitable for the prediction of running energy expenditure. The ACSM and Pandolf prediction equation also closely predict walking energy expenditure, whereas the McArdle's table or the equations by Epstein and van der Walt were not as strong predictors of energy expenditure.

Nice find!!

Were there any review articles to link to?

I am interested in what the body of current evidence says. I have read contradictory reports on this subject, and was classically taught even in grad school that there was no significant difference between the two.

[Phate]

Nice find!!

Were there any review articles to link to?

I am interested in what the body of current evidence says. I have read contradictory reports on this subject, and was classically taught even in grad school that there was no significant difference between the two.

how is indirect calorimetry measured?