Originally Posted by (Silent)

Also, Remember when writing any article always be prepared for both negative and/or positive comments.

Originally Posted by (Silent)

you likely shouldn't be writing a report on it

Originally Posted by maverickbu

Absolutely, and I appreciate the detailed response. If I just wanted to get patted on the back and told how smart I was, I'd just send it to my parents.

I would qualify the 50-150 calories as "lots" in the context of the cumulative effect it will have, particularly when considering the study that shows EPOC can last up to 38 hours.
Right over 38 hours you might expend upwards of 150 calories. Though this is HIGHLY dependent on the intensity, latict acid production, CPr stores exhausted, Hormonal elevation and many many other factors.
Most people do not operate at an intensity to raise it to even 150 calories in excess. And most don't have the needed intensity to have it elevated upwards of 36 hours. Also, the conditioning of the person training can further dictate the amount. Further more its the cumulated affect, not the indivitual rising that is important.

I guess I did kinda make it sound like weight lifting was the only anaerobic exercise. Thanks for that one.
No worries, I used to make that mistake allot.

I guess I'm a little confused as to why you didn't follow the study I mentioned. If you read the protocol for the study that is just above the excerpt you included, it details that one group worked its muscles to failure on each set where the other group worked at only 50% of their 1RM for 10-12 reps. I think its fair to say that muscles worked to failure are worked harder than muscles worked NOT to failure with similar workloads. As for explaining the difference in oxygen debt, I thought it was pretty clear that reduced rest periods were the cause. I didn't draw that conclusion myself, its what the study presented.
You must answer the question of "Why" those different rep ranges caused the increased oxygen debt? Think "Lactate" as just one hint behind the many reasons...

I don't know if it was your intent, but you came off a bit condescending in your comments about that section. If something is unclear to you, then ask a question. No need to try and discourage
wasn't my intent!


me or any one else wanting to submit srticles for discussion.

That said, I welcome any other coments or criticism. Like I've said before, disagreements force us to consider other viewpoints and scrutinize our own even more.

Originally Posted by maverickbu

OK, I see where you were going now with the comment about that study. I try to balance technical with accessible as much as possible when writing. This was one little area I thought I could scrounge, I let the study do the validation rather than digger deeper into the blood and guts. its tough to balance highly technical material and still make it enjoyable to read.

I'm glad we agree that it is the cumulative effect that is important. And I recognize that reaching that level of intensity where you are burning up top 150 calories oe maintaining EPOC for 38 hours is not something every person can readily do. The article is meant to give tips on how to achieve as much as possible by any given individual.

What's with the weather thing? Is that a joke or something I don't get?