new 77 keeping it positive meta thread to request dudes stop biting their own joeks

i think we could all stand to take a little bit of time and think about our ilxery

*stands

is this where the "max is keepin it negative" started

i think we could all stand to take a little bit of time and think about our ilxery

― max, Sunday, 22 February 2009 21:16 (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I think it's time for the ILX

http://michael-hoffman.info/images/Performance%20review%202004%20page%208%20jpeg.jpg

the ilx performance review

i think thats what dom was saying...

max i have some things to say about your performance

...

your performance review is confidential though, sorry

....

360 feedback will be available on all performance reviews.

coop.jpg

I was just on the brink of an argument that I would surely win (other party was trying to say that walking burns more calories than running), but I held back, covertly rolled my eyes, and kept it positive.

Thanks 77!!

In fact, I had read years ago that fast walking burns more calories than running at the same speed. Now was the time to test this hypothesis. Wearing a heart-rate monitor, I ran on a treadmill for two minutes at 3.0 mph (20 minutes per mile), and at 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 mph (10:55 per mile). After a 10-minute rest to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I repeated the same thing walking. Here's my running vs. walking heart rate at the end of each two-minute stint: 3.0 (99/81), 3.5 (104/85), 4.0 (109/94), 4.5 (114/107), 5.0 (120/126), 5.5 (122/145). My conclusion: Running is harder than walking at paces slower than 12-minutes-per-mile. At faster paces, walking is harder than running.

u guys people dont burn calories - ur thinking of fire

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/images/2006/07/20/arthur_brown_313x470.jpg

close up of head:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/CellRespiration.svg/800px-CellRespiration.svg.png

http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm

OK, so I guess the calorie burning difference between fast walking and running are marginal at best. On a calories-per-mile basis, they're pretty close. The big advantage to running is that you're done with your workout faster.

In fact, "If you can build up your walking speed to 5 mph, or 12 minutes per mile, you will be at the top calorie burn per mile and achieve the same burn as a jogger. If you are a runner, you don't get any calorie burning benefit by going faster than 10 minutes per mile or 6 mph."

This makes me do this:

http://www.derok.net/images/legends/elijah%20wood%20mouth.jpg

A guy running a 6-minute mile isn't burning any more calories than slow poke McGee doing a 5-minute mile? Answer from gf: "No, but he is building muscle."

Keeping it positive, I went to the fridge and grabbed a refreshing Negra Modelo.

a good decision

It's the first non-rong thing I've done in the past hour or two.

well u r on the right track, so keep on keepin on

btw i have a request for a gif, if that's ok

Of course! Request it over on the drunkenly animate thread if you can.

i think u could have won the argument though, makes sense to compare how many calories are burned over say an hour of running vs an hour of walking, right? like it's pretty obvious that it takes about the same amt of energy to walk a mile as to run a mile because you're carrying the same weight over the same distance, but the rate of burning is obv way different

^yeah this is exactly what work is, force x distance. you can get more done in the same amount of time running tho

i mean obv burning calories isnt a 1:1 relationship with perfect "work" formula but

running would seem to involve greater work if you account for vertical movement

joggers are just much bouncier than walkers

right that's why you get the marginal difference, stuff like that and how your body works, but in general it's close enough to say running is not really much "harder" in terms of calories burned per mile

i mean i don't know why i care but don't beat yourself up over it zs

guys

work = force x distance

force = mass x acceleration

so you guys are asserting that a walker is accelerating at the same rate as a runner

and by you guys i guess i mean harbl & kevin

Don't worry harbl, I've already moved on to typing challenges.

hm

i mean, it's safe to assume they're both going at a constant speed, right, so acc. is negligible? boy i've forgotten just about everything wrt physics :(

that might actually not be why, but i'm fairly confident the same work is done running and walking, at least horizontally

you guys are all wrong

why

u guys people do not burn calories srsly - calories are a measure of how things catch on fire - the human body is not a fire and is subject to all sorts of weird metabolic quirks - how much energy someone expends doing a particular exercise has to do w/not only what theyre doing but all sorts of other variables particular to the person - what sort of shape theyre in what their metabolism is like what sort of exercise theyre used to what they ate that morning etc

anyway speaking as someone who has run and walked a lot this whole running is just as good as walking assertion just seems like bullshit on the face of it

no one said running "is just as good as" walking silly

thats a concise insightful summery of their argument

i think u meant "summary"

"summery" is an adjective that means of or pertaining to summer

u can never fully understand what i mean because my thoughts are too deep

but yes summer is a good time for running or walking

sigh

if i get into explaining mechanics and force and energy i feel like i'm going to end up screaming "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY"

what about the windmills of your mind

http://www.depts.drew.edu/engl/events/marathon/PicassoDonQuixoteSancho.jpg
ilx^

Doctor Steve Brule with another science tip for ya:
If yer walkin' at a faster pace, yer actually runnin', ya turkey!
Now hit the showers.
FOR YOUR HEALTH

http://www.punkrockcds.com/images/Descendents-Somery.jpg

Hey guys, is this the calorie counting thread?