Talk:Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption

Untitled

Well since you clearly haven't learned anything that reverts don't help, I'll discuss here. That the fact you just removed is true is very simple to show. Simply do the calculation for the caloric expenditure that is claimed for the EPOC effect. Then calculate the caloric expenditure from a given amount of time of anaerobic training then for the same amount of time of aerobic training. Let's use an hours worth of each. An hour of primarily anaerobic weightlifting would run to about 200 calories or so being generous, mostly because you can't do it continuously for the whole hour by definition. Then lets ignore the fact that the EPOC effect does not raise the entire metabolism, and divide a day's metabolic rate into an hour, lets use 2400/24=100. Then lets say EPOC accounts for 25% more for 4 hours (an amount and duration high enough that I don't think any peer reviewed science would support, but lets use it for illustration.) That adds to another 100 calories over normal metabolism, for a total of 300. An hour of moderate to slow jogging burns about 600 calories. So its 600 vs 300 using very generous assumptions on the EPOC side. Therefore the added fact is correct. I misplaced the paper I had making the calculations, but no matter what reasonable numbers you use, the fact remains correct. - Taxman 00:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Talk about insisting you're the only one who can be right.

An hour of weight training can burn upwards of 500 calories, unless you dawdle. It's about the same number of calories as an hour of moderate cardio, and has a higher EPOC.

(see 'aerobics, general' and 'weightlifting, vigorous')

Again your characterization is biased. If you are going to pick vigorous weightlifting for the heavier person, then lets look at more vigorous running which is upwards of 1000 calories per hour or more. You'll notice the moderate effort lifting compares at 259 calories to the moderate effort running at 690. The caloric expenditure of the ET still vastly outweighs the weight training including the EPOC. Yes Anaerobic training has greater EPOC, its just POV to not note that that effect is less than the caloric expenditure from the endurance training. - Taxman 18:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

HIIT (multiple reps of sprint and recovery) is an anaerobic training method that is proven to burn almost 3 times as much fat while expending about half as much energy during exercise as endurance (continuous moderate-intensity) training.

(see last two rows in table)

Quite interesting, though I haven't had a chance to check the source, or what the quality of the study was. And thank you for pointing it out to support my point. Did you notice in the study the ET used over twice as many calories? Evidence supporting that my point is correct. You can cite this study for that fact and also note that it found greater fat loss in the HIIT scenario if you like though. - Taxman 18:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The "fact" you added remains incorrect.

--Blair P. Houghton 01:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even your words show that to be false: "while expending about half as much energy during exercise as endurance". So I'm re-adding the correct fact since your data supports it. If you would like to remove it you're going to have to come up with a reliable study that refutes it. - Taxman 18:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

20-30 minutes of HIIT expends half as much energy during exercise as 30-45 minutes of aerobic exercise, but results in 3 times the total energy drawdown on the human body. The only conclusion to be drawn from the utter silliness of your argument is that you are a vandal who is attempting to start a fight. Blair P. Houghton 18:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok you may think that is true, but your source disagrees. It compares 30 minutes of each (Well increasing to 45 for ET, but the page doesn't explain what is meant by that), and shows the total energy expenditure being double for the ET. Your source doesn't claim 6 times the energy drawdown, it finds greater subcutaneus fat loss, and the page you posted does not posit on the reason or mechanism. I don't have access to the full study at the moment, but the abstract reads: "Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program." (Emphasis mine) Very interesting indeed, but entirely consistent with the fact I added. Again, as noted earlier, you can note that one study found greater fat loss with HIIT. In fact that would even support further the idea that if the HIIT is more efficient on a per calorie basis if subcu fat loss is the primary goal, but it doesn't change the greater caloric expenditure of the ET. Are you sure you understand the issue here or the meaning of the words I added to the article? And don't forget we are looking at high intensity weight training and moderate intensity ET. - Taxman 20:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Calling me a vandal when your data supports my added fact? All I can say is you should stop your posturing, calm down, and look at the facts. I notice you have ignored the fact that your other source also supports my point. Convenient when it doesn't help your case. If you have more facts that support your POV fine, bring them, I'm more than willing to adjust my take if reliable sources support that, but again, the sources you provided support the fact I have added. So basically I am adding a fact supported by the sources and you are removing it because it doesn't fit with your preferred POV. I can't see anything in that that would lead me to believe you are editing in good faith. At a minimum it is an improper revert and not helpful. If you are so sure of your point, again, find some reliable sources that back it up. The current ones support mine, so removing the material is the improper action. - Taxman 20:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The two sources I gave you do not support your calculation, and it's a lie to say they do. Further, your added paragraph is directly refuted by the fat-loss results in the exrx.net table. The 51-127 kcal energy attributed to EPOC in your current version is not related to amount of exercise done and therefore means nothing. The only study comparing the two regimes showed that short, high-intensity exercise plus EPOC has a much greater effect on total energy use (as measured by fat loss) than does longer endurance-type exercise. Just posting citations without understanding them does not constitute supporting your position. I am--again--removing the falsehood. Blair P. Houghton 19:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Moderate effort (for one hour)

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

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

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

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

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

• Again, putting words in my mouth and making grandiose claims is just making you look silly. That one study that exrx.net quotes does find greater fat loss. However it does not claim that EPOC effect is so large that it burns all the extra calories required for that. You are making the leap to that conclusion. The studies do not support that. I have already stated that, which refutes your claim. - Taxman 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• You've proved you aren't even willing to listen to the facts when they are presented plain as day. - Taxman 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

Here's my suggestion:

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

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

• A couple of things:

• Calories are energy; 3500 calories per pound of fat lost (4400 calories per pound of lipid but what's lost isn't all lipid, there's some non-energy related water and some lower-energy protein and carbohydrate stored in that adipose tissue). Energy, fat, and calories are not confusing, they're the same thing.

• Again, the study exrx.net takes its data from does not support that the EPOC effect accounted for all the calories that would be required to reduce the subcu fat by the amounts they found. They did not control for the necessary factors that would be needed to claim that the epoc effect burned that many calories. Not only does the study not support that, but the exrx.net page doesn't even attempt to claim that. You are the only one making that leap. - Taxman 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• The 51-127 kcal number is not related to any particular exercise expenditure; it is not possible to know how much exercise produced that amount of EPOC, nor whether that measurement is accurate and does not miss much of the actual energy depleted during EPOC. As I posted long ago, it proves nothing in any way on either side of this argument.

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

• Then you know nothing about those studies. Do you think they just pulled the numbers out of thin air? Those studies measured the effect in a controlled environment and found the stated results, from very specific, measured exercise programs. Results from studies are what needs to be reported not your POV that the study does not support. You don't just get to discount multiple studies that disagree with your POV and cling to one that doesn't even support your claim. If you have some data from some quality studies that supports your claim, please bring that to our attention; the current ones certainly do not support it. - Taxman 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• You're clearly nothing but a troll. The sources you posted don't support your utter POV, and you're playing these games. Don't do it again. Blair P. Houghton 03:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You obviously aren't even looking at the sources. The article's external linkexternal link Resistance Training and EPOC by Jeff M. Reynolds and Len Kravitz, Ph.D. which is where I quoted quoted exactly found the size of the EPOC effect to be: "51 (Haltom et al. 1999) to 127 (Burleson et al. 1998) kilocalories". You can find other sources, but the fact is that is what those studies found. You conveniently ignore all the points of argument where you are wrong. -Taxman 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

What the evidence supports

The changes I made reflect the following facts:

1. Anaerobic exercise is higher in intensity than aerobic exercise, that's why it reaches the anaerobic regime.

For some definition of intensity, as measured over short durations. Other common measures of intensity are percentage of maximum effort for a given time. Just like 10RM is the maximum effort for that exercise, one can measure percentage of maximum aerobic effort over a given time. This is used to equate the two exercise regimes. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

1. The combination of intensity and recovery intervals over a period of anaerobic exercise may produce a lower calorie output than aerobic exercise during exercise; but,
2. it will produce a higher calorie consumption over the 24 hours beginning with the exercise.

You keep claiming this but your source does not agree, neither do the others. Find the source that supports that. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

1. You can't prove that something hasn't been shown.
2. "Whether this result was caused by the EPOC effect has not been established" is impossible to prove; it's nothing but a POV opinion. The sense that more than EPOC may be going on is covered in "caloric expenditure that occurs during the EPOC phase after anaerobic exercise."

Of course it is impossible to prove. If you want to be pedantic, almost anything is. So it boils down to a question of evidence. It is fact that it has not been established "Whether this result was caused by the EPOC effect". We're not asking for proof, just evidence to support that claim. You have repeatedly ignore that request. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's redundant with the statement that was there before the paragraph was added, but some people don't seem to have a sense of when less is more, which goes with their lack of a sense of when facts are supportable. Blair P. Houghton 03:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks!

Statements like "You are making yourself look silly" and "You're clearly nothing but a troll" are not helpful. Neither are promiscuous accusations of "vandalism". Here are some words to bear in mind:

Agreed and I apologize. It is just very hard to take abuse and remain perfectly docile when I am adding a fact that is supported by numerous sources, and the other party is clinging to one that does not support his claim. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. (from Wikipedia:Vandalism)

So, let's all try to stick to the issues.

Now, in terms of what should be the focus here, namely finding wording that can be accepted by consensus, it seems to me that the disagreement is reflected in this comment by Blair P. Houghton: "Energy, fat, and calories are not confusing, they're the same thing." Calories do measure energy but there's not necessarily a perfect correspondence between calories and fat. Calories are also stored as glycogens. One exercise regimen might burn fewer calories but use a lower percentage of glycogens, thereby burning more fat than another regimen. I think it's the total of stored fat calories plus stored glycogen calories that would be invariant (for a given calorie expenditure during exercise), not necessarily either one of the components. What I've seen of the sources is that aerobic burns more calories but anaerobic produces greater fat loss, so if we just say that, I'm not clear on how we're misinforming the reader. JamesMLane 04:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assumed good faith for Taxman's edits a long time ago. History on this article and on Weight Training have shown that he does not have good faith, he has a desire to abuse the good faith of other editors by forcing them to prove things that were proved before he started making false statements. This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact. And it is the only issue resulting in this discussion. Taxman's disingenuous claims that his falsehoods and POV are supported by the literature are specious trolling.

No, as you have ignored numerous times in the talk above, they are well supported. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Glycogens store calories, but are restored in the body every day (if the carbohydrate intake of the diet allows). The amount of stored glycogen is proportional to the mass of muscle and liver tissue. Loss of adipose tissue is proportional to loss of stored fat. The idea that there's a controversy over the character of the energy depletion is simply a digression and not really at issue. It's not at all related to the differences between the version currently being proposed.

Again the study is not claiming the fat loss was from the EPOC effect burning all the extra calories that would be needed to find that result. Repeating myself because you are ignoring it - that is because the study was not controlled for that. It does not make the claim you are saying it does because it was not set up to come to that conclusion. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I originally said simply that anaerobic exercise results in greater EPOC; Taxman proceeded to pretend that anaerobic exercise would still result in greater energy drawdown (implying aerobics were better for fat loss over time), including a calculation that he claimed was supported by the literature that was rather instantly refuted by the literature he cited (this is the basic pattern of action and effect when he tries to edit something, in my experience). Since then he has tried to deny certain truths, some of which I've listed above, and demanded proof, when all that's being proved is what I was saying and referencing in the first place, and that he won't admit it, to the point that he insists on reverting to the bad version repeatedly. His demand that I respond within 24 hours is just insulting; as though I have no life and he should be able to own the page by rulings in absentia. What an astonishing mockery of Wikipedia and its collaborative process. When I find the proper disciplinary process to invoke, I'm going to see about getting Taxman banned for it, unless he's ready to apologize for wasting our time.

You have made no effort to establish that my added material is "rather instantly refuted by the literature he cited". Because in fact it is not. If you still believe that to be true, spell it out specifically if needed. The fact is you are sidestepping every piece of the conversation that does not agree with your POV. I haven't even fully gone to taking specific quotes from the relevant studies to suuport my side because it is obvious you will ignore and dissmiss results that do not agree with your POV, as you did with the cited fact on the range of the size of th EPOC effect. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Taxman, if you are actually sincere, which by this time I find hard to believe, spend a few years learning how to think and write (I'm tempted to conclude that you never went to college) before trying to paraphrase others' writings for public consumption. Your logic lacks cohesion and your writing lacks concision. Alternatively, stick to one- or two-word incremental edits to articles, so that you don't cause others to have to spend more than a few sentences explaining why you're wrong; or, get people to agree with you in the talk page before committing an edit, not just fail to knock you off your opinion that you must be right, so they don't have to go through all this turmoil proving you're so wrong in gory detail for all to read for as long as the database is backed up. Blair P. Houghton 04:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes these insults are helpful how? - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to "find the proper disciplinary process to invoke" to get Taxman banned: You can get an overview of several important processes at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you want some free advice from someone who's been around here for a while: Comments such as yours immediately above might conceivably result in a ban on the target, but are much more likely to result in a ban on the person making the comments. Please don't take this as a threat; I'm just giving you my experience of how Wikipedia works.

OK, getting down off my soapbox and back to the issue at hand: There seems to be agreement that, for bouts of exercise that are reasonably comparable, caloric expenditure during the exercise is greater for the aerobic regimen, but post-exercise caloric expenditure (the EPOC) is greater for the anaerobic. Your edit goes further and implies that the latter difference is equal to or greater than the former. Can you point me to a source that expressly says that? Or is it your inference, one drawn from the greater degree of fat loss, as reported in [3]? Furthermore, you state that "Taxman proceeded to pretend that anaerobic exercise would still result in greater energy drawdown (implying aerobics were better for fat loss over time) . . . ." In that quotation, I assume that "anaerobic" was just a typo and you meant "aerobic". With that correction, I think the first clause accurately summarizes what Taxman said, but the second doesn't. You assume that the former would imply the latter (greater energy drawdown would imply greater loss of fat), but Taxman doesn't assume that. He was willing to live with the wording that referred to "greater loss of subcutaneous fat" for anaerobic exercise. So, in what respect, if any, is that version inaccurate? JamesMLane 05:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Repeating again, because Blair is ignoring it many times, is that the webpage exrx.net that he is drawing his conclusion from does not make the conclusion he is claiming. It does not claim the fat loss was due to the EPOC effect, and the study its information is from was not properly controlled to make that conclusion. - Taxman 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

And just to make this clear, I am not 129.223.115.87. Any developer could check that. - Taxman 00:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

What I learnt in medical school was that anaerobic metabolism is inefficient, and would lead to a higher energy consumption. The lactate formed would need gluconeogenesis in the liver, with additional energy expenditure (and, supposedly, catch-up oxygen consumption).

Taxman is correct that the exrx.net page does not establish a causal link. Blair P. is right that for all intents and purposes, energy=calories=fat. It just takes a fair amount of exercise to deplete glycogen stored in muscles and to initiate lipolysis (fat decomposition). I'm happy to look at specific articles from the Len Kravitz page; I may have full-text access to some of the Metabolism articles. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Well, energy may equal calories (by definition, of course) and it can equal fat, but the study in question is about fat loss--and really, subcutaneous fat loss. That's not the same thing: as you say, there are many stores of energy in the body that are non-fat. Frankly, I'm not sure there's any conclusion to be drawn from the study that is useful in explaining EPOC. Demi ^T/_C 18:10, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Oh, and in this (PMID 14599232) review the authors state that EPOC is very poorly defined and may be much less of a factor than previously thought. JFW | T@lk

Protected and discussion page

On User:Taxman's request (and my suggestion) I've protected this article to give editors an opportunity to present their ideas and justifications as to the article's content. I've set up a method that has worked with other, more contentious articles: though the public article is protected, I've set up a Draft article. This article may be freely edited, then discuss the change's on the Draft talk page. Suggestion for proceeding are at the top of the draft page. I will keep an eye on the process, but feel free to contact me any time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. The facts were correct as of my last edit. Taxman's specious edits and irrational arguments are disruptive to the community. I recommend he be blocked and then banned. Blair P. Houghton 19:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that response makes it clear where the problem lies. As asked multiple times, back up your point of view with regards to the article with facts and evidence. There are a number of people that do not agree with you on your interpretation of the exrx.net information. - Taxman 19:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Your response is again nothing but a false and pat denial of the truth. I pointed out several times where you are wrong, and I will not do so again. If you wish to pollute the Wikipedia with your POV and vandalism, you go right ahead. Blair P. Houghton 22:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, in fact you've simply repeated the same conclusion you are drawing from the data at the exrx.net page, and are ignoring the fact that that study does not support your claim. Not only that, but you have not brought a single other source in support of your claim. You have also ignored multiple discussion points where you are wrong. - Taxman 13:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward

The link to a review article that was recently added was very helpful. Check it out here I can't tell if it was peer reviewed, but it surveys and summarizes the results from 58 other academic papers. For one it found "In summary, EPOC resulting from a single resistance exercise session does not represent a great impact on energy balance; however its cumulative effect may be relevant." It noted a lot of other interesting results such as a few more that estimate the size of the effect and one that I had previously seen that found the effect to last at least to a small degree up to 48 hours. It also mentions lipid metabolism effects of strength training. Some studies found greater utilization of fat for energy production (as a percentage of total energy use it seems, not necessarily greater total energy use), but one by Melanson "demonstrated that 24-h fat oxidation (measured in a calorimetry chamber) was not statistically different between days when subjects performed aerobic or resistance exercises and no exercise, the control situation." I will try to work these into the draft or regular article when I get a chance, but anyone else feel free. - Taxman 18:07, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Seeking to find as many sources as I can to answer the issue either way, I found a few more in a row that did not support the finding of greater fat loss of resistance training over endurance training. Here's the abstract for the Melanson study that specifically did measure the participants in a calorimeter and concluded "24-h fat and protein oxidation were the same on BK [aerobic], WTS [weight training], and Con [control - non exercise] days." Info in brackets is mine for explanation. Further "Conclusion: In men, resistance exercise has a similar effect on 24-h EE and macronutrient oxidation as a comparable bout of aerobic exercise. Neither exercise produced an increase in 24-h fat oxidation above that observed on a nonexercise control day." The abstract describes the exercise protocol and gives the summary data of the tests. Another study found no difference in lipid oxidation between a low intensity and a high intensity workout of equivalent work output, though the HI regime did find greater 24hr overall energy use. From the definition of work, I think that means the exercise regimes themselves were not time or calorie equivalent, but I'd have to check that. And finally another that "hypothesized that women would demonstrate increased energy expenditure in addition to increased fat oxidation post-exercise." found instead "The results from the study were somewhat surprising. Although energy expenditure for the twenty-four hour period surrounding the resistance training program was significantly elevated, both fat and protein oxidation values were not significantly different." I'll try to work these in as appropriate, but so far I haven't seen any other studies that find greater fat loss in weight training vs aerobic. They could be out there though. - Taxman 18:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect

Blair P. Houghton says he has lost interest in editing here, and I see no movement at all on the Draft article, so I am unprotecting. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oxygen Deficit and Oxygen Debt

Both redirect to here, however this is a different, albeit related, thing. I think either this should be expanded to something more general, or seperate articles need to be written. I'm leaning more towards the latter, and if I can get around to it, I'll lay down some basic articles. ObsidianOps (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there should definitely be a separate article for that concept. EPOC is a pretty specific one and can't really be generalized without losing something. If I'm thinking about it right, oxygen deficit is what happens during and immediately after intense exercise. EPOC is specifically defined as after exercise. Though maybe technically experiencing extended EPOC is defined as an oxygen deficit too. Either way, I think this is a case that they are just redirected because no one got around to dealing with them yet. - Taxman ^Talk 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Studying the oxygen deficit and getting redirected here. It is not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.140.152 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen debt in Torture Victims and Asthmatics

I am not sure that all forms of torture in which an oxygen deficit is induced to build up an oxygen debt can be called "exercise" & in some people (i'm thinking of asthmatics and people with some blood conditions) i think the debt may be caused not so much by the use of ATP rising above the maximum rate at which the system that produces it is able to do so but the maximum capacity at which the system can create ATP falling below the rate at which the ATP is being used up; the system being one that includes not only the blood but also the breathing. Breathing becomes difficult in asthmatics during an asthma attack.109.158.139.223 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actual paper that is summarised on www.exrx.net

Found a PDF of the study that's summarised on http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html.... http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/TIPS/exIntesity/Tremblay.pdf. Might be a better reference for the wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen newell (talk • contribs) 03:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)