Talk:Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption

Well since you clearly haven't learned anything that reverts don't help, I'll discuss here. That the fact you just removed is true is very simple to show. Simply do the calculation for the caloric expenditure that is claimed for the EPOC effect. Then calculate the caloric expenditure from a given amount of time of anaerobic training then for the same amount of time of aerobic training. Let's use an hours worth of each. An hour of primarily anaerobic weightlifting would run to about 200 calories or so being generous, mostly because you can't do it continuously for the whole hour by definition. Then lets ignore the fact that the EPOC effect does not raise the entire metabolism, and divide a day's metabolic rate into an hour, lets use 2400/24=100. Then lets say EPOC accounts for 25% more for 4 hours (an amount and duration high enough that I don't think any peer reviewed science would support, but lets use it for illustration.) That adds to another 100 calories over normal metabolism, for a total of 300. An hour of moderate to slow jogging burns about 600 calories. So its 600 vs 300 using very generous assumptions on the EPOC side. Therefore the added fact is correct. I misplaced the paper I had making the calculations, but no matter what reasonable numbers you use, the fact remains correct. - Taxman 00:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Talk about insisting you're the only one who can be right.

An hour of weight training can burn upwards of 500 calories, unless you dawdle. It's about the same number of calories as an hour of moderate cardio, and has a higher EPOC.

(see 'aerobics, general' and 'weightlifting, vigorous')

Again your characterization is biased. If you are going to pick vigorous weightlifting for the heavier person, then lets look at more vigorous running which is upwards of 1000 calories per hour or more. You'll notice the moderate effort lifting compares at 259 calories to the moderate effort running at 690. The caloric expenditure of the ET still vastly outweighs the weight training including the EPOC. Yes Anaerobic training has greater EPOC, its just POV to not note that that effect is less than the caloric expenditure from the endurance training. - Taxman 18:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

HIIT (multiple reps of sprint and recovery) is an anaerobic training method that is proven to burn almost 3 times as much fat while expending about half as much energy during exercise as endurance (continuous moderate-intensity) training.

(see last two rows in table)

Quite interesting, though I haven't had a chance to check the source, or what the quality of the study was. And thank you for pointing it out to support my point. Did you notice in the study the ET used over twice as many calories? Evidence supporting that my point is correct. You can cite this study for that fact and also note that it found greater fat loss in the HIIT scenario if you like though. - Taxman 18:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The "fact" you added remains incorrect.

--Blair P. Houghton 01:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even your words show that to be false: "while expending about half as much energy during exercise as endurance". So I'm re-adding the correct fact since your data supports it. If you would like to remove it you're going to have to come up with a reliable study that refutes it. - Taxman 18:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

20-30 minutes of HIIT expends half as much energy during exercise as 30-45 minutes of aerobic exercise, but results in 3 times the total energy drawdown on the human body. The only conclusion to be drawn from the utter silliness of your argument is that you are a vandal who is attempting to start a fight. Blair P. Houghton 18:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok you may think that is true, but your source disagrees. It compares 30 minutes of each (Well increasing to 45 for ET, but the page doesn't explain what is meant by that), and shows the total energy expenditure being double for the ET. Your source doesn't claim 6 times the energy drawdown, it finds greater subcutaneus fat loss, and the page you posted does not posit on the reason or mechanism. I don't have access to the full study at the moment, but the abstract reads: "Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program." (Emphasis mine) Very interesting indeed, but entirely consistent with the fact I added. Again, as noted earlier, you can note that one study found greater fat loss with HIIT. In fact that would even support further the idea that if the HIIT is more efficient on a per calorie basis if subcu fat loss is the primary goal, but it doesn't change the greater caloric expenditure of the ET. Are you sure you understand the issue here or the meaning of the words I added to the article? And don't forget we are looking at high intensity weight training and moderate intensity ET. - Taxman 20:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Calling me a vandal when your data supports my added fact? All I can say is you should stop your posturing, calm down, and look at the facts. I notice you have ignored the fact that your other source also supports my point. Convenient when it doesn't help your case. If you have more facts that support your POV fine, bring them, I'm more than willing to adjust my take if reliable sources support that, but again, the sources you provided support the fact I have added. So basically I am adding a fact supported by the sources and you are removing it because it doesn't fit with your preferred POV. I can't see anything in that that would lead me to believe you are editing in good faith. At a minimum it is an improper revert and not helpful. If you are so sure of your point, again, find some reliable sources that back it up. The current ones support mine, so removing the material is the improper action. - Taxman 20:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The two sources I gave you do not support your calculation, and it's a lie to say they do. Further, your added paragraph is directly refuted by the fat-loss results in the exrx.net table. The 51-127 kcal energy attributed to EPOC in your current version is not related to amount of exercise done and therefore means nothing. The only study comparing the two regimes showed that short, high-intensity exercise plus EPOC has a much greater effect on total energy use (as measured by fat loss) than does longer endurance-type exercise. Just posting citations without understanding them does not constitute supporting your position. I am--again--removing the falsehood. Blair P. Houghton 19:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)