Bill Sornson wrote:>> Robert Chung wrote:>>> So, in response to your points, it appears that in this case:>>>

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.

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.

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

I don't think 867 calories an hour requires that kind of wattage

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.

Mark Hickey wrote:>

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).

You've woefully underestimated what it takes to be an elite cat 2/3> racer

[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.

Mark Hickey wrote:>> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid­> wrote:

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.

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.

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:>

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:

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.

Jim Smith <3.141592six@gmail.­com> wrote:>

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.

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.

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com­> writes:

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.

Nope.