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)

So you're again reverting when you have no idea what is going on here. Now that the fact I added is supported by a third ([1]), fourth (Haltom) and fifth( Burleson) source, and I have added it again you can now trouble yourself to respond to talk. I take that back, you haven't responded to what I wrote above, you've ignored it, again. What I added is so well supported by the data and that you apparently still do not understand that is pretty hilarious. You are making yourself look silly by being so clouded by your POV that you can't see the facts. Lets try this again, and make it clear to even you. Your first source (with data that agrees with others I've seen) has 690 cal/hr for the lightest running effort there for the heavier person, compared with 259 cal/hr for light/moderate weight lifting. Or we can compare vigorous efforts, which depending on your definition of vigorous would range from 1078 to 1553 cal/hr for running to 518 cal per hour for vigorous weight lifting. Again, directly quoting from your sources. Then lets take the external link from the article Resistance Training and EPOC by Jeff M. Reynolds and Len Kravitz, Ph.D. which is where I quoted "51 (Haltom et al. 1999) to 127 (Burleson et al. 1998) kilocalories" directly from. Again, your link. That article cites 11 studies and the size of the effect is summarized in the quote just given. So basically what we have is

Moderate effort (for one hour)

• Endurance training: 690 cal
• Weight training plus EPOC effect: 310 cal (259 cal + 51 cal)

Vigorous effort (also one hour) (Just being generous calling 8 min mile vigorous for anyone that can run for an hour)

• Endurance training: 1078-1553 cal
• Weight training plus EPOC effect: 645 cal (518 cal + 127 cal)

And just to make this really simple, that means that for a given amount of time, the endurance training burns more calories. Ok, so that is pretty obvious. The second source, the "exrx.net table" as you call it, which is from the study listed at the bottom. (With names and words misspelled) Even spells out the fact that the endurance training burned twice as many calories during exercise. But plain english apparently is not good enough for you. It does not claim the EPOC effect is so large that it alone accounted for the subcu fat loss. Why? Because apparently the study wasn't controlled for that. It did not measure the pre and post RMR, the recovery oxygen consumption, or various other factors that would ahve been needed for that. So there is one study showing greater fat loss that never claims it is from EPOC, and over 11 studies supporting the numbers I have added. You're going to have to come up with something better to support your position than just that you say it. In fact, if you yank this material out again I'm going to ask for intervention against you from the dispute resolution process. You need to understand something very simple: facts, and references to support those facts, rule the day. I have provided those. If you do not bring any to the table to support your view, you don't get to just remove what disagrees with your view. I'll give you a day to come up with something that supports your view, and then the material is going back in. - Taxman 06:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• So you're admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about, that your "sources" don't agree with what you've stuffed into the article, and that you don't have any interest in applying to truth to this argument, just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping people will get so bored with you that they'll stop fixing what you break. You've proved several times that you can't comprehend what you're reading, and don't read what others give you to read. Your claim that "facts rule the day" is laughable irony. The EXRX.net article shows that a little exercise with a large EPOC burns far more fat (energy) than more exercise with a small EPOC. You have never refuted that in the slightest, and your attempt to muddy the facts and mislead readers is a disservice to this encyclopedia. My only recourse is to conclude that you intend to provoke other editors; that makes you a troll. Blair P. Houghton 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to reduce these points to items we can agree or disagree with individually, because I see this discussion as wandering between a few non-equivalent points of view.

1. The EPOC effect, in terms of expended calories ranges from 51 to 127 calories.
2. Aerobic exercies has an advantage in terms of expended calories over anaerobic exercise.
3. This advantage is greater, for a typical period, than the EPOC effect, as described above.
4. This is not necessarily relevant to the relative merits of one exercise regime over another, in terms of fat loss (a different measure than caloric expenditure)
5. One study showed a regime of interval training (mostly anaerobic) to be superior to endurance training (mostly aerobic) in terms of fat loss.

What we should all be looking for here is to find the passage that we can include without argument--merely reverting edits isn't going to get us anywhere. In particulary, let's avoid accusations of lying or vandalism. Demi ^T/_{C 07:24, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)}

• Taxman has proved in this and other articles that he doesn't understand the facts; he's just trying to pretend that citing anything with the words in it is a reference to the truth. Blair P. Houghton 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Demi. In addition, I think it's easier to explain the general principles involved without trying to present specific numbers, like the 51-127 data. Those figures could be included in a subsequent paragraph if adding an example is thought to be useful.

Here's my suggestion:

Experiments also show that anaerobic exercise increases EPOC more than aerobic exercise does. For exercise regimens of comparable duration and intensity, aerobic exercise burns more calories during the exercise itself, but the difference is partly offset by the higher increase in caloric expenditure that occurs during the EPOC phase after anaerobic exercise. Anaerobic exercise was also found in one study to result in greater loss of subcutaneous fat, even though the subjects expended fewer than half as many calories. [2] Whether this result was caused by the EPOC effect has not been established.

Some of the prior disagreement seems to have been caused by use of the term "energy". Blair P. Houghton refers to "total energy use (as measured by fat loss)", while Taxman is talking about calories. To avert any confusion to the reader, let's avoid the term "energy" and just present the information about fat loss and calorie expenditure. JamesMLane 07:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• A couple of things:

1. Calories are energy; 3500 calories per pound of fat lost (4400 calories per pound of lipid but what's lost isn't all lipid, there's some non-energy related water and some lower-energy protein and carbohydrate stored in that adipose tissue). Energy, fat, and calories are not confusing, they're the same thing.
2. The 51-127 kcal number is not related to any particular exercise expenditure; it is not possible to know how much exercise produced that amount of EPOC, nor whether that measurement is accurate and does not miss much of the actual energy depleted during EPOC. As I posted long ago, it proves nothing in any way on either side of this argument.

Blair P. Houghton 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)