Watch out when you chose a doctor
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are a fraud, no such Dr is licensed in the USA. Did you actually look or did you post this after just making it up? If anyone who is interested bothers to go to the AMA website and follows the "find a doctor" path, looking for a doctor in Georgia, with Andrew Chung as the name being looked for, you’ll find his listing there with a cardiovascular diseases specialty. Will you now offer the groups your profound appology for posting a false and defaming statement? John
Unlikely to happen, John. Thankfully, truth prevails 
You remain in my prayers, brother. May God continue to bless you and yours, in Christ’s name Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew — Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Response:
But more on this later.
UR busted! Doesn’t anyone else recognize this familiar phrase?
Response:
You are a fraud, Ouch. Have at the other cheek.
I prefer to drill between them. no such Dr is licensed in the USA. In truth, I am licensed in the USA.
No, in truth you are not. Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Me?
Response:
You are a fraud,
Ouch. Have at the other cheek. no such Dr is licensed in the USA.
In truth, I am licensed in the USA. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew — Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote nonsense and lies in article It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and about 550 total calories, depending on speed. Chung Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work. Not at all too simple. Very accurate in fact. But more on this later.
The quote is not from me so you are compounding error on top of error but more on this later. Kirkman I’ll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight reduction activities, and similar fields. No "computing" work going on here, just application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business. Chung Your choice. I prefer the truth, which is that average folks can at most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from the basal rate with aerobic exercise. You do not prefer the truth.
It is the truth. You prefer lies you have deluded yourself into thinking are the truth.
Hardly. More on this later.
Yes there will be. Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the formulas used by exercise physiologists and trainers. Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate. Notoriously accurate would be the correct statement.
1100 kcals for climbing stairs would be an example of these notorious inaccuracies. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kirkman Since the truth of such an implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion. Chung It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most accurate measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned… i.e. kcal/hr). This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby poisoning your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens). This is not how cyanide kills you.
Actually it is. You are dead long before any meaningful amount of cyanide has a chance to reach the mitochondria in your muscle cells.
It would seem that you don’t realize that mitochondria are present in *all* of your cells. Did you not have to take any science in college Chung?
No. I have had 13 years of college and graduate level science. Or have you simply forgotten all of it you took?
No. God has blessed me with the ability to remember all of it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As your VO2 goes to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead). A person’s maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person’s maximum rate of metabolism. For a background review on this topic: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08 From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally occurs when a person’s heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate (PMHR). We also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the same given percentage of VO2max. Source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08 So for some real life examples: I am 39 years old. My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is 220-39=181. Your formula for max heart rate is useless. For instance I will use myself as an example to show how foolish this formula is. I am lots older then Chung claims he is. His formula says my max heart rate would be about 150. Yet only a couple of years ago my doctor had me on a treadmill and asked me to tell him when I had two minutes left in me. He decided to stop the test at a heart rate of 185. I do not know why. I had not told him I was down to two minutes.
You apparently don’t understand the word "predicted." Fwiw, it is not *my* formula for calculating PMHR. Further, max heart rate is not the point at which anyone can exercise on a sustained basis.
Correct. At max heart rate you are well into anerobic metabolism and building lactate in your muscles rapidly.
Yes, that defines VO2max. I probably have only been to max heart rate a couple of times in my life. Let me tell you what max heart rate feels like. Your legs are lead. Your leg muscles are burning badly from lactate buildup. You have a roaring noise in your ears. But you probably do not notice it because of the pain and the fact your brain is not working very well due to oxygen shortage. Your vision is getting bad fast. The couple of times I might have hit heart rate max were the last 50 yards of a race back when I ran competitively. I had no memory of the last 50 yards or hitting the tape after the race.
Yes, most sustained vigorous exercise is at about 85% VO2max. The aberant diet Chung eats and his total dismissal of any exercise program makes me sure he has never come close to heart rate max. If he did there is a decent chance he might not live through it.
I don’t dismiss exercise. However, I do recognize the truth that exercise is over-rated when it comes to losing weight. What level can a person exercise at for a extended period? Simple. It is called the lactate threshold level. This is the point at which you just start to make lactate. Depending on all kinds of factors, including training, the lactate threshold level is from perhaps 60% to 85% of a persons max heart rate. I would expect from what Chung has told us about himself he could not sustain a heart rate above 60% of his heart rate max.
I routinely can sustain exertion at a level of 90% of my PMHR. That would be perhaps 130 bpm. Maybe less.
Only if you do the math incorrectly. By contrast, my lactate threshold heart rate is about 165 or 170 beats per minute. Note that this rate is HIGHER then Chung’s nonsense formula says my max heart rate should be. So much for the formula.
The formula remains useful. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm. This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max. This also means I am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate. If my present metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when I walk on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would anticipate a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr. The above is so filled with falsehoods it is hard to know where to start. First of all, as I have pointed out above Chung can not possibly perform at a sustained heart rate of 180.
With God’s help and blessings anything is possible Thus his factor of three is too high right off.
Correct, for most people it will be less than three. Then there are the built in assumptions about pump volume. Chung assumes that a persons heart pumps the same volume of blood regardless of its rate. This simply is not true. As a persons heart speeds up it may pump less blood per beat, essentually the same volume per beat, or an increased volume per beat. Which it does depends on a whole host of factors ranging from disease to genetics to training.
For purposes of illustration, it suffices to assume that the stroke volume is constant. Also Chung makes the invalid assumption that the bodys oxygen uptake per pass of a given volume of blood is invarient with increased exercise levels.
Actually, the research data cited have shown that there is a near-linear relationship between heart rate and VO2. The physiological explanation is that this is because there is a near-linear relationship between heart rate and cardiac output. You may posit a different explanation if you like. This is also not what science has shown.
The research data is science. Thus his simplistic math has no relation to reality. It is a pure figment of his imagination. In fact if you believed what he says and simply factor in the limits due to his lactate threshold level he has proven he can only exercise at a factor of two greater then his resting metabolism level. Even he can do better then this.
I have cited the scientific studies that support my assertions. If you want to do better, you’ll need to do at least the same. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kirkman How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the increased energy expenditure derived from the formulas? Do you mean metabolic rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of consistent exercise over time? So far the thread has been about calorie burn during bouts of exercise–going back to a widely used approximation of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run. Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions. Lets think a little bit about the physics of running. At the normal speeds people run distances, say up to 12 mph, frictional drag from the air is nil and can be ignored. Any undergrad science student can easily prove this based on simply physical propertys of air and the size of our bodies. So where does all the expended energy go? Well, consider the mechanics of running. At shortly after the time your farward foot hits the ground your center of gravity is at its lowest. You then raise your center of gravity as your leg comes under you and pushes back. For a moment after your back foot leaves the ground you are in free fall before your other foot contacts the ground ahead of you. So essentually, the act of running involves falling forward with a lowering
… read more »
Response:
From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and
about 550 total calories, depending on speed. Chung Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.
To test the work output of engines, they use a dynamometer. A rough equivalent for the human body would be a treadmill set up to measure energy output. That this knucklehead thinks one could only expend about 200 – 250 calories in an hour of running is so ignorant that he could be proven wrong in the first 10 minutes by many runners. Is his silliness really worth debating much? He belongs lumped in with the flat-earth society dumbos, doesn’t he?
Response:
I saw some of his stuff on sci.med.nutrition and would place him politely in the quack category.
Yes but can he tell the difference between "chose" and "choose"? 
Tim —
Response:
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote nonsense and lies in article It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and about 550 total calories, depending on speed. Chung Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work.
Not at all too simple. Very accurate in fact. But more on this later. Kirkman I’ll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight reduction activities, and similar fields. No "computing" work going on here, just application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business. Chung Your choice. I prefer the truth, which is that average folks can at most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from the basal rate with aerobic exercise.
You do not prefer the truth. You prefer lies you have deluded yourself into thinking are the truth. More on this later. Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the formulas used by exercise physiologists and trainers. Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate.
Notoriously accurate would be the correct statement. Kirkman Since the truth of such an implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion. Chung It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most accurate measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned… i.e. kcal/hr). This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby poisoning your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens).
This is not how cyanide kills you. You are dead long before any meaningful amount of cyanide has a chance to reach the mitochondria in your muscle cells. Did you not have to take any science in college Chung? Or have you simply forgotten all of it you took? As your – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – VO2 goes to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead). A person’s maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person’s maximum rate of metabolism. For a background review on this topic: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08 From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally occurs when a person’s heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate (PMHR). We also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the same given percentage of VO2max. Source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08 So for some real life examples: I am 39 years old. My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is 220-39=181.
Your formula for max heart rate is useless. For instance I will use myself as an example to show how foolish this formula is. I am lots older then Chung claims he is. His formula says my max heart rate would be about 150. Yet only a couple of years ago my doctor had me on a treadmill and asked me to tell him when I had two minutes left in me. He decided to stop the test at a heart rate of 185. I do not know why. I had not told him I was down to two minutes. Further, max heart rate is not the point at which anyone can exercise on a sustained basis. At max heart rate you are well into anerobic metabolism and building lactate in your muscles rapidly. I probably have only been to max heart rate a couple of times in my life. Let me tell you what max heart rate feels like. Your legs are lead. Your leg muscles are burning badly from lactate buildup. You have a roaring noise in your ears. But you probably do not notice it because of the pain and the fact your brain is not working very well due to oxygen shortage. Your vision is getting bad fast. The couple of times I might have hit heart rate max were the last 50 yards of a race back when I ran competitively. I had no memory of the last 50 yards or hitting the tape after the race. The aberant diet Chung eats and his total dismissal of any exercise program makes me sure he has never come close to heart rate max. If he did there is a decent chance he might not live through it. What level can a person exercise at for a extended period? Simple. It is called the lactate threshold level. This is the point at which you just start to make lactate. Depending on all kinds of factors, including training, the lactate threshold level is from perhaps 60% to 85% of a persons max heart rate. I would expect from what Chung has told us about himself he could not sustain a heart rate above 60% of his heart rate max. That would be perhaps 130 bpm. Maybe less. By contrast, my lactate threshold heart rate is about 165 or 170 beats per minute. Note that this rate is HIGHER then Chung’s nonsense formula says my max heart rate should be. So much for the formula. Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm. This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max. This also means I am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate. If my present metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when I walk on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would anticipate a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr.
The above is so filled with falsehoods it is hard to know where to start. First of all, as I have pointed out above Chung can not possibly perform at a sustained heart rate of 180. Thus his factor of three is too high right off. Then there are the built in assumptions about pump volume. Chung assumes that a persons heart pumps the same volume of blood regardless of its rate. This simply is not true. As a persons heart speeds up it may pump less blood per beat, essentually the same volume per beat, or an increased volume per beat. Which it does depends on a whole host of factors ranging from disease to genetics to training. Also Chung makes the invalid assumption that the bodys oxygen uptake per pass of a given volume of blood is invarient with increased exercise levels. This is also not what science has shown. Thus his simplistic math has no relation to reality. It is a pure figment of his imagination. In fact if you believed what he says and simply factor in the limits due to his lactate threshold level he has proven he can only exercise at a factor of two greater then his resting metabolism level. Even he can do better then this. Kirkman How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the increased energy expenditure derived from the formulas? Do you mean metabolic rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of consistent exercise over time? So far the thread has been about calorie burn during bouts of exercise–going back to a widely used approximation of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run. Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions.
Lets think a little bit about the physics of running. At the normal speeds people run distances, say up to 12 mph, frictional drag from the air is nil and can be ignored. Any undergrad science student can easily prove this based on simply physical propertys of air and the size of our bodies. So where does all the expended energy go? Well, consider the mechanics of running. At shortly after the time your farward foot hits the ground your center of gravity is at its lowest. You then raise your center of gravity as your leg comes under you and pushes back. For a moment after your back foot leaves the ground you are in free fall before your other foot contacts the ground ahead of you. So essentually, the act of running involves falling forward with a lowering of your center of gravity followed by lifting your center of gravity back to its max point. Most of the energy to run is involved in this lifting of your center of gravity back to its high point. People who run slow do not do so by taking fewer steps per time interval. Slow runners take the same number of steps per minute as fast runners. But fast runners take longer steps. Thus, over an hour a slow runner must lift himself less distance vertically then a fast runner. Thus the slow runner will burn fewer total calories per hour then the fast runner. But if you calculate how many calories each burn to run a mile according to Newton’s laws you find that both burn the same per mile. A bit under 100 cal burn is a good average number. This depends of course on the person weight and physical dimensions. The person also burns some calories maintaining the rest of his bodily functions. So total calorie burn is a bit over 100 per mile. Does all this seem rather complicated? I am sure it is far too complicated for Chung to understand. I am sure he will tell us Newton was wrong. But just think about this for a moment. Think about how easy it is to run down even a small grade versus running on the flat. Why is it so easy to run down a slight grade? Because you are lifting your body less is why. And how much harder is it to run up that slight grade then on the flat? It is a lot harder because you are lifting your body a lot more on an uphill grade. Even a drop or rise of only 1 foot per 100 foot horizontal is very noticable. Even Chung will have to admit this if he has ever actually seen treadmill results. To further illustrate how important lifting your body is when running consider what it is like to ride a bicycle. Depending on the bike and terrain I am told that a bike is some 5 to 7 times more efficient then running from an energy expendature standpoint. What is the big difference? On a bike you do not ever change your bodies center
… read more »
Response:
You are a fraud, no such Dr is licensed in the USA.
Did you actually look or did you post this after just making it up? If anyone who is interested bothers to go to the AMA website and follows the "find a doctor" path, looking for a doctor in Georgia, with Andrew Chung as the name being looked for, you’ll find his listing there with a cardiovascular diseases specialty. Will you now offer the groups your profound appology for posting a false and defaming statement? John
Response:
Be careful out there folks. We live in a dangerous world. Wow. that level of ignorance in a "cardiologist" is appalling. The well-known advice for runners NOT to select any non-running doctor for any running-related malady comes to mind (Did that originate with Dr. George Sheehan?). Has this Chung chump never been acquainted with the concept of a "deficit?" The number of logical flaws in his posts is vast, but even this one idea alone seems to have eluded him. Clearly, you can expend energy now and make up the deficit later. What of anaerobic workouts? I only hope this guy is not having an effect on any readers of his tripe. His website states that his credentials are from Emory University…..not a good advertisement for them.
I saw some of his stuff on sci.med.nutrition and would place him politely in the quack category. — Doug Freese "Caveat Lector"
Response:
You are a fraud, no such Dr is licensed in the USA.
Response:
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
Its a toss up between Marion Barry and George Bush jr
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <hiss Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and about 550 total calories, depending on speed. Chung Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work. Kirkman I’ll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight reduction activities, and similar fields. No "computing" work going on here, just application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business. Chung Your choice. I prefer the truth, which is that average folks can at most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from the basal rate with aerobic exercise. Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the formulas used by exercise physiologists and trainers. Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate. Kirkman Since the truth of such an implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion. Chung It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most accurate measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned… i.e. kcal/hr). This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby poisoning your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens). As your VO2 goes to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead). A person’s maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person’s maximum rate of metabolism. For a background review on this topic: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08 From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally occurs when a person’s heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate (PMHR). We also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the same given percentage of VO2max. Source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08 So for some real life examples: I am 39 years old. My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is 220-39=181. Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm. This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max. This also means I am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate. If my present metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when I walk on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would anticipate a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr. Kirkman How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the increased energy expenditure derived from the formulas? Do you mean metabolic rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of consistent exercise over time? So far the thread has been about calorie burn during bouts of exercise–going back to a widely used approximation of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run.
Sorry you disagree. You will be in my prayers, neighbor. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew — Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Response:
McElroy again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Below is a post from a character who tries to dominate the newsgroup sci.med.cardiology. This Chung thing claims to be a board certified cardioligist. He has historically shown nothing but disgust for the cardio benefits of any exercise program. His latest "pronouncment" is that no normal human can expend more then about three times his resting metabolic rate of energy burn. You people that run thons will be overjoyed to learn that at most you can only burn about 250 or 300 cal/hr according to this expert. For those who run a thon in say three hours this means you only burn 750 to 900 calories in the whole thon. In fact the fatser you run it the fewer calories you will burn according to this idiots logic. You will be happy to learn that all the carbo loading you do before a race is a total waste of time. No point at all in eating gels or goo during the race either. The reason I am posting this in rec.running is that all of you need to be very aware that there are total nut cases who have impressive medical credentials and are even board certified in a specialty area. As athletes we do injure ourselves and need to be very careful when seeking treatment that we do not get hooked up with crackpots like Chung. Also I thought some of the rec.running residents might get a charge out of this guys misguided beliefs. Perhaps even someone like Anne or TBR or the Rev might want to help straighten this sicko out? Even a brief comment from Ultra John might help bring this creep to his senses. I have taken the liberty of putting who said a particular statement in the text to make it followable. Be careful out there folks. We live in a dangerous world. Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and about 550 total calories, depending on speed. Chung Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work. Kirkman I’ll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight reduction activities, and similar fields. No "computing" work going on here, just application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business. Chung Your choice. I prefer the truth, which is that average folks can at most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from the basal rate with aerobic exercise. Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the formulas used by exercise physiologists and trainers. Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate. Kirkman Since the truth of such an implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion. Chung It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most accurate measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned… i.e. kcal/hr). This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby poisoning your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens). As your VO2 goes to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead). A person’s maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person’s maximum rate of metabolism. For a background review on this topic: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08 From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally occurs when a person’s heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate (PMHR). We also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the same given percentage of VO2max. Source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08 So for some real life examples: I am 39 years old. My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is 220-39=181. Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm. This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max. This also means I am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate. If my present metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when I walk on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would anticipate a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr. Kirkman How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the increased energy expenditure derived from the formulas? Do you mean metabolic rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of consistent exercise over time? So far the thread has been about calorie burn during bouts of exercise–going back to a widely used approximation of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run. Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew — Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Response:
There’s a cardiology newsgroup? Sheesh, and I thought joggers were a bunch of stiffs…
Response:
Below is a post from a character who tries to dominate the newsgroup sci.med.cardiology. This Chung thing claims to be a board certified cardioligist. He has historically shown nothing but disgust for the cardio benefits of any exercise program. His latest "pronouncment" is that no normal human can expend more then about three times his resting metabolic rate of energy burn. You people that run thons will be overjoyed to learn that at most you can only burn about 250 or 300 cal/hr according to this expert. For those who run a thon in say three hours this means you only burn 750 to 900 calories in the whole thon. In fact the fatser you run it the fewer calories you will burn according to this idiots logic.
He also has a rather pronounced anti-scientific bent which is most peculiar for a guy with science degrees and who is a doctor. If you think this is "interesting," you should read his advice about nutrition and caloric content of foods. He has recently posted that 2 pounds of potatoes contain 3600 calories and that 2 pounds of bread contain 4000 calories. And he gives dietary advice both online and, he says, in his practice where he promotes the astonishing 2 Pound Diet which advocates only eating 2 pounds of food a day irrespective of what it is as long as it’s less than you ate before. He says he invented it after seeing an IMAX movie about Mt. Everest climbers who eat only 10 pounds of food a week plus 4 additional pounds of water of hydration of freeze-dried foods. The reality is that freeze-dried foods are from 10% to 40% of the original weight and need to have 60% to 90% water-weight to rehydrate. He knows nothing about what everest climbers actually do – like eating everything they can before and during a climb in spite of being given citations to read for himself. He never, never admits an error unless he can blame it elsewhere or weasel his way out of it. Check his website to see what a wacko he truly is. He also doesn’t bother to check his figures before shooting from the hip. Then he insists that he’s right after being confronted with documented evidence to the contrary. Chung says that about three times the resting metabolic rate is the most *anybody* can ever reach. But here’s a chart that says he’s just wrong. He’s talking some sort of theory, this is empirical data. From <http://cibt.bio.cornell.edu/labs/phys/RES_0006.PDF Energy Expenditure per Hour During Different Types of Activity For a 70 Kilogram Man Form of Activity – Calories/Hr. Sleeping – 65 Awake lying still – 77 Sitting at rest - 100 Standing relaxed – 105 Dressing and undressing – 118 Tailoring – 135 Typewriting rapidly – 140 "Light" exercise – 170 Walking slowly (2.6 miles per hour) – 200 Carpentry, metal working, industrial painting – 240 "Active" exercise – 290 "Severe" exercise – 450 Sawing wood – 480 Swimming – 500 Running (5.3 miles per hour) – 570 "Very severe" exercise – 600 Walking very fast (5.3 miles per hour) – 650 Walking up stairs – 1100 Extracted from data compiled by Professor M. S. Rose. From <http://tinyurl.com/ytvdn By Darlene Forester, Food & Nutrition Specialist, Revised by Janet Kurzynske, Ph.D., R.D. L.D, Extension Food and Nutrition Specialist "To calculate your caloric usage per mile, multiply your body weight in pounds by .73. You can then use that information to plan your weight loss by walking. Your body weight multiplied by .73 equals the number of calories your body uses when you walk one mile. For example, a person who weighs 130 pounds uses about 95 Calories for each mile walked (130 x .73 = 95), or roughly averaging 100 Calories per mile." Chung says that an average person running at 5 miles per hour will burn 300 calories in an hour. He hasn’t supported that. This disputes it. In fact it adds the significant factor of weight which Chung completely misses. He says things like that just confuse the issue. <LOL <<<<<<<< end quote The formula I like is that runners will burn 100 calories per mile plus .5 X the difference between 150 pounds and their weight. So a 175 pound runner will burn approximately 112 cal/mile. A 200 pounder will do about 125 cal/mile. It’s obviously not exact, but it’s easy to do the math and it’s close enough for my purposes. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You will be happy to learn that all the carbo loading you do before a race is a total waste of time. No point at all in eating gels or goo during the race either. The reason I am posting this in rec.running is that all of you need to be very aware that there are total nut cases who have impressive medical credentials and are even board certified in a specialty area. As athletes we do injure ourselves and need to be very careful when seeking treatment that we do not get hooked up with crackpots like Chung. Also I thought some of the rec.running residents might get a charge out of this guys misguided beliefs. Perhaps even someone like Anne or TBR or the Rev might want to help straighten this sicko out? Even a brief comment from Ultra John might help bring this creep to his senses. I have taken the liberty of putting who said a particular statement in the text to make it followable. Be careful out there folks. We live in a dangerous world. Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and about 550 total calories, depending on speed. Chung Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work. Kirkman I’ll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight reduction activities, and similar fields. No "computing" work going on here, just application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business. Chung Your choice. I prefer the truth, which is that average folks can at most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from the basal rate with aerobic exercise. Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the formulas used by exercise physiologists and trainers. Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate. Kirkman Since the truth of such an implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion. Chung It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most accurate measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned… i.e. kcal/hr). This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby poisoning your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens). As your VO2 goes to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead). A person’s maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person’s maximum rate of metabolism. For a background review on this topic: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08 From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally occurs when a person’s heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate (PMHR). We also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the same given percentage of VO2max. Source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08 So for some real life examples: I am 39 years old. My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is 220-39=181. Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm. This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max. This also means I am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate. If my present metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when I walk on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would anticipate a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr. Kirkman How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the increased energy expenditure derived from the formulas? Do you mean metabolic rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of consistent exercise over time? So far the thread has been about calorie burn during bouts of exercise–going back to a widely used approximation of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run. Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew — Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Response:
Below is a post from a character who tries to dominate the newsgroup sci.med.cardiology. This Chung thing claims to be a board certified cardioligist. He has historically shown nothing but disgust for the cardio benefits of any exercise program. His latest "pronouncment" is that no normal human can expend more then about three times his resting metabolic rate of energy burn. You people that run thons will be overjoyed to learn that at most you can only burn about 250 or 300 cal/hr according to this expert. For those who run a thon in say three hours this means you only burn 750 to 900 calories in the whole thon. In fact the fatser you run it the fewer calories you will burn according to this idiots logic. You will be happy to learn that all the carbo loading you do before a race is a total waste of time. No point at all in eating gels or goo during the race either. The reason I am posting this in rec.running is that all of you need to be very aware that there are total nut cases who have impressive medical credentials and are even board certified in a specialty area. As athletes we do injure ourselves and need to be very careful when seeking treatment that we do not get hooked up with crackpots like Chung. Also I thought some of the rec.running residents might get a charge out of this guys misguided beliefs. Perhaps even someone like Anne or TBR or the Rev might want to help straighten this sicko out? Even a brief comment from Ultra John might help bring this creep to his senses. I have taken the liberty of putting who said a particular statement in the text to make it followable. Be careful out there folks. We live in a dangerous world. Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article It seems to me I heard somewhere that Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote in From the formulas I cited, five miles will burn between about 500 and about 550 total calories, depending on speed.
Chung Much too simple. many more factors involved in computing work. Kirkman I’ll stick with the formulas used in training athletes, weight reduction activities, and similar fields. No "computing" work going on here, just application of empirically derived formulas from those in the business.
Chung Your choice. I prefer the truth, which is that average folks can at most hope for about a threefold increase in their metabolic rate from the basal rate with aerobic exercise.
Kirkman Your commentary seems to imply that it invalidates the formulas used by exercise physiologists and trainers.
Chung Those formulas are notoriously inaccurate. Kirkman Since the truth of such an implication is not self-evident perhaps you could offer some facts, a logical explanation, or some cited sources to support your opinion.
Chung It is well recognized that oxygen consumption (VO2) is the most accurate measure of metabolic rate (rate of calories being burned… i.e. kcal/hr). This can be confirmed experimentally by giving you cyanide thereby poisoning your mitochondria (where oxidative phosphorylation happens). As your VO2 goes to zero, so will your metabolic rate (i.e. you will be dead). A person’s maximum VO2 (VO2max) is known to match a person’s maximum rate of metabolism. For a background review on this topic: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2DC21B08 From clinical research, we know that VO2max during exercise generally occurs when a person’s heart rate reaches the predicted maximum heart rate (PMHR). We also know that any percentage of PMHR correlates quite well with the same given percentage of VO2max. Source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U65D21B08 So for some real life examples: I am 39 years old. My predicted maximal heart rate (PMHR) is 220-39=181. Right now while sitting here typing this, my heart rate is 60 bpm. This means that my VO2 is probably about 33% of my VO2max. This also means I am burning calories at about a third of my maximal rate. If my present metabolic rate is 75 kcal/hr (pretty reasonable guestimate), then when I walk on a treadmill and get my heart rate to my PMHR of 181 bpm, I would anticipate a metabolic rate of three times that or 225 kcal/hr. Kirkman How does increased metabolic rate from exercise relate to the increased energy expenditure derived from the formulas? Do you mean metabolic rate *during* exercise, or increased basal rate as a result of consistent exercise over time? So far the thread has been about calorie burn during bouts of exercise–going back to a widely used approximation of a burn of approximately 500 during a five mile walk or run.
Chung I believe what I have written above answers your questions. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew — Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Response:
Be careful out there folks. We live in a dangerous world. Wow. that level of ignorance in a "cardiologist" is appalling. The well-known advice for runners NOT to select any non-running doctor for any running-related malady comes to mind (Did that originate with Dr. George Sheehan?).
Interesting though I didn’t really follow the arguments very well. When they thought I had a heart problem (turned out to be allergy induced asthma), Dr. Chung was extremely smart and knowledgeable in his replies. Like I said, I don’t follow this argument but he was helpful and smart in the past.
Response:
Be careful out there folks. We live in a dangerous world.
Wow. that level of ignorance in a "cardiologist" is appalling. The well-known advice for runners NOT to select any non-running doctor for any running-related malady comes to mind (Did that originate with Dr. George Sheehan?). Has this Chung chump never been acquainted with the concept of a "deficit?" The number of logical flaws in his posts is vast, but even this one idea alone seems to have eluded him. Clearly, you can expend energy now and make up the deficit later. What of anaerobic workouts? I only hope this guy is not having an effect on any readers of his tripe. His website states that his credentials are from Emory University…..not a good advertisement for them.
Response:
Categories: Allergy Induced Asthma | 
No Comments »
) : : 