Is there a spin on George W Bush's cycling ability?
Michael Tordoff 12 April 2005 04:59:51
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using an i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in 90 min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of assumptions about bike weight, etc, at http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with an average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of the free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or spinning?
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using an > i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in 90 > min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the > article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google > search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers > into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of > assumptions about bike weight, etc, at > http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with an > average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of the > free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or > spinning?
GWB is pretty good at doing less with more. Riding 90 minutes at 18.8 mph and going 18 miles seems about right.
Ummm... your quote of the NYT article is correct, GWB is indeed said to ride 18 miles in 90 minutes. However, this accurately translates to not 18.8 mph but only 12 mph. Perhaps we need not calculate watts expended to determine there is indeed a spin being spun; such has always been the case, with or without local amplification -- mykal
"Michael Tordoff" <tordoff@monell.org> wrote in message news:Nc-dnUqvJr0IgMbfRVn-uA@comcast.com...> In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using
i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in
min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the> article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google> search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers> into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of> assumptions about bike weight, etc, at> http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with
average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of
free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or> spinning?>
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using an >i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in 90 >min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the >article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google >search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers >into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of >assumptions about bike weight, etc, at >http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with an >average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of the >free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or >spinning?
Dear Michael,
If someone rides 18 miles in 1.5 hours, the average speed is only 12 mph, not 18.8 mph.
The 18 miles in question may include some hills and some brisk Great Plains winds.
When I plug in 12 mph, 190-lb rider, 72-inch height, mountain bike tires and position, the default 26-lb bike, and no slope or wind, I get only 88 watts from:
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using an >i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in 90 >min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the >article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google >search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers >into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of >assumptions about bike weight, etc, at >http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with an >average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of the >free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or >spinning?
The numbers don't seem at all out of synch to me. To put it in perspective, the last 5km (3.1 mile) run the POTUS did was in under 21 minutes, which would certainly require something in the order of 250 watts for a guy that size. But the riding he's doing IS on a MTB, so I'm pretty certain he wouldn't be doing 18.8mph (or he'd be winning more than just elections). And BTW, 250 watts seems to be quite a bit of power to maintain 18.8mph. That's the number I need to do mid-20's (though I'm only 155 pounds).
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using an >i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in 90 >min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the >article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google >search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers >into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of >assumptions about bike weight, etc, at >http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with an >average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of the >free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or >spinning?
Dear Michael,
Browsing in the unfamiliar calorie-counting world, I found this bicycle speed and calorie calculator:
For 103 watts, 190-lb rider, 25-lb bike, mtb tires, on the hoods, flat, no wind, 18 miles, plus defaults, the site above predicts 12 mph in 90 minutes and 686 calories.
But 225 watts, 190-lb rider, 25-lb bike, mtb tires, on the hoods, a gentle 1.5% grade, a mild 5 mph headwind, plus defaults, gives the same 12 mph speed for 90 minutes, and 1300 calories.
It doesn't take much of an uphill here and there, or much of a headwind outbound, to raise the watts and calories required for 12 mph. Without knowing the wind and the climb and so forth, it's awfully hard to figure these things out.
An iPod probably just uses pulse rate from the wrist strap and time elapsed to projects calories, a rough and ready measurement.
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using an >i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in 90 >min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the >article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google >search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers >into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of >assumptions about bike weight, etc, at >http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with an >average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of the >free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or >spinning?
As others have pointed out, your speed calculation is pretty badly screwed up.
He was a very hardcore runner until the knees started going and he started building mountain bike trails out on the ranch. Remember all those photos of him clearing brush and such, that's what some of that was about. Anyway he rides pretty hard for an old guy.
Sounds like half of my typical ride on the mountain bike but then again, I don't have a job like his...
I use a Polar 725i. On my last 37 mile mountain bike ride which took a shade over 3 hours, I expended 2790 kCal as reported by the HRM. My average HR was 172 for that one.
On the road bike, I have the Polar Power option. Taking the power data and integrating with respect to time reveals my body is about 24% efficient in converting food energy to mechanical work. That is pretty well on the mark for thermodynamics in human anatomy.
Francesco Devittori 12 April 2005 12:01:46 [ permanent link ]
Weisse Luft wrote:> Sounds like half of my typical ride on the mountain bike but then again,> I don't have a job like his...>
I use a Polar 725i. On my last 37 mile mountain bike ride which took a> shade over 3 hours, I expended 2790 kCal as reported by the HRM. My> average HR was 172 for that one.> (...)
Wow an average of 172 bpm over 3 hours is very high! (at least for me)
High? Last time I raced, well a time trial, my average HR was 191. 320 Watts of power average over 26 miles. The headwind killed any chances of bragging speed..
I have never been too overly impressed by Bush's 21 minute three mile>runs, because I have never heard of him maintaining 7 minute miles>beyond three miles.
Didn't realize that was his claimed pace over that distance.
Now we know just *one more* thing he could have been doing with seven minutes, instead of reading "My Pet Goat."
I think that the NYTimes took several facts and conflated them.
I'm about the same age & height as GWB, but a little thinner, and probably in as good, or perhaps a little better shape. If I'm really cranking, I can expend ~1000 calories per hour, and my heart rate _at the end_ could be 170, if I really put in a sprint. I think that he didn't _average_ 18mph, but may have hit 18mph in certain stretches. Since this was presumably "mountain biking", it would be much more difficult to sustain 18mph than during "road biking" on a flat road w/o wind.
Given the amount that GWB trains, he probably has a Polar 7xx/6xx with upload capability, so the estimate of calories is probably from the Polar. Note that since this estimate is based on heart rate & estimated VO2, the calories continue to go up, so long as the heart rate remains elevated.
GWB would beat me pretty easily on a 5km run. I understand that before his knees gave out, he always had a treadmill in his room, even when travelling, and I think that he trained for more than 30 minutes per day.
I've also heard that he first met Conde Rice when they were both working out, so he's been at this for quite a long time.
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President using an >i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for 18-miles in 90 >min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min). Later in the >article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride. Based on a Google >search, GWB is 72 inches tall and weighs 190 lbs. Putting these numbers >into a web-based speed and power calculator, and making a couple of >assumptions about bike weight, etc, at >http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, he seems to be cycling with an >average speed of 18.8 mph and generating 250 watts. Could the leader of the >free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins? Is this spin or >spinning?
In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President>using an>> >i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for>18-miles in 90>> >min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min).>
Using the age formula for maximum heartrate, Bush's max should be about>165/min. Recognizing that this formula is not precise, we are still>left with the claim that Bush rode for 90 minutes at a heartrate almost>certainly near his absolute max. I wouldn't believe that unless I put>the heart monitor on him, verified its function and got telemetry from>it that I was able to observe for the entire span of his ride.
<merciful snippage>
There's pretty much nothing that the man can do that doesn't bring out the conspiracy theorists, is there?
There's pretty much nothing that the man can do that doesn't bring>out>> the conspiracy theorists, is there?>
I prefer to think of myself as a Texas Psychologist (studied Psych at>the same school as Dr. Phil, but not my profession). Having been born>and raised in Texas, I think I understand the character of the type who>needs to convince everyone how tough he is, so I don't think it's a>conspiracy, I think it's an individual character flaw- probably>compensating for feelings of inferiority. Some might say that's the>underlying, obviously subconscious reason for why we're in Iraq as>well- he's showing the world he's tougher than his father.>
So this is the exact opposite of a conspiracy theory. It's a neurotic>individual theory.
Oh, there's a neurotic individual involved in this all right...
So, do _you_ think he rode for ninety minutes keeping his HR pegged at>170 while going only 12 miles? Ya gotta admit, it's pretty unlikely.
First, he did 18 miles in 90 minutes. Second, I'm a 47 year old guy in pretty good shape, and in my last 24 hour (team) race I averaged about 12 mph, and no doubt kept my heart rate in the 170s to 180s for long periods of times (possibly higher on some of the climbs). The laps were 11 miles long, and I did five of 'em. So no, it's not at all hard to believe - in fact it sounds exactly right.
I'll admit that his being overweight might make it more likely for him>to do only 12 miles in that time while expending a lot of energy, but I>just don't think it's likely that he was able to keep his HR that high>for that long. From what I know of his exercise habits, I am sure,>OTOH, that he would hit his max, and that's somewhat impressive itself,>because a lot of 58 year old men would probably not tend to exercise>that hard of their own volition.
I don't recall the text of the article, but I don't think anyone claimed that he kept his HR at 170 for the entire 18 miles (in fact, it's hard to maintain any given HR on a MTB, since you spend so much time not pedaling - at least on any trails that are technical at all).
Bottom line, the POTUS IS a "tough guy" physically, in the upper few percentage of his age group, and he's a rider. We should all, regardless of political persuasion, be happy about that. Had Kerry won, his cycling habit would have been a comfort to me.
We should all, regardless of political persuasion, be happy about> that.
No. The less politicaly active he is, the less influential he is, the fewer people he is allowed to kill, the less he is allowed to destabilize the world, the better. He is a "tough guy." Fine. Let him ride his bike. However, his abillity to do so is in no way in my best interest. Nothing to be happy about.
Bottom line, the POTUS IS a "tough guy" physically, in the upper few> percentage of his age group, and he's a rider. We should all,> regardless of political persuasion, be happy about that. Had Kerry> won, his cycling habit would have been a comfort to me.
So, do _you_ think he rode for ninety minutes keeping his HR pegged>at>> >170 while going only 12 miles? Ya gotta admit, it's pretty unlikely.>>
First, he did 18 miles in 90 minutes.>
Right.>
Second, I'm a 47 year old guy>> in pretty good shape, and in my last 24 hour (team) race I averaged>> about 12 mph, and no doubt kept my heart rate in the 170s to 180s for>> long periods of times (possibly higher on some of the climbs).>
You're a highly trained cyclist, ten years younger. On average your max>should be 10 beats higher than his. And, not to doubt your sincerity>(I'm sure you believe that your HR was that high that frequently), 180s>would be well above your max based on the age formula, which, I know,>is flawed. But when a 47 year old guy tells me he's keeping his HR up>in the 180s, possibly higher, I want him to at least tell me that he>had an HRM and actually saw those numbers, as opposed to "no doubt kept>my heart rate in the 170s to 180s for long periods of times (possibly>higher on some of the climbs)."
I admit I wasn't wearing a HRM during that race, but do wear one when I time trial and have a good handle on the relative effort between the two - a bit lower on average on the MTB, but with higher "peaks". I can't swear on a stack of bibles that my HR was in the 180's during the MTB race, but would be very surprised if it wasn't. I'd be absolutely amazed if it wasn't at least in the mid-170's very often. FWIW, it used to peak at about 200 (10-12 years ago).
laps were 11 miles long, and I did five of 'em. So no, it's not at>> all hard to believe - in fact it sounds exactly right.>
Yep, even though he's eleven years older than you and almost certainly>rides less, he should be able to match you performance, right? He is>our Fearless Leader, and there's nothing he can't do.
Based on his documented race results, the claims sound entirely reasonable - if he can run sub 21 minute 5Ks, he's in extremely good shape (I doubt I'd do much better right now since I haven't been running at all).
I don't recall the text of the article, but I don't think anyone>> claimed that he kept his HR at 170 for the entire 18 miles (in fact,>> it's hard to maintain any given HR on a MTB, since you spend so much>> time not pedaling - at least on any trails that are technical at>all).>
I think the implication picked up by others in this thread was that 90>minutes at 12mph implied that it would have had to have been at 170 for>the entire period to burn 1300 calories. Published output tables show a>much lower burn rate at a level 12mph, so he must have been working>harder. But you bring up a good point- if you're riding a circuit, you>can't go uphill for the entire lap.
I find the relative effort on gym equipment when indicating 1000+ calories per hour and riding at the pace I did in the MTB race to be similar. And since I'm considerably lighter than the POTUS, 1300 calories shouldn't be difficult.
So basically you're agreeing with my fundamental thesis: that he>couldn't have maintained his max HR for the entire 90 minutes. A>inescapable corollary is that if he was not at his max HR the entire>time, it is improbable that he could have burned 1300 calories in 90>minutes while only moving at 12mph. Therefore, the report was>exaggerated somewhere along the line.
You're coming to an entirely different conclusion than I do - 1300 calories riding many typical trails for 90 minutes at 12mph all sounds very, very believable - at least to me, since I've done it.
Bottom line, the POTUS IS a "tough guy" physically, in the upper few>> percentage of his age group, and he's a rider.>
I would tend to agree with you, although putting on 15 pounds of fat>detracts from that considerably. Too bad he feels the need to>exaggerate his physical condition beyond what it is.
Is it really so hard to admit that maybe the guy's actually in great shape? He's lost most of those pounds - by doing precisely what we're discussing.
We should all,>> regardless of political persuasion, be happy about that. Had Kerry>> won, his cycling habit would have been a comfort to me.>
Not me. It may be nice for the popularity of our sport, but my comfort>level WRT the president is not based on his physical conditioning.>However, Bush's need to exaggerate his physical ability definitely does>_detract_ from my comfort level, which plumbs new depths daily. Like I>said, I would feel more comfortable with someone who felt secure enough>about himself that he did not feel the need to exaggerate.
Sigh... even with well-documented running race results that would have required the same level of exertion, you can't break out of the "auto-denial mode", huh? That's actually very sad, IMHO. Hope you get over it some day.
"The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad will be recorded,>alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall, as one of the great moments in>the history of liberty."
Yeah, it was only 25,000,000 people - no big deal.
RonSonic wrote:>> Sheesh. He rode 18 miles in those 90 minutes, meaning an average of>12MPH. Your>> obvious inability to deal with the simply stated numbers and facts of>this>> report does not encourage confidence in your speculations.>
For god's sake I wrote:>
"So, do _you_ think he rode for ninety minutes keeping his HR pegged at>
170 while going only 12 miles">
I meant to write:>
"So, do _you_ think he rode for ninety minutes keeping his HR pegged at>
170 while going only 12 MPH">
Now go back and re-read what I wrote and comment on something real.
While we're talking about accurately reading things - did it say in the article that GWB's heart rate was "pegged at 170"? I doubt it very seriously.
And I know I could EASILY burn 1300+ calories in a 90 minute workout, and I weigh 81% of what GWB does.
If we were talking about superhuman numbers this would be different - but what is being claimed suggests a very fit, but not superhuman 60 year old. If those numbers seem stratospheric to you, you're hanging out with slow people.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:08:14 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:>
RonSonic wrote:>>> Sheesh. He rode 18 miles in those 90 minutes, meaning an average of>>12MPH. Your>>> obvious inability to deal with the simply stated numbers and facts of>>this>>> report does not encourage confidence in your speculations.>>
For god's sake I wrote:>>
"So, do _you_ think he rode for ninety minutes keeping his HR pegged at>>
170 while going only 12 miles">>
I meant to write:>>
"So, do _you_ think he rode for ninety minutes keeping his HR pegged at>>
170 while going only 12 MPH">>
Now go back and re-read what I wrote and comment on something real.>
While we're talking about accurately reading things - did it say in>the article that GWB's heart rate was "pegged at 170"? I doubt it>very seriously.>
And I know I could EASILY burn 1300+ calories in a 90 minute workout,>and I weigh 81% of what GWB does.>
If we were talking about superhuman numbers this would be different ->but what is being claimed suggests a very fit, but not superhuman 60>year old. If those numbers seem stratospheric to you, you're hanging>out with slow people.
They call it Bush Derangement Syndrome, one characteristic is a refusal to believe anything that could possibly be considered positive about GWB. If you said "he ties his own shoelaces" they will argue. I've got no idea where it comes from but it is sorta funny to watch.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:08:35 GMT, RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
They call it Bush Derangement Syndrome, one characteristic is a refusal to>believe anything that could possibly be considered positive about GWB. If you>said "he ties his own shoelaces" they will argue. I've got no idea where it>comes from but it is sorta funny to watch.>
Ron
Dear Ron,
There you go again, trying to confuse the issue!
Sure, it might look as if those are ordinary shoelaces that he's "tying"--but enlargements of pictures taken in 1972 leave no doubt that he stole mil-spec Velcro, cut it into thin strips, and glued it to his shoelaces to create the illusion that he knew how to tie knots.
And this time I've checked--Velcro was patented in 1955, so there!
Michael Tordoff wrote:> In the New York Times today, in an article about the (US) President> using an i-Pod while mountain biking, it is written that GWB rode for> 18-miles in 90 min (with a chest-pounding heart rate of 170 beats/min).> Later in the article, a spokesman states Mr Bush burned 1300 calories> on his bike ride.>
This seems rather a lot of calories for a 90 min ride.
GWB [...] weighs 190 lbs.
he seems to be [...] generating 250 watts. Could the> leader of the free workl really be churning out 250 watts for 90 mins?
Well, note that: 1. There are 4187 joules / kcal. 2. There are 3600 seconds per hour. 3. Typical human efficiency for converting food into work is around 25%.
Therefore, 1300 kcal burned in 90 minutes means about
1300*.25*4187/5400 = 252 watts.
Averaging 252 watts for 90 minutes is a fair amount. It would mean his 60 minute power would be in the neighborhood of 290 watts or around 3.4 watts/kg. That would put his power-to-mass in around upper Cat 3, or lower Cat 2, and with a proper aero setup he could do around 57 minutes for 40k.
B.B. wrote:> I live relatively close to Bush's ranch. If he was out while the> front was coming through a few days back he could have easily burned> up a mess of calories while going only 12 MPH. I had absolute hell> maintaining 15 against that wind in a few spots. And it blew like> that all day long.> OTOH, I wouldn't be all that shocked if the stats were tweaked a> bit to make them look better. Kind of like Bush & supporters do with> the budget, SS, the war, or anything else involving numbers.
And, of course, the NYT is only too anxious to try to make Bush look good.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:14:59 -0500, "B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
[snip]
I live relatively close to Bush's ranch.
[snip]
Dear B.B.,
Aha! Someone who may actually know the area.
At first, I vaguely assumed that Texas mountain-bike riding would involve pedalling around flat, smooth cow-trails between oil derricks. (Living in Colorado breeds a certain unjustified regional condescension.)
But the topo map suggests that a president out on an 18-mile mountain-bike ride somewhere north of Crawford could be climbing hills, bluffs, and river valleys a few hundred feet high:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:14:59 -0500, "B.B."><DoNotSpamthegoat4@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:>
[snip]>
I live relatively close to Bush's ranch. >
[snip]>
Dear B.B.,>
Aha! Someone who may actually know the area.>
At first, I vaguely assumed that Texas mountain-bike riding>would involve pedalling around flat, smooth cow-trails>between oil derricks. (Living in Colorado breeds a certain>unjustified regional condescension.)>
But the topo map suggests that a president out on an 18-mile>mountain-bike ride somewhere north of Crawford could be>climbing hills, bluffs, and river valleys a few hundred feet>high:>
Whether that region *generally* offers varied terrain may or may not be the salient issue.
Note that the gentleman who is suing Lance Armstrong for breach of contract listed among his duties responsibility for supervision of construction of the mountain bike trail network on Lance's ranch at Dripping Springs, Texas
It's quite easy to imagine that the President's ranch has had MTB tracks built on it, even if there are no other topographical features within hundreds of miles.
It may be difficult even for locals to know what lies beneath . . . .
B.B. wrote:> In article <5YQ7e.4300$1Y4.771@twister.socal.rr.com>,> "Bill Sornson" <NoSpamSorniNoSpam@SpamMeNotBot.san.rr.com> wrote:>
B.B. wrote:>>> I live relatively close to Bush's ranch. If he was out while the>>> front was coming through a few days back he could have easily burned>>> up a mess of calories while going only 12 MPH. I had absolute hell>>> maintaining 15 against that wind in a few spots. And it blew like>>> that all day long.>>> OTOH, I wouldn't be all that shocked if the stats were tweaked a>>> bit to make them look better. Kind of like Bush & supporters do>>> with the budget, SS, the war, or anything else involving numbers.>>
And, of course, the NYT is only too anxious to try to make Bush look>> good.>>
Oh, wait...>
Huh? What did that have to do with what I wrote?
The NYT published the article. (I won't register for their site so didn't read it.)
The real issue is whether Bush could have kept his HR at 170, roughly> his max HR, for 90 minutes with only very occasional MTB training. I> don't think he could. Nothing I have heard about Bush's workouts, and> they are pretty well publicized, suggests training for endurance at his> max HR.
Like others have said, it doesn't say he kept his HR pegged at 170.
You have no idea what his max HR is except that it is higher than 170. Take a look at the graphs in this article:
Figure 1 in that article is all anyone would need to see that no formula can exist to accurately predict max HR from age. It's a scatterplot of MHR vs. age for 225 people. The graph is pretty much a "cloud". There is a downward trend of MHR with age beyond about age 10, but MHR's for any particular age are all over the graph. (I wonder how they tested the MHR's of the 4 year olds!) Sure, 220-age (or other more refined fits) might be a best fit line for the data, but they are pretty useless as a predictor with the amount of scatter in the data.
For example, from this graph we see that the age 24 subjects (n=11 subjects) had MHR's ranging from ~169 to ~223. Age 13 subjects (n=15 subjects) ranged from ~178 to ~239. Within those age groups, the spread from the lowest to highest MHR's was 54 to 62 beats per minute with no clustering in the MHR's. What this means is that even the best "best fit" formula for MHR vs. age could be off by more than 30 beats. That's with a sample size of 15. In the real world, an age predicted MHR could be off by even more than 30, no matter what forumla is used.
In article <qrV7e.4327$1Y4.1733@twister.socal.rr.com>, "Bill Sornson" <NoSpamSorniNoSpam@SpamMeNotBot.san.rr.com> wrote:
B.B. wrote:>> In article <5YQ7e.4300$1Y4.771@twister.socal.rr.com>,>> "Bill Sornson" <NoSpamSorniNoSpam@SpamMeNotBot.san.rr.com> wrote:>>
B.B. wrote:>>>> I live relatively close to Bush's ranch. If he was out while the>>>> front was coming through a few days back he could have easily burned>>>> up a mess of calories while going only 12 MPH. I had absolute hell>>>> maintaining 15 against that wind in a few spots. And it blew like>>>> that all day long.>>>> OTOH, I wouldn't be all that shocked if the stats were tweaked a>>>> bit to make them look better. Kind of like Bush & supporters do>>>> with the budget, SS, the war, or anything else involving numbers.>>>
And, of course, the NYT is only too anxious to try to make Bush look>>> good.>>>
Oh, wait...>>
Huh? What did that have to do with what I wrote?>
The NYT published the article. (I won't register for their site so didn't>read it.)
Yeah, I know that, but how does that relate to what I wrote?
B.B. wrote:> In article <qrV7e.4327$1Y4.1733@twister.socal.rr.com>,> "Bill Sornson" <NoSpamSorniNoSpam@SpamMeNotBot.san.rr.com> wrote:>
B.B. wrote:
OTOH, I wouldn't be all that shocked if the stats were tweaked>>>>> a bit to make them look better. Kind of like Bush & supporters do>>>>> with the budget, SS, the war, or anything else involving numbers.>>>>
And, of course, the NYT is only too anxious to try to make Bush>>>> look good.>>>>
Oh, wait...>>>
Huh? What did that have to do with what I wrote?>>
The NYT published the article. (I won't register for their site so>> didn't read it.)>
Yeah, I know that, but how does that relate to what I wrote?
Sigh. Does the NYT just publish whatever Bush's PR people give it? (And, for that matter, who provided the so-called "tweaked stats"? Maybe a Times writer is the one who reported them?)
Many people have pointed out that the article did NOT state that Bush's HR was "pegged at 170 /for the entire ride/", but that hasn't stopped ol' SocSecTrainWreck or whatever his name is from saying it did repeatedly.
My only point was that the NYT is not in the business of publishing "fluff pieces" on the president. (Well, /this/ president.) So I doubt that they'd just take some flak's word for his performance, especially if it made him look good.
But the topo map suggests that a president out on an 18-mile>> mountain-bike ride somewhere north of Crawford could be>> climbing hills, bluffs, and river valleys a few hundred feet>> high:>>
Sigh. Does the NYT just publish whatever Bush's PR people give it?
My only point was that the NYT is not in the business of publishing> "fluff pieces" on the president. (Well, /this/ president.) So I doubt> that they'd just take some flak's word for his performance, especially> if it made him look good.
The two quotes:
"President Bush spent an hour and a half on Saturday on an 18-mile mountain bike ride at his Texas ranch."
and
"Mr. Bush burned 1,300 calories on his bike ride on Saturday, Mr. McKinnon reported."
So, in response to your points, it appears that in this case:
1. Yes, the NYT just published whatever Bush's people gave it. 2. Yes, the NYT is in the business of publishing "fluff pieces" on the President.
Welcome to a discussion with MH. He uses the same debate tactics as>the repugnants, i.e., repeat a position ad nauseum despite it's lack of>reflection of reality or application to the direction the argument is>going. That way he never loses (in his head).>
Give it up - or not - but there ain't no value in it. Pretty soon he>is going to try the "my my my, aren't you sensitive" tactic.>
Truly, this is a man that worships at the altar of Bushco moronicism.>
App, who is starting to appreciate the 22nd amendment more and more>every day!
Yet you guys can never dispute the facts I bring to the discussion - simply make hand-waving gestures and claim that my political pesuasion makes anything I say inaccurate.
You can go on believing that and be just as gullible as those who look at Rush Limbaugh as the source of all truth.
Or, you could point out something - anything - that I've said in this thread that isn't 100% true.
But you probably won't since that's not part of the liberal "logic" - it's much easier to counter any argument with "yeah, but he/she is a big conservative poo-poo head", isn't it?
Sigh. Does the NYT just publish whatever Bush's PR people give it?>
My only point was that the NYT is not in the business of publishing>> "fluff pieces" on the president. (Well, /this/ president.) So I>> doubt that they'd just take some flak's word for his performance,>> especially if it made him look good.>
The two quotes:>
"President Bush spent an hour and a half on Saturday on an 18-mile> mountain bike ride at his Texas ranch."
Fluff? Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
"Mr. Bush burned 1,300 calories on his bike ride on Saturday, Mr.> McKinnon reported."
Fluff? Sounds like a very plausible fact (1300 cals burned) and an almost certain one (that so & so said so).
So, in response to your points, it appears that in this case:>
1. Yes, the NYT just published whatever Bush's people gave it.
Well, they recounted what they were told.
2. Yes, the NYT is in the business of publishing "fluff pieces" on the> President.
All well and good, /except/ that there's no evidence /in this case/ that the> WH fluffed anything. 1300 cals burned is quite reasonable; hitting 170 bpm> is quite reasonable. (They DID NOT say that he maintained 170 the whole> ride, despite SocWreck saying so over and over.
Fluff in the sense that what some jackass from Texas has on his iPod is of no importance to anyone but him. It is right up there with news of Britney's uterus.
You can look at it this way: the WH has lied so prolifically in the >past that in cases like this one, where there's no evidence one way or >another, many people will assume he's a liar. Cried wolf one time too >many, I suppose.
This is about as circular as logic gets.
A: The WH lied - the WH detractors said so. B: How do you know? A: The WH always lies. B: How do you know? A: The WH detractors said so.
You can look at it this way: the WH has lied so prolifically in the >>past that in cases like this one, where there's no evidence one way or >>another, many people will assume he's a liar. Cried wolf one time too >>many, I suppose.>
This is about as circular as logic gets.>
A: The WH lied - the WH detractors said so.>B: How do you know?>A: The WH always lies.>B: How do you know?>A: The WH detractors said so.
You might want to reared that. Your A/B thing doesn't even vaguely resemble what I wrote.
You might want to reared that. Your A/B thing doesn't even>vaguely>> resemble what I wrote.>
It's called George W. Bush derangement syndrome. Fervently defend GWB>no matter what the evidence or issue.
Replace "defend" with "attack" and it's equally true. I've never said I agree 100% with GWB's policies and every word out of his mouth. I'm just pointing out how far the opposite camp has gone by claiming it's virtually impossible the guy could ride 18 hours in 90 minute burning 1300 calories.
Assuming either 100% lies or veracity would be silly for any polititian.
Because, just like GWB implies,>he's never wrong. Thus, defending him no matter what is never wrong>either, and any method to do so, no matter how silly, is perfectly>valid.>
See how easy and fun it is? Try it for yourself! Heck, on the subject>of wheel rims, that's exactly the way Jobst plays it. It works.>
HAND,>
E.P.>
P.S. Sorni already tried Nazi - how about Hitler? Or is this thread>require the services of one Buffy, Slayer Extraordinaire?
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
