How do I delete my blog?
The most powerful man in the world
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

GYXU > Cycling > The most powerful man in the world 20 April 2005 10:57:03

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

The most powerful man in the world

Robert Chung 17 April 2005 10:46:26
 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.


Add comment
Jim Smith 17 April 2005 13:22:30 permanent link ]
 "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid­> writes:
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.

You misspelled "Apple Marketing."

Add comment
Robert Chung 17 April 2005 13:32:57 permanent link ]
 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.


Add comment
Bill Sornson 17 April 2005 18:55:36 permanent link ]
 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.


Add comment
Robert Chung 17 April 2005 19:29:15 permanent link ]
 Bill Sornson wrote:> I'm done.

Oh, Bill. You were done and had a fork stuck in you a long time ago.


Add comment
Bill Sornson 17 April 2005 22:20:04 permanent link ]
 Robert Chung wrote:> Bill Sornson wrote:>> I'm done.>
Oh, Bill. You were done and had a fork stuck in you a long time ago.

Do you /ever/ quote honestly?


Add comment
Robert Chung 18 April 2005 00:10:42 permanent link ]
 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.
Add comment
A Muzi 18 April 2005 08:36:38 permanent link ]
 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.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.or­g
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Add comment
Robert Chung 18 April 2005 10:14:28 permanent link ]
 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%?


Add comment
Robert Chung 18 April 2005 10:45:23 permanent link ]
 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.


Add comment
Bill Sornson 18 April 2005 10:59:02 permanent link ]
 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.

More dishonesty. How surprising.


Add comment
Robert Chung 18 April 2005 11:42:49 permanent link ]
 Yet again, Bill Sornson wrote:

[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.
Add comment
Mark Hickey 18 April 2005 17:57:52 permanent link ]
 "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). 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
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycle­s.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Add comment
Robert Chung 18 April 2005 19:27:49 permanent link ]
 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.


Add comment
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.

-Robert Chung

(Now, was that so hard?!?)


Add comment
Mark Hickey 19 April 2005 08:11:43 permanent link ]
 "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid­> wrote:
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.
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.

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.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycle­s.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Add comment
Jim Smith 19 April 2005 11:07:55 permanent link ]
 Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:
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?

Add comment
Mark Hickey 19 April 2005 17:47:13 permanent link ]
 Jim Smith <3.141592six@gmail.­com> wrote:
Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:>
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.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycle­s.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Add comment
Mark Hickey 19 April 2005 17:52:10 permanent link ]
 "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.

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...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycle­s.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Add comment
Jim Smith 19 April 2005 18:48:28 permanent link ]
 Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:
Jim Smith <3.141592six@gmail.­com> wrote:>
Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:>>
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.
Add comment
Peter 19 April 2005 18:59:49 permanent link ]
 Jim Smith wrote:
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.

Add comment


Bill Sornson 19 April 2005 19:17:40 permanent link ]
 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.

Welcome to an "arguing with Robert Chung" thread.


Add comment
Robert Chung 19 April 2005 21:32:00 permanent link ]
 Mark Hickey wrote:>
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.

Okay. Help me out.

1 Calorie = 4187 joules. Do you agree?

1 watt = 1 joule / second. Do you agree?

90 minutes = 5400 seconds. Do you agree?

Whitt & Wilson use .236 for the efficiency of conversion of food Calories
into work. Do you agree?

If so, then 1300 * .236 * 4187 / 5400 = 238 watts as the average over 90
minutes.
If not, where is the error?

If you don't find an error here, then we'll move to your second claim.


Add comment


Mark Hickey 20 April 2005 06:22:04 permanent link ]
 Jim Smith <3.141592six@gmail.­com> wrote:
Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:
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).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycle­s.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Add comment
Jim Smith 20 April 2005 07:01:29 permanent link ]
 Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:
Whitt & Wilson use .236 for the efficiency of conversion of food Calories>>into work. Do you agree?>
Nope.

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


GYXU > Cycling > The most powerful man in the world 20 April 2005 10:57:03

see also:
FS: 1998 Starting Line Up Timeless…
pass tests:
see also:
Fs:,Iphone 8Gb,Nokia N95(8Gb),LX Brown…
Aloha from Maui
Blog Feed

  Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .