I Took 20 YEARS....!!!

[Nelson Montana]

...for science to finally prove what I've been saying since the 1990's.

Heart rate has nothing to do with fat loss and the calculation that's been used by all the personal training certifications is just "made up" bullshit.

Of course, I knew all along and have always followed my own methods. Even for the show I did in the spring,. I lost 10 pounds in the first 2 weeks without a minute of cardio.

I heard all sorts of shit from experts to every other guy with a gym card and a computer. Now, more extensive studies show I was right all along.

Better late than never I guess.

http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf

 

[RickRock13]

Cardio isn't needed at all for fat loss. It's all calories in vs calories out in the end. Some people like to get their defecit from diet only, and some people like to split their defecits between diet and cardio. Both ways work great. I like food, and hate big defecits so I don't mind jumping on the treadmill to burn.

 

[MattJS]

Yeah I kinda got that impression, the fact that it was just presented to us with no background info rang an alarm bell for me, maybe we'll see the fall of the Harris-Benedict equation next...

 

[stevesmi]

when i was in my early to mid 20's I lost about 25-30 pounds in about 6 weeks from yoga and a change of diet. didn't do any cardio. this isn't some new discovery at all. if you put your mind to it you can accomplish a lot. granted I had let myself go .. i would guess my body fat was around 22% or so eating probably the worst diet you could imagine and it came all the way down to 11% during those 6 weeks eating a totally clean diet.. did not use any compounds to accomplish this btw. the main advantage is i had been skinny all my life, someone who has an endomorph type body and has struggled all their lives with being overweight is gonna have a tougher time replicating these results. i was an ecto all my life so it was easy to just go back to what was normal for me.

once i started doing endurance training and running 40-45 miles a week my body fat collapsed even further down to 6%.. so if you really want to take things to another level definately get in your cardio. but for the average joe out there a simple change of diet is all you need to be healthy

and then you gotta remember what you for a living makes a big difference.. if you are sitting in your ass all day as a truck driver or on your computer all day you aren't gonna be shedding any where close to as many calories as someone who walks to work or digs ditches all day.

people have to understand that

 

[buddhabuilder]

I walk into the gym from the car. That is the extent of my cardio. And I just lost another half inch at my waiste. Dr. Montana...

 

[MattJS]

I'm an ectomorph with a freakish metabolism, I struggle to gain any kind of mass at the best of times, any kind of cardio is completely out of the question for me.... I'm not sure about the whole cardio thing, if I was gonna try to burn more calories I'd look to my sex life before subjecting myself to anything boring... I'd rather be on a woman than a cross trainer lol but obviously thats not a practical solution in every case...

 

[Zyglamail]

Cardio isn't needed at all for fat loss. It's all calories in vs calories out in the end.

Generally speaking I agree but certain things like high fructose corn syrup does strange things to our system. 2000 calories of high fructose corn syrup will not be handled by the body like typical carbs.

There are also a lot of underlying conditions (intestinal pathogens, nutrient deficiencies etc) that skew the way the body works causing some to be unable to lose or gain weight as one would expect.

The industry if fad diets and pills for weight loss is such a big hit not just because people are lazy and want a quick fix but because there are alos a LOT of people who do regularly exercise and eat well but cant gain muscle or lose fat.

If it were as easy as cals in and cals out then we wouldnt see the large number of people here looking to shed some fat.

 

[stevesmi]

Generally speaking I agree but certain things like high fructose corn syrup does strange things to our system. 2000 calories of high fructose corn syrup will not be handled by the body like typical carbs.

There are also a lot of underlying conditions (intestinal pathogens, nutrient deficiencies etc) that skew the way the body works causing some to be unable to lose or gain weight as one would expect.

The industry if fad diets and pills for weight loss is such a big hit not just because people are lazy and want a quick fix but because there are alos a LOT of people who do regularly exercise and eat well but cant gain muscle or lose fat.

If it were as easy as cals in and cals out then we wouldnt see the large number of people here looking to shed some fat.

i definately agree with this. especially with bodybuilders, lifters, etc who juice. it changes the way the body acts .. especially since AAS some more than others nutrition partition..

and then many females especially have thyroid problems over the age of 40 so its downright impossible to lose any fat i don't care how solid their diet is. obesity is definately an epidemic that is complex.

funny thing about high fructose corn syrup i noticed a couple days ago. Nyquil for children does not contain it, but nyquil for adults does. so i guess it is ethical to give HFCS to adults but for children it is not in the drugmakers mind.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Generally speaking I agree but certain things like high fructose corn syrup does strange things to our system. 2000 calories of high fructose corn syrup will not be handled by the body like typical carbs.

There are also a lot of underlying conditions (intestinal pathogens, nutrient deficiencies etc) that skew the way the body works causing some to be unable to lose or gain weight as one would expect.

The industry if fad diets and pills for weight loss is such a big hit not just because people are lazy and want a quick fix but because there are alos a LOT of people who do regularly exercise and eat well but cant gain muscle or lose fat.

If it were as easy as cals in and cals out then we wouldnt see the large number of people here looking to shed some fat.[/QUOTE]


Actually, it is. The reason why there's a large number of people who aren't shedding fat is because they simply aren't doing it.

Sure, you can't live on grilled cheese sandwiches and Gummy Bears, but taking two logical well balanced diets and having one of them 1000 calories less a day, THAT will be the one that will result in fat loss. Every time.

 

[stevesmi]

^^^ yeah but nelson would you agree that a 50 year old female with thyroid problems isn't gonna burn calories no matter what she eats vs. a 15 year old boy?

i used to have that attitude but having seen so many examples of this its obvious there is so much more to it .. its not black and white

and i can flip it around there are dudes that no matter what cannot gain muscle even on juice. and there are dudes that look at a weight and gain muscle. everyone is so different that you can't just cast a big net on everyone and say THIS WILL WORK

 

[tha_Waco_kid]

I must be on the opposite end of the equation. I have tried everything. Perfectly clean low cal diet, tons of cardio, IF, carb cycling, everything. All my efforts of trying to lean out have failed at 12%. Short of hiring a pre contest trainer and/or adding several dangerous drugs, I'm at a loss of what to do about it to ever get sub 10%.

On the flip side, I can put on 35 lbs in 4 weeks no problem if I hammer the food, and a simple pro hormone. I am as much of a hard loser, and easy gainer, as probably exists. Of course the irony is, I don't want to be big, I want to be lean.

Everyone is different as many in this thread can surely attest to. Which is why black and white blanket statements are so irritating.

 

[RickRock13]

Generally speaking I agree but certain things like high fructose corn syrup does strange things to our system. 2000 calories of high fructose corn syrup will not be handled by the body like typical carbs.

There are also a lot of underlying conditions (intestinal pathogens, nutrient deficiencies etc) that skew the way the body works causing some to be unable to lose or gain weight as one would expect.

The industry if fad diets and pills for weight loss is such a big hit not just because people are lazy and want a quick fix but because there are alos a LOT of people who do regularly exercise and eat well but cant gain muscle or lose fat.

If it were as easy as cals in and cals out then we wouldnt see the large number of people here looking to shed some fat.

Yes, I was generalizing but I agree with you. Going to extremes like ingesting 2000 cals from HFCS would have a lot of negative effects, but I doubt anyone has a 100% high fructose corn syrup diet. IIFYM (If it fits your macros) diets have a lot of merit and there is a lot of truth in them. The catch is that I challenge anyone to eat pizza, ice cream, hot dogs, and burgers and come to a sensible macro nutrient profile at the end of the day like 40/40/20 or similar. You will end up eating mostly clean by default to fit your macros. I don't believe in bad food or good food, but to get the numbers to balance you have to eat the "bad food" sparingly in moderation to balance the numbers. Still ends up calories in vs calories out, but...the macros need to be there too

 

[stevesmi]

lets remember a lot of us are insulin sensitive as well. this presents a whole nother dilemna where one can consume 25% less cals then someone else yet still pack on pounds even if both all things equal were to burn the same amount of cals.

when you juice you are adding an anabolic component to the situation. anabolism = growth. waco kid this would explain your situation as to why you can't get under 12%.

 

[Zyglamail]

Yes, I was generalizing but I agree with you. Going to extremes like ingesting 2000 cals from HFCS would have a lot of negative effects, but I doubt anyone has a 100% high fructose corn syrup diet. IIFYM (If it fits your macros) diets have a lot of merit and there is a lot of truth in them. The catch is that I challenge anyone to eat pizza, ice cream, hot dogs, and burgers and come to a sensible macro nutrient profile at the end of the day like 40/40/20 or similar. You will end up eating mostly clean by default to fit your macros. I don't believe in bad food or good food, but to get the numbers to balance you have to eat the "bad food" sparingly in moderation to balance the numbers. Still ends up calories in vs calories out, but...the macros need to be there too

I think even the best planned diets have macro deficiencies due to soil deficiencies, exposure to heavy metals and intestinal pathogens. Combine over farmed soils with chemical bombardment and its nearly impossible to get a well balanced diet without supplementation.

Add to that that there is a misconception about so many minerals that even when you do realize you need more of something it can often take months or even years of "loading" to replenish mineral stores to optimum levels.

If the body is firing on all cylinders and has optimal amounts of minerals in the tissue and is continuing to get optimal amounts from nutrition and isnt overloaded with heavy metals then a moderately sensible diet would make weight loss and/or muscle gain fairly easy.

Ive been struggling to get "lean" for years and it doesnt matter how clean I eat how many calories I cut or how many more calories a day I burn.

A agree that a lot of people simply arent following the basic principles of weight loss but I also think there is a large number of people who are doing all the right things and still not losing weight because there is more to it.

 

[stevesmi]

personally i find a woman who has curves far sexier than one that is a spinner. there is one girl at my gym who is about 5'1" curvy.. not sure her weight i would guess 130 pounds? she has this amazing curvy body and this ass .. she always wears these tight outfits. NOBODY in the gym works out like this girl she is amazing, probably an ex gymnast. anyway i hope she doesn't feel like she has to drop to 110 to look good just like how some guys think they need to be 5% body fat. we all are different and there are those of us who like that curvy look and there are those who like the spinner look.

to me she has the perfect body. makes me want to get on my knees and beg for buttermilk

 

[EYEWTKAS]

you burn the same amount of calories if you were to walk 5 miles or run 5 miles. But you will burn those calories in a shorter time period if you decide to run.

 

[Muscleaddict]

you burn the same amount of calories if you were to walk 5 miles or run 5 miles. But you will burn those calories in a shorter time period if you decide to run.

Incorrect. You burn considerably more when running. The faster you go the more you burn. You sucked at science in high school right.

 

[RickRock13]

you burn the same amount of calories if you were to walk 5 miles or run 5 miles. But you will burn those calories in a shorter time period if you decide to run.

You are way off on that bro. Intensity and caloric burn are relative. The more intense the cardio, the more you burn. Its that simple

 

[EYEWTKAS]

it is what my health teacher told the class in 7th grade.. saying that you expend the same amount of energy. That has stuck with me my entire life and have based my cardio off of it. So are you telling me my entire life is a lie!!!!??

He also said the same principle goes for lifting weights as well.. benching 500 pounds once uses the same amount of energy as benching 100 pounds 5 times.

 

[stevesmi]

^^^ test your theory out bro.

go and run 5 miles. and then the next day walk 5 miles and then get back to me on which you feel was harder. lol. come on bro lets think logically about this.

500 pounds vs. 100 pounds 5X? if i did 100 pounds on the bench it wouldn't do a damn thing for me. it would be like warming up with stryofoam..

your teacher i won't say is an idiot, but lets be honest. he is teaching you things out of a book and not real life experience obviously . my health teacher in 9th grade was an obese woman and i highly doubt she ate well, teaching kids out of a book is different than real life.

 

[EYEWTKAS]

I am not disagreeing with you at all. The second part was actually from my physics teacher in high school.

But it is a science fact that.. whether you lift 500 pounds once.. or 100 pounds 5 times.. both are the same amount of work.

W = [ M x A ] x D

W = Work
M = Mass
A = Acceleration
D = Distance

One does exert more Force though

 

[El Hefe]

I'm not sure there is any 'right' or 'one size fits all' answer to this question/debate. (I'm not referring to the 1x500 vs 5x100 debate)

My opinion is that 'mx calories' are a moving target. I've personally maintained on 1500-4000 cals during different times in my life.

The body adjusts and adapts so quickly for some that it compounds the issue. For example, there was a period where I got real busy starting a business and started working out less and also eating less and less frequently. Eventually, I was eating 1-2 times a day and I started getting fat(er). I went from 220-240. The funny thing is that it took me years of 4000-6000 cal days to get to 220. My metabolism definitely changed.

I then began eating cleaner, more often, and more calories (with a few more trips to the gym) and my metabolism picked back up and I dropped 20lbs within 4 moths by eating more, better and more often.

But of course my metabolism (mx cals) adjusted again.

So there are a ton of variables here. If someone's mx rate is 2500 and then they drop there intake to 2200, it would appear that there is a 300 cal deficit. Well...Maybe. The body can adjust and then begin maintaining on the new, lower caloric intake.

 

[stevesmi]

yeah bro lets say that is true its where science and fitness don't match. you cannot use this kind of analogy with training.

do you think people who run marathons train by walking 26 miles? well according to that theory it would be the same amount of force.

no they run A LOT to train for it

 

[EYEWTKAS]

no.. it is the same amount of work, but one requires more force. Force and Work are two different things.. when it comes to physics. And I know that the equation doesn't translate into real life very well.. but science is science.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Incorrect. You burn considerably more when running. The faster you go the more you burn. You sucked at science in high school right.

He's actually correct. It takes much longer to walk, therefore more time expending calories . Training for a marathon has nothing to do with the amount of calories you burn.

Another point that is being misconstrued -- not everyone is going to get equal results. But the principle remains. The rest is genetics.

 

[digit0x]

it is what my health teacher told the class in 7th grade.. saying that you expend the same amount of energy. That has stuck with me my entire life and have based my cardio off of it. So are you telling me my entire life is a lie!!!!??

He also said the same principle goes for lifting weights as well.. benching 500 pounds once uses the same amount of energy as benching 100 pounds 5 times.

He was probably referring to required potential or kinetic energy but I promise you this is not the case when talking about how the body burns calories.

 

[Muscleaddict]

Put your egos down for a second. It is similar to fuel in a car. If you drive 10 miles at 100mph you will burn way more fuel than 10 miles at 50mph. Calories burned over a distance change depending on your heart rate and VO2. The higher your intensity, the more oxygen you consume, the more calories you burn. Scientific fact, not an opinion.

 

[EYEWTKAS]

well how much do we really know about facts?

 

[Nelson Montana]

Put your egos down for a second. It is similar to fuel in a car. If you drive 10 miles at 100mph you will burn way more fuel than 10 miles at 50mph. Calories burned over a distance change depending on your heart rate and VO2. The higher your intensity, the more oxygen you consume, the more calories you burn. Scientific fact, not an opinion.

Not analogous. A car uses only one fuel source and does not fatigue over time. Then again, if a car traveled 10 miles in stop and go traffic it'll actually use more fuel. Hope your ego can accept that. : )

 

[RickRock13]

Lots of bioscience up in here. While bringing things up, it does remain clear that short high intense intervals of exercise like HIIT are superior to longer and lower intense exercise like LISS for fat loss and total caloric burn.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Lots of misinformation in this thread from all sides. I guess the point of the original post has been lost along the way. lol.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Lots of bioscience up in here. While bringing things up, it does remain clear that short high intense intervals of exercise like HIIT are superior to longer and lower intense exercise like LISS for fat loss and total caloric burn.

That's because intense exercise builds muscle and low level exercise does not. Everyone seems to be missing the point that running 5 miles will take about an hour, whereas walking it will take about 5 hours and the fact that energy is being exerted over that much more time will make up the difference in calorie expenditure.

 

[RickRock13]

That's because intense exercise builds muscle and low level exercise does not. Everyone seems to be missing the point that running 5 miles will take about an hour, whereas walking it will take about 5 hours and the fact that energy is being exerted over that much more time will make up the difference in calorie expenditure.

You will still burn more fat at a higher intensity than lower intensity. How many ripped mall walkers do you see compared to ripped sprinters (which there are tons)?

Also, I'm pretty sure my grandma can run 5 miles in an hour. Thats slow as fuck. Get on a treadmill and set it at 5MPH and you will see what I mean. I run 5 miles in about 40 minutes or even less if I want to push it. When I do LISS I walk 4 miles in an hour....and that's with a 10% incline. Walking 5 miles takes 5 hours? Who the Hell is walking 1MPH?

 

[MaxxReps]

It may be the same amount of work but will not have the same effect on the body due (probably among several other things) to the difference in the intensity/duration ratio. I highly doubt anyone will grow to be a monster by doing hundreds or thousdands of reps of bodyweight squats, or bench pressing 20 lb dumb bells.

 

[Nelson Montana]

You will still burn more fat at a higher intensity than lower intensity. How many ripped mall walkers do you see compared to ripped sprinters (which there are tons)?

Also, I'm pretty sure my grandma can run 5 miles in an hour. Thats slow as fuck. Get on a treadmill and set it at 5MPH and you will see what I mean. I run 5 miles in about 40 minutes or even less if I want to push it. When I do LISS I walk 4 miles in an hour....and that's with a 10% incline. Walking 5 miles takes 5 hours? Who the Hell is walking 1MPH?

Sprinters are athletes, mall walkers are not.

As for the time, they were rough estimates. I wasn't talking about running as fast as possible. 5 miles in 40 minutes is pretty quick, but, okay. COmpared to a 5 mile walk in 2 hours -- it still comes out to about the same calorie expendature.

Conditioning has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I've seen lots of marathon runners who are pretty chubby.

 

[Nelson Montana]

It may be the same amount of work but will not have the same effect on the body due (probably among several other things) to the difference in the intensity/duration ratio. I highly doubt anyone will grow to be a monster by doing hundreds or thousdands of reps of bodyweight squats, or bench pressing 20 lb dumb bells.

Irrelevant to calories burned -- which I thought we were talking about, but it's gotten off track.

 

[TheRippedReverend]

personally i find a woman who has curves far sexier than one that is a spinner. there is one girl at my gym who is about 5'1" curvy.. not sure her weight i would guess 130 pounds? she has this amazing curvy body and this ass .. she always wears these tight outfits. NOBODY in the gym works out like this girl she is amazing, probably an ex gymnast. anyway i hope she doesn't feel like she has to drop to 110 to look good just like how some guys think they need to be 5% body fat. we all are different and there are those of us who like that curvy look and there are those who like the spinner look.

to me she has the perfect body. makes me want to get on my knees and beg for buttermilk

Am excited take pics! Hehe. So thats your motivation huh? Lol.

Stevemi be like: am in teh gym when she in teh gym

 

[Muscleaddict]

Irrelevant to calories burned -- which I thought we were talking about, but it's gotten off track.

Actually completely relevant. RickRock is right about more intensity burning more calories. There's an algorithm to calculate how much more you burn as you speed up your walk to whatever running speed. A quick Google will find you quite a few online calculators to demonstrate.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Actually completely relevant. RickRock is right about more intensity burning more calories. There's an algorithm to calculate how much more you burn as you speed up your walk to whatever running speed. A quick Google will find you quite a few online calculators to demonstrate.

An on-line calculator? Oh, then that must be right. Never mind.

 

[BrendonEls]

From an engineering perspective.

There is a law called- the conservation of energy.

Now what this law basically tells us- Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred from one object to another.

So for weightloss , you can basically see your fat cells as capacitors - a device that stores energy -.

So wat we can say is

Energy_in=Energy_out according to the energy law.

Where

Energy_out=Energy_used + Energy_stored

Thus giving us:

Energy_in=Energy_used+ Energy_stored

So take an example: You eat 2000cal a day

You burn 1000cal a day.

2000=1000 + Energy_stored

Energy_stored= 1000cal.

Nb the above calculation assumes that you have 0 fat.


The equation can also be written as:

Energy_in + Energy_fat_cells = Energy_out + Energy_stored.

This one is more realistic since all of us do have some fat.

Nb my equation is not complete..... this is just a small part.

It can even get bigger:

Energy_in + Energy_fat_cells + Heat_transfer_ambient_to_body = Energy_out + Energy_stored + Heat_transfer_body_to_ambient.

Etc.....









Sent from my GT-N7105 using EliteFitness

 

[RickRock13]

Oh fuck...this has turned into the goddamned science versus broscience thread now...lmfao

 

[MaxxReps]

I've had the walk vs run calorie thing parroted to me by fitness type as well and I just don't buy it. There is no way that anyone could convince me that leisurely walking for a distance burns the same amount of energy as jumping over and over the same distance - which is EXACTLY was running is, but not to the same extreme.

 

[BrendonEls]

Oops I made a mistake with my last equations,,,

Energy_out=Energy_used

And for my last equation. Remember your

Heat_transfer_body_to_ambient= Heat_transfer_body_to_ambient_due_to_core_temp + Heat_transfer_ambient_to_body

Where your core temp is slightly higher than the temperature of the ambient. Thus some of the calories that you consume are converted to heat energy that slighty rises your temperature of your body so that it has a higher temperature than the ambient.



Sent from my GT-N7105 using EliteFitness

 

[stevesmi]

I've had the walk vs run calorie thing parroted to me by fitness type as well and I just don't buy it. There is no way that anyone could convince me that leisurely walking for a distance burns the same amount of energy as jumping over and over the same distance - which is EXACTLY was running is, but not to the same extreme.

climbing up a mountain 1 mile vs. going down a mountain 1 mile.

i don't think any sane individual would think they would burn the same calories.

even if you climbed up a mountain for 1 hour vs. going down a mountain for 1 hour I don't think a sane individual would think even that burns the same calories even if you purposely decided to cover the same amount of area which means you would have to do a lot of stopping on the way down.

not sure why this is even being argued

 

[BrendonEls]

Drive you car uphill...... Then drive it down hill.

Check the feul consumption.

Same thing ....

Sent from my GT-N7105 using EliteFitness

 

[Zyglamail]

Heart rate while actually doing the exercise may not amount to much difference when the same distance is covered (ie walk VS run) but what that doesnt take into account is EPOC, which does account for more calories burned post workout when high intensity is employed.

 

[RickRock13]

Heart rate while actually doing the exercise may not amount to much difference when the same distance is covered (ie walk VS run) but what that doesnt take into account is EPOC, which does account for more calories burned post workout when high intensity is employed.

Thank you. Exactly the point i was trying to make in regard to high intensity versus low intensity

 

[Brapbrap07]

Like stated every body is wired differently so unless we are all the same the work done by the body will vary.

In addition the rate of return to go faster or do heavier weight isn't proportional to the slower speed or lower weight. We aren't doing these expirements in a vacuum with no friction.

And to compare car speed with gas. Did you forget friction and wind resistance?





Sent from my SCH-I535 using EliteFitness

 

[BrendonEls]

We can ignore wind resistance and friction in this case.

When you go up hill your car will be at higher revs etc. As where downhill you have the momentum of your vehicle on your side.

So you can achieve a certain speed down the hill at a much better feul consumption that up the hill.

Which means you will be using less energy down the hill than up the hill.

Which means more calories up the hill than down the hill.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using EliteFitness

 

[BrendonEls]

And also by the energy law:

Work= difference_kinetic_energy +difference_potential_energy

For uphill we will have

Difference_potential_energy as a positive term because our difference in height will be positive.

For downhill we will have

Difference_potential_energy as a negative term because our difference in height will be negative.

Thus during the downhill process we wil do less work.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using EliteFitness

 

[Nelson Montana]

Now we're comparing going uphill compared to downhill? lol. This is the silliest turn of a thread ever.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Thank you. Exactly the point i was trying to make in regard to high intensity versus low intensity

This is hilarious. That is exactly why weight training is better than aerobics for burning fat but I know I'd get an argument over that too! lol

 

[Brapbrap07]

I wasn't referencing the uphill downhill post

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EliteFitness

 

[RickRock13]

This is hilarious. That is exactly why weight training is better than aerobics for burning fat but I know I'd get an argument over that too! lol

Who would you get an argument from? Isn't that exactly what I was saying? You are right.....this is hilarious

 

[RobertD1885]

Heart rate has nothing to do with fat loss and the calculation that's been used by all the personal training certifications is just "made up" bullshit.

http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf

I am confused as the linked study does not even discuss fat loss, let alone prove that heart rate has nothing to do with fat loss. The study only demonstrates that the HRmax= 220-age prediction formula is incorrect. At the end of the study they suggest a better (but not perfect) prediction formula... HRmax=206-(0.685)*age.

 

[billfred]

Incorrect. You burn considerably more when running. The faster you go the more you burn. You sucked at science in high school right.

W = F x D