Watch out when you chose a doctor

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Jame » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:09:43


Below is a post from a character who tries to dominate the newsgroup
sci.med.cardiology.  This Chung thing claims to be a board certified
cardioligist.  He has historically shown nothing but disgust for the
cardio benefits of any exercise program.  His latest "pronouncment" is
that no normal human can expend more then about three times his
resting metabolic rate of energy burn.  You people that run thons will
be overjoyed to learn that at most you can only burn about 250 or 300
cal/hr according to this expert.  For those who run a thon in say
three hours this means you only burn 750 to 900 calories in the whole
thon.  In fact the fatser you run it the fewer calories you will burn
according to this idiots logic.  You will be happy to learn that all
the carbo loading you do before a race is a total waste of time.  No
point at all in eating gels or goo during the race either.

The reason I am posting this in rec.running is that all of you need to
be very aware that there are total nut cases who have impressive
medical credentials and are even board certified in a specialty area.
As athletes we do injure ourselves and need to be very careful when
seeking treatment that we do not get hooked up with crackpots like
Chung.

Also I thought some of the rec.running residents might get a charge
out of this guys misguided beliefs.  Perhaps even someone like Anne or
TBR or the Rev might want to help straighten this sicko out?  Even a
brief comment from Ultra John might help bring this creep to his
senses.

I have taken the liberty of putting who said a particular statement in
the text to make it followable.

Be careful out there folks.  We live in a dangerous world.

 Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article

Quote:


> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in



> >> >>From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and
> >> >>about 550 total calories, depending on speed.

Chung  Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.

Kirkman I'll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight
reduction

Quote:
> >> activities, and similar fields.  No "computing" work going on here, just
> >> application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business.

Chung Your choice.  I prefer the truth, which is that average folks
can at
Quote:
> >most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from
> >the basal rate with aerobic exercise.

Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the
formulas used by

Quote:
> exercise physiologists and trainers.

Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate.

Kirkman Since the truth of such an

Quote:
> implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a
> logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion.

Chung  It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most
accurate
measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned...  i.e.
kcal/hr).

This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby
poisoning
your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens).  As your
VO2 goes
to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead).

A person's maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person's maximum
rate of
metabolism.

For a background review on this topic:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08

From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally
occurs
when a person's heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate
(PMHR).  We
also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the
same given
percentage of VO2max.

Source:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08

So for some real life examples:

I am 39 years old.  My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is
220-39=181.

Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm.

This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max.  This also
means I
am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate.  If my
present
metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when
I walk
on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would
anticipate
a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr.

Kirkman  How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the
increased

Quote:
> energy expenditure derived from the formulas?  Do you mean metabolic
> rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of
> consistent exercise over time?  So far the thread has been about calorie
> burn during bouts of exercise--going back to a widely used approximation
> of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run.

Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by TopCouns » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:28:54

Quote:
>Be careful out there folks.  We live in a dangerous world.

Wow.  that level of ignorance in a "cardiologist" is appalling.  The well-known
advice for runners NOT to select any non-running doctor for any running-related
malady comes to mind (Did that originate with Dr. George Sheehan?).

Has this Chung chump never been acquainted with the concept of a "deficit?"
The number of logical flaws in his posts is vast, but even this one idea alone
seems to have eluded him.  Clearly, you can expend energy now and make up the
deficit later.  What of anaerobic workouts?  I only hope this guy is not having
an effect on any readers of his tripe.  His website states that his credentials
are from Emory University.....not a good adverti***t for them.

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by TenKMa » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:52:41


Quote:
> >Be careful out there folks.  We live in a dangerous world.

> Wow.  that level of ignorance in a "cardiologist" is appalling.  The
well-known
> advice for runners NOT to select any non-running doctor for any
running-related
> malady comes to mind (Did that originate with Dr. George Sheehan?).

Interesting though I didn't really follow the arguments very well.  When
they thought I had a heart problem (turned out to be allergy induced
asthma), Dr. Chung was extremely smart and knowledgeable in his replies.
Like I said, I don't follow this argument but he was helpful and smart
in the past.

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by this o » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:52:24

Quote:

> Below is a post from a character who tries to dominate the newsgroup
> sci.med.cardiology.  This Chung thing claims to be a board certified
> cardioligist.  He has historically shown nothing but disgust for the
> cardio benefits of any exercise program.  His latest "pronouncment" is
> that no normal human can expend more then about three times his
> resting metabolic rate of energy burn.  You people that run thons will
> be overjoyed to learn that at most you can only burn about 250 or 300
> cal/hr according to this expert.  For those who run a thon in say
> three hours this means you only burn 750 to 900 calories in the whole
> thon.  In fact the fatser you run it the fewer calories you will burn
> according to this idiots logic.

He also has a rather pronounced anti-scientific bent which is most
peculiar for a guy with science degrees and who is a doctor. If you
think this is "interesting," you should read his advice about
nutrition and caloric content of foods. He has recently posted that 2
pounds of potatoes contain 3600 calories and that 2 pounds of bread
contain 4000 calories.

And he gives dietary advice both online and, he says, in his practice
where he promotes the astonishing 2 Pound Diet which advocates only
eating 2 pounds of food a day irrespective of what it is as long as
it's less than you ate before. He says he invented it after seeing an
IMAX movie about Mt. Everest climbers who eat only 10 pounds of food a
week plus 4 additional pounds of water of hydration of freeze-dried
foods. The reality is that freeze-dried foods are from 10% to 40% of
the original weight and need to have 60% to 90% water-weight to
rehydrate. He knows nothing about what everest climbers actually do -
like eating everything they can before and during a climb in spite of
being given citations to read for himself. He never, never admits an
error unless he can blame it elsewhere or weasel his way out of it.

Check his website to see what a wacko he truly is.

He also doesn't bother to check his figures before shooting from the
hip. Then he insists that he's right after being confronted with
documented evidence to the contrary.

Chung says that about three times the resting metabolic rate is the
most *anybody* can ever reach. But here's a chart that says he's just
wrong. He's talking some sort of theory, this is empirical data.

 From <http://cibt.bio.cornell.edu/labs/phys/RES_0006.PDF>
Energy Expenditure per Hour During Different Types of Activity  For a
70 Kilogram Man
Form of Activity - Calories/Hr.
Sleeping - 65
Awake lying still - 77
Sitting at rest  - 100
Standing relaxed - 105
Dressing and undressing - 118
Tailoring - 135
Typewriting rapidly - 140
"Light" exercise - 170
Walking slowly (2.6 miles per hour) -  200
Carpentry, metal working, industrial painting - 240
"Active" exercise - 290
"Severe" exercise - 450
Sawing wood - 480
Swimming - 500
Running (5.3 miles per hour) - 570
"Very severe" exercise - 600
Walking very fast (5.3 miles per hour) - 650
Walking up stairs - 1100
Extracted from data compiled by Professor M. S. Rose.
--------------------------------------------
 From <http://tinyurl.com/ytvdn> By Darlene Forester, Food & Nutrition
Specialist, Revised by Janet Kurzynske, Ph.D., R.D. L.D, Extension
Food and Nutrition Specialist

"To calculate your caloric usage per mile, multiply your body weight
in pounds by .73. You can then use that information to plan your
weight loss by walking. Your body weight multiplied by .73 equals
the number of calories your body uses when you walk one mile. For
example, a person who weighs 130 pounds uses about 95 Calories for
each mile walked (130 x .73 = 95), or roughly averaging 100 Calories
per mile."
---------------------------------------

Chung says that an average person running at 5 miles per hour will
burn 300 calories in an hour. He hasn't supported that. This disputes
it. In fact it adds the significant factor of weight which Chung
completely misses. He says things like that just confuse the issue. <LOL>

<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>

The formula I like is that runners will burn 100 calories per mile
plus .5 X the difference between 150 pounds and their weight. So a 175
pound runner will burn approximately 112 cal/mile. A 200 pounder will
do about 125 cal/mile. It's obviously not exact, but it's easy to do
the math and it's close enough for my purposes.

Bob

Quote:
> You will be happy to learn that all
> the carbo loading you do before a race is a total waste of time.  No
> point at all in eating gels or goo during the race either.

> The reason I am posting this in rec.running is that all of you need to
> be very aware that there are total nut cases who have impressive
> medical credentials and are even board certified in a specialty area.
> As athletes we do injure ourselves and need to be very careful when
> seeking treatment that we do not get hooked up with crackpots like
> Chung.

> Also I thought some of the rec.running residents might get a charge
> out of this guys misguided beliefs.  Perhaps even someone like Anne or
> TBR or the Rev might want to help straighten this sicko out?  Even a
> brief comment from Ultra John might help bring this creep to his
> senses.

> I have taken the liberty of putting who said a particular statement in
> the text to make it followable.

> Be careful out there folks.  We live in a dangerous world.

>  Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article


>>>>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in



>>>>>>From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and

>>>>>>about 550 total calories, depending on speed.

> Chung  Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.

> Kirkman I'll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight
> reduction

>>>>activities, and similar fields.  No "computing" work going on here, just
>>>>application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business.

> Chung Your choice.  I prefer the truth, which is that average folks
> can at

>>>most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from
>>>the basal rate with aerobic exercise.

> Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the
> formulas used by

>>exercise physiologists and trainers.

> Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate.

> Kirkman Since the truth of such an

>>implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a
>>logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion.

> Chung  It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most
> accurate
> measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned...  i.e.
> kcal/hr).

> This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby
> poisoning
> your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens).  As your
> VO2 goes
> to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead).

> A person's maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person's maximum
> rate of
> metabolism.

> For a background review on this topic:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08

> From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally
> occurs
> when a person's heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate
> (PMHR).  We
> also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the
> same given
> percentage of VO2max.

> Source:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08

> So for some real life examples:

> I am 39 years old.  My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is
> 220-39=181.

> Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm.

> This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max.  This also
> means I
> am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate.  If my
> present
> metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when
> I walk
> on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would
> anticipate
> a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr.

> Kirkman  How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the
> increased

>>energy expenditure derived from the formulas?  Do you mean metabolic
>>rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of
>>consistent exercise over time?  So far the thread has been about calorie
>>burn during bouts of exercise--going back to a widely used approximation
>>of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run.

> Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions.

> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

> Andrew

> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/

> **
> Who is the humblest person in the universe?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

> What is all this about?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7

> Is this spam?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Miss Anne Thro » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:36:32

There's a cardiology newsgroup?  Sheesh, and I thought joggers were a
bunch of stiffs...
 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by nader.. » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:38:22

McElroy again.
Quote:

> Below is a post from a character who tries to dominate the newsgroup
> sci.med.cardiology.  This Chung thing claims to be a board certified
> cardioligist.  He has historically shown nothing but disgust for the
> cardio benefits of any exercise program.  His latest "pronouncment" is
> that no normal human can expend more then about three times his
> resting metabolic rate of energy burn.  You people that run thons will
> be overjoyed to learn that at most you can only burn about 250 or 300
> cal/hr according to this expert.  For those who run a thon in say
> three hours this means you only burn 750 to 900 calories in the whole
> thon.  In fact the fatser you run it the fewer calories you will burn
> according to this idiots logic.  You will be happy to learn that all
> the carbo loading you do before a race is a total waste of time.  No
> point at all in eating gels or goo during the race either.

> The reason I am posting this in rec.running is that all of you need to
> be very aware that there are total nut cases who have impressive
> medical credentials and are even board certified in a specialty area.
> As athletes we do injure ourselves and need to be very careful when
> seeking treatment that we do not get hooked up with crackpots like
> Chung.

> Also I thought some of the rec.running residents might get a charge
> out of this guys misguided beliefs.  Perhaps even someone like Anne or
> TBR or the Rev might want to help straighten this sicko out?  Even a
> brief comment from Ultra John might help bring this creep to his
> senses.

> I have taken the liberty of putting who said a particular statement in
> the text to make it followable.

> Be careful out there folks.  We live in a dangerous world.

>  Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article


> > >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in



> > >> >>From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and
> > >> >>about 550 total calories, depending on speed.

> Chung  Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.

> Kirkman I'll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight
> reduction
> > >> activities, and similar fields.  No "computing" work going on here, just
> > >> application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business.

> Chung Your choice.  I prefer the truth, which is that average folks
> can at
> > >most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from
> > >the basal rate with aerobic exercise.

> Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the
> formulas used by
> > exercise physiologists and trainers.

> Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate.

> Kirkman Since the truth of such an
> > implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a
> > logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion.

> Chung  It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most
> accurate
> measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned...  i.e.
> kcal/hr).

> This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby
> poisoning
> your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens).  As your
> VO2 goes
> to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead).

> A person's maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person's maximum
> rate of
> metabolism.

> For a background review on this topic:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08

> From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally
> occurs
> when a person's heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate
> (PMHR).  We
> also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the
> same given
> percentage of VO2max.

> Source:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08

> So for some real life examples:

> I am 39 years old.  My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is
> 220-39=181.

> Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm.

> This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max.  This also
> means I
> am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate.  If my
> present
> metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when
> I walk
> on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would
> anticipate
> a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr.

> Kirkman  How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the
> increased
> > energy expenditure derived from the formulas?  Do you mean metabolic
> > rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of
> > consistent exercise over time?  So far the thread has been about calorie
> > burn during bouts of exercise--going back to a widely used approximation
> > of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run.

> Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions.

> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

> Andrew

> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/

> **
> Who is the humblest person in the universe?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

> What is all this about?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7

> Is this spam?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/Ph » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:24:31

Quote:

> <hiss>

>  Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article


> > >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in



> > >> >>From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and
> > >> >>about 550 total calories, depending on speed.

> Chung  Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.

> Kirkman I'll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight
> reduction
> > >> activities, and similar fields.  No "computing" work going on here, just
> > >> application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business.

> Chung Your choice.  I prefer the truth, which is that average folks
> can at
> > >most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from
> > >the basal rate with aerobic exercise.

> Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the
> formulas used by
> > exercise physiologists and trainers.

> Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate.

> Kirkman Since the truth of such an
> > implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a
> > logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion.

> Chung  It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most
> accurate
> measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned...  i.e.
> kcal/hr).

> This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby
> poisoning
> your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens).  As your
> VO2 goes
> to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead).

> A person's maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person's maximum
> rate of
> metabolism.

> For a background review on this topic:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08

> From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally
> occurs
> when a person's heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate
> (PMHR).  We
> also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the
> same given
> percentage of VO2max.

> Source:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08

> So for some real life examples:

> I am 39 years old.  My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is
> 220-39=181.

> Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm.

> This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max.  This also
> means I
> am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate.  If my
> present
> metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when
> I walk
> on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would
> anticipate
> a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr.

> Kirkman  How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the
> increased
> > energy expenditure derived from the formulas?  Do you mean metabolic
> > rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of
> > consistent exercise over time?  So far the thread has been about calorie
> > burn during bouts of exercise--going back to a widely used approximation
> > of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run.

Sorry you disagree.

You will be in my prayers, neighbor.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Bethowmu » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:16:32

Quote:
>Who is the humblest person in the universe?

Its a toss up between Marion Barry and George Bush jr
 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Doug Frees » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:51:48

Quote:

>>Be careful out there folks.  We live in a dangerous world.

> Wow.  that level of ignorance in a "cardiologist" is appalling.  The well-known
> advice for runners NOT to select any non-running doctor for any running-related
> malady comes to mind (Did that originate with Dr. George Sheehan?).

> Has this Chung chump never been acquainted with the concept of a "deficit?"
> The number of logical flaws in his posts is vast, but even this one idea alone
> seems to have eluded him.  Clearly, you can expend energy now and make up the
> deficit later.  What of anaerobic workouts?  I only hope this guy is not having
> an effect on any readers of his tripe.  His website states that his credentials
> are from Emory University.....not a good adverti***t for them.

I saw some of his stuff on sci.med.nutrition and would place him
politely in the quack category.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by nader.. » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:31:43


You are a fraud, no such Dr is licensed in the USA.

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by John » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:04:09


Quote:

>You are a fraud, no such Dr is licensed in the USA.

Did you actually look or did you post this after just making it up?

If anyone who is interested bothers to go to the AMA website and
follows the "find a doctor" path, looking for a doctor in Georgia,
with Andrew Chung as the name being looked for, you'll find his
listing there with a cardiovascular diseases specialty.  

Will you now offer the groups your profound appology for posting a
false and defaming statement?

John

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Tim Downi » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:36:35

Quote:

> I saw some of his stuff on sci.med.nutrition and would place him
> politely in the quack category.

Yes but can he tell the difference between "chose" and "choose"? ;-)

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Jame » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:35:28

Quote:

>  Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote nonsense and lies in article


> > >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in



> > >> >>From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and
> > >> >>about 550 total calories, depending on speed.

> Chung  Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.

Not at all too simple.  Very accurate in fact.  But more on this
later.

Quote:

> Kirkman I'll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight
> reduction
> > >> activities, and similar fields.  No "computing" work going on here, just
> > >> application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business.

> Chung Your choice.  I prefer the truth, which is that average folks
> can at
> > >most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from
> > >the basal rate with aerobic exercise.

You do not prefer the truth.  You prefer lies you have deluded
yourself into thinking are the truth.  More on this later.

Quote:

> Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the
> formulas used by
> > exercise physiologists and trainers.

> Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate.

Notoriously accurate would be the correct statement.

Quote:
> Kirkman Since the truth of such an
> > implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a
> > logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion.

> Chung  It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most
> accurate
> measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned...  i.e.
> kcal/hr).

> This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby
> poisoning
> your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens).

This is not how cyanide kills you.  You are dead long before any
meaningful amount of cyanide has a chance to reach the mitochondria in
your muscle cells.  Did you not have to take any science in college
Chung?  Or have you simply forgotten all of it you took?

  As your

Quote:
> VO2 goes
> to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead).

> A person's maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person's maximum
> rate of
> metabolism.

> For a background review on this topic:

> http://SportToday.org/

> From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally
> occurs
> when a person's heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate
> (PMHR).  We
> also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the
> same given
> percentage of VO2max.

> Source:

> http://SportToday.org/

> So for some real life examples:

> I am 39 years old.  My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is
> 220-39=181.

Your formula for max heart rate is useless.  For instance I will use
myself as an example to show how foolish this formula is.  I am lots
older then Chung claims he is.  His formula says my max heart rate
would be about 150.  Yet only a couple of years ago my doctor had me
on a treadmill and asked me to tell him when I had two minutes left in
me.  He decided to stop the test at a heart rate of 185.  I do not
know why.  I had not told him I was down to two minutes.

Further, max heart rate is not the point at which anyone can exercise
on a sustained basis.  At max heart rate you are well into anerobic
metabolism and building lactate in your muscles rapidly.  I probably
have only been to max heart rate a couple of times in my life.  Let me
tell you what max heart rate feels like.  Your legs are lead.  Your
leg muscles are burning badly from lactate buildup.  You have a
roaring noise in your ears.  But you probably do not notice it because
of the pain and the fact your brain is not working very well due to
oxygen shortage.  Your vision is getting bad fast.  The couple of
times I might have hit heart rate max were the last 50 yards of a race
back when I ran competitively.  I had no memory of the last 50 yards
or hitting the tape after the race.

The aberant diet Chung eats and his total dismissal of any exercise
program makes me sure he has never come close to heart rate max.  If
he did there is a decent chance he might not live through it.

What level can a person exercise at for a extended period?  Simple.
It is called the lactate threshold level.  This is the point at which
you just start to make lactate.  Depending on all kinds of factors,
including training, the lactate threshold level is from perhaps 60% to
85% of a persons max heart rate.  I would expect from what Chung has
told us about himself he could not sustain a heart rate above 60% of
his heart rate max.  That would be perhaps 130 bpm. Maybe less. By
contrast, my lactate threshold heart rate is about 165 or 170 beats
per minute.  Note that this rate is HIGHER then Chung's nonsense
formula says my max heart rate should be.  So much for the formula.

Quote:

> Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm.

> This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max.  This also
> means I
> am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate.  If my
> present
> metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when
> I walk
> on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would
> anticipate
> a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr.

The above is so filled with falsehoods it is hard to know where to
start.  First of all, as I have pointed out above Chung can not
possibly perform at a sustained heart rate of 180.  Thus his factor of
three is too high right off.

Then there are the built in assumptions about pump volume.  Chung
assumes that a persons heart pumps the same volume of *** regardless
of its rate.  This simply is not true.  As a persons heart speeds up
it may pump less *** per beat, essentually the same volume per beat,
or an increased volume per beat.  Which it does depends on a whole
host of factors ranging from disease to genetics to training.

Also Chung makes the invalid assumption that the bodys oxygen uptake
per pass
of a given volume of *** is invarient with increased exercise
levels.  This is also not what science has shown.

Thus his simplistic math has no relation to reality.  It is a pure
figment of his imagination.  In fact if you believed what he says and
simply factor in the limits due to his lactate threshold level he has
proven he can only exercise at a factor of two greater then his
resting metabolism level.  Even he can do better then this.

Quote:

> Kirkman  How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the
> increased
> > energy expenditure derived from the formulas?  Do you mean metabolic
> > rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of
> > consistent exercise over time?  So far the thread has been about calorie
> > burn during bouts of exercise--going back to a widely used approximation
> > of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run.

> Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions.

Lets think a little bit about the physics of running.  At the normal
speeds people run distances, say up to 12 mph, frictional drag from
the air is nil and can be ignored.  Any undergrad science student can
easily prove this based on simply physical propertys of air and the
size of our bodies.

So where does all the expended energy go?  Well, consider the
mechanics of running.  At shortly after the time your farward foot
hits the ground your center of gravity is at its lowest.  You then
raise your center of gravity as your leg comes under you and pushes
back.  For a moment after your back foot leaves the ground you are in
free fall before your other foot contacts the ground ahead of you.  So
essentually, the act of running involves falling forward with a
lowering of your center of gravity followed by lifting your center of
gravity back to its max point.  Most of the energy to run is involved
in this lifting of your center of gravity back to its high point.

People who run slow do not do so by taking fewer steps per time
interval.  Slow runners take the same number of steps per minute as
fast runners.  But fast runners take longer steps.  Thus, over an hour
a slow runner must lift himself less distance vertically then a fast
runner.  Thus the slow runner will burn fewer total calories per hour
then the fast runner.  But if you calculate how many calories each
burn to run a mile according to Newton's laws you find that both burn
the same per mile.  A bit under 100 cal burn is a good average number.
This depends of course on the person weight and physical dimensions.
The person also burns some calories maintaining the rest of his bodily
functions.  So total calorie burn is a bit over 100 per mile.

Does all this seem rather complicated?  I am sure it is far too
complicated for Chung to understand.  I am sure he will tell us Newton
was wrong.  But just think about this for a moment.  Think about how
easy it is to run down even a small grade versus running on the flat.
Why is it so easy to run down a slight grade?  Because you are lifting
your body less is why.  And how much harder is it to run up that
slight grade then on the flat?  It is a lot harder because you are
lifting your body a lot more on an uphill grade.  Even a drop or rise
of only 1 foot per 100 foot horizontal is very noticable.  Even Chung
will have to admit this if he has ever actually seen treadmill
results.

To further illustrate how important lifting your body is when running
consider what it is like to ride a bicycle.  Depending on the bike and
terrain I am told that a bike is some 5 to 7 times more efficient then
running from an energy expendature standpoint.  What is the big
difference?  On a bike you do not ever change your bodies center
...

read more »

 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by TopCouns » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:48:57

Quote:
>> > >> >>From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and

about 550 total calories, depending on speed.

Quote:
>> Chung  Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.

To test the work output of engines, they use a dynamometer.  A rough equivalent
for the human body would be a treadmill set up to measure energy output.  That
this knucklehead thinks one could only expend about 200 - 250 calories in an
hour of running is so ignorant that he could be proven wrong in the first 10
minutes by many runners.  Is his silliness really worth debating much?  He
belongs lumped in with the flat-earth society dumbos, doesn't he?
 
 
 

Watch out when you chose a doctor

Post by Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/Ph » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:00:25

Quote:


> You are a fraud,

Ouch.  Have at the other cheek.

Quote:
> no such Dr is licensed in the USA.

In truth, I am licensed in the USA.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867