Bill Sornson wrote:> Robert Chung wrote:>> 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.>
Disagree. Completely.
1. You can disagree completely, but then you'd be disagreeing with yourself since you now appear to say that the NYT uncritically recounted exactly what it was told.
2. The article was about the contents of the President's iPod, with two throwaway sentences about his biking (since he uses his iPod while biking). I would contend that an article about the contents of someone's iPod is "fluff." You, evidently, do not.
Bill Sornson wrote:>> Robert Chung wrote:>>> 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.>>
Disagree. Completely.>
1. You can disagree completely, but then you'd be disagreeing with> yourself since you now appear to say that the NYT uncritically recounted> exactly what it was told.>
2. The article was about the contents of the President's iPod, with two> throwaway sentences about his biking (since he uses his iPod while> biking). I would contend that an article about the contents of someone's> iPod is "fluff." You, evidently, do not.
Bill Sornson wrote:> Sounds like a very plausible fact (1300 cals burned) and an> almost certain one
The President burns 1300 Calories in 90 minutes and you think this is "very" plausible and "almost certain?" Wow. That's a pretty high rate -- not impossible, but it *is* pretty high. Even more remarkably, elsewhere in this thread you've been saying that the President was doing this at less than maximal effort. Double wow. You remind me of people who celebrated Mao swimming the Yangtze.
Bill Sornson wrote:>> Sounds like a very plausible fact (1300 cals burned) and an>> almost certain one>
The President burns 1300 Calories in 90 minutes and you think this is>"very" plausible and "almost certain?" Wow. That's a pretty high rate -- >not impossible, but it *is* pretty high. Even more remarkably, elsewhere>in this thread you've been saying that the President was doing this at>less than maximal effort. Double wow. You remind me of people who>celebrated Mao swimming the Yangtze.
Careful Robert... if you read through the thread you'll see that there's no reason to believe that 1300 calories in 90 minutes is at all outrageous for a fit man the POTUS' size and age. Being amazed at that level of performance would tend to indicate that you personally find that level of performance astonishing (which it isn't).
His running performance is well documented, and indicates that he is easily capable of well over 867 calories per hour. Nothing "wow" about it, actually (other than the persistence of those who refuse to believe it's possible for whatever reason).
Robert Chung wrote:> Bill Sornson wrote:>> Sounds like a very plausible fact (1300 cals burned) and an>> almost certain one>
The President burns 1300 Calories in 90 minutes and you think this is> "very" plausible and "almost certain?" Wow. That's a pretty high rate> -- not impossible, but it *is* pretty high. Even more remarkably,> elsewhere in this thread you've been saying that the President was> doing this at less than maximal effort. Double wow. You remind me of> people who celebrated Mao swimming the Yangtze.
You're confused AND dishonest -- nice combo.
You dropped the context from what I said: the "almost certain" fact was that {whoever it was} SAID Bush burned about 1300 cals.
And you're confused because I never said he was doing less than maximal effort; I'd guess that was probably Mark or Ron. (Unless you mean the 170 HR thing; I highly doubt that anyone claimed that he maintained that for the entire ride. You listen to SocWreck too much.)
You obviously just like to argue regardless of how silly things get, so go ahead and finish. I'm done.
Mark Hickey wrote:> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:>>
The President burns 1300 Calories in 90 minutes and you think this is>> "very" plausible and "almost certain?" Wow. That's a pretty high rate>> -- not impossible, but it *is* pretty high. Even more remarkably,>> elsewhere in this thread you've been saying that the President was>> doing this at less than maximal effort. Double wow. You remind me of>> people who celebrated Mao swimming the Yangtze.>
Careful Robert... if you read through the thread you'll see that> there's no reason to believe that 1300 calories in 90 minutes is at> all outrageous for a fit man the POTUS' size and age. Being amazed at> that level of performance would tend to indicate that you personally> find that level of performance astonishing (which it isn't).>
His running performance is well documented, and indicates that he is> easily capable of well over 867 calories per hour. Nothing "wow"> about it, actually (other than the persistence of those who refuse to> believe it's possible for whatever reason).
I very specifically said it wasn't impossible. I said it was impressive. 1300 Calories in 90 minutes means an average of 240+ W. Bush weighs about 85kg, so that means he was putting out just short of 3W/kg for 90 minutes. A typical middle-of-the-pack USCF Cat 4 rider can average 3W/kg for *twenty* minutes, and 3W/kg for 90 minutes would put him in upper Cat 3/lower Cat 2 (not master's racers, elite ones), which ain't shabby for a soon-to-be 59-year-old guy. You don't think that merits a "wow?" Wow. Plus, you say he's "easily capable of well over" 3W/kg for 90 minutes. If you were guessing, what would you say? 10% more? 15% more?
Mark Hickey wrote:>> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:>>>
The President burns 1300 Calories in 90 minutes and you think this is>>> "very" plausible and "almost certain?" Wow. That's a pretty high rate>>> -- not impossible, but it *is* pretty high. Even more remarkably,>>> elsewhere in this thread you've been saying that the President was>>> doing this at less than maximal effort. Double wow. You remind me of>>> people who celebrated Mao swimming the Yangtze.>>
Careful Robert... if you read through the thread you'll see that>> there's no reason to believe that 1300 calories in 90 minutes is at>> all outrageous for a fit man the POTUS' size and age. Being amazed at>> that level of performance would tend to indicate that you personally>> find that level of performance astonishing (which it isn't).>>
His running performance is well documented, and indicates that he is>> easily capable of well over 867 calories per hour. Nothing "wow">> about it, actually (other than the persistence of those who refuse to>> believe it's possible for whatever reason).>
I very specifically said it wasn't impossible. I said it was impressive.>1300 Calories in 90 minutes means an average of 240+ W. Bush weighs about>85kg, so that means he was putting out just short of 3W/kg for 90 minutes.>A typical middle-of-the-pack USCF Cat 4 rider can average 3W/kg for>*twenty* minutes, and 3W/kg for 90 minutes would put him in upper Cat>3/lower Cat 2 (not master's racers, elite ones), which ain't shabby for a>soon-to-be 59-year-old guy. You don't think that merits a "wow?" Wow.>Plus, you say he's "easily capable of well over" 3W/kg for 90 minutes. If>you were guessing, what would you say? 10% more? 15% more?
I don't think 867 calories an hour requires that kind of wattage, and also don't believe elite cat 2/3's are going to be competitive with "just" that kind of output. Basically, you're supposing Bush is putting out just over 250 watts. Since I'm 70kg, that would mean (by your measure) I should be able to be an elite cat 2/3 putting out only 210 watts for 90 minutes (something I can quite readily do).
Robert Chung wrote:> At 7:55 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:> > I'm done.> At 8:00 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:> > Bored with this now> At 8:04 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:> [stuff snipped]> At 11:20 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:> [yet more stuff snipped]> You know how you write "I'm done" and then continue to post to the same > thread? I don't think the phrase "I'm done" means what you think it means.
Perhaps he saw something fascinating? Whatever it was it didn't display in my reader.
I don't think 867 calories an hour requires that kind of wattage
[...B]asically,> you're supposing Bush is putting out just over 250 watts.
1 Calorie = 4187 joules 1 joule/sec = 1 watt 90 minutes = 5400 seconds Human efficiency in converting Calories to work is about 25% 1300 * .25 * 4187 / 5400 = 252 watts
I don't think the President is very efficient so I presumed 252 watts would be a tad high, which is why I said 240+ watts. That's an average over 90 minutes.
You think he's "easily capable of well over" that. How much over? 10%? 15%?
At what *appeared* to be 14:05 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:> Robert Chung wrote:>> At 7:55 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>> > I'm done.>
At 8:00 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>> > Bored with this now>>
At 8:04 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>> [stuff snipped]>>
At 11:20 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>> [yet more stuff snipped]>>
You know how you write "I'm done" and then continue to post to the>> same thread? I don't think the phrase "I'm done" means what you think>> it means.>
I was (and am) done with Bush's ride stats. (By the way, you confuse> when something was /written/ with when it got posted.)
You wrote this post *before* you wrote the "I'm done" post? Wow. That's a pretty impressive trick.
Robert Chung wrote:> At what *appeared* to be 14:05 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>> Robert Chung wrote:>>> At 7:55 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>>> > I'm done.>>
At 8:00 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>>> > Bored with this now>>>
At 8:04 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>>> [stuff snipped]>>>
At 11:20 PDT, Bill Sornson wrote:>>> [yet more stuff snipped]>>>
You know how you write "I'm done" and then continue to post to the>>> same thread? I don't think the phrase "I'm done" means what you>>> think it means.>>
I was (and am) done with Bush's ride stats. (By the way, you confuse>> when something was /written/ with when it got posted.)>
You wrote this post *before* you wrote the "I'm done" post? Wow.> That's a pretty impressive trick.
You post six more times to this thread after you say you're done with it? Hmmm. I'm guessin' you think you can stop whenever you want, you just don't want to. Seems to me you've got a teeny little problem going on. Just sayin', is all.
I don't think 867 calories an hour requires that kind of wattage>[...B]asically,>> you're supposing Bush is putting out just over 250 watts.>
1 Calorie = 4187 joules>1 joule/sec = 1 watt>90 minutes = 5400 seconds>Human efficiency in converting Calories to work is about 25%>1300 * .25 * 4187 / 5400 = 252 watts>
I don't think the President is very efficient so I presumed 252 watts>would be a tad high, which is why I said 240+ watts. That's an average>over 90 minutes.>
You think he's "easily capable of well over" that. How much over? 10%?>15%?
About 50% for 20 minutes apparently, based on his well-documented 5K running times (you may notice an echo in here, since I've pointed that out at least half a dozen times). But there's one of two possibilities in terms of your claim that his output signifies someone who should be an elite cat 2/3 racer...
1) You've woefully underestimated what it takes to be an elite cat 2/3 racer 2) I'm actually in better shape than most elite cat 2/3 racers
I'd really love to believe number two above, but sadly have to admit the truth lies in number one.
Mark Hickey wrote:> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:>
Mark Hickey wrote:>>
I don't think 867 calories an hour requires that kind of wattage>>> [...B]asically, you're supposing Bush is putting out just over 250>>> watts.>>
1 Calorie = 4187 joules>> 1 joule/sec = 1 watt>> 90 minutes = 5400 seconds>> Human efficiency in converting Calories to work is about 25%>> 1300 * .25 * 4187 / 5400 = 252 watts>>
I don't think the President is very efficient so I presumed 252 watts>> would be a tad high, which is why I said 240+ watts. That's an average>> over 90 minutes.>>
You think he's "easily capable of well over" that. How much over? 10%?>> 15%?>
About 50% for 20 minutes apparently, based on his well-documented 5K> running times (you may notice an echo in here, since I've pointed that> out at least half a dozen times).
and
You've woefully underestimated what it takes to be an elite cat 2/3> racer
50% higher for 20 minutes? Wow. You're saying the President can put out 360ish watts (= 4.5 W/kg) for 20 minutes. As for my estimates, they're not mine; they're based on Coggan's power profiling tables. Here's an excerpt from the original version of his tables. Note that the categories overlap.
20 minute power-to-weight (W/kg), Males:
5.7+ world class 5.2 - 6.2 UCI Div I/II pro 4.7 - 5.7 UCI Div III pro 4.2 - 5.2 USCF Cat 1 3.7 - 4.7 USCF Cat 2 3.3 - 4.2 USCF Cat 3 2.8 - 3.7 USCF Cat 4 2.3 - 3.3 USCF Cat 5 < 2.8 Untrained
So your estimate of the President's abilities would put him in upper Cat 2, lower Cat 1. Double wow.
Let's review: I say, "Wow, the President is doing 240+ watts for 90 minutes, that's pretty impressive for a 58-year-old guy." You say, "No, not at all, he's easily capable of much more than that -- he can hang with Cat 1's, and he makes Cat 2's cry like women." Now you're definitely sounding like those guys who talk about Mao swimming the Yangtze.
Chung Blows Chunks 18 April 2005 20:40:21 [ permanent link ]
Robert Chung wrote:> Yet again, Bill Sornson wrote (well, I won't actually LEAVE any of it or people will see what a sneaky little weasel I am -- dishonestly half-quoting or just deleting what reveals my ratfink nature):>
[snip]>
You post six more times to this thread after you say you're done with> it? Hmmm. I'm guessin' you think you can stop whenever you want, you> just don't want to. Seems to me you've got a teeny little problem> going on. Just sayin', is all.
Oh, wait. Now I see that you said you were done with the "Bush Ride Stats" part of the thread, but were going to point out my /dishonest quoting methods just to win a senseless Usenet tiff/. Guilty as charged; I apologize.
Mark Hickey wrote:>> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
You think he's "easily capable of well over" that. How much over? 10%?>>> 15%?>>
About 50% for 20 minutes apparently, based on his well-documented 5K>> running times (you may notice an echo in here, since I've pointed that>> out at least half a dozen times).>
You've woefully underestimated what it takes to be an elite cat 2/3>> racer>
50% higher for 20 minutes? Wow. You're saying the President can put out>360ish watts (= 4.5 W/kg) for 20 minutes. As for my estimates, they're not>mine; they're based on Coggan's power profiling tables. Here's an excerpt>from the original version of his tables. Note that the categories overlap>20 minute power-to-weight (W/kg), Males:
My point (which you've now missed for the third time) is that I'm consistently talking about calories per hour, based on well-documented running times. You are somehow converting that to watts in a way that indicates his performance would make put him in the Cat 2/3 level.
It's pretty clear that your conversion from calories to watts is hosed up.
So your estimate of the President's abilities would put him in upper Cat>2, lower Cat 1. Double wow.
If your conversion was correct, I'd say "triple wow".
Let's review: I say, "Wow, the President is doing 240+ watts for 90>minutes, that's pretty impressive for a 58-year-old guy." You say, "No,>not at all, he's easily capable of much more than that -- he can hang with>Cat 1's, and he makes Cat 2's cry like women." Now you're definitely>sounding like those guys who talk about Mao swimming the Yangtze.
No, I say he's doing 867 calories per hour. You say that's equivalent to 240+ watts and I keep saying it isn't.
Or to re-review - you seem to be saying that someone who can run a sub-21 minute 5K (not bad for a late 50's runner, but hardly impressive from any competitive viewpoint) should be able to put out 360 watts for 20 minutes. I can tell you that the first is relatively easy to achieve - the second is a pipe dream for all but pro-level riders.
Like I said, it's obvious that your conversion is hosed (or alternatively, that I'm really a Cat 1-level rider and have just never realized it). I wish.
My point (which you've now missed for the third time) is that I'm> consistently talking about calories per hour, based on well-documented> running times. You are somehow converting that to watts in a way that> indicates his performance would make put him in the Cat 2/3 level.>
It's pretty clear that your conversion from calories to watts is hosed> up.
You might want to check your understanding of what a calorie is and what a watt is. RC's conversion looks perfectly sound. He showed all his work. Where do you think the error is?
Mark Hickey wrote:> My point (which you've now missed for the third time) is that I'm> consistently talking about calories per hour, based on well-documented> running times. You are somehow converting that to watts in a way that> indicates his performance would make put him in the Cat 2/3 level.>
It's pretty clear that your conversion from calories to watts is hosed> up.
and
No, I say he's doing 867 calories per hour. You say that's equivalent> to 240+ watts and I keep saying it isn't.
Well, Mark, this is r.b.tech, so I'm sorta surprised you're not already familiar with the conversion between Calories and watts. Let's try again, then.
1 Calorie = 4187 joules. 1 watt = 1 joule / second. 90 minutes = 5400 seconds. During cycling, human efficiency in converting food energy into work is about 25%.
So burning 1300 Calories in 90 minutes is the equivalent of averaging
.25 * 1300 * 4187 / 5400 = 252 watts.
I don't think the President is that efficient, so I went a bit low and said he averaged 240+ watts for the entire 90 minutes. Here's a thread that discusses the efficiency number, relates a power of around 240 watts it to a USCF Cat type, and explains why the average wattage you see in a race may seem low (in a nutshell, you coast or are sheltered for a fair amount of the time):
Also, as a double-check, I just looked up what Whitt & Wilson used in the 2nd edition of Bicycling Science (I know there's a newer 3rd edition, but I only have the 2nd) for their efficiency ratio; they use .236, which would produce an average of 238 watts for the President. So my back of the envelope calculation was within a couple of watts of Whitt & Wilson--but if it'll make you more comfortable with the calculation, I'll lower my estimate from 240+ to 238 watts.
Of course, if you can show where Whitt & Wilson and Coggan and a host of other exercise physiologists are "hosed" in their conversion from Calories to watts, I'll be happy to revise the estimate.
Or to re-review - you seem to be saying that someone who can run a> sub-21 minute 5K (not bad for a late 50's runner, but hardly> impressive from any competitive viewpoint) should be able to put out> 360 watts for 20 minutes.
Uh, no, I've never said that. You're the one who thinks the President's 20 minute power is 50% higher than his calculated 90 minute power, not me, though it's not clear what portion of your 50% is because you think he was "easily capable of well over" his 90 minute performance and what portion is because of decrease in average power from 20 to 90 minutes. I think that depending on how much endurance a person has, 20 minute power is more like 15-20% higher than 90 minute power. So if the President was averaging 238 watts at 90 minutes he could put out somewhere between 275 - 290 watts for 20 minutes. Of course, that's based on the presumption that he was working pretty hard to produce 238 watts for 90 minutes -- you think he's easily capable of well over that, so we could adjust the 20 minute power upward by whatever you think is right. Oh, wait, we already know what you think: you think he's capable of 20 minute power that is 50% higher than his calculated 90 minute power. That's in the neighborhood of 4.5 W/kg. Wow.
My point (which you've now missed for the third time) is that I'm>> consistently talking about calories per hour, based on well-documented>> running times. You are somehow converting that to watts in a way that>> indicates his performance would make put him in the Cat 2/3 level.>>
It's pretty clear that your conversion from calories to watts is hosed>> up. >
You might want to check your understanding of what a calorie is and>what a watt is. RC's conversion looks perfectly sound. He showed all>his work. Where do you think the error is?
Let me try another run at this...
We KNOW (documented fact) the POTUS' 5K running times.
Based on what I believe are very reasonable numbers from a calculator, we can assume that the POTUS' is "burning" about 1250 calories per hour during that run (for about 20 minutes).
During the ride in question, it was reported that he burned about 1300 calories in 90 minutes.
The reason I posted the 5K info is that some doubted whether it would be possible for GWB to turn 1300 calories in 90 minutes. The above make it very clear it's not only possible, it's likely not all that difficult.
The problem I have with Robert's numbers is that he's claiming that someone capable of running a 21 minute 5K is aerobically ready to be a Cat 1/2, based on the number of calories burned per hour. That's clearly wrong.
Or to re-review - you seem to be saying that someone who can run a>> sub-21 minute 5K (not bad for a late 50's runner, but hardly>> impressive from any competitive viewpoint) should be able to put out>> 360 watts for 20 minutes.>
Uh, no, I've never said that. You're the one who thinks the President's 20>minute power is 50% higher than his calculated 90 minute power, not me,>though it's not clear what portion of your 50% is because you think he was>"easily capable of well over" his 90 minute performance and what portion>is because of decrease in average power from 20 to 90 minutes.
Why don't you ever actually refer to what I said? This is getting very pointless.
He rides 90 minutes - 1300 calories total.
He runs a sub-7 minute pace for a little over 2o minutes - at a 1254 calories per hour.
Do the math.
And then you can explain to us how running 6:40 miles puts you in the same class as an elite Cat 1/2 racer in terms of output. I'm still waiting for my upgraded license to arrive in the mail based on my running times...
My point (which you've now missed for the third time) is that I'm>>> consistently talking about calories per hour, based on well-documented>>> running times. You are somehow converting that to watts in a way that>>> indicates his performance would make put him in the Cat 2/3 level.>>>
It's pretty clear that your conversion from calories to watts is hosed>>> up. >>
You might want to check your understanding of what a calorie is and>>what a watt is. RC's conversion looks perfectly sound. He showed all>>his work. Where do you think the error is?>
Let me try another run at this...>
We KNOW (documented fact) the POTUS' 5K running times.>
Based on what I believe are very reasonable numbers from a calculator,> we can assume that the POTUS' is "burning" about 1250 calories per> hour during that run (for about 20 minutes).>
During the ride in question, it was reported that he burned about 1300> calories in 90 minutes.>
The reason I posted the 5K info is that some doubted whether it would> be possible for GWB to turn 1300 calories in 90 minutes. The above> make it very clear it's not only possible, it's likely not all that> difficult.>
The problem I have with Robert's numbers is that he's claiming that> someone capable of running a 21 minute 5K is aerobically ready to be a> Cat 1/2, based on the number of calories burned per hour. That's> clearly wrong.
Ok. But I still can't tell where you think the error is. Do you agree that he was delivering about 250 watts for 90 minutes? Also, it is not clear from what you have written if you understand that calories per hour and watts are measures of the same thing. They differ only by a scaling factor.
Ok. But I still can't tell where you think the error is. Do you agree> that he was delivering about 250 watts for 90 minutes? Also, it is> not clear from what you have written if you understand that calories> per hour and watts are measures of the same thing. They differ only by> a scaling factor.
In addition to the conversion factor between the two units, there's also the human body efficiency factor because the kilocalories/hour figure is based on the amount of food energy consumed and the Watts figure on the amount of work energy produced by the body. The 250 Watts calculation assumes an efficiency of about 25%, which is considered to be about right, but there can be some variation.
Mark Hickey wrote:> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:>
Mark Hickey wrote:>
Or to re-review - you seem to be saying that someone who can run a>>> sub-21 minute 5K (not bad for a late 50's runner, but hardly>>> impressive from any competitive viewpoint) should be able to put out>>> 360 watts for 20 minutes.>>
Uh, no, I've never said that. You're the one who thinks the>> President's 20 minute power is 50% higher than his calculated 90>> minute power, not me, though it's not clear what portion of your 50%>> is because you think he was "easily capable of well over" his 90>> minute performance and what portion is because of decrease in>> average power from 20 to 90 minutes.>
Why don't you ever actually refer to what I said? This is getting> very pointless.
The problem I have with Robert's numbers is that he's claiming that>> someone capable of running a 21 minute 5K is aerobically ready to be a>> Cat 1/2, based on the number of calories burned per hour. That's>> clearly wrong.>
Ok. But I still can't tell where you think the error is. Do you agree>that he was delivering about 250 watts for 90 minutes? Also, it is>not clear from what you have written if you understand that calories>per hour and watts are measures of the same thing. They differ only by>a scaling factor.
I'm well aware of that, which is the problem.
If 1300 watts in 90 minutes is the same as 250 (or 240 watts) for 90 minutes, then GWB's running output rate of 1245 calories per hour would scale up to to almost 360 watts.
Something is very wrong. That's a HUGE output in terms of watts.
I put in my own typical running times and weight into the calculator and get 1090 calories per hour for 20 minutes. That tells me (based on the scaling factor that Mr. Chung is using) that I should be able to put out 315 watts for 20 minutes.
Thing is, I wish I could.
Of course, it's possible that all of the gym equipment I've ever used is miscalibrated down by the same (large) amount, and that there is some odd aerodynamic reason that I'm not going any faster than I am (which would be perplexing since my cycling speed and measured wattage output correlates almost perfectly with the speed/power calculators I've used).
He runs a sub-7 minute pace for a little over 2o minutes - at a 1254>> calories per hour.>>
Do the math.>
Okay. Help me out.>
1 Calorie = 4187 joules. Do you agree?
Yes
1 watt = 1 joule / second. Do you agree?
Yes
90 minutes = 5400 seconds. Do you agree?
Yes
Whitt & Wilson use .236 for the efficiency of conversion of food Calories>into work. Do you agree?
Nope. Let me quote someone who opined on this very subject...
Yes. Efficiency in turning food calories into work. Depending on the>person, gross efficiency runs in the neighborhood of maybe 20% or so.>Thus, you're overestimating average power by a factor of about 5. Your>average wattage for that workout should be somewhere around 120ish watts.
The "expert" was a Mr. Robert Chung. 20% efficiency sounds a WHOLE lot closer, and would bring all the conversions back into relatively real-world scenarios (that is, people who can run 7 minute miles that aren't capable of being elite Cat 1/2 racers).
Robert Chung wrote:> > Whitt & Wilson use .236 for the efficiency of conversion of food
Calories> > into work. Do you agree?
Nope. Let me quote someone who opined on this very subject...
The "expert" was a Mr. Robert Chung. 20% efficiency sounds a WHOLE> lot closer
Excellent. We're making progress. Yes, I used to use 20%, but then it was pointed out to me that most exercise physiologists and manufacturers of exercise equipment use a higher figure (the modal figure I found was 25%). I didn't have any references to back up my number, and Whitt & Wilson had some for theirs, so I switched to .236. That's called "revising an opinion because of evidence." You might consider it sometime. Thanks for calling me an expert, though.
However, since you think the President isn't that efficient of a person, let's agree to revert back to the old number of 20%, just for the sake of harmony, and just for this calculation. However, we want to keep track of the underlying assumption here so let's mark these new low-balled calculations in some way.
Then 1300 Calories for 90 minutes is an average of: .2 * 1300 * 4187 / 5400 = 202 hickies
And 20 minutes of running at 1254 Calories/hour? That's .2 * 1254 * 4187 / 3600 = 292 hickies
The President reportedly weighs 190 lbs (=86 kg, do you agree?). So his mass-standardized power is: 2.3 hickies/kg for 90 minutes 3.4 hickies/kg for 20 minutes
So, going back to Coggan's power profiling table,
20 minute power-to-weight (W/kg), Males:
5.7+ world class 5.2 - 6.2 UCI Div I/II pro 4.7 - 5.7 UCI Div III pro 4.2 - 5.2 USCF Cat 1 3.7 - 4.7 USCF Cat 2 3.3 - 4.2 USCF Cat 3 2.8 - 3.7 USCF Cat 4 2.3 - 3.3 USCF Cat 5 < 2.8 Untrained
So the President's low-ball hickey power would still put him in upper Cat 4, lower Cat 3. Not shabby for a soon-to-be 59-year-old guy. Say it with me: Wow.
