Welcome to Thunderdome

TPRJones wrote:

A body builder is going to do it easily. A noob is going to huff and puff and raise his heart rate, but no more work was done...

All that huffing and puffing and struggling and faster heart rate takes more wasted calories than the simple calm lift of the body builder.

The less efficient newb will expend more energy due to being less efficient, despite doing the same amount of work.

GORDON wrote:

TPRJones wrote:

A body builder is going to do it easily. A noob is going to huff and puff and raise his heart rate, but no more work was done...

All that huffing and puffing and struggling and faster heart rate takes more wasted calories than the simple calm lift of the body builder.

I grant you wriggling around trying to push is a small expenditure of energy, but if one were to isolate the muscle being worked, it still takes X amount of force to lift the weight... if the muscle is capable of doing it at all.

...if the technique and movements are the same.

Malcolm wrote:

GORDON wrote:

TPRJones wrote: All that huffing and puffing and struggling and faster heart rate takes more wasted calories than the simple calm lift of the body builder.

I grant you wriggling around trying to push is a small expenditure of energy, but if one were to isolate the muscle being worked, it still takes X amount of force to lift the weight... if the muscle is capable of doing it at all.

Your muscles need fuel. How it gets there counts for a bit.

We're talking about the ATP/energy a muscle needs to perform a task, like lifting a weight. I say it is the same whether weak or strong. Catt disagrees.

GORDON wrote:I think just because you suffer a lot to run a mile when you are out of shape doesn't mean you did any more work or burned more or fewer calories that does a marthoner, you just suffered a lot to burn them.

GORDON wrote:I don't think heart rate is a valid indicator, by itself, of how many calories you are burning. Which was my original observation.

2) Firstbeat Algorithm (Current – 2nd Generation): The Firstbeat algorithm is the most accurate Garmin device calorie measurement that can be done without external testing. But it’s actually not developed natively by Garmin. It’s developed by a Finish company (Firstbeat Technologies) that has its roots in calculations around Olympic athletes, specifically Nordic skiing. Their calculation uses user inputted variables including gender, height, weight and fitness class. It then combines this data with heart rate information from the ANT+ heart rate strap. Specifically, it evaluates the time between heart beats (beat to beat) to determine estimated MET (Metabolic Equivalent), which in turn is used determine actual work expenditure.

This makes the system one of the more accurate non-invasive options (read: doesn’t require a laboratory), within about 10% accuracy. Firstbeat has published a fascinating white paper detailing the technology and accuracy rates. This little snippet below though helps to show where the technology lies accuracy-wise – with it being right in the upper-middle compared to full-board lab operations on one end, and ‘distance/time’ calculations on the other end (click below to expand picture).

TPRJones wrote:Yes.

Although, just to be a pain in the ass, I would also point out that muscle efficiency probably plays a small role. Well-toned muscle mass probably uses the energy more efficiently than unworked flab. But that particular difference is probably too small to matter much.

The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 18% to 26%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost, as can be calculated from oxygen consumption.

More data proving Catt is right

We also see that elite lifters are more efficient users of their calories than mid-level lifters are.