Results 1 to 22 of 22
KettleWorx.....
  1. #1
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default KettleWorx.....

    In the 1/2 hr kettlworx infomercial, they make about 100x the errors that
    Steve makes in his http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html page. DATS
    impressive!!!

    The most egregious claim, besides localized fat loss ekc ekc, is the claim
    that a single 20 min kb workout burns as many calories as a 5 mile run.....
    iihc.....

    Lessee..... 5 miles of running is a *conservative* 600 calories.... I've
    done it, and bleeve me, you gotta NAP for 4 hours after one of these
    runs....

    600 cals in 20 mins is 30 cals/min.....

    Lessee..... world-class marathon runners expend 20 cals/min running sub-5
    min miles.....

    Can ANYONE here run a SINGLE 5 minute mile??? A PART of a 5-min mile?????
    I can't.

    So Kettleworx assholes are burning 50% more calories per min than elite
    world-class marathoners, for 20 consecutive minutes.

    Very few people can burn 30 cals/min for 1/2 a minute. Or even 5 seconds.

    And of course this li'l factoid will be evident to mebbe .00001% of the
    guileless viewers.

    Not a slur against KBs, per se, at least not more than my usual slur, ie,
    kb's being a superfluous variant of a dumbbell, but rather directed at the
    clue-less PROPONENTS (visavis the victims) of KBs -- Steve, DragonDoor,
    fuknKenneth Jay, et al.

    Really just a slur against Infomercial Bandits, who should really be put in
    jail.
    I don't know if you could even reasonably tally all the errors/false
    innuendos made in this infomercial.

    You can see a little bit of the hustle on a video clip here, from one of
    those daily shows: http://www.kettleworx.com/
    The site, for this type of infomercial junk, is actually substantially
    higher quality than other junk, the hustle a better hustle.

    But, still a hustle. That Ryan Shanahan needs to be put in a state prison,
    where his more useful purpose would be as the cell-block bitch.

    --
    EA



  2. #2
    Jason Earl Guest

    Default Re: KettleWorx.....

    On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Existential Angst wrote:

    > In the 1/2 hr kettlworx infomercial, they make about 100x the errors
    > that Steve makes in his http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html page.
    > DATS impressive!!!


    I did not watch the informercial, but I am sure that I agree with you.
    The fact that their "heavy" kettlebell is 20 pounds either means that
    they are targeting small women and children or they chose their
    kettlebell sizes based on shipping expenses.

    > The most egregious claim, besides localized fat loss ekc ekc, is the
    > claim that a single 20 min kb workout burns as many calories as a 5
    > mile run..... iihc.....


    Yeah, that's clearly crap. So instead of ranting against infomercials,
    which seems like a pretty big waste of time to me--I deal with
    infomercials by refusing to watch them--I am going to mention something
    I read about kettlebells and calorie burn.

    They've actually measured the average amount of calories burned in a
    kettlebell workout. Here's a link to a pretty good article that talks
    about the results.

    http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...ells012010.pdf

    And here's a link to the actual study.

    http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Ci...ebell.213.aspx

    Please note, I haven't read the study, as I do not have access to it,
    but the article covers the methodology pretty thoroughly.

    Basically the lifters did a certain percentage of the number of swings
    that they could do in a minute every minute for 20 minutes. They then
    measured oxygen consumption and measured blood lactate so that they
    could calculate the calories burned aerobically and anaerobically. The
    average calorie expenditure for the workout was 20.2 calories a minute.

    > Lessee..... 5 miles of running is a *conservative* 600 calories....
    > I've done it, and bleeve me, you gotta NAP for 4 hours after one of
    > these runs....


    5 miles is a long way, but it is not *that* long. Any number of people
    (including me) have run a 10K before, which is over 6 miles.

    Now, running 5 miles in 20 minutes, that would be something.

    The research that I have looked at says that calories burned is about
    0.75 x body weight per mile. But the actual rate depends heavily on the
    pace (and the form). So let's say that we have a duffer (like me) that
    weighs 200 pounds and can run 2 miles in 20 minutes, that works out to a
    nice round 15 calories per minute, which is actually more than the
    aerobic part of the kettlebell drills.

    According to that formula in order to match the calorie burn of
    kettlebell drills I would need to run about 2.7 miles in 20 minutes
    (7:24 minute mile pace).

    I can't run that fast (well I can for about 1.5 miles), but then again,
    I can't do 12 kettlebell snatches per minute for 20 minutes either
    (well, at least I don't think I can. I don't have a 20kg kettlebell to
    test with). I would bet that if I ever got to the point where I could
    do one of these tests, either a 2.7 mile run in 20 minutes or 12
    kettlebell snatches with a 20kg kettlebell per minute for 20 minutes, I
    would be pretty close to being able to do the other.

    As far as feats of physical performance go they certainly are well
    within the realm of what is reasonable. I can't do them because I am
    not much of an athlete, not because the feats are impossible.

    > 600 cals in 20 mins is 30 cals/min.....
    >
    > Lessee..... world-class marathon runners expend 20 cals/min running
    > sub-5 min miles.....
    >
    > Can ANYONE here run a SINGLE 5 minute mile??? A PART of a 5-min
    > mile????? I can't.
    >
    > So Kettleworx assholes are burning 50% more calories per min than
    > elite world-class marathoners, for 20 consecutive minutes.


    Yes, the Kettleworx guy seems to be fudging the numbers, a lot. I
    couldn't stand to watch the blurb long enough to see what he really
    said, but I will take your word for it.

    After all, he also said that he was "World's Leading Kettlebell
    Trainer," which is also, quite clearly, a fibber. Unless, of course, he
    happens to live on in a different world.

    > Very few people can burn 30 cals/min for 1/2 a minute. Or even 5
    > seconds.
    >
    > And of course this li'l factoid will be evident to mebbe .00001% of
    > the guileless viewers.


    Right.

    Jason

  3. #3
    Cipher Guest

    Default Re: KettleWorx.....

    On 12/1/2010 8:46 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
    > Very few people can burn 30 cals/min for 1/2 a minute. Or even 5 seconds.


    I can - with a blowtorch. Hurts like hell, though.

    --
    The word "urgent" is the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf". As
    a general rule I don't believe it until a manager comes to me almost in
    tears. I like to catch them in a cup and drink them later.
    -- Matt Holiab, in the Monastery

  4. #4
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >
    >> In the 1/2 hr kettlworx infomercial, they make about 100x the errors
    >> that Steve makes in his http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html page.
    >> DATS impressive!!!

    >
    > I did not watch the informercial, but I am sure that I agree with you.
    > The fact that their "heavy" kettlebell is 20 pounds either means that
    > they are targeting small women and children or they chose their
    > kettlebell sizes based on shipping expenses.
    >
    >> The most egregious claim, besides localized fat loss ekc ekc, is the
    >> claim that a single 20 min kb workout burns as many calories as a 5
    >> mile run..... iihc.....

    >
    > Yeah, that's clearly crap. So instead of ranting against infomercials,
    > which seems like a pretty big waste of time to me--I deal with
    > infomercials by refusing to watch them--I am going to mention something
    > I read about kettlebells and calorie burn.
    >
    > They've actually measured the average amount of calories burned in a
    > kettlebell workout. Here's a link to a pretty good article that talks
    > about the results.
    >
    > http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...ells012010.pdf


    Well, not bad for a piece of kb propaganda.

    Here's a more intelligible number:
    For each rep of a 10 kg weight in the kb snatch, at an 80 kg (175 lb) bw,
    you burn about .3 cal. -- which is actually not bad at all.
    At 15 reps/min, that's about 4.5 cal min.
    It's a bit of a complicated calculation but basically the plain ole work
    formula. I didn't factor in their lactic acid/EPOC stuff, cuz dats just
    effing ridicululous, altho some EPOC factor should be applied, but not 50%.
    Mebbe 25%?

    I did factor in downward work, approximations for limb movement, body center
    of gravity movement (all additive), and an 85% "pendulum effect", which
    knocks it down a bit.

    So 4.5 cal/min (for me), + some EPOC might bring it to 6 cal/min.
    Which is not bad at all.

    For a 20 kg kb, this would be 7.5 + mebbe 2.5 epoc, for about 10/cal min.

    The reason the burn didn't double for double the kb weight is because the
    body cog is a *significant* part of the calorie burn.

    So, no, the fukn burn is NOT 20+ cals/min. But it's still decent.

    BUUUTTT....

    Guess what boyzngerlz???

    THIS ALSO APPLIES TO DUMBBELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Even moreso, cuz the calc is simpler, and there is no pendulum effect.

    And that's what is so irritating about this kettlebell bull****:
    I didn't read the whole article, cuz, well, it was just too obnoxious, but
    what I did read made no mention of the fundamental scientific fact that this
    type of burn is not limited to kettlebells, but in fact applies to ANY
    weight hoisted over head.

    But this bull**** article would lead the uninitiated to believe that this
    ONLY applies to kettlebells, and nothing else.

    THIS is the scam.


    >
    > And here's a link to the actual study.
    >
    > http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Ci...ebell.213.aspx
    >
    > Please note, I haven't read the study, as I do not have access to it,
    > but the article covers the methodology pretty thoroughly.
    >
    > Basically the lifters did a certain percentage of the number of swings
    > that they could do in a minute every minute for 20 minutes. They then
    > measured oxygen consumption and measured blood lactate so that they
    > could calculate the calories burned aerobically and anaerobically. The
    > average calorie expenditure for the workout was 20.2 calories a minute.


    Total bull****. Total.

    >
    >> Lessee..... 5 miles of running is a *conservative* 600 calories....
    >> I've done it, and bleeve me, you gotta NAP for 4 hours after one of
    >> these runs....

    >
    > 5 miles is a long way, but it is not *that* long. Any number of people
    > (including me) have run a 10K before, which is over 6 miles.
    >
    > Now, running 5 miles in 20 minutes, that would be something.
    >
    > The research that I have looked at says that calories burned is about
    > 0.75 x body weight per mile. But the actual rate depends heavily on the
    > pace (and the form). So let's say that we have a duffer (like me) that
    > weighs 200 pounds and can run 2 miles in 20 minutes, that works out to a
    > nice round 15 calories per minute, which is actually more than the
    > aerobic part of the kettlebell drills.
    >
    > According to that formula in order to match the calorie burn of
    > kettlebell drills I would need to run about 2.7 miles in 20 minutes
    > (7:24 minute mile pace).
    >
    > I can't run that fast (well I can for about 1.5 miles), but then again,
    > I can't do 12 kettlebell snatches per minute for 20 minutes either
    > (well, at least I don't think I can. I don't have a 20kg kettlebell to
    > test with). I would bet that if I ever got to the point where I could
    > do one of these tests, either a 2.7 mile run in 20 minutes or 12
    > kettlebell snatches with a 20kg kettlebell per minute for 20 minutes, I
    > would be pretty close to being able to do the other.


    NOT.
    Do a shorter slower run to compare to your current kb levels, and just
    examine your perceived exertion, breathing rate/depth, and sweat factor.
    Running will ECLIPSE these quasi-snatches ito calorie burn.

    HOWEVER.........

    With real dumbbells, and with some fine-tuning of the weight AND the
    technique, you CAN exceed the minute-by-minute running burns with dumbbells.
    But, of course, not for a lot of minutes.

    Funny, you don't see articles on DAT, now, do you???

    For *overall* calorie burn, it's hard to beat running.
    My apparatus manages to do this readily, but this is another more
    complicated story. This is how/why I know about these comparative
    calculations, and why I know this article is kb propaganda/bull****.

    The article makes fundamental experimental errors with VO2, namely, that it
    can't be reliably applied to non-steady-state anaerobic events (actually
    redundant), and speculation about calorie burn from lactate levels is fukn
    handwaving.

    The ONLY way to reliably do such a study is with DIRECT calorimetry, which
    is expensive, difficult to do, and time consuming.
    If you are not going to go the direct calorimetry route, yer better off just
    doing spreadsheet calculations.
    --
    EA


    >
    > As far as feats of physical performance go they certainly are well
    > within the realm of what is reasonable. I can't do them because I am
    > not much of an athlete, not because the feats are impossible.
    >
    >> 600 cals in 20 mins is 30 cals/min.....
    >>
    >> Lessee..... world-class marathon runners expend 20 cals/min running
    >> sub-5 min miles.....
    >>
    >> Can ANYONE here run a SINGLE 5 minute mile??? A PART of a 5-min
    >> mile????? I can't.
    >>
    >> So Kettleworx assholes are burning 50% more calories per min than
    >> elite world-class marathoners, for 20 consecutive minutes.

    >
    > Yes, the Kettleworx guy seems to be fudging the numbers, a lot. I
    > couldn't stand to watch the blurb long enough to see what he really
    > said, but I will take your word for it.
    >
    > After all, he also said that he was "World's Leading Kettlebell
    > Trainer," which is also, quite clearly, a fibber. Unless, of course, he
    > happens to live on in a different world.
    >
    >> Very few people can burn 30 cals/min for 1/2 a minute. Or even 5
    >> seconds.
    >>
    >> And of course this li'l factoid will be evident to mebbe .00001% of
    >> the guileless viewers.

    >
    > Right.
    >
    > Jason




  5. #5
    Jason Earl Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:

    > "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]..
    >> On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>
    >>> In the 1/2 hr kettlworx infomercial, they make about 100x the errors
    >>> that Steve makes in his http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html page.
    >>> DATS impressive!!!

    >>
    >> I did not watch the informercial, but I am sure that I agree with you.
    >> The fact that their "heavy" kettlebell is 20 pounds either means that
    >> they are targeting small women and children or they chose their
    >> kettlebell sizes based on shipping expenses.
    >>
    >>> The most egregious claim, besides localized fat loss ekc ekc, is the
    >>> claim that a single 20 min kb workout burns as many calories as a 5
    >>> mile run..... iihc.....

    >>
    >> Yeah, that's clearly crap. So instead of ranting against infomercials,
    >> which seems like a pretty big waste of time to me--I deal with
    >> infomercials by refusing to watch them--I am going to mention something
    >> I read about kettlebells and calorie burn.
    >>
    >> They've actually measured the average amount of calories burned in a
    >> kettlebell workout. Here's a link to a pretty good article that talks
    >> about the results.
    >>
    >> http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...ells012010.pdf

    >
    > Well, not bad for a piece of kb propaganda.


    It's an article covering research done at University of Wisconsin La
    Crosse. The research was published in Medicine & Science in Sports &
    Exercise which is published by the American College of Sports Medicine.

    You can call it "propaganda" if it makes you feel better. To a certain
    extent I agree that the article I shared is propaganda. If I had access
    to the actual research article I would have linked to that instead.
    Like essentially all researchers Porcari almost certainly has a bias.
    If he did not think kettlebell snatches were a good exercise, he
    probably would not have tried to measure the calorie burn from
    kettlebell snatches. That doesn't invalidate his experiment or
    findings.

    > Here's a more intelligible number: For each rep of a 10 kg weight in
    > the kb snatch, at an 80 kg (175 lb) bw, you burn about .3 cal. --
    > which is actually not bad at all. At 15 reps/min, that's about 4.5
    > cal min. It's a bit of a complicated calculation but basically the
    > plain ole work formula. I didn't factor in their lactic acid/EPOC
    > stuff, cuz dats just effing ridicululous, altho some EPOC factor
    > should be applied, but not 50%. Mebbe 25%?
    >
    > I did factor in downward work, approximations for limb movement, body
    > center of gravity movement (all additive), and an 85% "pendulum
    > effect", which knocks it down a bit.
    >
    > So 4.5 cal/min (for me), + some EPOC might bring it to 6 cal/min.
    > Which is not bad at all.
    >
    > For a 20 kg kb, this would be 7.5 + mebbe 2.5 epoc, for about 10/cal
    > min.
    >
    > The reason the burn didn't double for double the kb weight is because
    > the body cog is a *significant* part of the calorie burn.
    >
    > So, no, the fukn burn is NOT 20+ cals/min. But it's still decent.


    I am sure that your calculations are awesome, and not at all, to use
    your term, /handwavy/. Unfortunately, calculating the work done (from a
    physics perspective) is only useful if the human body was 100%
    efficient.

    Which it isn't.

    That is why actual scientists don't simply bust out their 9th grade
    physics texts, but instead go through the trouble of measuring actual
    oxidation. This method is trickier, mostly because you have to round up
    subjects and actually get them to exercise, while you measure things
    like their heart rate, their blood lactate levels, and the respiration
    levels.

    It would be a lot easier to simply draw some stylized diagrams, and then
    estimate calories burned using high school physics. Unfortunately, the
    numbers obtained in this manner would not be particularly useful.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but wake me up when your
    "calculations" get published by the American College of Sports Medicine
    (or any other peer-reviewed journal).

    > BUUUTTT....
    >
    > Guess what boyzngerlz???
    >
    > THIS ALSO APPLIES TO DUMBBELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Would you please stop with this. We all get it already. If you did 240
    snatches with a 20kg dumbbell in 20 minutes you would get approximately
    the same results.

    And by approximately, I really mean *exactly*. We all get that there is
    no magic in kettlebells. Yes, there are probably consumers out there
    that really believe that kettlebells have dark Communist magic that
    subdues your soft capitalist fat. Go preach to them if you must. Those
    of us here on MFW understand the truth.

    The downside of doing this workout with a dumbbell instead of a
    kettlebell is that you would probably hit yourself in the nuts 240
    times. This is likely to make it harder to finish the workout.

    As a concrete example, I did not end up having time to do the full
    dumbbell snatch comparison last night. I had some stuff come up and by
    the time I got everything worked out I knew that it simply would not be
    a fair comparison. Plus, I did not really want to do 5 minutes of
    snatches. Those tests suck. I know they are good for me, but they are
    not fun.

    I did do a few warm up snatches, however, and even just a little bit of
    work drove home how much more comfortable a kettlebell is to snatch once
    you have learned how. The fact that I was using a dumbbell handle and
    plates did not help. I am sure that a cast dumbbell would have been
    much better, but there is no getting around the fact that dumbbell
    snatches, even from the hang, are less comfortable than kettlebell
    snatches. Dumbbells are simply too wide.

    Dumbbell snatches from the floor shift the problem away from hitting
    yourself in the nuts, but they also make it much harder to get into the
    rhythm that allows you to get your heart rate up so high with kettlebell
    snatches. These are a good exercise (even a great exercise), but they
    aren't precisely equivalent to kettlebell snatches. If your goal is to
    get your heart rate up, then the fact that you can use almost your
    entire body to swing the bell to lockout is a good thing. Dumbbells
    make this harder to do and therefor make it less useful for this
    particular type of exercise.

    Is the difference really that significant? To me it is significant
    enough that I was willing to spend an extra $25 to get a kettlebell
    instead of a dumbbell.

    > Even moreso, cuz the calc is simpler, and there is no pendulum effect.


    A simple calc is only useful if it is the *right* calculation. Once
    again, calculating the work done (from a physics perspective) is only
    useful if the human body was 100% efficient.

    > And that's what is so irritating about this kettlebell bull****: I
    > didn't read the whole article, cuz, well, it was just too obnoxious,
    > but what I did read made no mention of the fundamental scientific fact
    > that this type of burn is not limited to kettlebells, but in fact
    > applies to ANY weight hoisted over head.


    Or, more accurately, any exercise that gets your heart rate up
    significantly. If you are talking about calories/minute that's really
    the key.

    > But this bull**** article would lead the uninitiated to believe that
    > this ONLY applies to kettlebells, and nothing else.


    I agree. Kettlebell articles tend to dramatize the special properties
    of kettlebells, of which, I agree, there are precious few.

    Don't get me wrong. I happen to think that Pavel's kettlebell workouts
    are genius, but you could do them with a dumbbell, and get the same
    results. You would just have to be far more careful about hitting
    yourself in the nuts.

    It's the workout that makes the difference, not the implement.

    > THIS is the scam.


    It's not much of a scam though, really. As I said, it is not as if
    kettlebells are that much more expensive than dumbbells. Compared to
    some of the designer dumbbells (like the NordicTrack ones) kettlebells
    are actually a ridiculously good value.

    You can even buy a kettlestack, and use cheap standard plates.

    Or you could use a dumbbell and be careful. Or you could fill a canvas
    bag with sand, for that matter.

    Come to think of it, a bag full of sand (or lead shot) with a handle
    attached might well be the ideal tool for kettlebell-style snatches.

    >> And here's a link to the actual study.
    >>
    >> http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Ci...ebell.213.aspx
    >>
    >> Please note, I haven't read the study, as I do not have access to it,
    >> but the article covers the methodology pretty thoroughly.
    >>
    >> Basically the lifters did a certain percentage of the number of
    >> swings that they could do in a minute every minute for 20 minutes.
    >> They then measured oxygen consumption and measured blood lactate so
    >> that they could calculate the calories burned aerobically and
    >> anaerobically. The average calorie expenditure for the workout was
    >> 20.2 calories a minute.

    >
    > Total bull****. Total.


    Please show your work.

    >>> Lessee..... 5 miles of running is a *conservative* 600 calories....
    >>> I've done it, and bleeve me, you gotta NAP for 4 hours after one of
    >>> these runs....

    >>
    >> 5 miles is a long way, but it is not *that* long. Any number of
    >> people (including me) have run a 10K before, which is over 6 miles.
    >>
    >> Now, running 5 miles in 20 minutes, that would be something.
    >>
    >> The research that I have looked at says that calories burned is about
    >> 0.75 x body weight per mile. But the actual rate depends heavily on
    >> the pace (and the form). So let's say that we have a duffer (like
    >> me) that weighs 200 pounds and can run 2 miles in 20 minutes, that
    >> works out to a nice round 15 calories per minute, which is actually
    >> more than the aerobic part of the kettlebell drills.
    >>
    >> According to that formula in order to match the calorie burn of
    >> kettlebell drills I would need to run about 2.7 miles in 20 minutes
    >> (7:24 minute mile pace).
    >>
    >> I can't run that fast (well I can for about 1.5 miles), but then
    >> again, I can't do 12 kettlebell snatches per minute for 20 minutes
    >> either (well, at least I don't think I can. I don't have a 20kg
    >> kettlebell to test with). I would bet that if I ever got to the
    >> point where I could do one of these tests, either a 2.7 mile run in
    >> 20 minutes or 12 kettlebell snatches with a 20kg kettlebell per
    >> minute for 20 minutes, I would be pretty close to being able to do
    >> the other.

    >
    > NOT. Do a shorter slower run to compare to your current kb levels,
    > and just examine your perceived exertion, breathing rate/depth, and
    > sweat factor. Running will ECLIPSE these quasi-snatches ito calorie
    > burn.


    Actually, that's pretty much my entire point. I am pretty close to
    being able to doing both of those 20 minute feats. In fact, I might
    actually be able to do both of them now, a 20kg kettlebell would be
    easier to snatch after all. I am close enough to both that it doesn't
    surprise me that they burn an equivalent amount of calories.

    You are skeptical, because you have limited experience with actual
    kettlebell work, and no, your 20# homemade girlie weights don't count.

    Well, here's an experiment for you. Take a 20kg _dumbbell_ (heck, you
    can use 40 pounds). Now do 5 snatches with each hand every minute for
    20 minutes (that's one less per hand than what was tested). You don't
    have to do them from the floor, starting from the hang will be fine.
    Heck, you can allow yourself a bit of swing to get started, just be
    careful with your man parts.

    Then, come back and tell us that it didn't make you *feel* similar to
    running 2.5 miles in 20:00 (that's an 8:00/mile pace, so somewhat slower
    than what I calculated would be equivalent). Actually at 175 pounds
    (your weight instead of mine) that run would be 16.4 calories/minute.
    That's not precisely the levels mentioned in the article, but it is
    close enough that you should see some correlation in how those two
    exercises make you feel.

    When push comes to shove the kettlebell part of the equation is really a
    red herring. I use kettlebells for this sort of workout because I feel
    they are more comfortable than the alternatives (that I am aware of).
    You might well feel differently. I can respect that.

    > HOWEVER.........
    >
    > With real dumbbells, and with some fine-tuning of the weight AND the
    > technique, you CAN exceed the minute-by-minute running burns with
    > dumbbells. But, of course, not for a lot of minutes.


    Yes, just like you can exceed the minute-by-minute calorie burns from
    running with kettlebell drills, but not for very long.

    > Funny, you don't see articles on DAT, now, do you???


    Most people don't need articles to show that kettlebells and dumbbells
    are similar.

    > For *overall* calorie burn, it's hard to beat running.


    For the record, I agree 100% with this. 240 20kg kettlebell snatches in
    20 minutes is pure hell. An equivalent calorie burn from running in 25
    minutes is a far more enjoyable prospect. This is especially true
    considering the fact that a significant amount of the calories from the
    kettlebell workout come from the fact that you are essentially redlining
    your body. Your body becomes significantly less efficient as you push
    past your aerobic threshold. That's good if you want to burn more
    calories per minute, but there is definitely a price to pay. With
    running you can slow down and cover the ground at a slower pace and
    still burn approximately the same amount of calories per mile. That's
    not the case of any exercise that relies on a significant calorie burn
    from the switch towards the anaerobic systems.

    The measured EPOC of the kettlebell drills is substantial. The downside
    is that you don't get that benefit unless you are willing to push
    yourself into the anaerobic zone.

    > My apparatus manages to do this readily, but this is another more
    > complicated story. This is how/why I know about these comparative
    > calculations, and why I know this article is kb propaganda/bull****.


    It is entirely possible that your apparatus can trigger the same effect
    and be even more comfortable than kettlebell snatches. If it can, then
    I am definitely interested.

    I don't think that this would be too hard to do. As you have noticed,
    many gireviks tape their hands to protect them when doing high rep
    kettlebell snatches. I was actually serious about the canvas bag filled
    with lead weights. If the kettlebell did not rotate in your hand it
    almost certainly would be more comfortable. A little give on the catch
    would not go amiss either.

    I have no problem believing that your apparatus could make this sort of
    exercise significantly more comfortable.

    > The article makes fundamental experimental errors with VO2, namely,
    > that it can't be reliably applied to non-steady-state anaerobic events
    > (actually redundant), and speculation about calorie burn from lactate
    > levels is fukn handwaving.


    Actually, it is far less handwavy than trying to calculate calories
    burned based on the amount of work done (from a simple physics
    perspective). Which is part of the reason why exercise scientists never
    bother to measure it. Just because calories burned during exercise and
    work performed (from a physics standpoint) have the same units does not
    mean they are equivalent (or even that you can do more than make a rough
    estimate of one from the other). If your body was 100% efficient, or
    even if it's efficiency were linear, then work performed would be a
    useful metric.

    But that is not the case. It certainly isn't the case as the body goes
    into oxygen debt.

    > The ONLY way to reliably do such a study is with DIRECT calorimetry,
    > which is expensive, difficult to do, and time consuming. If you are
    > not going to go the direct calorimetry route, yer better off just
    > doing spreadsheet calculations.


    Actually, there is a reason that scientists don't try and measure
    calories burned directly, and that is because it has been shown that the
    actual calories burned can be estimated quite accurately using precisely
    these methods.

    I could cite some articles, if you would like, but there is a good
    reason why the people that actually study this stuff for a living don't
    do calorimetry tests. The reason is that, as you state, calorimetry
    tests are difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and the results are
    invariably the same as the results from far less expensive tests.

    If you feel differently you are welcome to try and prove your case. I
    would be very interested in a citation that shows that oxygen
    consumption or blood lactate levels are not useful for calculating
    calories burned during exercise. Bonus points for a study that shows
    that work performed (as you calculate it) is a better measurement.

    Jason

  6. #6
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >
    >> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]..
    >>> On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In the 1/2 hr kettlworx infomercial, they make about 100x the errors
    >>>> that Steve makes in his http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html page.
    >>>> DATS impressive!!!
    >>>
    >>> I did not watch the informercial, but I am sure that I agree with you.
    >>> The fact that their "heavy" kettlebell is 20 pounds either means that
    >>> they are targeting small women and children or they chose their
    >>> kettlebell sizes based on shipping expenses.
    >>>
    >>>> The most egregious claim, besides localized fat loss ekc ekc, is the
    >>>> claim that a single 20 min kb workout burns as many calories as a 5
    >>>> mile run..... iihc.....
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, that's clearly crap. So instead of ranting against infomercials,
    >>> which seems like a pretty big waste of time to me--I deal with
    >>> infomercials by refusing to watch them--I am going to mention something
    >>> I read about kettlebells and calorie burn.
    >>>
    >>> They've actually measured the average amount of calories burned in a
    >>> kettlebell workout. Here's a link to a pretty good article that talks
    >>> about the results.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...ells012010.pdf

    >>
    >> Well, not bad for a piece of kb propaganda.

    >
    > It's an article covering research done at University of Wisconsin La
    > Crosse. The research was published in Medicine & Science in Sports &
    > Exercise which is published by the American College of Sports Medicine.


    Sometimes journals just need filler. This was clearly filler.

    >
    > You can call it "propaganda" if it makes you feel better. To a certain
    > extent I agree that the article I shared is propaganda. If I had access
    > to the actual research article I would have linked to that instead.
    > Like essentially all researchers Porcari almost certainly has a bias.
    > If he did not think kettlebell snatches were a good exercise, he
    > probably would not have tried to measure the calorie burn from
    > kettlebell snatches. That doesn't invalidate his experiment or
    > findings.


    The mere title of the article comes close to invalidating itself.

    >
    >> Here's a more intelligible number: For each rep of a 10 kg weight in
    >> the kb snatch, at an 80 kg (175 lb) bw, you burn about .3 cal. --
    >> which is actually not bad at all. At 15 reps/min, that's about 4.5
    >> cal min. It's a bit of a complicated calculation but basically the
    >> plain ole work formula. I didn't factor in their lactic acid/EPOC
    >> stuff, cuz dats just effing ridicululous, altho some EPOC factor
    >> should be applied, but not 50%. Mebbe 25%?
    >>
    >> I did factor in downward work, approximations for limb movement, body
    >> center of gravity movement (all additive), and an 85% "pendulum
    >> effect", which knocks it down a bit.
    >>
    >> So 4.5 cal/min (for me), + some EPOC might bring it to 6 cal/min.
    >> Which is not bad at all.
    >>
    >> For a 20 kg kb, this would be 7.5 + mebbe 2.5 epoc, for about 10/cal
    >> min.
    >>
    >> The reason the burn didn't double for double the kb weight is because
    >> the body cog is a *significant* part of the calorie burn.
    >>
    >> So, no, the fukn burn is NOT 20+ cals/min. But it's still decent.

    >
    > I am sure that your calculations are awesome, and not at all, to use
    > your term, /handwavy/. Unfortunately, calculating the work done (from a
    > physics perspective) is only useful if the human body was 100%
    > efficient.
    >
    > Which it isn't.


    I already considered 15-20% efficiency in those numbers.
    AND the body's contribution to the motion, etc etc.
    And have duplicated running calorie burns very closely with similar types of
    calcs.

    That my calcs and their results are so far off sez either Newton is wrong or
    they don't know how to use or interpret VO2 meters.
    VO2 can't be used in anaerobic non-steady state events.

    >
    > That is why actual scientists don't simply bust out their 9th grade
    > physics texts, but instead go through the trouble of measuring actual
    > oxidation. This method is trickier, mostly because you have to round up
    > subjects and actually get them to exercise, while you measure things
    > like their heart rate, their blood lactate levels, and the respiration
    > levels.
    >
    > It would be a lot easier to simply draw some stylized diagrams, and then
    > estimate calories burned using high school physics. Unfortunately, the
    > numbers obtained in this manner would not be particularly useful.
    >
    > Not to put too fine a point on it, but wake me up when your
    > "calculations" get published by the American College of Sports Medicine
    > (or any other peer-reviewed journal).


    Peer reviewed means next to nothing.

    >
    >> BUUUTTT....
    >>
    >> Guess what boyzngerlz???
    >>
    >> THIS ALSO APPLIES TO DUMBBELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >
    > Would you please stop with this. We all get it already.


    But the article apparently didn't.
    And Friedes doesn't get it.


    If you did 240
    > snatches with a 20kg dumbbell in 20 minutes you would get approximately
    > the same results.
    >
    > And by approximately, I really mean *exactly*. We all get that there is
    > no magic in kettlebells. Yes, there are probably consumers out there
    > that really believe that kettlebells have dark Communist magic that
    > subdues your soft capitalist fat. Go preach to them if you must. Those
    > of us here on MFW understand the truth.


    Friedes?

    >
    > The downside of doing this workout with a dumbbell instead of a
    > kettlebell is that you would probably hit yourself in the nuts 240
    > times. This is likely to make it harder to finish the workout.
    >
    > As a concrete example, I did not end up having time to do the full
    > dumbbell snatch comparison last night. I had some stuff come up and by
    > the time I got everything worked out I knew that it simply would not be
    > a fair comparison. Plus, I did not really want to do 5 minutes of
    > snatches. Those tests suck. I know they are good for me, but they are
    > not fun.
    >
    > I did do a few warm up snatches, however, and even just a little bit of
    > work drove home how much more comfortable a kettlebell is to snatch once
    > you have learned how. The fact that I was using a dumbbell handle and
    > plates did not help. I am sure that a cast dumbbell would have been
    > much better, but there is no getting around the fact that dumbbell
    > snatches, even from the hang, are less comfortable than kettlebell
    > snatches. Dumbbells are simply too wide.


    Not when lifted off the floor, as yer supposed to.

    >
    > Dumbbell snatches from the floor shift the problem away from hitting
    > yourself in the nuts, but they also make it much harder to get into the
    > rhythm that allows you to get your heart rate up so high with kettlebell
    > snatches. These are a good exercise (even a great exercise), but they
    > aren't precisely equivalent to kettlebell snatches. If your goal is to
    > get your heart rate up, then the fact that you can use almost your
    > entire body to swing the bell to lockout is a good thing. Dumbbells
    > make this harder to do and therefor make it less useful for this
    > particular type of exercise.
    >
    > Is the difference really that significant? To me it is significant
    > enough that I was willing to spend an extra $25 to get a kettlebell
    > instead of a dumbbell.
    >
    >> Even moreso, cuz the calc is simpler, and there is no pendulum effect.

    >
    > A simple calc is only useful if it is the *right* calculation. Once
    > again, calculating the work done (from a physics perspective) is only
    > useful if the human body was 100% efficient.
    >
    >> And that's what is so irritating about this kettlebell bull****: I
    >> didn't read the whole article, cuz, well, it was just too obnoxious,
    >> but what I did read made no mention of the fundamental scientific fact
    >> that this type of burn is not limited to kettlebells, but in fact
    >> applies to ANY weight hoisted over head.

    >
    > Or, more accurately, any exercise that gets your heart rate up
    > significantly. If you are talking about calories/minute that's really
    > the key.


    Wrong.
    You can get yer heart rate up beating yer meat.
    HR means nothing if you do not know what muscle mass is being recruited.
    I can get my HR up to 160 arm wrestling, or running 8 min miles.
    Which is burning more calories?

    >
    >> But this bull**** article would lead the uninitiated to believe that
    >> this ONLY applies to kettlebells, and nothing else.

    >
    > I agree. Kettlebell articles tend to dramatize the special properties
    > of kettlebells, of which, I agree, there are precious few.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong. I happen to think that Pavel's kettlebell workouts
    > are genius, but you could do them with a dumbbell, and get the same
    > results. You would just have to be far more careful about hitting
    > yourself in the nuts.
    >
    > It's the workout that makes the difference, not the implement.
    >
    >> THIS is the scam.

    >
    > It's not much of a scam though, really. As I said, it is not as if
    > kettlebells are that much more expensive than dumbbells. Compared to
    > some of the designer dumbbells (like the NordicTrack ones) kettlebells
    > are actually a ridiculously good value.
    >
    > You can even buy a kettlestack, and use cheap standard plates.
    >
    > Or you could use a dumbbell and be careful. Or you could fill a canvas
    > bag with sand, for that matter.
    >
    > Come to think of it, a bag full of sand (or lead shot) with a handle
    > attached might well be the ideal tool for kettlebell-style snatches.
    >
    >>> And here's a link to the actual study.
    >>>
    >>> http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Ci...ebell.213.aspx
    >>>
    >>> Please note, I haven't read the study, as I do not have access to it,
    >>> but the article covers the methodology pretty thoroughly.
    >>>
    >>> Basically the lifters did a certain percentage of the number of
    >>> swings that they could do in a minute every minute for 20 minutes.
    >>> They then measured oxygen consumption and measured blood lactate so
    >>> that they could calculate the calories burned aerobically and
    >>> anaerobically. The average calorie expenditure for the workout was
    >>> 20.2 calories a minute.

    >>
    >> Total bull****. Total.

    >
    > Please show your work.


    You wouldn't understand it.
    You don't understand the difference between a kettlebell swing and a
    sledgehammer swing.
    And you don't understand that the HS physics calculation of mechanical work
    is perfectly legitimate, as long as factor in the efficiency factor, on
    which there is fair consensus.

    >
    >>>> Lessee..... 5 miles of running is a *conservative* 600 calories....
    >>>> I've done it, and bleeve me, you gotta NAP for 4 hours after one of
    >>>> these runs....
    >>>
    >>> 5 miles is a long way, but it is not *that* long. Any number of
    >>> people (including me) have run a 10K before, which is over 6 miles.
    >>>
    >>> Now, running 5 miles in 20 minutes, that would be something.
    >>>
    >>> The research that I have looked at says that calories burned is about
    >>> 0.75 x body weight per mile. But the actual rate depends heavily on
    >>> the pace (and the form). So let's say that we have a duffer (like
    >>> me) that weighs 200 pounds and can run 2 miles in 20 minutes, that
    >>> works out to a nice round 15 calories per minute, which is actually
    >>> more than the aerobic part of the kettlebell drills.
    >>>
    >>> According to that formula in order to match the calorie burn of
    >>> kettlebell drills I would need to run about 2.7 miles in 20 minutes
    >>> (7:24 minute mile pace).
    >>>
    >>> I can't run that fast (well I can for about 1.5 miles), but then
    >>> again, I can't do 12 kettlebell snatches per minute for 20 minutes
    >>> either (well, at least I don't think I can. I don't have a 20kg
    >>> kettlebell to test with). I would bet that if I ever got to the
    >>> point where I could do one of these tests, either a 2.7 mile run in
    >>> 20 minutes or 12 kettlebell snatches with a 20kg kettlebell per
    >>> minute for 20 minutes, I would be pretty close to being able to do
    >>> the other.

    >>
    >> NOT. Do a shorter slower run to compare to your current kb levels,
    >> and just examine your perceived exertion, breathing rate/depth, and
    >> sweat factor. Running will ECLIPSE these quasi-snatches ito calorie
    >> burn.

    >
    > Actually, that's pretty much my entire point. I am pretty close to
    > being able to doing both of those 20 minute feats. In fact, I might
    > actually be able to do both of them now, a 20kg kettlebell would be
    > easier to snatch after all. I am close enough to both that it doesn't
    > surprise me that they burn an equivalent amount of calories.
    >
    > You are skeptical, because you have limited experience with actual
    > kettlebell work, and no, your 20# homemade girlie weights don't count.
    >
    > Well, here's an experiment for you. Take a 20kg _dumbbell_ (heck, you
    > can use 40 pounds). Now do 5 snatches with each hand every minute for
    > 20 minutes (that's one less per hand than what was tested). You don't
    > have to do them from the floor, starting from the hang will be fine.
    > Heck, you can allow yourself a bit of swing to get started, just be
    > careful with your man parts.
    >
    > Then, come back and tell us that it didn't make you *feel* similar to
    > running 2.5 miles in 20:00 (that's an 8:00/mile pace, so somewhat slower
    > than what I calculated would be equivalent). Actually at 175 pounds
    > (your weight instead of mine) that run would be 16.4 calories/minute.
    > That's not precisely the levels mentioned in the article, but it is
    > close enough that you should see some correlation in how those two
    > exercises make you feel.
    >
    > When push comes to shove the kettlebell part of the equation is really a
    > red herring. I use kettlebells for this sort of workout because I feel
    > they are more comfortable than the alternatives (that I am aware of).
    > You might well feel differently. I can respect that.


    Run a mile.
    Then walk a mile on your hands.
    Which has the higher percieved exertion?
    But both burned the same calories. Actially, the running proly burned
    more!!

    Ergo, what you think, what you feel, and what is are two different things.

    Running 2.5 miles (in 20 minutes or whatever), would ECLIPSE those kb
    snatches ito of calorie burn, while the kb stuff may very well feel more
    difficult, as per the above example.


    >
    >> HOWEVER.........
    >>
    >> With real dumbbells, and with some fine-tuning of the weight AND the
    >> technique, you CAN exceed the minute-by-minute running burns with
    >> dumbbells. But, of course, not for a lot of minutes.

    >
    > Yes, just like you can exceed the minute-by-minute calorie burns from
    > running with kettlebell drills, but not for very long.
    >
    >> Funny, you don't see articles on DAT, now, do you???

    >
    > Most people don't need articles to show that kettlebells and dumbbells
    > are similar.
    >
    >> For *overall* calorie burn, it's hard to beat running.

    >
    > For the record, I agree 100% with this. 240 20kg kettlebell snatches in
    > 20 minutes is pure hell. An equivalent calorie burn from running in 25
    > minutes is a far more enjoyable prospect. This is especially true
    > considering the fact that a significant amount of the calories from the
    > kettlebell workout come from the fact that you are essentially redlining
    > your body. Your body becomes significantly less efficient as you push
    > past your aerobic threshold. That's good if you want to burn more
    > calories per minute, but there is definitely a price to pay. With
    > running you can slow down and cover the ground at a slower pace and
    > still burn approximately the same amount of calories per mile. That's
    > not the case of any exercise that relies on a significant calorie burn
    > from the switch towards the anaerobic systems.
    >
    > The measured EPOC of the kettlebell drills is substantial. The downside
    > is that you don't get that benefit unless you are willing to push
    > yourself into the anaerobic zone.
    >
    >> My apparatus manages to do this readily, but this is another more
    >> complicated story. This is how/why I know about these comparative
    >> calculations, and why I know this article is kb propaganda/bull****.

    >
    > It is entirely possible that your apparatus can trigger the same effect
    > and be even more comfortable than kettlebell snatches. If it can, then
    > I am definitely interested.
    >
    > I don't think that this would be too hard to do. As you have noticed,
    > many gireviks tape their hands to protect them when doing high rep
    > kettlebell snatches. I was actually serious about the canvas bag filled
    > with lead weights. If the kettlebell did not rotate in your hand it
    > almost certainly would be more comfortable. A little give on the catch
    > would not go amiss either.
    >
    > I have no problem believing that your apparatus could make this sort of
    > exercise significantly more comfortable.
    >
    >> The article makes fundamental experimental errors with VO2, namely,
    >> that it can't be reliably applied to non-steady-state anaerobic events
    >> (actually redundant), and speculation about calorie burn from lactate
    >> levels is fukn handwaving.

    >
    > Actually, it is far less handwavy than trying to calculate calories
    > burned based on the amount of work done (from a simple physics
    > perspective). Which is part of the reason why exercise scientists never
    > bother to measure it. Just because calories burned during exercise and
    > work performed (from a physics standpoint) have the same units does not
    > mean they are equivalent (or even that you can do more than make a rough
    > estimate of one from the other). If your body was 100% efficient, or
    > even if it's efficiency were linear, then work performed would be a
    > useful metric.
    >
    > But that is not the case. It certainly isn't the case as the body goes
    > into oxygen debt.
    >
    >> The ONLY way to reliably do such a study is with DIRECT calorimetry,
    >> which is expensive, difficult to do, and time consuming. If you are
    >> not going to go the direct calorimetry route, yer better off just
    >> doing spreadsheet calculations.

    >
    > Actually, there is a reason that scientists don't try and measure
    > calories burned directly, and that is because it has been shown that the
    > actual calories burned can be estimated quite accurately using precisely
    > these methods.
    >
    > I could cite some articles, if you would like, but there is a good
    > reason why the people that actually study this stuff for a living don't
    > do calorimetry tests. The reason is that, as you state, calorimetry
    > tests are difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and the results are
    > invariably the same as the results from far less expensive tests.


    Not for anaerobic efforts.

    And you are talking out of your ass again, Jason.
    Calorie charts vary all over the globe, even for running. Food labels are
    only "required" to be within 10% of bomb calorimeter experiments, and many
    labels are off by 20%.

    So before you start sounding like Friedes, make some inquiries as to what
    the true error range is for these types of experiments..

    >
    > If you feel differently you are welcome to try and prove your case. I
    > would be very interested in a citation that shows that oxygen
    > consumption or blood lactate levels are not useful for calculating
    > calories burned during exercise. Bonus points for a study that shows
    > that work performed (as you calculate it) is a better measurement.


    Calculate the mechanical work, and multiply by 5 or 6, to take care of the
    fact that the body's conversion of chemical energy to work occurs at 15-20%
    efficiency, which I already did.
    There are a cupla other factors, such as how much work is done on the
    downstroke, calculating cog's for limbs in partial motion, etc.

    The reason dumbbell snatching (floor to overhead) is a more accurate
    calculation is because you can dispense with the "pendulum factor", and the
    starting/stopping distances are more precise.

    Hey, feel free to live in yer fantasy world about kb swings. This is the
    same **** as the Bowflex people who, based on a study, claimed bowflex
    peeple lost 4.5 # of fat a week. Do THAT calculation for a running
    equivalent.....

    --
    EA


    >
    > Jason




  7. #7
    Steve Freides Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    Jason Earl wrote:

    -snip-

    Y'all have way too much free time to be debating something that's been
    covered well in a million places already.

    However, the shape does matter. Consider, e.g., an Indian club. These
    used in much smaller weights than kettlebells, and there are two
    take-away points. First, the offset center of mass does matter - the
    further the c.o.m. is from the handle, the more work it is to manage,
    and that center can even travel further.

    Second, notice that Indian clubs don't usually do the same movements as
    dumbells because the shape lends itself, though trial and error, to
    different movements, some similar, some not. The kettlebell is also
    like this so, e.g., a kettlebell swing and a kettlebell snatch are
    really different feeling movements than the movements of the same names
    with dumbells. Is one better or worse? Again, look at what people have
    worked out over time - barbell snatches are done because they're good,
    dumbbell snatches are rarely done. Dumbell bench presses, however,
    work - they're different than bench pressing a bar, and in this case,
    the difference is good and useful. The difference in a dumbell swing is
    not, however - it's sort of a silly, try not to whack yourself in the
    knees movement with a dumbell, it's impossible with a barbell, but the
    swing is, by contrast, the center of the kettlebell universe because
    it's a movement that matches up well with the design/shape of the
    implement.

    The above isn't intended to be scientific and it needn't be - it's just
    common sense to find movements that have proven themselve, in trainees
    as well as in studies, to be effective.

    Jason, the one-kettlebell bench press is awesome - give it a try
    sometime.

    Last but not least, if you want to play with the center of mass, try
    connecting two kettlebells with string, or string up some plates to hang
    off your dumbell handle and use that - it is definitely different.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com



  8. #8
    Jason Earl Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:

    > "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]..
    >> On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]..
    >>>> On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In the 1/2 hr kettlworx infomercial, they make about 100x the errors
    >>>>> that Steve makes in his http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html page.
    >>>>> DATS impressive!!!
    >>>>
    >>>> I did not watch the informercial, but I am sure that I agree with you.
    >>>> The fact that their "heavy" kettlebell is 20 pounds either means that
    >>>> they are targeting small women and children or they chose their
    >>>> kettlebell sizes based on shipping expenses.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The most egregious claim, besides localized fat loss ekc ekc, is the
    >>>>> claim that a single 20 min kb workout burns as many calories as a 5
    >>>>> mile run..... iihc.....
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, that's clearly crap. So instead of ranting against infomercials,
    >>>> which seems like a pretty big waste of time to me--I deal with
    >>>> infomercials by refusing to watch them--I am going to mention something
    >>>> I read about kettlebells and calorie burn.
    >>>>
    >>>> They've actually measured the average amount of calories burned in a
    >>>> kettlebell workout. Here's a link to a pretty good article that talks
    >>>> about the results.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...ells012010.pdf
    >>>
    >>> Well, not bad for a piece of kb propaganda.

    >>
    >> It's an article covering research done at University of Wisconsin La
    >> Crosse. The research was published in Medicine & Science in Sports &
    >> Exercise which is published by the American College of Sports Medicine.

    >
    > Sometimes journals just need filler. This was clearly filler.
    >
    >>
    >> You can call it "propaganda" if it makes you feel better. To a certain
    >> extent I agree that the article I shared is propaganda. If I had access
    >> to the actual research article I would have linked to that instead.
    >> Like essentially all researchers Porcari almost certainly has a bias.
    >> If he did not think kettlebell snatches were a good exercise, he
    >> probably would not have tried to measure the calorie burn from
    >> kettlebell snatches. That doesn't invalidate his experiment or
    >> findings.

    >
    > The mere title of the article comes close to invalidating itself.
    >
    >>
    >>> Here's a more intelligible number: For each rep of a 10 kg weight in
    >>> the kb snatch, at an 80 kg (175 lb) bw, you burn about .3 cal. --
    >>> which is actually not bad at all. At 15 reps/min, that's about 4.5
    >>> cal min. It's a bit of a complicated calculation but basically the
    >>> plain ole work formula. I didn't factor in their lactic acid/EPOC
    >>> stuff, cuz dats just effing ridicululous, altho some EPOC factor
    >>> should be applied, but not 50%. Mebbe 25%?
    >>>
    >>> I did factor in downward work, approximations for limb movement, body
    >>> center of gravity movement (all additive), and an 85% "pendulum
    >>> effect", which knocks it down a bit.
    >>>
    >>> So 4.5 cal/min (for me), + some EPOC might bring it to 6 cal/min.
    >>> Which is not bad at all.
    >>>
    >>> For a 20 kg kb, this would be 7.5 + mebbe 2.5 epoc, for about 10/cal
    >>> min.
    >>>
    >>> The reason the burn didn't double for double the kb weight is because
    >>> the body cog is a *significant* part of the calorie burn.
    >>>
    >>> So, no, the fukn burn is NOT 20+ cals/min. But it's still decent.

    >>
    >> I am sure that your calculations are awesome, and not at all, to use
    >> your term, /handwavy/. Unfortunately, calculating the work done (from a
    >> physics perspective) is only useful if the human body was 100%
    >> efficient.
    >>
    >> Which it isn't.

    >
    > I already considered 15-20% efficiency in those numbers. AND the
    > body's contribution to the motion, etc etc. And have duplicated
    > running calorie burns very closely with similar types of calcs.
    >
    > That my calcs and their results are so far off sez either Newton is
    > wrong or they don't know how to use or interpret VO2 meters. VO2
    > can't be used in anaerobic non-steady state events.


    You are not Newton. You can be wrong, while he is still right.

    >> That is why actual scientists don't simply bust out their 9th grade
    >> physics texts, but instead go through the trouble of measuring actual
    >> oxidation. This method is trickier, mostly because you have to round
    >> up subjects and actually get them to exercise, while you measure
    >> things like their heart rate, their blood lactate levels, and the
    >> respiration levels.
    >>
    >> It would be a lot easier to simply draw some stylized diagrams, and then
    >> estimate calories burned using high school physics. Unfortunately, the
    >> numbers obtained in this manner would not be particularly useful.
    >>
    >> Not to put too fine a point on it, but wake me up when your
    >> "calculations" get published by the American College of Sports
    >> Medicine (or any other peer-reviewed journal).

    >
    > Peer reviewed means next to nothing.


    It means significantly more than you pulling crap out of the air.

    >>> BUUUTTT....
    >>>
    >>> Guess what boyzngerlz???
    >>>
    >>> THIS ALSO APPLIES TO DUMBBELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >>
    >> Would you please stop with this. We all get it already.

    >
    > But the article apparently didn't. And Friedes doesn't get it.


    There is almost no evidence that Freides even reads your post. If you
    want to argue with him go ahead. He won't respond.

    If you want to discuss something with me, then please don't conflate my
    views with what you perceive to be his views. I don't agree with what
    you believe to be Freides views (and in fact, I do not think that
    Freides actually believes the way you portray him to believe either).

    The article talked about what was "measured" in the study. Dumbbells
    were not part of the study.

    >> If you did 240 snatches with a 20kg dumbbell in 20 minutes you would
    >> get approximately the same results.
    >>
    >> And by approximately, I really mean *exactly*. We all get that there
    >> is no magic in kettlebells. Yes, there are probably consumers out
    >> there that really believe that kettlebells have dark Communist magic
    >> that subdues your soft capitalist fat. Go preach to them if you
    >> must. Those of us here on MFW understand the truth.

    >
    > Friedes?


    Feel free to start a thread where you preach at Freides.

    >> The downside of doing this workout with a dumbbell instead of a
    >> kettlebell is that you would probably hit yourself in the nuts 240
    >> times. This is likely to make it harder to finish the workout.
    >>
    >> As a concrete example, I did not end up having time to do the full
    >> dumbbell snatch comparison last night. I had some stuff come up and
    >> by the time I got everything worked out I knew that it simply would
    >> not be a fair comparison. Plus, I did not really want to do 5
    >> minutes of snatches. Those tests suck. I know they are good for me,
    >> but they are not fun.
    >>
    >> I did do a few warm up snatches, however, and even just a little bit
    >> of work drove home how much more comfortable a kettlebell is to
    >> snatch once you have learned how. The fact that I was using a
    >> dumbbell handle and plates did not help. I am sure that a cast
    >> dumbbell would have been much better, but there is no getting around
    >> the fact that dumbbell snatches, even from the hang, are less
    >> comfortable than kettlebell snatches. Dumbbells are simply too wide.

    >
    > Not when lifted off the floor, as yer supposed to.


    If you would have read just a bit further, you would have seen that I
    covered this.

    >> Dumbbell snatches from the floor shift the problem away from hitting
    >> yourself in the nuts, but they also make it much harder to get into
    >> the rhythm that allows you to get your heart rate up so high with
    >> kettlebell snatches. These are a good exercise (even a great
    >> exercise), but they aren't precisely equivalent to kettlebell
    >> snatches. If your goal is to get your heart rate up, then the fact
    >> that you can use almost your entire body to swing the bell to lockout
    >> is a good thing. Dumbbells make this harder to do and therefor make
    >> it less useful for this particular type of exercise.
    >>
    >> Is the difference really that significant? To me it is significant
    >> enough that I was willing to spend an extra $25 to get a kettlebell
    >> instead of a dumbbell.
    >>
    >>> Even moreso, cuz the calc is simpler, and there is no pendulum
    >>> effect.

    >>
    >> A simple calc is only useful if it is the *right* calculation. Once
    >> again, calculating the work done (from a physics perspective) is only
    >> useful if the human body was 100% efficient.
    >>
    >>> And that's what is so irritating about this kettlebell bull****: I
    >>> didn't read the whole article, cuz, well, it was just too obnoxious,
    >>> but what I did read made no mention of the fundamental scientific fact
    >>> that this type of burn is not limited to kettlebells, but in fact
    >>> applies to ANY weight hoisted over head.

    >>
    >> Or, more accurately, any exercise that gets your heart rate up
    >> significantly. If you are talking about calories/minute that's really
    >> the key.

    >
    > Wrong.
    > You can get yer heart rate up beating yer meat.
    > HR means nothing if you do not know what muscle mass is being recruited.
    > I can get my HR up to 160 arm wrestling, or running 8 min miles.
    > Which is burning more calories?


    You are correct. I got too simplistic again. I say "get your heart
    rate up" as a shorthand, but it is a crappy shorthand, I will try not to
    use it in the future. However, heart rate is not the only thing that
    was measured in this study. Respiration was also measured.

    Which *does* estimate calories very closely.

    You might get your heart rate up (momentarily) while arm wrestling, but
    you don't elevate your breathing significantly. Interestingly enough
    the common method for calculating calorie burn from heart rate takes
    activities like arm wrestling into consideration. Your body's autonomic
    system is pretty good. It doesn't pump extra blood around the body for
    long. After an initial spike the heart rate slows, and the average
    matches the calorie burn very well.

    It certainly measures calorie burn better than your fixed efficiency
    factor stuff. Which is why a fixed efficiency factor is basically never
    used.

    [Snip kettlebell conspiracy stuff]

    >>>> Basically the lifters did a certain percentage of the number of
    >>>> swings that they could do in a minute every minute for 20 minutes.
    >>>> They then measured oxygen consumption and measured blood lactate so
    >>>> that they could calculate the calories burned aerobically and
    >>>> anaerobically. The average calorie expenditure for the workout was
    >>>> 20.2 calories a minute.
    >>>
    >>> Total bull****. Total.

    >>
    >> Please show your work.

    >
    > You wouldn't understand it. You don't understand the difference
    > between a kettlebell swing and a sledgehammer swing.


    Ah yes. I keep forgetting I am talking to the guy that thinks
    kettlebell snatches are bad because they are similar to the simple
    harmonic motion of a pendulum, and then advocates for a particular
    flavor of dumbbell swings which are far more pendulum-like than
    kettlebell snatches.

    And somehow I am the dunce.

    By the way, I am still waiting for your math that proves that my
    calculations for the forces involved in the kettlebell swing is wrong.
    You know, the ones that showed that the kettlebell swings that I do with
    a man-sized kettlebell generated larger forces than the girly-sized
    dumbbell swings that you do.

    I apologized because I misunderstood your argument. However, I
    misunderstood your argument because your entire argument consisted of a
    handful of sentence fragments and a link to wikipedia.

    It is a bit funny to me that you keep trying to make fun of me because I
    said that kettlebell swings and sledgehammer swings are similar.
    Clearly both are similar. You take a weight, and swing it.

    To say that I could not tell the two swings apart is simply ridiculous.
    The fact of the matter is that I could not figure out why you would like
    one swing and condemn the other. Now I know the reason for the
    discrepancy in your opinion. The reason is that you don't like
    kettlebells.

    Bringing up sledgehammer swings, however, is cogent, as I would bet that
    if the calorie expenditure of a brisk sledgehammer session were measured
    (directly as in the kettlebell experiment, not indirectly as you have
    suggested) that it would also turn out to be in the same ballpark as the
    kettlebell drills. That is what I was getting at when I said that they
    were similar forms of exercise. Well, that and both are clearly swings.

    > And you don't understand that the HS physics calculation of mechanical
    > work is perfectly legitimate, as long as factor in the efficiency
    > factor, on which there is fair consensus.


    Then you should be able to cite the study that established the
    efficiency factor.

    <crickets...>

    What's more, if you are correct then why do scientists insist on
    measuring via other methods. Your methods are clearly easier.

    [...]

    >> Actually, that's pretty much my entire point. I am pretty close to
    >> being able to doing both of those 20 minute feats. In fact, I might
    >> actually be able to do both of them now, a 20kg kettlebell would be
    >> easier to snatch after all. I am close enough to both that it
    >> doesn't surprise me that they burn an equivalent amount of calories.
    >>
    >> You are skeptical, because you have limited experience with actual
    >> kettlebell work, and no, your 20# homemade girlie weights don't
    >> count.
    >>
    >> Well, here's an experiment for you. Take a 20kg _dumbbell_ (heck,
    >> you can use 40 pounds). Now do 5 snatches with each hand every
    >> minute for 20 minutes (that's one less per hand than what was
    >> tested). You don't have to do them from the floor, starting from the
    >> hang will be fine. Heck, you can allow yourself a bit of swing to
    >> get started, just be careful with your man parts.
    >>
    >> Then, come back and tell us that it didn't make you *feel* similar to
    >> running 2.5 miles in 20:00 (that's an 8:00/mile pace, so somewhat
    >> slower than what I calculated would be equivalent). Actually at 175
    >> pounds (your weight instead of mine) that run would be 16.4
    >> calories/minute. That's not precisely the levels mentioned in the
    >> article, but it is close enough that you should see some correlation
    >> in how those two exercises make you feel.
    >>
    >> When push comes to shove the kettlebell part of the equation is really a
    >> red herring. I use kettlebells for this sort of workout because I feel
    >> they are more comfortable than the alternatives (that I am aware of).
    >> You might well feel differently. I can respect that.

    >
    > Run a mile. Then walk a mile on your hands. Which has the higher
    > percieved exertion? But both burned the same calories. Actially, the
    > running proly burned more!!


    Running on your hands is a poor example for several reasons, the primary
    one of which is that no one can run 2.5 miles in 20 minutes on their
    hands.

    If you could walk on your hands at the same rate as you can run on your
    feet then there is some chance that you would burn an equivalent amount
    of calories per minute, which is the *feel* that I was asking you to
    experience. Otherwise you are simply measuring how strong your arms are
    compared to your legs, which is something else entirely.

    Of course, you know that. Sometimes I think that you simply argue
    nonsense because it is more fun.

    Unlike your arm running example, both running and kettlebell snatches
    involve the bulk of the large muscle groups in the body. What's more,
    both exercises are limited not by the strength of any individual muscle
    or muscle group, but primarily by the cardiovascular system. Even the
    average athlete can run faster than a 7:24 minute mile pace or do more
    than 12 kettlebell snatches in a minute. They just can't do it for very
    long.

    > Ergo, what you think, what you feel, and what is are two different
    > things.
    >
    > Running 2.5 miles (in 20 minutes or whatever), would ECLIPSE those kb
    > snatches ito of calorie burn, while the kb stuff may very well feel
    > more difficult, as per the above example.


    Your next example will probably compare deadlifting the force exerted
    while typing.

    >>> HOWEVER.........
    >>>
    >>> With real dumbbells, and with some fine-tuning of the weight AND the
    >>> technique, you CAN exceed the minute-by-minute running burns with
    >>> dumbbells. But, of course, not for a lot of minutes.

    >>
    >> Yes, just like you can exceed the minute-by-minute calorie burns from
    >> running with kettlebell drills, but not for very long.
    >>
    >>> Funny, you don't see articles on DAT, now, do you???

    >>
    >> Most people don't need articles to show that kettlebells and
    >> dumbbells are similar.
    >>
    >>> For *overall* calorie burn, it's hard to beat running.

    >>
    >> For the record, I agree 100% with this. 240 20kg kettlebell snatches
    >> in 20 minutes is pure hell. An equivalent calorie burn from running
    >> in 25 minutes is a far more enjoyable prospect. This is especially
    >> true considering the fact that a significant amount of the calories
    >> from the kettlebell workout come from the fact that you are
    >> essentially redlining your body. Your body becomes significantly
    >> less efficient as you push past your aerobic threshold. That's good
    >> if you want to burn more calories per minute, but there is definitely
    >> a price to pay. With running you can slow down and cover the ground
    >> at a slower pace and still burn approximately the same amount of
    >> calories per mile. That's not the case of any exercise that relies
    >> on a significant calorie burn from the switch towards the anaerobic
    >> systems.
    >>
    >> The measured EPOC of the kettlebell drills is substantial. The
    >> downside is that you don't get that benefit unless you are willing to
    >> push yourself into the anaerobic zone.
    >>
    >>> My apparatus manages to do this readily, but this is another more
    >>> complicated story. This is how/why I know about these comparative
    >>> calculations, and why I know this article is kb propaganda/bull****.

    >>
    >> It is entirely possible that your apparatus can trigger the same effect
    >> and be even more comfortable than kettlebell snatches. If it can, then
    >> I am definitely interested.
    >>
    >> I don't think that this would be too hard to do. As you have noticed,
    >> many gireviks tape their hands to protect them when doing high rep
    >> kettlebell snatches. I was actually serious about the canvas bag filled
    >> with lead weights. If the kettlebell did not rotate in your hand it
    >> almost certainly would be more comfortable. A little give on the catch
    >> would not go amiss either.
    >>
    >> I have no problem believing that your apparatus could make this sort of
    >> exercise significantly more comfortable.
    >>
    >>> The article makes fundamental experimental errors with VO2, namely,
    >>> that it can't be reliably applied to non-steady-state anaerobic events
    >>> (actually redundant), and speculation about calorie burn from lactate
    >>> levels is fukn handwaving.

    >>
    >> Actually, it is far less handwavy than trying to calculate calories
    >> burned based on the amount of work done (from a simple physics
    >> perspective). Which is part of the reason why exercise scientists never
    >> bother to measure it. Just because calories burned during exercise and
    >> work performed (from a physics standpoint) have the same units does not
    >> mean they are equivalent (or even that you can do more than make a rough
    >> estimate of one from the other). If your body was 100% efficient, or
    >> even if it's efficiency were linear, then work performed would be a
    >> useful metric.
    >>
    >> But that is not the case. It certainly isn't the case as the body goes
    >> into oxygen debt.
    >>
    >>> The ONLY way to reliably do such a study is with DIRECT calorimetry,
    >>> which is expensive, difficult to do, and time consuming. If you are
    >>> not going to go the direct calorimetry route, yer better off just
    >>> doing spreadsheet calculations.

    >>
    >> Actually, there is a reason that scientists don't try and measure
    >> calories burned directly, and that is because it has been shown that
    >> the actual calories burned can be estimated quite accurately using
    >> precisely these methods.
    >>
    >> I could cite some articles, if you would like, but there is a good
    >> reason why the people that actually study this stuff for a living
    >> don't do calorimetry tests. The reason is that, as you state,
    >> calorimetry tests are difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and
    >> the results are invariably the same as the results from far less
    >> expensive tests.

    >
    > Not for anaerobic efforts.


    You need to read the work done by Christopher Scott (and others) on this
    front. Alternatively, you could point me to the writings of someone
    that agrees with you, and I could take a look for myself.

    Or, I suppose that you could spend some time explaining why I should
    believe you over what is essentially the current consensus of the folks
    doing actual research in this area.

    > And you are talking out of your ass again, Jason.


    I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong again. Part of the reason
    that I post to Usenet is that being wrong in public is often the
    quickest way to learn the truth. I have no problems changing my opinion
    if someone shows me an opinion that is demonstrably better.

    > Calorie charts vary all over the globe, even for running.


    There has actually been a surprising level of research when it comes to
    running. However, most tables that people actually use are based on old
    or outdated research, mostly because they are easier to calculate. When
    push comes to shove, however, they are still useful, as they are
    generally "close enough."

    I am willing to accept that the calories/minute figure in the study
    could be off by as much as 20% for the general population, and may be
    off by more than that for a particular individual. Of course, the
    figure for running is probably also shaky.

    Even you would probably agree that there is a difference in net calorie
    expenditure (total calories expended minus basal metabolic rate) in a
    leisurely 12:00 minute/mile pace and a crippling 5:00 minute/mile pace.

    Does this uncertainty mean that running doesn't burn a lot of calories.
    Of course not.

    I am not silly enough to use these studies as a means of predicting how
    many calories I am burning at any given minute. I am simply looking for
    a way to intelligently choose exercises.

    > Food labels are only "required" to be within 10% of bomb calorimeter
    > experiments, and many labels are off by 20%.


    I used to work at a french fry plant, and writing software to collect
    process data was an important part of my job. The standard deviations
    involved in food service are such that getting labels closer than that
    would be very difficult for any foods that are not very heavily
    processed.

    If you just want to eat corn starch, for example, I think that they
    could get the labels really really close.

    I am not sure what this has to do with the calories burned during
    kettlebell snatches, but it is a fun topic.

    > So before you start sounding like Friedes, make some inquiries as to
    > what the true error range is for these types of experiments..


    I can read confidence intervals, if that is what you mean.

    >> If you feel differently you are welcome to try and prove your case.
    >> I would be very interested in a citation that shows that oxygen
    >> consumption or blood lactate levels are not useful for calculating
    >> calories burned during exercise. Bonus points for a study that shows
    >> that work performed (as you calculate it) is a better measurement.

    >
    > Calculate the mechanical work, and multiply by 5 or 6, to take care of
    > the fact that the body's conversion of chemical energy to work occurs
    > at 15-20% efficiency, which I already did.


    I think that this is likely to get a fairly useful ballpark estimate
    assuming that you are still in the aerobic zone. It isn't useful enough
    that actual scientists do this sort of thing though.

    It isn't even likely to estimate calorie burn as closely as monitoring
    just the heart rate either, for that matter. Take your arm wrestling
    example, for instance, or a Sisco-esque static hold. Calculating
    mechanical work fails miserably in these situations.

    > There are a cupla other factors, such as how much work is done on the
    > downstroke, calculating cog's for limbs in partial motion, etc.
    >
    > The reason dumbbell snatching (floor to overhead) is a more accurate
    > calculation is because you can dispense with the "pendulum factor",
    > and the starting/stopping distances are more precise.


    In short, you don't like swings because they make the math harder for
    calculating mechanical work. Boo hoo.

    > Hey, feel free to live in yer fantasy world about kb swings.


    Why thank you.

    > This is the same **** as the Bowflex people who, based on a study,
    > claimed bowflex peeple lost 4.5 # of fat a week. Do THAT calculation
    > for a running equivalent.....


    Claims "based" on a study, and the conclusions actually in a study are
    two entirely different things.

    The Kettleworx ad is a good example of this. I have no problems
    believing that someone that did the workout in the actual kettlebell
    study would burn right around 20.2 calories per minute (within say 20%).
    That does not mean that I believe that the Kettleworx workout burns
    anywhere near that many calories. The Kettleworx guy wants you to
    believe that the workout he is peddling is equivalent to the one in the
    study, but it isn't even remotely similar. For one thing, even his
    heaviest kettlebell is less than half the weight of the kettlebell used
    in the actual study. Not to mention the fact that it did not appear
    that his workout included even a single kettlebell snatch.

    I would not be at all surprised to find out that your Bowflex example is
    similarly flawed. What the study actually said, and what the Bowflex
    marketers said that it said were probably completely different. Unlike
    you, I don't blame the scientists, but instead I blame the marketers
    that cite the studies incorrectly.

    That's also why, when I am in doubt, I try and read the study directly,
    and not the often completely bogus media representation of the study.
    In this particular case I pointed you to a magazine article covering the
    study, but that is only because the actual study is not available for
    free, and the article covered enough of the methodology of the study
    that I felt comfortable citing it.

    Not super comfortable, mind you, but somewhat comfortable.

    Jason

  9. #9
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >
    >> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]..
    >>> On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>> news:[email protected]..
    >>>>> On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In the 1/2 hr kettlworx infomercial, they make about 100x the errors
    >>>>>> that Steve makes in his http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html page.
    >>>>>> DATS impressive!!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I did not watch the informercial, but I am sure that I agree with you.
    >>>>> The fact that their "heavy" kettlebell is 20 pounds either means that
    >>>>> they are targeting small women and children or they chose their
    >>>>> kettlebell sizes based on shipping expenses.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The most egregious claim, besides localized fat loss ekc ekc, is the
    >>>>>> claim that a single 20 min kb workout burns as many calories as a 5
    >>>>>> mile run..... iihc.....
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yeah, that's clearly crap. So instead of ranting against
    >>>>> infomercials,
    >>>>> which seems like a pretty big waste of time to me--I deal with
    >>>>> infomercials by refusing to watch them--I am going to mention
    >>>>> something
    >>>>> I read about kettlebells and calorie burn.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They've actually measured the average amount of calories burned in a
    >>>>> kettlebell workout. Here's a link to a pretty good article that talks
    >>>>> about the results.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...ells012010.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, not bad for a piece of kb propaganda.
    >>>
    >>> It's an article covering research done at University of Wisconsin La
    >>> Crosse. The research was published in Medicine & Science in Sports &
    >>> Exercise which is published by the American College of Sports Medicine.

    >>
    >> Sometimes journals just need filler. This was clearly filler.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> You can call it "propaganda" if it makes you feel better. To a certain
    >>> extent I agree that the article I shared is propaganda. If I had access
    >>> to the actual research article I would have linked to that instead.
    >>> Like essentially all researchers Porcari almost certainly has a bias.
    >>> If he did not think kettlebell snatches were a good exercise, he
    >>> probably would not have tried to measure the calorie burn from
    >>> kettlebell snatches. That doesn't invalidate his experiment or
    >>> findings.

    >>
    >> The mere title of the article comes close to invalidating itself.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> Here's a more intelligible number: For each rep of a 10 kg weight in
    >>>> the kb snatch, at an 80 kg (175 lb) bw, you burn about .3 cal. --
    >>>> which is actually not bad at all. At 15 reps/min, that's about 4.5
    >>>> cal min. It's a bit of a complicated calculation but basically the
    >>>> plain ole work formula. I didn't factor in their lactic acid/EPOC
    >>>> stuff, cuz dats just effing ridicululous, altho some EPOC factor
    >>>> should be applied, but not 50%. Mebbe 25%?
    >>>>
    >>>> I did factor in downward work, approximations for limb movement, body
    >>>> center of gravity movement (all additive), and an 85% "pendulum
    >>>> effect", which knocks it down a bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> So 4.5 cal/min (for me), + some EPOC might bring it to 6 cal/min.
    >>>> Which is not bad at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> For a 20 kg kb, this would be 7.5 + mebbe 2.5 epoc, for about 10/cal
    >>>> min.
    >>>>
    >>>> The reason the burn didn't double for double the kb weight is because
    >>>> the body cog is a *significant* part of the calorie burn.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, no, the fukn burn is NOT 20+ cals/min. But it's still decent.
    >>>
    >>> I am sure that your calculations are awesome, and not at all, to use
    >>> your term, /handwavy/. Unfortunately, calculating the work done (from a
    >>> physics perspective) is only useful if the human body was 100%
    >>> efficient.
    >>>
    >>> Which it isn't.

    >>
    >> I already considered 15-20% efficiency in those numbers. AND the
    >> body's contribution to the motion, etc etc. And have duplicated
    >> running calorie burns very closely with similar types of calcs.
    >>
    >> That my calcs and their results are so far off sez either Newton is
    >> wrong or they don't know how to use or interpret VO2 meters. VO2
    >> can't be used in anaerobic non-steady state events.

    >
    > You are not Newton. You can be wrong, while he is still right.
    >
    >>> That is why actual scientists don't simply bust out their 9th grade
    >>> physics texts, but instead go through the trouble of measuring actual
    >>> oxidation. This method is trickier, mostly because you have to round
    >>> up subjects and actually get them to exercise, while you measure
    >>> things like their heart rate, their blood lactate levels, and the
    >>> respiration levels.
    >>>
    >>> It would be a lot easier to simply draw some stylized diagrams, and then
    >>> estimate calories burned using high school physics. Unfortunately, the
    >>> numbers obtained in this manner would not be particularly useful.
    >>>
    >>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but wake me up when your
    >>> "calculations" get published by the American College of Sports
    >>> Medicine (or any other peer-reviewed journal).

    >>
    >> Peer reviewed means next to nothing.

    >
    > It means significantly more than you pulling crap out of the air.
    >
    >>>> BUUUTTT....
    >>>>
    >>>> Guess what boyzngerlz???
    >>>>
    >>>> THIS ALSO APPLIES TO DUMBBELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >>>
    >>> Would you please stop with this. We all get it already.

    >>
    >> But the article apparently didn't. And Friedes doesn't get it.

    >
    > There is almost no evidence that Freides even reads your post. If you
    > want to argue with him go ahead. He won't respond.
    >
    > If you want to discuss something with me, then please don't conflate my
    > views with what you perceive to be his views. I don't agree with what
    > you believe to be Freides views (and in fact, I do not think that
    > Freides actually believes the way you portray him to believe either).
    >
    > The article talked about what was "measured" in the study. Dumbbells
    > were not part of the study.
    >
    >>> If you did 240 snatches with a 20kg dumbbell in 20 minutes you would
    >>> get approximately the same results.
    >>>
    >>> And by approximately, I really mean *exactly*. We all get that there
    >>> is no magic in kettlebells. Yes, there are probably consumers out
    >>> there that really believe that kettlebells have dark Communist magic
    >>> that subdues your soft capitalist fat. Go preach to them if you
    >>> must. Those of us here on MFW understand the truth.

    >>
    >> Friedes?

    >
    > Feel free to start a thread where you preach at Freides.
    >
    >>> The downside of doing this workout with a dumbbell instead of a
    >>> kettlebell is that you would probably hit yourself in the nuts 240
    >>> times. This is likely to make it harder to finish the workout.
    >>>
    >>> As a concrete example, I did not end up having time to do the full
    >>> dumbbell snatch comparison last night. I had some stuff come up and
    >>> by the time I got everything worked out I knew that it simply would
    >>> not be a fair comparison. Plus, I did not really want to do 5
    >>> minutes of snatches. Those tests suck. I know they are good for me,
    >>> but they are not fun.
    >>>
    >>> I did do a few warm up snatches, however, and even just a little bit
    >>> of work drove home how much more comfortable a kettlebell is to
    >>> snatch once you have learned how. The fact that I was using a
    >>> dumbbell handle and plates did not help. I am sure that a cast
    >>> dumbbell would have been much better, but there is no getting around
    >>> the fact that dumbbell snatches, even from the hang, are less
    >>> comfortable than kettlebell snatches. Dumbbells are simply too wide.

    >>
    >> Not when lifted off the floor, as yer supposed to.

    >
    > If you would have read just a bit further, you would have seen that I
    > covered this.
    >
    >>> Dumbbell snatches from the floor shift the problem away from hitting
    >>> yourself in the nuts, but they also make it much harder to get into
    >>> the rhythm that allows you to get your heart rate up so high with
    >>> kettlebell snatches. These are a good exercise (even a great
    >>> exercise), but they aren't precisely equivalent to kettlebell
    >>> snatches. If your goal is to get your heart rate up, then the fact
    >>> that you can use almost your entire body to swing the bell to lockout
    >>> is a good thing. Dumbbells make this harder to do and therefor make
    >>> it less useful for this particular type of exercise.
    >>>
    >>> Is the difference really that significant? To me it is significant
    >>> enough that I was willing to spend an extra $25 to get a kettlebell
    >>> instead of a dumbbell.
    >>>
    >>>> Even moreso, cuz the calc is simpler, and there is no pendulum
    >>>> effect.
    >>>
    >>> A simple calc is only useful if it is the *right* calculation. Once
    >>> again, calculating the work done (from a physics perspective) is only
    >>> useful if the human body was 100% efficient.
    >>>
    >>>> And that's what is so irritating about this kettlebell bull****: I
    >>>> didn't read the whole article, cuz, well, it was just too obnoxious,
    >>>> but what I did read made no mention of the fundamental scientific fact
    >>>> that this type of burn is not limited to kettlebells, but in fact
    >>>> applies to ANY weight hoisted over head.
    >>>
    >>> Or, more accurately, any exercise that gets your heart rate up
    >>> significantly. If you are talking about calories/minute that's really
    >>> the key.

    >>
    >> Wrong.
    >> You can get yer heart rate up beating yer meat.
    >> HR means nothing if you do not know what muscle mass is being recruited.
    >> I can get my HR up to 160 arm wrestling, or running 8 min miles.
    >> Which is burning more calories?

    >
    > You are correct. I got too simplistic again. I say "get your heart
    > rate up" as a shorthand, but it is a crappy shorthand, I will try not to
    > use it in the future. However, heart rate is not the only thing that
    > was measured in this study. Respiration was also measured.
    >
    > Which *does* estimate calories very closely.
    >
    > You might get your heart rate up (momentarily) while arm wrestling, but
    > you don't elevate your breathing significantly. Interestingly enough
    > the common method for calculating calorie burn from heart rate takes
    > activities like arm wrestling into consideration. Your body's autonomic
    > system is pretty good. It doesn't pump extra blood around the body for
    > long. After an initial spike the heart rate slows, and the average
    > matches the calorie burn very well.
    >
    > It certainly measures calorie burn better than your fixed efficiency
    > factor stuff. Which is why a fixed efficiency factor is basically never
    > used.
    >
    > [Snip kettlebell conspiracy stuff]
    >
    >>>>> Basically the lifters did a certain percentage of the number of
    >>>>> swings that they could do in a minute every minute for 20 minutes.
    >>>>> They then measured oxygen consumption and measured blood lactate so
    >>>>> that they could calculate the calories burned aerobically and
    >>>>> anaerobically. The average calorie expenditure for the workout was
    >>>>> 20.2 calories a minute.
    >>>>
    >>>> Total bull****. Total.
    >>>
    >>> Please show your work.

    >>
    >> You wouldn't understand it. You don't understand the difference
    >> between a kettlebell swing and a sledgehammer swing.

    >
    > Ah yes. I keep forgetting I am talking to the guy that thinks
    > kettlebell snatches are bad because they are similar to the simple
    > harmonic motion of a pendulum, and then advocates for a particular
    > flavor of dumbbell swings which are far more pendulum-like than
    > kettlebell snatches.
    >
    > And somehow I am the dunce.
    >
    > By the way, I am still waiting for your math that proves that my
    > calculations for the forces involved in the kettlebell swing is wrong.
    > You know, the ones that showed that the kettlebell swings that I do with
    > a man-sized kettlebell generated larger forces than the girly-sized
    > dumbbell swings that you do.
    >
    > I apologized because I misunderstood your argument. However, I
    > misunderstood your argument because your entire argument consisted of a
    > handful of sentence fragments and a link to wikipedia.
    >
    > It is a bit funny to me that you keep trying to make fun of me because I
    > said that kettlebell swings and sledgehammer swings are similar.
    > Clearly both are similar. You take a weight, and swing it.
    >
    > To say that I could not tell the two swings apart is simply ridiculous.
    > The fact of the matter is that I could not figure out why you would like
    > one swing and condemn the other. Now I know the reason for the
    > discrepancy in your opinion. The reason is that you don't like
    > kettlebells.
    >
    > Bringing up sledgehammer swings, however, is cogent, as I would bet that
    > if the calorie expenditure of a brisk sledgehammer session were measured
    > (directly as in the kettlebell experiment, not indirectly as you have
    > suggested) that it would also turn out to be in the same ballpark as the
    > kettlebell drills. That is what I was getting at when I said that they
    > were similar forms of exercise. Well, that and both are clearly swings.
    >
    >> And you don't understand that the HS physics calculation of mechanical
    >> work is perfectly legitimate, as long as factor in the efficiency
    >> factor, on which there is fair consensus.

    >
    > Then you should be able to cite the study that established the
    > efficiency factor.
    >
    > <crickets...>
    >
    > What's more, if you are correct then why do scientists insist on
    > measuring via other methods. Your methods are clearly easier.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >>> Actually, that's pretty much my entire point. I am pretty close to
    >>> being able to doing both of those 20 minute feats. In fact, I might
    >>> actually be able to do both of them now, a 20kg kettlebell would be
    >>> easier to snatch after all. I am close enough to both that it
    >>> doesn't surprise me that they burn an equivalent amount of calories.
    >>>
    >>> You are skeptical, because you have limited experience with actual
    >>> kettlebell work, and no, your 20# homemade girlie weights don't
    >>> count.
    >>>
    >>> Well, here's an experiment for you. Take a 20kg _dumbbell_ (heck,
    >>> you can use 40 pounds). Now do 5 snatches with each hand every
    >>> minute for 20 minutes (that's one less per hand than what was
    >>> tested). You don't have to do them from the floor, starting from the
    >>> hang will be fine. Heck, you can allow yourself a bit of swing to
    >>> get started, just be careful with your man parts.
    >>>
    >>> Then, come back and tell us that it didn't make you *feel* similar to
    >>> running 2.5 miles in 20:00 (that's an 8:00/mile pace, so somewhat
    >>> slower than what I calculated would be equivalent). Actually at 175
    >>> pounds (your weight instead of mine) that run would be 16.4
    >>> calories/minute. That's not precisely the levels mentioned in the
    >>> article, but it is close enough that you should see some correlation
    >>> in how those two exercises make you feel.
    >>>
    >>> When push comes to shove the kettlebell part of the equation is really a
    >>> red herring. I use kettlebells for this sort of workout because I feel
    >>> they are more comfortable than the alternatives (that I am aware of).
    >>> You might well feel differently. I can respect that.

    >>
    >> Run a mile. Then walk a mile on your hands. Which has the higher
    >> percieved exertion? But both burned the same calories. Actially, the
    >> running proly burned more!!

    >
    > Running on your hands is a poor example for several reasons, the primary
    > one of which is that no one can run 2.5 miles in 20 minutes on their
    > hands.
    >
    > If you could walk on your hands at the same rate as you can run on your
    > feet then there is some chance that you would burn an equivalent amount
    > of calories per minute, which is the *feel* that I was asking you to
    > experience. Otherwise you are simply measuring how strong your arms are
    > compared to your legs, which is something else entirely.
    >
    > Of course, you know that. Sometimes I think that you simply argue
    > nonsense because it is more fun.
    >
    > Unlike your arm running example, both running and kettlebell snatches
    > involve the bulk of the large muscle groups in the body. What's more,
    > both exercises are limited not by the strength of any individual muscle
    > or muscle group, but primarily by the cardiovascular system. Even the
    > average athlete can run faster than a 7:24 minute mile pace or do more
    > than 12 kettlebell snatches in a minute. They just can't do it for very
    > long.
    >
    >> Ergo, what you think, what you feel, and what is are two different
    >> things.
    >>
    >> Running 2.5 miles (in 20 minutes or whatever), would ECLIPSE those kb
    >> snatches ito of calorie burn, while the kb stuff may very well feel
    >> more difficult, as per the above example.

    >
    > Your next example will probably compare deadlifting the force exerted
    > while typing.
    >
    >>>> HOWEVER.........
    >>>>
    >>>> With real dumbbells, and with some fine-tuning of the weight AND the
    >>>> technique, you CAN exceed the minute-by-minute running burns with
    >>>> dumbbells. But, of course, not for a lot of minutes.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, just like you can exceed the minute-by-minute calorie burns from
    >>> running with kettlebell drills, but not for very long.
    >>>
    >>>> Funny, you don't see articles on DAT, now, do you???
    >>>
    >>> Most people don't need articles to show that kettlebells and
    >>> dumbbells are similar.
    >>>
    >>>> For *overall* calorie burn, it's hard to beat running.
    >>>
    >>> For the record, I agree 100% with this. 240 20kg kettlebell snatches
    >>> in 20 minutes is pure hell. An equivalent calorie burn from running
    >>> in 25 minutes is a far more enjoyable prospect. This is especially
    >>> true considering the fact that a significant amount of the calories
    >>> from the kettlebell workout come from the fact that you are
    >>> essentially redlining your body. Your body becomes significantly
    >>> less efficient as you push past your aerobic threshold. That's good
    >>> if you want to burn more calories per minute, but there is definitely
    >>> a price to pay. With running you can slow down and cover the ground
    >>> at a slower pace and still burn approximately the same amount of
    >>> calories per mile. That's not the case of any exercise that relies
    >>> on a significant calorie burn from the switch towards the anaerobic
    >>> systems.
    >>>
    >>> The measured EPOC of the kettlebell drills is substantial. The
    >>> downside is that you don't get that benefit unless you are willing to
    >>> push yourself into the anaerobic zone.
    >>>
    >>>> My apparatus manages to do this readily, but this is another more
    >>>> complicated story. This is how/why I know about these comparative
    >>>> calculations, and why I know this article is kb propaganda/bull****.
    >>>
    >>> It is entirely possible that your apparatus can trigger the same effect
    >>> and be even more comfortable than kettlebell snatches. If it can, then
    >>> I am definitely interested.
    >>>
    >>> I don't think that this would be too hard to do. As you have noticed,
    >>> many gireviks tape their hands to protect them when doing high rep
    >>> kettlebell snatches. I was actually serious about the canvas bag filled
    >>> with lead weights. If the kettlebell did not rotate in your hand it
    >>> almost certainly would be more comfortable. A little give on the catch
    >>> would not go amiss either.
    >>>
    >>> I have no problem believing that your apparatus could make this sort of
    >>> exercise significantly more comfortable.
    >>>
    >>>> The article makes fundamental experimental errors with VO2, namely,
    >>>> that it can't be reliably applied to non-steady-state anaerobic events
    >>>> (actually redundant), and speculation about calorie burn from lactate
    >>>> levels is fukn handwaving.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, it is far less handwavy than trying to calculate calories
    >>> burned based on the amount of work done (from a simple physics
    >>> perspective). Which is part of the reason why exercise scientists never
    >>> bother to measure it. Just because calories burned during exercise and
    >>> work performed (from a physics standpoint) have the same units does not
    >>> mean they are equivalent (or even that you can do more than make a rough
    >>> estimate of one from the other). If your body was 100% efficient, or
    >>> even if it's efficiency were linear, then work performed would be a
    >>> useful metric.
    >>>
    >>> But that is not the case. It certainly isn't the case as the body goes
    >>> into oxygen debt.
    >>>
    >>>> The ONLY way to reliably do such a study is with DIRECT calorimetry,
    >>>> which is expensive, difficult to do, and time consuming. If you are
    >>>> not going to go the direct calorimetry route, yer better off just
    >>>> doing spreadsheet calculations.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, there is a reason that scientists don't try and measure
    >>> calories burned directly, and that is because it has been shown that
    >>> the actual calories burned can be estimated quite accurately using
    >>> precisely these methods.
    >>>
    >>> I could cite some articles, if you would like, but there is a good
    >>> reason why the people that actually study this stuff for a living
    >>> don't do calorimetry tests. The reason is that, as you state,
    >>> calorimetry tests are difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and
    >>> the results are invariably the same as the results from far less
    >>> expensive tests.

    >>
    >> Not for anaerobic efforts.

    >
    > You need to read the work done by Christopher Scott (and others) on this
    > front. Alternatively, you could point me to the writings of someone
    > that agrees with you, and I could take a look for myself.
    >
    > Or, I suppose that you could spend some time explaining why I should
    > believe you over what is essentially the current consensus of the folks
    > doing actual research in this area.
    >
    >> And you are talking out of your ass again, Jason.

    >
    > I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong again. Part of the reason
    > that I post to Usenet is that being wrong in public is often the
    > quickest way to learn the truth. I have no problems changing my opinion
    > if someone shows me an opinion that is demonstrably better.
    >
    >> Calorie charts vary all over the globe, even for running.

    >
    > There has actually been a surprising level of research when it comes to
    > running. However, most tables that people actually use are based on old
    > or outdated research, mostly because they are easier to calculate. When
    > push comes to shove, however, they are still useful, as they are
    > generally "close enough."
    >
    > I am willing to accept that the calories/minute figure in the study
    > could be off by as much as 20% for the general population, and may be
    > off by more than that for a particular individual. Of course, the
    > figure for running is probably also shaky.
    >
    > Even you would probably agree that there is a difference in net calorie
    > expenditure (total calories expended minus basal metabolic rate) in a
    > leisurely 12:00 minute/mile pace and a crippling 5:00 minute/mile pace.
    >
    > Does this uncertainty mean that running doesn't burn a lot of calories.
    > Of course not.
    >
    > I am not silly enough to use these studies as a means of predicting how
    > many calories I am burning at any given minute. I am simply looking for
    > a way to intelligently choose exercises.
    >
    >> Food labels are only "required" to be within 10% of bomb calorimeter
    >> experiments, and many labels are off by 20%.

    >
    > I used to work at a french fry plant, and writing software to collect
    > process data was an important part of my job. The standard deviations
    > involved in food service are such that getting labels closer than that
    > would be very difficult for any foods that are not very heavily
    > processed.
    >
    > If you just want to eat corn starch, for example, I think that they
    > could get the labels really really close.
    >
    > I am not sure what this has to do with the calories burned during
    > kettlebell snatches, but it is a fun topic.
    >
    >> So before you start sounding like Friedes, make some inquiries as to
    >> what the true error range is for these types of experiments..

    >
    > I can read confidence intervals, if that is what you mean.
    >
    >>> If you feel differently you are welcome to try and prove your case.
    >>> I would be very interested in a citation that shows that oxygen
    >>> consumption or blood lactate levels are not useful for calculating
    >>> calories burned during exercise. Bonus points for a study that shows
    >>> that work performed (as you calculate it) is a better measurement.

    >>
    >> Calculate the mechanical work, and multiply by 5 or 6, to take care of
    >> the fact that the body's conversion of chemical energy to work occurs
    >> at 15-20% efficiency, which I already did.

    >
    > I think that this is likely to get a fairly useful ballpark estimate
    > assuming that you are still in the aerobic zone. It isn't useful enough
    > that actual scientists do this sort of thing though.
    >
    > It isn't even likely to estimate calorie burn as closely as monitoring
    > just the heart rate either, for that matter. Take your arm wrestling
    > example, for instance, or a Sisco-esque static hold. Calculating
    > mechanical work fails miserably in these situations.
    >
    >> There are a cupla other factors, such as how much work is done on the
    >> downstroke, calculating cog's for limbs in partial motion, etc.
    >>
    >> The reason dumbbell snatching (floor to overhead) is a more accurate
    >> calculation is because you can dispense with the "pendulum factor",
    >> and the starting/stopping distances are more precise.

    >
    > In short, you don't like swings because they make the math harder for
    > calculating mechanical work. Boo hoo.
    >
    >> Hey, feel free to live in yer fantasy world about kb swings.

    >
    > Why thank you.
    >
    >> This is the same **** as the Bowflex people who, based on a study,
    >> claimed bowflex peeple lost 4.5 # of fat a week. Do THAT calculation
    >> for a running equivalent.....

    >
    > Claims "based" on a study, and the conclusions actually in a study are
    > two entirely different things.


    In this case they were the same. Of course, it was a Bowflex study, with
    shill/concubine Ellington Darden at the helm.

    >
    > The Kettleworx ad is a good example of this. I have no problems
    > believing that someone that did the workout in the actual kettlebell
    > study would burn right around 20.2 calories per minute (within say 20%).


    Gullibility IS a problem, however.


    > That does not mean that I believe that the Kettleworx workout burns
    > anywhere near that many calories. The Kettleworx guy wants you to
    > believe that the workout he is peddling is equivalent to the one in the
    > study, but it isn't even remotely similar. For one thing, even his
    > heaviest kettlebell is less than half the weight of the kettlebell used
    > in the actual study. Not to mention the fact that it did not appear
    > that his workout included even a single kettlebell snatch.
    >
    > I would not be at all surprised to find out that your Bowflex example is
    > similarly flawed. What the study actually said, and what the Bowflex
    > marketers said that it said were probably completely different. Unlike
    > you, I don't blame the scientists, but instead I blame the marketers
    > that cite the studies incorrectly.
    >
    > That's also why, when I am in doubt, I try and read the study directly,
    > and not the often completely bogus media representation of the study.
    > In this particular case I pointed you to a magazine article covering the
    > study, but that is only because the actual study is not available for
    > free, and the article covered enough of the methodology of the study
    > that I felt comfortable citing it.
    >
    > Not super comfortable, mind you, but somewhat comfortable.


    Dude, marathon runners running sub-5 minute miles burn 20 cal/min, sometimes
    less. Generally small-frame people.
    There's not a mutha****a on mfw, OR in rec.running, OR in all of RKC, that
    can run even ONE 5 minute mile, and proly not even 1/4 mile at a 5 minute
    pace. Friedes included.

    VO2 is VO2.
    If you can't even come close to generating 20+ cal/min VO2 in an
    activity that is MOST LIKELY TO ACCOMMODATE THESE HIGH EXPENDITURES
    (running), then what makes you think assholes will be banging out 20+
    cals/min in an activity NOT so well-suited for such high calorie burns?

    This is in fact why assholes are swinging kettlebells instead of out there
    running!!!!!!!
    This is in fact why assholes are swinging kettlebells instead of LIFTING
    barbells and dumbbells.

    Cuz it's easier.
    AND it's flashier and cool-looking. And it's not just cool.... it's
    MEDIEVIL cool. Siberian cool. Yeah...

    So do the HS physics calculations yourself, and then ask yourself why more
    than a near TWO hundred % discrepancy exists.


    Here's the deal, and there's an inneresting symmetry to it all:

    The energy expenditure of aerobic stuff like running is very difficult to
    measure with things like force tables, cinematographic analysis, kinematics,
    etc.
    Which is why God invented indirect calorimetry, or VO2 -- now running is
    dert easy to measure.

    In contrast, anaerobic efforts, especially weight lifting, are difficult to
    assess with any kind of calorimetry,
    BUT are pretty easy to calculate, altho there are still a cupla fudge
    factors, but not biggies, and these can be smoothed out with some exp'l
    protocols.

    So there you have it.
    If some publish-or-perish researching assholes come up with results that are
    double-triple what they "should" be, then THEY are the ones who need to do
    the explaining, not me.

    Oh, and btw, I did make a mistake.
    When *calculating* lifting calorie expenditures, there is no need to add in
    the EPOC factor (yer lactate) to these calculations. Work is work,
    efficiency is efficiency, bang, end of story.

    HOWEVER,
    EPOC *is* factored in when assholes are trying to *measure* anaerobic
    efforts with VO2, and since this cain't be measured properly this way, they
    MUST use the EPOC fudge factor.
    Who says anaerobic efforts can't be measured with VO2? Any text on ex.
    physio.

    EPOC is still a real factor, btw, and explains why resistance exercise has
    oddly efficient fat burning properties. But that's another story. A real
    factor does not mean sed factor is easy to quantitate.

    So my calcs revert back to the 4.5 and 6.5 cal/min, which is like 1/3 of
    what the Porcari assholes ""measured"", so you/they have even MORE
    explaining to do.

    Like I said, if you doubt me, calc it out yourself, and ask why the
    discrepancy is so large. Google muscle efficiency yourself, get a consensus
    on what the assholes, I mean, academics think. Some claim efficiency varies
    with fibre type, but the range is still 15-20%.

    Now, with real weight lifting, in the proper strategy/technique, those
    calorie burns can indeed shoot up to 20 and 30 cals/min, mebbe even more.
    And bleeve me, when you are done, you are *staggering*. I know, cuz I've
    done it.

    But not with bull**** kb swings/snatches at 15/min, which is what that
    protocol averaged out to.
    Smiling and high-five-ing each other after yer li'l bull**** efforts. No
    one is high-fiving after 20+ cal/min efforts.
    --
    EA




    >
    > Jason




  10. #10
    Jason Earl Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:

    [...]

    Before I start I want to apologize a bit for that last post. I got
    carried away (again). Now, this is not to say that I think that I am
    wrong, because I don't. And if you come back later saying that I
    confused running and kettlebell swings, I am going to be upset. Still,
    wrong or right my post contained too much passion.

    Besides, who am I kidding, I could easily be wrong. I think that I am
    right, I have done both types of exercise, and I feel like I have a
    handle on how they compare, but I am just some random guy on the
    Internet, and while I am proud of my progress my accomplishments to this
    point don't amount to hardly anything at all. I am still both weak and
    slow.

    I appreciate that you are willing to take the high road when
    responding. That was seriously well done, and you make some excellent
    points as well.

    > Dude, marathon runners running sub-5 minute miles burn 20 cal/min,
    > sometimes less. Generally small-frame people.


    World class marathon runners become world class by being efficient at
    running. Plus, as you mentioned, they are generally small. That's why
    using them as an example of maximum calories burned per minute is
    problematic.

    You like physics problems. So contrast the work done moving a Kenyan
    marathon runner for a quarter mile and a strongman pulling a semi for
    100 yards.

    I personally don't have problems believing that there are people that
    are able to burn more calories in a minute than a world class marathoner
    at marathon pace. But I can certainly see your point.

    > There's not a mutha****a on mfw, OR in rec.running, OR in all of RKC,
    > that can run even ONE 5 minute mile, and proly not even 1/4 mile at a
    > 5 minute pace. Friedes included.


    The question is not whether we can run 1/4 at 5:00 mile pace. The
    question is whether we can burn 20 calories a minute for 20 minutes. In
    that particular race being efficient actually works against you.

    > VO2 is VO2.
    > If you can't even come close to generating 20+ cal/min VO2 in an
    > activity that is MOST LIKELY TO ACCOMMODATE THESE HIGH EXPENDITURES
    > (running), then what makes you think assholes will be banging out 20+
    > cals/min in an activity NOT so well-suited for such high calorie burns?


    According to the calculations that I have seen for running (namely 0.75
    x weight x miles) at 200 pounds I can burn 20 calories per minute for 20
    minutes running. Being heavy helps quite a bit.

    Heck, even your calculations that you included in this discussion for a
    5 mile run was 600 calories (which you said was conservative). So
    that's 120 calories per mile or 3.3 miles in 20 minutes. That's fast,
    but it's not world class by any stretch of the imagination. We had guys
    that ran that fast at the Thanksgiving Day Turkey trot in Paul Idaho,
    with 6 inches of new snow over packed ice. Paul Idaho is not exactly a
    running Mecca.

    > This is in fact why assholes are swinging kettlebells instead of out
    > there running!!!!!!! This is in fact why assholes are swinging
    > kettlebells instead of LIFTING barbells and dumbbells.


    Yes, a great many people have found kettlebell drills to be a fun and
    effective way to train. You should try it, you might even like it.

    > Cuz it's easier. AND it's flashier and cool-looking. And it's not
    > just cool.... it's MEDIEVIL cool. Siberian cool. Yeah...


    It is cool. It is also very difficult.

    > So do the HS physics calculations yourself, and then ask yourself why
    > more than a near TWO hundred % discrepancy exists.


    My point, which got lost in all the rhetoric (sorry about that), was
    that I have run what the equation that I found from my research said
    should have been a 20 calorie per minute workout (at my weight). I have
    also tried doing 10 kettlebell swings every minute for 20 minutes, and
    it was ridiculously hard after the first 8 minutes or so. I was so
    winded that I couldn't even think straight. Granted I used a heavier
    kettlebell than the one in the study, but not much heavier. I also was
    in worse shape than I am now. I am somewhat curious to see how I would
    do today.

    But not so curious that I am going to try it anytime soon.

    I have tried both, and I have no problems believing that you burn an
    equivalent amount of calories. I also personally think that the
    kettlebell snatches was harder.

    In fact, I agree with you that if you want to burn calories then running
    is a much better exercise. For one thing, it is easier. If it is too
    hard to run at a 5 minute mile pace (or whatever) you can simply run for
    longer and burn the calories. If you just want to burn calories, by all
    means run.

    > Here's the deal, and there's an inneresting symmetry to it all:
    >
    > The energy expenditure of aerobic stuff like running is very difficult
    > to measure with things like force tables, cinematographic analysis,
    > kinematics, etc. Which is why God invented indirect calorimetry, or
    > VO2 -- now running is dert easy to measure.
    >
    > In contrast, anaerobic efforts, especially weight lifting, are
    > difficult to assess with any kind of calorimetry, BUT are pretty easy
    > to calculate, altho there are still a cupla fudge factors, but not
    > biggies, and these can be smoothed out with some exp'l protocols.
    >
    > So there you have it. If some publish-or-perish researching assholes
    > come up with results that are double-triple what they "should" be,
    > then THEY are the ones who need to do the explaining, not me.


    Once again, what *you* say they should be. Granted, I am not going to
    pretend there is not some slight of hand in the EPOC calculations, but I
    think that using a roughly linear scale of efficiency at high workloads
    even under oxygen debt is not particularly reasonable.

    Besides, only 6 of the calories per minute were due to EPOC, which is
    arguably the only truly fishy bit. Respiration and heart rate have
    proven to be reliable over wide ranges of exertion (with the right
    calculations). So I say that if your calculations are so far off from
    what the respiration and heart rate models say that they should be, then
    there is likely something going on that your simplistic model does not
    cover. And don't kid yourself, measuring the mechanical work involved
    and then assuming that the body will be as efficient over any range of
    power output is incredibly simplistic.

    > Oh, and btw, I did make a mistake. When *calculating* lifting calorie
    > expenditures, there is no need to add in the EPOC factor (yer lactate)
    > to these calculations. Work is work, efficiency is efficiency, bang,
    > end of story.


    So, you are saying that there is no metabolic cost to going into oxygen
    debt. You believe you burn the same amount from barbell snatches if you
    do them in a week or if you do them in 15 minutes.

    > HOWEVER, EPOC *is* factored in when assholes are trying to *measure*
    > anaerobic efforts with VO2, and since this cain't be measured properly
    > this way, they MUST use the EPOC fudge factor. Who says anaerobic
    > efforts can't be measured with VO2? Any text on ex. physio.


    Hmm. That's an interesting take.

    > EPOC is still a real factor, btw, and explains why resistance exercise
    > has oddly efficient fat burning properties. But that's another story.
    > A real factor does not mean sed factor is easy to quantitate.
    >
    > So my calcs revert back to the 4.5 and 6.5 cal/min, which is like 1/3
    > of what the Porcari assholes ""measured"", so you/they have even MORE
    > explaining to do.


    Porcari measured twice that much from V02, without the EPOC part. Which
    is why I doubt your calculations. The subjects had to have done
    something with that oxygen.

    > Like I said, if you doubt me, calc it out yourself, and ask why the
    > discrepancy is so large. Google muscle efficiency yourself, get a
    > consensus on what the assholes, I mean, academics think. Some claim
    > efficiency varies with fibre type, but the range is still 15-20%.


    This is interesting, I will certainly continue to read more.

    > Now, with real weight lifting, in the proper strategy/technique, those
    > calorie burns can indeed shoot up to 20 and 30 cals/min, mebbe even
    > more. And bleeve me, when you are done, you are *staggering*. I
    > know, cuz I've done it.
    >
    > But not with bull**** kb swings/snatches at 15/min, which is what that
    > protocol averaged out to. Smiling and high-five-ing each other after
    > yer li'l bull**** efforts. No one is high-fiving after 20+ cal/min
    > efforts.


    I still think that you would be surprised if you actually tried it. Do
    it with a dumbbell if you must, but it's an interesting test either way.

    And thanks once again.

    Jason

  11. #11
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > Before I start I want to apologize a bit for that last post. I got
    > carried away (again). Now, this is not to say that I think that I am
    > wrong, because I don't. And if you come back later saying that I
    > confused running and kettlebell swings, I am going to be upset. Still,
    > wrong or right my post contained too much passion.
    >
    > Besides, who am I kidding, I could easily be wrong. I think that I am
    > right, I have done both types of exercise, and I feel like I have a
    > handle on how they compare, but I am just some random guy on the
    > Internet, and while I am proud of my progress my accomplishments to this
    > point don't amount to hardly anything at all. I am still both weak and
    > slow.
    >
    > I appreciate that you are willing to take the high road when
    > responding. That was seriously well done, and you make some excellent
    > points as well.
    >
    >> Dude, marathon runners running sub-5 minute miles burn 20 cal/min,
    >> sometimes less. Generally small-frame people.

    >
    > World class marathon runners become world class by being efficient at
    > running. Plus, as you mentioned, they are generally small. That's why
    > using them as an example of maximum calories burned per minute is
    > problematic.
    >
    > You like physics problems. So contrast the work done moving a Kenyan
    > marathon runner for a quarter mile and a strongman pulling a semi for
    > 100 yards.
    >
    > I personally don't have problems believing that there are people that
    > are able to burn more calories in a minute than a world class marathoner
    > at marathon pace. But I can certainly see your point.
    >
    >> There's not a mutha****a on mfw, OR in rec.running, OR in all of RKC,
    >> that can run even ONE 5 minute mile, and proly not even 1/4 mile at a
    >> 5 minute pace. Friedes included.

    >
    > The question is not whether we can run 1/4 at 5:00 mile pace. The
    > question is whether we can burn 20 calories a minute for 20 minutes. In
    > that particular race being efficient actually works against you.
    >
    >> VO2 is VO2.
    >> If you can't even come close to generating 20+ cal/min VO2 in an
    >> activity that is MOST LIKELY TO ACCOMMODATE THESE HIGH EXPENDITURES
    >> (running), then what makes you think assholes will be banging out 20+
    >> cals/min in an activity NOT so well-suited for such high calorie burns?

    >
    > According to the calculations that I have seen for running (namely 0.75
    > x weight x miles) at 200 pounds I can burn 20 calories per minute for 20
    > minutes running. Being heavy helps quite a bit.
    >
    > Heck, even your calculations that you included in this discussion for a
    > 5 mile run was 600 calories (which you said was conservative). So
    > that's 120 calories per mile or 3.3 miles in 20 minutes. That's fast,
    > but it's not world class by any stretch of the imagination. We had guys
    > that ran that fast at the Thanksgiving Day Turkey trot in Paul Idaho,
    > with 6 inches of new snow over packed ice. Paul Idaho is not exactly a
    > running Mecca.
    >
    >> This is in fact why assholes are swinging kettlebells instead of out
    >> there running!!!!!!! This is in fact why assholes are swinging
    >> kettlebells instead of LIFTING barbells and dumbbells.

    >
    > Yes, a great many people have found kettlebell drills to be a fun and
    > effective way to train. You should try it, you might even like it.
    >
    >> Cuz it's easier. AND it's flashier and cool-looking. And it's not
    >> just cool.... it's MEDIEVIL cool. Siberian cool. Yeah...

    >
    > It is cool. It is also very difficult.
    >
    >> So do the HS physics calculations yourself, and then ask yourself why
    >> more than a near TWO hundred % discrepancy exists.

    >
    > My point, which got lost in all the rhetoric (sorry about that), was
    > that I have run what the equation that I found from my research said
    > should have been a 20 calorie per minute workout (at my weight). I have
    > also tried doing 10 kettlebell swings every minute for 20 minutes, and
    > it was ridiculously hard after the first 8 minutes or so. I was so
    > winded that I couldn't even think straight. Granted I used a heavier
    > kettlebell than the one in the study, but not much heavier. I also was
    > in worse shape than I am now. I am somewhat curious to see how I would
    > do today.
    >
    > But not so curious that I am going to try it anytime soon.
    >
    > I have tried both, and I have no problems believing that you burn an
    > equivalent amount of calories. I also personally think that the
    > kettlebell snatches was harder.
    >
    > In fact, I agree with you that if you want to burn calories then running
    > is a much better exercise. For one thing, it is easier. If it is too
    > hard to run at a 5 minute mile pace (or whatever) you can simply run for
    > longer and burn the calories. If you just want to burn calories, by all
    > means run.
    >
    >> Here's the deal, and there's an inneresting symmetry to it all:
    >>
    >> The energy expenditure of aerobic stuff like running is very difficult
    >> to measure with things like force tables, cinematographic analysis,
    >> kinematics, etc. Which is why God invented indirect calorimetry, or
    >> VO2 -- now running is dert easy to measure.
    >>
    >> In contrast, anaerobic efforts, especially weight lifting, are
    >> difficult to assess with any kind of calorimetry, BUT are pretty easy
    >> to calculate, altho there are still a cupla fudge factors, but not
    >> biggies, and these can be smoothed out with some exp'l protocols.
    >>
    >> So there you have it. If some publish-or-perish researching assholes
    >> come up with results that are double-triple what they "should" be,
    >> then THEY are the ones who need to do the explaining, not me.

    >
    > Once again, what *you* say they should be. Granted, I am not going to
    > pretend there is not some slight of hand in the EPOC calculations, but I
    > think that using a roughly linear scale of efficiency at high workloads
    > even under oxygen debt is not particularly reasonable.
    >
    > Besides, only 6 of the calories per minute were due to EPOC, which is
    > arguably the only truly fishy bit. Respiration and heart rate have
    > proven to be reliable over wide ranges of exertion (with the right
    > calculations). So I say that if your calculations are so far off from
    > what the respiration and heart rate models say that they should be, then
    > there is likely something going on that your simplistic model does not
    > cover. And don't kid yourself, measuring the mechanical work involved
    > and then assuming that the body will be as efficient over any range of
    > power output is incredibly simplistic.
    >
    >> Oh, and btw, I did make a mistake. When *calculating* lifting calorie
    >> expenditures, there is no need to add in the EPOC factor (yer lactate)
    >> to these calculations. Work is work, efficiency is efficiency, bang,
    >> end of story.

    >
    > So, you are saying that there is no metabolic cost to going into oxygen
    > debt. You believe you burn the same amount from barbell snatches if you
    > do them in a week or if you do them in 15 minutes.
    >
    >> HOWEVER, EPOC *is* factored in when assholes are trying to *measure*
    >> anaerobic efforts with VO2, and since this cain't be measured properly
    >> this way, they MUST use the EPOC fudge factor. Who says anaerobic
    >> efforts can't be measured with VO2? Any text on ex. physio.

    >
    > Hmm. That's an interesting take.
    >
    >> EPOC is still a real factor, btw, and explains why resistance exercise
    >> has oddly efficient fat burning properties. But that's another story.
    >> A real factor does not mean sed factor is easy to quantitate.
    >>
    >> So my calcs revert back to the 4.5 and 6.5 cal/min, which is like 1/3
    >> of what the Porcari assholes ""measured"", so you/they have even MORE
    >> explaining to do.

    >
    > Porcari measured twice that much from V02, without the EPOC part. Which
    > is why I doubt your calculations. The subjects had to have done
    > something with that oxygen.
    >
    >> Like I said, if you doubt me, calc it out yourself, and ask why the
    >> discrepancy is so large. Google muscle efficiency yourself, get a
    >> consensus on what the assholes, I mean, academics think. Some claim
    >> efficiency varies with fibre type, but the range is still 15-20%.

    >
    > This is interesting, I will certainly continue to read more.
    >
    >> Now, with real weight lifting, in the proper strategy/technique, those
    >> calorie burns can indeed shoot up to 20 and 30 cals/min, mebbe even
    >> more. And bleeve me, when you are done, you are *staggering*. I
    >> know, cuz I've done it.
    >>
    >> But not with bull**** kb swings/snatches at 15/min, which is what that
    >> protocol averaged out to. Smiling and high-five-ing each other after
    >> yer li'l bull**** efforts. No one is high-fiving after 20+ cal/min
    >> efforts.

    >
    > I still think that you would be surprised if you actually tried it. Do
    > it with a dumbbell if you must, but it's an interesting test either way.
    >
    > And thanks once again.


    Dude,

    You are all over the place here.

    First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they have a
    much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.

    But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't run
    around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs....
    It don't work like that.

    Next, burning 20 cal/min for one minute, and burning 20 cal/min for 20 min
    are two different ballgames.

    Next, yeah, the calorie burn from a lifted weight is the same, regardless of
    the speed, etc -- altho thermodynamics DOES say that the faster sumpn
    occurs, the less efficient (more calories) it is, but this is likely of
    secondary importance here.
    So, yeah, 100 lifts in an hour is about the same, calorie-wise, as 100 lifts
    in a week.

    Now, I didn't say EPOC was insignificant in weight lifting.
    But when you CALCULATE calorie burn epoc does not enter into the calc, but
    when you MEASURE calorie burn, it does. And that's because the measurement
    DURING the lifting process is intrinsically low, BECAUSE of oxygen debt.

    When you calculate, you don't have this problem. Iow, the calculation
    "already considers" the epoc/oxygen debt, whereas the VO2 meter does not,
    which is why you have to then add the epoc in later, when using VO2.
    Subtle point, but it is what it is.

    Another way of looking at it is that the calculation (with efficiency
    factored in, of course) IS the calorie burn, while VO2 measurements DURING
    the lift only measure a part of the calorie burn.

    And STILL Porcari is out of the ballpark!!!!!

    Next, YOU do the calcs. You got only two variables: the lifted weight, and
    the body's "lifted" c.o.g.
    Simplistic?
    No.
    Simple?
    Yes.

    Do the calc, factor in some metabolic efficiency you can live with, and then
    explain to me how Porcari can get THREE TIMES the calculated value. What,
    body efficiency suddenly DROPS when lifting kb's???

    The only other question mark is how much energy is expended lowering a
    weight. I developed a protocol to test this, and it appears that at normal
    lifting rates with normal weights, it amounts to about 20%.
    However, with swinging-type notions, it could be a good deal less, and with
    very fast drops, it could be much less as well.

    But even in the most favorable case to Porcari, he's STILL off by FACTORS,
    not just 10 or 20%.

    Now, go lift some real weights, and burn some real calories, stop fooling
    around with this KB fiction.
    Or go running.
    --
    EA


    >
    > Jason




  12. #12
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Thu, Dec 02 2010, Steve Freides wrote:
    >
    >> Jason Earl wrote:
    >>
    >> -snip-
    >>
    >> Y'all have way too much free time to be debating something that's been
    >> covered well in a million places already.


    You mean, that Porcari's """measurement""" are three times the calculated
    calories??


    >
    > For me it is classic task avoidance behavior. Well, that, and I really
    > do like to argue.
    >
    >> However, the shape does matter. Consider, e.g., an Indian club.
    >> These used in much smaller weights than kettlebells, and there are two
    >> take-away points. First, the offset center of mass does matter - the
    >> further the c.o.m. is from the handle, the more work it is to manage,
    >> and that center can even travel further.


    It can, but it usually doesn't.

    >
    > That was my take away point from my aborted experiment with dumbbell
    > snatches. Kettlebell snatches were hard on the palms of my hands at
    > first, but it was really amazing how much more awkward dumbbell snatches
    > were.
    >
    >> Second, notice that Indian clubs don't usually do the same movements
    >> as dumbells because the shape lends itself, though trial and error, to
    >> different movements, some similar, some not. The kettlebell is also
    >> like this so, e.g., a kettlebell swing and a kettlebell snatch are
    >> really different feeling movements than the movements of the same
    >> names with dumbells. Is one better or worse? Again, look at what
    >> people have worked out over time - barbell snatches are done because
    >> they're good, dumbbell snatches are rarely done. Dumbell bench
    >> presses, however, work - they're different than bench pressing a bar,
    >> and in this case, the difference is good and useful. The difference
    >> in a dumbell swing is not, however - it's sort of a silly, try not to
    >> whack yourself in the knees movement with a dumbell, it's impossible
    >> with a barbell, but the swing is, by contrast, the center of the
    >> kettlebell universe because it's a movement that matches up well with
    >> the design/shape of the implement.
    >>
    >> The above isn't intended to be scientific and it needn't be - it's
    >> just common sense to find movements that have proven themselve, in
    >> trainees as well as in studies, to be effective.

    >
    > When push comes to shove I tried kettlebell drills because people that I
    > trusted recommended them. Now that I have tried them myself, I can see
    > their worth.
    >
    > I thought that it was interesting to mention some actual research into
    > the matter, but perhaps MFW is not the right venue for talking about
    > that particular study.
    >
    > Unfortunately, MFW is where I go to talk about this stuff .
    >
    >> Jason, the one-kettlebell bench press is awesome - give it a try
    >> sometime.

    >
    > I've done floor presses before. In fact, I did a lot of them when I
    > first got my kettlebell. If was going to add another press to my
    > repertoire right now I would probably do some basic pushups.
    >
    >> Last but not least, if you want to play with the center of mass, try
    >> connecting two kettlebells with string, or string up some plates to
    >> hang off your dumbell handle and use that - it is definitely
    >> different.

    >
    > That sounds like a fun toy. I've been meaning to make a slosh pipe so
    > that I can play with a toy where the center of mass actually changes.
    > I've never played with one, but I have heard good things.


    Friedes is more all over the map than you are, Jason.
    Exept his meanderings are disingenuous.
    Or he is just genetically incapable of understanding dumbbells, or physics.

    Indian clubs obey the exact same rules as kbs, dbs re calorie burn.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7MgS...eature=related clubs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szaFK...eature=related

    Just determine where the cog is.
    The only diff is, there is more torque around the wrist, which could affect
    perceived exertion, practical difficulty, but not the calorie calculation.
    --
    EA


    >
    > Jason




  13. #13
    Jason Earl Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:

    [...]

    > Dude,
    >
    > You are all over the place here.
    >
    > First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they
    > have a much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.
    >
    > But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't
    > run around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs.... It
    > don't work like that.


    [...]

    I've still got some reading to do, and I think that you have made a good
    case with the rest of the stuff you have said, so I am just going to
    respond to this one little bit.

    I will agree that the article made it sound a little bit like anyone
    that lifted kettlebells would instantly be burning 20 calories/minute.
    However, the workout that they actually mentioned 6 snatches per hand
    each minute for 20 minutes, with a 20kg kettlebell, represents a
    decidedly non-beginner level of fitness. I don't think I could do it.
    To be honest, I would be surprised if you could do it.

    I would also remind you, that in my own personal experiment I got my
    best time in the 1.7 mile hill course that I have been running for years
    after 8 weeks of kettlebell drills, without running. Not only did I
    beat my best time, I *crushed* it by over a minute (I beat it by a 1:30
    over my best time achieved from when I simply ran the course 3 times a
    week). I also lost weight at a faster rate during the 10 weeks of
    kettlebell drills than in the 9 previous weeks where I ran 26 miles per
    week, while still eating the same average amount of calories per week.

    I still have some reading to do about human efficiency, but I am pretty
    sure that you would find Porcari's research more persuasive if you
    actually tried the experiment. It looks way easier to do on paper than
    it is in real life.

    Jason

  14. #14
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Dude,
    >>
    >> You are all over the place here.
    >>
    >> First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they
    >> have a much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.
    >>
    >> But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't
    >> run around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs.... It
    >> don't work like that.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > I've still got some reading to do, and I think that you have made a good
    > case with the rest of the stuff you have said, so I am just going to
    > respond to this one little bit.
    >
    > I will agree that the article made it sound a little bit like anyone
    > that lifted kettlebells would instantly be burning 20 calories/minute.


    Reminds me of the hawking on QVC, HSN:

    Oh, Oh, I just burntid 500 calories in 45 min, and I didn't even realize
    it!!
    Yeah, right.....

    > However, the workout that they actually mentioned 6 snatches per hand
    > each minute for 20 minutes, with a 20kg kettlebell, represents a
    > decidedly non-beginner level of fitness. I don't think I could do it.
    > To be honest, I would be surprised if you could do it.


    I proly couldn't!!

    >
    > I would also remind you, that in my own personal experiment I got my
    > best time in the 1.7 mile hill course that I have been running for years
    > after 8 weeks of kettlebell drills, without running. Not only did I
    > beat my best time, I *crushed* it by over a minute (I beat it by a 1:30
    > over my best time achieved from when I simply ran the course 3 times a
    > week).


    Not totally disputing that kb work could have helped your running, but it is
    not at all unusual to leave something for a while, and come back much
    improved. And then get worse when one gets back into it!!

    Has happened to me often, don't quite understand it. Might have to do with
    wear/tear, neuromuscular factors, psychology, a kind of intrinsic
    economization, who knows.


    I also lost weight at a faster rate during the 10 weeks of
    > kettlebell drills than in the 9 previous weeks where I ran 26 miles per
    > week, while still eating the same average amount of calories per week.


    Well, not disputing this, cuz resistance training does have some fat burning
    perks....
    BUT.....
    26 mpw is a LOT of running, *big time* calorie burn, for you proly about
    4,000 cals/week.
    It is hard to imagine short-ish kb drills amounting to even a FRACTION of
    the running expenditure.

    Unless you *very accurately* tracked calories, I would say that unbeknownst
    to you, your caloric intake was higher during your running. It would almost
    have to be that way, to replenish all that lost glycogen, which the body
    really doesn't like to have in low supply.

    PBS did a ditty on newbies training for the Boston marathon from scratch.
    12 out of 13 lost no weight whatsoever.
    fuknAmazing.....
    Here it is:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH8nQ...ayer_embedded#!
    The #! are part of the link. You can skip the first two minutes, which is a
    promo.

    It's 52 min, but highly worthwhile. You'll see Stephen Blair, the
    fitness-trumps-fat guy.

    I have suspicions even about PBS, to tell you the truth. I think some ****
    was left out.
    But still illuminating, informative.
    Still, marathoning is the dumbest most masochistic endeavor I can imagine.

    This fukn video includes commercials!!!!! goodgawd.....


    >
    > I still have some reading to do about human efficiency, but I am pretty
    > sure that you would find Porcari's research more persuasive if you
    > actually tried the experiment. It looks way easier to do on paper than
    > it is in real life.


    I don't dispute the perceived difficulty, just disputing the calorie burn.
    Again, walk a mile on your hands, compare it to running.
    You disputed this argument earlier, but it seemed more of a protest to my
    argument than a true counter-argument.

    Some things just "seem harder" than others, while not reflecting the true
    overall workload.
    Yeah, breathing, gasping, HR are all indicators, but misleading in a number
    of contexts, unless quantitated/correlated accurately.

    This manipulation of "perceived exertion" is part and parcel of infomercial
    hustle, as well. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it is
    productive in the long term -- like learning the alphabet in reverse. Gimme
    a break....

    Tony Horton's P90X workouts are grueling, no way I could do those.
    Yet, my caloric burns and average power levels DWARF those in his
    workouts -- ahm talkin Total Eclipses.
    How so?
    High *sustainable* average power levels, like in running. Except mine are
    more calisthenic.

    So be mindful of this "difficult" stuff. It can be very misleading,
    depending depending.
    --
    EA

    >
    > Jason




  15. #15
    Steve Freides Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    Jason Earl wrote:

    >> Jason, the one-kettlebell bench press is awesome - give it a try
    >> sometime.

    >
    > I've done floor presses before. In fact, I did a lot of them when I
    > first got my kettlebell. If was going to add another press to my
    > repertoire right now I would probably do some basic pushups.


    The one-armed bench press, even with a dumbbell, is a lot of
    stabilizing/mid-section work - that's part of what's so cool about it,
    sort of like a one-armed standing press, just a different plane. Also
    works on the floor, but the bench, because it's narrow, makes it even
    more challenging.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com



  16. #16
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > Jason Earl wrote:
    >
    >>> Jason, the one-kettlebell bench press is awesome - give it a try
    >>> sometime.

    >>
    >> I've done floor presses before. In fact, I did a lot of them when I
    >> first got my kettlebell. If was going to add another press to my
    >> repertoire right now I would probably do some basic pushups.

    >
    > The one-armed bench press, even with a dumbbell,


    wow.... what a concession.....

    Listening to effing KBers, you'd think dumbbells just floated in the air
    like helium balloons....
    --
    EA


    is a lot of
    > stabilizing/mid-section work - that's part of what's so cool about it,
    > sort of like a one-armed standing press, just a different plane. Also
    > works on the floor, but the bench, because it's narrow, makes it even more
    > challenging.
    >
    > -S-
    > http://www.kbnj.com
    >
    >




  17. #17
    Jason Earl Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Steve Freides wrote:

    > Jason Earl wrote:
    >
    >>> Jason, the one-kettlebell bench press is awesome - give it a try
    >>> sometime.

    >>
    >> I've done floor presses before. In fact, I did a lot of them when I
    >> first got my kettlebell. If was going to add another press to my
    >> repertoire right now I would probably do some basic pushups.

    >
    > The one-armed bench press, even with a dumbbell, is a lot of
    > stabilizing/mid-section work - that's part of what's so cool about it,
    > sort of like a one-armed standing press, just a different plane. Also
    > works on the floor, but the bench, because it's narrow, makes it even
    > more challenging.


    One of the things that I am learning from the little bit of practice I
    have done with headstands is that I really could use more stabilizing
    work.

    Jason

  18. #18
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Dude,
    >>
    >> You are all over the place here.
    >>
    >> First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they
    >> have a much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.
    >>
    >> But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't
    >> run around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs.... It
    >> don't work like that.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > I've still got some reading to do, and I think that you have made a good
    > case with the rest of the stuff you have said, so I am just going to
    > respond to this one little bit.
    >
    > I will agree that the article made it sound a little bit like anyone
    > that lifted kettlebells would instantly be burning 20 calories/minute.
    > However, the workout that they actually mentioned 6 snatches per hand
    > each minute for 20 minutes, with a 20kg kettlebell, represents a
    > decidedly non-beginner level of fitness. I don't think I could do it.
    > To be honest, I would be surprised if you could do it.
    >
    > I would also remind you, that in my own personal experiment I got my
    > best time in the 1.7 mile hill course that I have been running for years
    > after 8 weeks of kettlebell drills, without running. Not only did I
    > beat my best time, I *crushed* it by over a minute (I beat it by a 1:30
    > over my best time achieved from when I simply ran the course 3 times a
    > week). I also lost weight at a faster rate during the 10 weeks of
    > kettlebell drills than in the 9 previous weeks where I ran 26 miles per
    > week, while still eating the same average amount of calories per week.
    >
    > I still have some reading to do about human efficiency, but I am pretty
    > sure that you would find Porcari's research more persuasive if you
    > actually tried the experiment. It looks way easier to do on paper than
    > it is in real life.


    re Research:

    Times are bad and sad when the nation's whole elected body is corrupt to the
    core, when parents kill their children, children kill their parents, priests
    diddle their flock, and when..... research -- pee-reviewed research at
    that -- can be dismissed out of hand as effing junk.

    Science has never been the same, since Watson and Crick stole the Nobel
    Prize from Linus Pauling for DNA....
    Scientists now have agents and publicists.
    Too bad the publicists of Pons and Fleischman didn't understand basic
    nuclear chemistry, before they let dat blind cat out of the bag, known as
    cold fusion.

    So ackshooly, in light of Cold Fusion and a cupla other absurdities, it
    could get a lot worse than kettlebells.
    I mean, who really needs to understand gravity, anyway???

    To get an inkling of just how bad our conceptual world is -- never mind our
    practical day-to-day world -- check out
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
    Here are The Brothers after their plastic surgery.
    http://static1.purepeople.com/articl...ff-637x0-2.jpg
    No foolin.....
    Or here:
    http://www.celebrityplasticsurgery.t...anoff-brothers

    You know the world is coming to an end when effing physicists disagree about
    who is fulla**** and who is not.
    Unfuknbelievable.

    I myself am about ready to embrace Creationism... Why not, eh?

    Did I say pee-reviewed???
    Yes I did.....
    --
    EA




    >
    > Jason




  19. #19
    Jason Earl Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:

    > "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]..
    >> On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Dude,
    >>>
    >>> You are all over the place here.
    >>>
    >>> First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they
    >>> have a much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.
    >>>
    >>> But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't
    >>> run around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs.... It
    >>> don't work like that.

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >> I've still got some reading to do, and I think that you have made a
    >> good case with the rest of the stuff you have said, so I am just
    >> going to respond to this one little bit.
    >>
    >> I will agree that the article made it sound a little bit like anyone
    >> that lifted kettlebells would instantly be burning 20
    >> calories/minute.

    >
    > Reminds me of the hawking on QVC, HSN:
    >
    > Oh, Oh, I just burntid 500 calories in 45 min, and I didn't even
    > realize it!! Yeah, right.....


    Yeah, you would probably notice if you burned 500 calories in 45
    minutes. Well, maybe Lance Armstrong might not notice.

    >> However, the workout that they actually mentioned 6 snatches per hand
    >> each minute for 20 minutes, with a 20kg kettlebell, represents a
    >> decidedly non-beginner level of fitness. I don't think I could do
    >> it. To be honest, I would be surprised if you could do it.

    >
    > I proly couldn't!!


    Ok, then. I completely agree that there is no way that the crap that
    the Kettleworx guy was peddling was clearly not burning anywhere near 20
    calories/minute.

    I also think that you are missing out by discounting this style of
    training. On the flip side, you probably think that I am crazy to be
    wasting my time on this kind of training.

    I also think that your calculations are too simplistic, and that
    Dr. Porcari's, which line up with my own experience, are likely to be
    far better (which is why I mentioned them), but I am not going to
    pretend that I have all the answers.

    Either way, it is an interesting discussion. At the very least it has
    lead me to do a little more research on muscle efficiency.

    >> I would also remind you, that in my own personal experiment I got my
    >> best time in the 1.7 mile hill course that I have been running for
    >> years after 8 weeks of kettlebell drills, without running. Not only
    >> did I beat my best time, I *crushed* it by over a minute (I beat it
    >> by a 1:30 over my best time achieved from when I simply ran the
    >> course 3 times a week).

    >
    > Not totally disputing that kb work could have helped your running, but
    > it is not at all unusual to leave something for a while, and come back
    > much improved. And then get worse when one gets back into it!!
    >
    > Has happened to me often, don't quite understand it. Might have to do
    > with wear/tear, neuromuscular factors, psychology, a kind of intrinsic
    > economization, who knows.


    My theory, which I continue to hold, was that I improved my VO2max,
    which allowed me to push harder on the relatively short course.

    I don't think my running improved at all, a fact that was born out by
    the slower per mile pace that I posted in the recent 5K that I ran
    compared to the 10K I ran in July. I think that I simply became better
    at relatively short but brutal workouts (like a 16 minute run). These
    improvements are simply overshadowed by my lack of practice running when
    I run longer distances.

    I certainly do agree, however, that progress in these things is hardly
    ever linear. There's no real way to track all of the variables involved
    (and indeed, to even know what they all might be). Next spring I will
    do the workout again. It will be interesting to see if I get similar
    results next time around.

    >> I also lost weight at a faster rate during the 10 weeks of kettlebell
    >> drills than in the 9 previous weeks where I ran 26 miles per week,
    >> while still eating the same average amount of calories per week.

    >
    > Well, not disputing this, cuz resistance training does have some fat burning
    > perks....
    > BUT.....
    > 26 mpw is a LOT of running, *big time* calorie burn, for you proly about
    > 4,000 cals/week.
    > It is hard to imagine short-ish kb drills amounting to even a FRACTION of
    > the running expenditure.
    >
    > Unless you *very accurately* tracked calories, I would say that
    > unbeknownst to you, your caloric intake was higher during your
    > running. It would almost have to be that way, to replenish all that
    > lost glycogen, which the body really doesn't like to have in low
    > supply.


    I am fairly careful. I weigh most of my food to the gram (including
    things like slices of bread). I do not eat things without writing it
    down. More importantly, like most people, I tend to eat the same things
    on a regular basis. In short, I really doubt that was the difference.

    This is especially true as the difference in weight loss rate was quite
    large, and the kettlebell drills came *after* the weeks of running.

    I will say that I do agree that it is dangerous to read to much into
    these numbers. My weight loss has been fairly predictable when I use a
    7 day moving average, but daily fluctuations have been really large.

    > PBS did a ditty on newbies training for the Boston marathon from scratch.
    > 12 out of 13 lost no weight whatsoever.
    > fuknAmazing.....
    > Here it is:
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH8nQ...ayer_embedded#!
    > The #! are part of the link. You can skip the first two minutes, which is a
    > promo.
    >
    > It's 52 min, but highly worthwhile. You'll see Stephen Blair, the
    > fitness-trumps-fat guy.
    >
    > I have suspicions even about PBS, to tell you the truth. I think some
    > **** was left out. But still illuminating, informative. Still,
    > marathoning is the dumbest most masochistic endeavor I can imagine.
    >
    > This fukn video includes commercials!!!!! goodgawd.....


    That was a good video. Nova does tend to do a pretty good job. What
    amazes me is that anyone thinks that marathons are a good idea
    fitness-wise.

    >> I still have some reading to do about human efficiency, but I am pretty
    >> sure that you would find Porcari's research more persuasive if you
    >> actually tried the experiment. It looks way easier to do on paper than
    >> it is in real life.

    >
    > I don't dispute the perceived difficulty, just disputing the calorie
    > burn. Again, walk a mile on your hands, compare it to running. You
    > disputed this argument earlier, but it seemed more of a protest to my
    > argument than a true counter-argument.


    Walking a mile on your hands is not going to make your lungs burn. It
    is like comparing bicep curls to pinky curls. This is not the same
    "perceived difficulty" that makes me decide to pass on rep four of a
    front squat. It's the sort of "perceived difficulty" that makes me want
    to lay down on the ground and pray the buzzards don't get me.

    > Some things just "seem harder" than others, while not reflecting the
    > true overall workload. Yeah, breathing, gasping, HR are all
    > indicators, but misleading in a number of contexts, unless
    > quantitated/correlated accurately.


    You mean, like in a clinical setting .

    > This manipulation of "perceived exertion" is part and parcel of
    > infomercial hustle, as well. Just because something is difficult
    > doesn't mean it is productive in the long term -- like learning the
    > alphabet in reverse. Gimme a break....


    I agree that a huge part of fitness marketing revolves around getting
    people to do things that have a high perceived exertion. The Turbo
    Sculpt stuff that I did with my wife is a good example. You use tiny
    weights, but you do so many reps that you get close to failure (without
    even really breaking a sweat or breathing hard).

    To be honest, I am not sure what that is supposed to improve, you
    certainly aren't going to build much muscle with 100 5 pound tricep
    kickback reps, but there is no question that it is hard.

    > Tony Horton's P90X workouts are grueling, no way I could do those.
    > Yet, my caloric burns and average power levels DWARF those in his
    > workouts -- ahm talkin Total Eclipses. How so? High *sustainable*
    > average power levels, like in running. Except mine are more
    > calisthenic.
    >
    > So be mindful of this "difficult" stuff. It can be very misleading,
    > depending depending.


    There is no question that some workouts are better than others.

    Jason

  20. #20
    Jim Janney Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Jason Earl" <jearl@notengoamigos[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]..
    >> On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Dude,
    >>>
    >>> You are all over the place here.
    >>>
    >>> First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they
    >>> have a much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.
    >>>
    >>> But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't
    >>> run around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs.... It
    >>> don't work like that.

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >> I've still got some reading to do, and I think that you have made a good
    >> case with the rest of the stuff you have said, so I am just going to
    >> respond to this one little bit.
    >>
    >> I will agree that the article made it sound a little bit like anyone
    >> that lifted kettlebells would instantly be burning 20 calories/minute.
    >> However, the workout that they actually mentioned 6 snatches per hand
    >> each minute for 20 minutes, with a 20kg kettlebell, represents a
    >> decidedly non-beginner level of fitness. I don't think I could do it.
    >> To be honest, I would be surprised if you could do it.
    >>
    >> I would also remind you, that in my own personal experiment I got my
    >> best time in the 1.7 mile hill course that I have been running for years
    >> after 8 weeks of kettlebell drills, without running. Not only did I
    >> beat my best time, I *crushed* it by over a minute (I beat it by a 1:30
    >> over my best time achieved from when I simply ran the course 3 times a
    >> week). I also lost weight at a faster rate during the 10 weeks of
    >> kettlebell drills than in the 9 previous weeks where I ran 26 miles per
    >> week, while still eating the same average amount of calories per week.
    >>
    >> I still have some reading to do about human efficiency, but I am pretty
    >> sure that you would find Porcari's research more persuasive if you
    >> actually tried the experiment. It looks way easier to do on paper than
    >> it is in real life.

    >
    > re Research:
    >
    > Times are bad and sad when the nation's whole elected body is corrupt to the
    > core, when parents kill their children, children kill their parents, priests
    > diddle their flock, and when..... research -- pee-reviewed research at
    > that -- can be dismissed out of hand as effing junk.
    >
    > Science has never been the same, since Watson and Crick stole the Nobel
    > Prize from Linus Pauling for DNA....
    > Scientists now have agents and publicists.
    > Too bad the publicists of Pons and Fleischman didn't understand basic
    > nuclear chemistry, before they let dat blind cat out of the bag, known as
    > cold fusion.
    >
    > So ackshooly, in light of Cold Fusion and a cupla other absurdities, it
    > could get a lot worse than kettlebells.
    > I mean, who really needs to understand gravity, anyway???
    >
    > To get an inkling of just how bad our conceptual world is -- never mind our
    > practical day-to-day world -- check out
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
    > Here are The Brothers after their plastic surgery.
    > http://static1.purepeople.com/articl...ff-637x0-2.jpg
    > No foolin.....
    > Or here:
    > http://www.celebrityplasticsurgery.t...anoff-brothers
    >
    > You know the world is coming to an end when effing physicists disagree about
    > who is fulla**** and who is not.
    > Unfuknbelievable.
    >
    > I myself am about ready to embrace Creationism... Why not, eh?
    >
    > Did I say pee-reviewed???
    > Yes I did.....


    See also

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen

    and my personal favorite,

    http://snarxiv.org/

    --
    Jim Janney

  21. #21
    Existential Angst Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Jim Janney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]..
    >>> On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>>> Dude,
    >>>>
    >>>> You are all over the place here.
    >>>>
    >>>> First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they
    >>>> have a much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.
    >>>>
    >>>> But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't
    >>>> run around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs.... It
    >>>> don't work like that.
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>> I've still got some reading to do, and I think that you have made a good
    >>> case with the rest of the stuff you have said, so I am just going to
    >>> respond to this one little bit.
    >>>
    >>> I will agree that the article made it sound a little bit like anyone
    >>> that lifted kettlebells would instantly be burning 20 calories/minute.
    >>> However, the workout that they actually mentioned 6 snatches per hand
    >>> each minute for 20 minutes, with a 20kg kettlebell, represents a
    >>> decidedly non-beginner level of fitness. I don't think I could do it.
    >>> To be honest, I would be surprised if you could do it.
    >>>
    >>> I would also remind you, that in my own personal experiment I got my
    >>> best time in the 1.7 mile hill course that I have been running for years
    >>> after 8 weeks of kettlebell drills, without running. Not only did I
    >>> beat my best time, I *crushed* it by over a minute (I beat it by a 1:30
    >>> over my best time achieved from when I simply ran the course 3 times a
    >>> week). I also lost weight at a faster rate during the 10 weeks of
    >>> kettlebell drills than in the 9 previous weeks where I ran 26 miles per
    >>> week, while still eating the same average amount of calories per week.
    >>>
    >>> I still have some reading to do about human efficiency, but I am pretty
    >>> sure that you would find Porcari's research more persuasive if you
    >>> actually tried the experiment. It looks way easier to do on paper than
    >>> it is in real life.

    >>
    >> re Research:
    >>
    >> Times are bad and sad when the nation's whole elected body is corrupt to
    >> the
    >> core, when parents kill their children, children kill their parents,
    >> priests
    >> diddle their flock, and when..... research -- pee-reviewed research at
    >> that -- can be dismissed out of hand as effing junk.
    >>
    >> Science has never been the same, since Watson and Crick stole the Nobel
    >> Prize from Linus Pauling for DNA....
    >> Scientists now have agents and publicists.
    >> Too bad the publicists of Pons and Fleischman didn't understand basic
    >> nuclear chemistry, before they let dat blind cat out of the bag, known as
    >> cold fusion.
    >>
    >> So ackshooly, in light of Cold Fusion and a cupla other absurdities, it
    >> could get a lot worse than kettlebells.
    >> I mean, who really needs to understand gravity, anyway???
    >>
    >> To get an inkling of just how bad our conceptual world is -- never mind
    >> our
    >> practical day-to-day world -- check out
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
    >> Here are The Brothers after their plastic surgery.
    >> http://static1.purepeople.com/articl...ff-637x0-2.jpg
    >> No foolin.....
    >> Or here:
    >> http://www.celebrityplasticsurgery.t...anoff-brothers
    >>
    >> You know the world is coming to an end when effing physicists disagree
    >> about
    >> who is fulla**** and who is not.
    >> Unfuknbelievable.
    >>
    >> I myself am about ready to embrace Creationism... Why not, eh?
    >>
    >> Did I say pee-reviewed???
    >> Yes I did.....

    >
    > See also
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen


    This is incredible.....

    It reminds me how about every ten years they resubmit pulitzer-prize winning
    books to editors and publishers..
    Apparently the definition of good writing/thought changes every 10 years,
    bec these books are not only rejected, but sometimes panned.....

    DAT rocked my world.

    There is a program that puts together speech/oratory type diatribes, that go
    on *forever*, and some of it is really pretty good. It just goes on for so
    long....

    >
    > and my personal favorite,
    >
    > http://snarxiv.org/


    This is a smart guy who put this together.....
    I gather part of the purpose for this was as an idea generator?
    --
    EA


    >
    > --
    > Jim Janney




  22. #22
    Jim Janney Guest

    Default Re: Scammed again???? Re: KettleWorx.....

    "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Jim Janney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]..
    >> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]..
    >>>> On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Existential Angst wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> [...]
    >>>>
    >>>>> Dude,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You are all over the place here.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> First, if someone CAN burn 20 cal/min running, then of course they
    >>>>> have a much better shot at burning 20 cal/min in another activity.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But this effing kb article is making it seem like, Oh, Gee, I can't
    >>>>> run around the block, BUT I can burn 20 cal/min lifting KBs.... It
    >>>>> don't work like that.
    >>>>
    >>>> [...]
    >>>>
    >>>> I've still got some reading to do, and I think that you have made a good
    >>>> case with the rest of the stuff you have said, so I am just going to
    >>>> respond to this one little bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> I will agree that the article made it sound a little bit like anyone
    >>>> that lifted kettlebells would instantly be burning 20 calories/minute.
    >>>> However, the workout that they actually mentioned 6 snatches per hand
    >>>> each minute for 20 minutes, with a 20kg kettlebell, represents a
    >>>> decidedly non-beginner level of fitness. I don't think I could do it.
    >>>> To be honest, I would be surprised if you could do it.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would also remind you, that in my own personal experiment I got my
    >>>> best time in the 1.7 mile hill course that I have been running for years
    >>>> after 8 weeks of kettlebell drills, without running. Not only did I
    >>>> beat my best time, I *crushed* it by over a minute (I beat it by a 1:30
    >>>> over my best time achieved from when I simply ran the course 3 times a
    >>>> week). I also lost weight at a faster rate during the 10 weeks of
    >>>> kettlebell drills than in the 9 previous weeks where I ran 26 miles per
    >>>> week, while still eating the same average amount of calories per week.
    >>>>
    >>>> I still have some reading to do about human efficiency, but I am pretty
    >>>> sure that you would find Porcari's research more persuasive if you
    >>>> actually tried the experiment. It looks way easier to do on paper than
    >>>> it is in real life.
    >>>
    >>> re Research:
    >>>
    >>> Times are bad and sad when the nation's whole elected body is corrupt to
    >>> the
    >>> core, when parents kill their children, children kill their parents,
    >>> priests
    >>> diddle their flock, and when..... research -- pee-reviewed research at
    >>> that -- can be dismissed out of hand as effing junk.
    >>>
    >>> Science has never been the same, since Watson and Crick stole the Nobel
    >>> Prize from Linus Pauling for DNA....
    >>> Scientists now have agents and publicists.
    >>> Too bad the publicists of Pons and Fleischman didn't understand basic
    >>> nuclear chemistry, before they let dat blind cat out of the bag, known as
    >>> cold fusion.
    >>>
    >>> So ackshooly, in light of Cold Fusion and a cupla other absurdities, it
    >>> could get a lot worse than kettlebells.
    >>> I mean, who really needs to understand gravity, anyway???
    >>>
    >>> To get an inkling of just how bad our conceptual world is -- never mind
    >>> our
    >>> practical day-to-day world -- check out
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
    >>> Here are The Brothers after their plastic surgery.
    >>> http://static1.purepeople.com/articl...ff-637x0-2.jpg
    >>> No foolin.....
    >>> Or here:
    >>> http://www.celebrityplasticsurgery.t...anoff-brothers
    >>>
    >>> You know the world is coming to an end when effing physicists disagree
    >>> about
    >>> who is fulla**** and who is not.
    >>> Unfuknbelievable.
    >>>
    >>> I myself am about ready to embrace Creationism... Why not, eh?
    >>>
    >>> Did I say pee-reviewed???
    >>> Yes I did.....

    >>
    >> See also
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen

    >
    > This is incredible.....
    >
    > It reminds me how about every ten years they resubmit pulitzer-prize winning
    > books to editors and publishers..
    > Apparently the definition of good writing/thought changes every 10 years,
    > bec these books are not only rejected, but sometimes panned.....
    >
    > DAT rocked my world.
    >
    > There is a program that puts together speech/oratory type diatribes, that go
    > on *forever*, and some of it is really pretty good. It just goes on for so
    > long....
    >
    >>
    >> and my personal favorite,
    >>
    >> http://snarxiv.org/

    >
    > This is a smart guy who put this together.....


    Fairly smart, yes, but it mostly shows how easy this kind of academic
    language is to parody. Also how far physics has moved away from being
    an experimental science.

    > I gather part of the purpose for this was as an idea generator?


    My guess is that he was just bored one afternoon. Not that there's
    anything wrong with that. Do you know the story about Newton, how he
    discovered the principle of the pendulum while sitting in church,
    watching a swaying chandelier and timing it against his pulse? I've
    always thought he must have been bored out of his mind...

    --
    Jim Janney

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28