I was wrong about Bush



"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ahhh, Mark, my old political nemesis -
> >
> >We in the non-border states know that this is a complex issue as well.
> >
> >I agree that people dying by the semi-trailer load 'cuz they were
> >locked in and the trailer left in the desert sun for seven hours is
> >bad. I agree that heroin and cocaine traffickers should be more of a
> >focus than illegal workers.
> >
> >But it isn't all that surprising that the Bushco solution is one that
> >results in the loss of American jobs to low-wage foreign workers, now
> >is it?

>
> That's kinda how I was looking at it too... Thing is, the jobs we're
> talking about are those that are already being done by Mexicans, and
> will be done by Mexicans whether they are "guest workers" or
> "illegals". And they're by and large jobs that Americans don't want
> to do - if we could export every illegal and seal the border, we'd
> essentially kill the produce industry overnight.
>

But it's not the produce industry that's the problem. We've had migrants
picking lettuce forever. Now the illegals are starting to take over the
construction business, and it's not because Americans won't do the
jobs---it's because contractors can pay them less. I see crews of
Mexicans(illegals, obviously) working on $500K homes here, and you just know
there are plenty of good ol' boy construction workers getting the shaft
because of it.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>> Then explain this:
>>>
>>> http://www.runbmrc.org/caloriescalculator.asp

>>
>> Oh dear. That page uses the formula in McArdle, Katch, and Katch. Want
>> me to write it down for you, or do you want to look it up yourself?

>
> Maybe you could explain how your own estimates of the apparently
> highly variable "efficiency factor" varies so dramatically depending
> on who the subject of the study is (increasing by 25% when it happens
> to be the POTUS).


Wait a second. You think my estimate of efficiency (.236) varies with the
subject? And, you think that I was doing that because I had a nefarious
plan to make the President look *more* powerful than he is?

As I explained in the other thread, I used to use 20% but it was pointed
out to me that was low, and that most people were using efficiency
coefficients higher than that. So I changed.

> I use another calculator to estimate GWB's running times indicate an
> expenditure of 1245 calories per hour [...] This calculator is based on
> well-documented research (McArdle, WD et al in Exercise Physiology
> 3rd Ed., Lea and Febiger eds., 1991), not some back of a napkin
> SWAG.


What's the McArdle, Katch, and Katch formula, you ask, that is based on
well-documented research and not some back of the napkin SWAG? I alluded
to it up above, but you didn't seem to want to look it up, so I'll tell
you. Ready? Here it is:

***
Energy expenditure while running on level, hard, ground = 1 kcal/kg/km,
regardless of speed.
***

Ain't it amazing that when the metric system was first set up a couple of
hundred years ago they happened to choose constants that *exactly* relate
mass, distance, heat, and running so neatly? Damn, them Frenchies wuz
ingenious. I guess the only other explanation is that the MKK formula is a
rule-of-thumb. You know that "max heart rate is 220-age" formula? That's a
rule-of-thumb, too. Since the President is 58 (going on 59), that
rule-of-thumb says his MHR should be 162 (going on 161). Are you also
saying that a rule-of-thumb formula like that trumps an actual HR
measurement of 170? My God, maybe you're saying this is proof that the
President is actually 50 years old? Or are you saying that the President
got sent a rigged HRM becasue they, too, have a nefarious plan? You may
see conspiracies everywhere, but I don't think you're that nuts (you're
welcome): I just think you didn't know the MKK formula was an approximate
rule-of-thumb. Let me know if I'm wrong, and you actually are nuts.
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Then explain this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.runbmrc.org/caloriescalculator.asp
>>>
>>> Oh dear. That page uses the formula in McArdle, Katch, and Katch. Want
>>> me to write it down for you, or do you want to look it up yourself?

>>
>> Maybe you could explain how your own estimates of the apparently
>> highly variable "efficiency factor" varies so dramatically depending
>> on who the subject of the study is (increasing by 25% when it happens
>> to be the POTUS).

>
>Wait a second. You think my estimate of efficiency (.236) varies with the
>subject? And, you think that I was doing that because I had a nefarious
>plan to make the President look *more* powerful than he is?


No, I think you're just an obtuse person who would use whatever value
was necessary to extend the life of a dead thread.

>As I explained in the other thread, I used to use 20% but it was pointed
>out to me that was low, and that most people were using efficiency
>coefficients higher than that. So I changed.


So it's an opinion, shared by some but not all. Great. Your current
estimate or your previous estimate may be right.

>> I use another calculator to estimate GWB's running times indicate an
>> expenditure of 1245 calories per hour [...] This calculator is based on
>> well-documented research (McArdle, WD et al in Exercise Physiology
>> 3rd Ed., Lea and Febiger eds., 1991), not some back of a napkin
>> SWAG.

>
>What's the McArdle, Katch, and Katch formula, you ask, that is based on
>well-documented research and not some back of the napkin SWAG? I alluded
>to it up above, but you didn't seem to want to look it up, so I'll tell
>you. Ready? Here it is:
>
>***
>Energy expenditure while running on level, hard, ground = 1 kcal/kg/km,
>regardless of speed.
>***


OK... finally some actual numbers instead of relying on a calories to
conversion factor to watts to calories comparison.

So... that means that a 86kg man running 5km would expend 430
calories. Fine. Sounds right to me. Now since he does this in just
over 20 minutes (let's say 20:30), we multiply that by 2.927 (60/20.5)
to get the hourly expenditure rate.

That gives us a caloric burn rate of (drum roll please)... 1258
calories per hour. That would be a whopping 1.04% HIGHER than the
estimate I supplied from the calculator that you claim to have so much
of a problem with.

For a guy who likes to ridicule people for having problems doing
simple math, you don't seem to be that good at it yourownself.

>Ain't it amazing that when the metric system was first set up a couple of
>hundred years ago they happened to choose constants that *exactly* relate
>mass, distance, heat, and running so neatly? Damn, them Frenchies wuz
>ingenious. I guess the only other explanation is that the MKK formula is a
>rule-of-thumb. You know that "max heart rate is 220-age" formula? That's a
>rule-of-thumb, too. Since the President is 58 (going on 59), that
>rule-of-thumb says his MHR should be 162 (going on 161). Are you also
>saying that a rule-of-thumb formula like that trumps an actual HR
>measurement of 170? My God, maybe you're saying this is proof that the
>President is actually 50 years old? Or are you saying that the President
>got sent a rigged HRM becasue they, too, have a nefarious plan? You may
>see conspiracies everywhere, but I don't think you're that nuts (you're
>welcome): I just think you didn't know the MKK formula was an approximate
>rule-of-thumb. Let me know if I'm wrong, and you actually are nuts.


You are wrong (which should be obvious), and I do worry about your
mental state based on the nonsensical two-part internal conversation
you just had above. You should maybe take a break from this stuff...
it doesn't appear to be good for you.

So now what do we have?

We have a claim of the POTUS expending 1300 calories in 90 minutes.

We have agreed-to forumlas making it clear that his caloric burn rate
for a 5K race of a little over 20 minutes is between 1245 and 1258
calories per hour.

And yet you think it's incredible that I'd suggest that he's capable
of putting out nearly 50% more power than the 1300 calories in 90
minutes scenario.

Curious.

Anyway, if you have any new formulas you'd like to change - errr, try
out come back and try again. Otherwise, thread over.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>> That's kinda how I was looking at it too... Thing is, the jobs we're
>> talking about are those that are already being done by Mexicans, and
>> will be done by Mexicans whether they are "guest workers" or
>> "illegals". And they're by and large jobs that Americans don't want
>> to do - if we could export every illegal and seal the border, we'd
>> essentially kill the produce industry overnight.
>>

>But it's not the produce industry that's the problem. We've had migrants
>picking lettuce forever. Now the illegals are starting to take over the
>construction business, and it's not because Americans won't do the
>jobs---it's because contractors can pay them less. I see crews of
>Mexicans(illegals, obviously) working on $500K homes here, and you just know
>there are plenty of good ol' boy construction workers getting the shaft
>because of it.


My guess is that once you start controlling guest workers, you can
start controlling where they work. As the number of those working
illegally dwindles, it will be easier to do something about it.

Again, not perfect, but I think it would be a step in the right
direction.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
It's not about control. The number of illegals will go down, but I
guarantee that the total number of illegal and legal will go up and the
American worker will suffer. This is just another handout to corporate
America from Bushco at the expense of working America.

Your suggestion that this will control the flow of illegals or where
they work is ****.

App
 
Gooserider wrote:
> Now the illegals are starting to take over the
> construction business, and it's not because Americans won't do the
> jobs---it's because contractors can pay them less. I see crews of
> Mexicans(illegals, obviously) working on $500K homes here, and you

just know
> there are plenty of good ol' boy construction workers getting the

shaft
> because of it.


It's all about suppressing workers' salaraies. Illegals are one of a
number of ways that American workers salaries are suppressed, and why
there has effectively been no wage growth for the middle class for the
last 25 years. (There was growth during the 90s but it has been offset
by shrinkage during GOP administrations.) The balance between corporate
power and workers' power that led to the huge growth of the US economy
during the 20th century, has been reversed. Illegals, H-1Bs,
outsourcing, offshoring, and IMO, Fed monetary policy- they all have
the effect of suppressing the market power of the American worker, and
the results- the decline of the blue collar middle class, the
now-relatively rare stay-at-home mom, stagnant wages, decreasing health
coverage, less vacation time, increasingly regressive tax systems, and
now the threat to default on the money owed to the Social Security
Trust Fund- are all predictable consequences.

Our economic growth has become based on deficit spending- increasing
debt by both consumers and the federal government, largely funded by
Asian economies that are selling us products formerly produced by
middle class American workers. In a classic case of killing the goose
that laid the golden egg, corporate America and Wallstreet are trading
the long term economic soundness of an economy fueled by the spending
power of a thriving middle class for a short term improvement of the
bottom line through slashed corporate taxes and and squeezed workers.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You may see conspiracies everywhere, but I don't think you're that
>> nuts (you're welcome): I just think you didn't know the MKK
>> formula was an approximate rule-of-thumb. Let me know if
>> I'm wrong, and you actually are nuts.

>
> You are wrong (which should be obvious)


Oh dear. Yes, it *was* obvious, but it's still an unexpected admission.

Ciao, then.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> So, ball's in your court. How many calories / watts DOES it take to
> send a 190 pound man down the road running 6:40 miles?


There is no evidence that I know of that Bush has run a seven minute
mile since his weight went up to 190. 190 is the weight he went up to
during the last year or so when his constant campaigning and "bad
knees" (what is it, arthritis?) supposedly interfered with his
workouts. (Me, I think it was his constant eating of that good WH food.
20lbs of fat can certainly be hard on the joints, too.) How many watts
does it take for a 170lb man to do seven minute miles, and how fast can
a 190lb man with the added 20lbs of fat ride a bike at the same output,
which he probably can't produce anyway because he hasn't been training
as much?

I think that given his deconditioning over the last couple of years and
absolute lack of endurance training, the running and cycling outputs
correspond pretty well as I reported in beginning this post, with his
cycling being fairly leisurely by our standards. But seven minute miles
are not that fast to anyone but a jogger, especially when none are
recorded at a distance beyond 5k. I don't care what the charts say, the
runner equivalent of a cat 1 racer is a marathoner knocking off
sub-5:30 miles, mile after mile.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> running and cycling outputs correspond pretty well


and

> I don't care what the charts say, the
> runner equivalent of a cat 1 racer is a marathoner knocking off
> sub-5:30 miles, mile after mile.


My rough observation is that sustained W/kg on a bike is a reasonable
predictor of sustained running pace, and vice versa -- with the caveat
that "reasonable" means within 10% or so. World-class marathoners put out
somewhere in the neighborhood of mid-5 W/kg.
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > running and cycling outputs correspond pretty well

>
> and
>
> > I don't care what the charts say, the
> > runner equivalent of a cat 1 racer is a marathoner knocking off
> > sub-5:30 miles, mile after mile.

>
> My rough observation is that sustained W/kg on a bike is a reasonable
> predictor of sustained running pace, and vice versa -- with the

caveat
> that "reasonable" means within 10% or so. World-class marathoners put

out
> somewhere in the neighborhood of mid-5 W/kg.


Maybe, in which case Bush would not be able to run 7 minute miles any
longer, which goes back to my statement that he is deconditioned from
the time when he was doing them. You would expect a 15-20lb weight gain
to have that effect, regardless of the knees. Similarly, it is unlikely
that after gaining 20lbs he would be able to perform at the same level
on a bike as he did as a 170lb runner. In your formula W/kg is
different between his running and cycling. The only way it could stay
the same is if he gained wattage at the same rate that he gained
weight, but since is weight gain is reported to be fat, that would be
very unlikely.
 
"Weisse Luft" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> chalo colina Wrote:
> > RonSonic wrote:
> > >
> > > He also seems
> > > to be a bit of an endorphin junkie (don't drink, don't

smoke, what
> > do
> > ya do?).
> >
> > Beleaguer the downtrodden of the world, evidently.
> >
> > Chalo Colina

>
> Play that victim card...is that your only comment?
>
> Would the downtrodden of the world include the ILLEGAL

IMMIGRANTS that
> he is doing nothing to stop in their LAW BREAKING immigration

to the
> United States?
>
> Oh, excuse me. The downtrodden are the Palestinian

Muslims...funny how
> the Torah mentions Jerusalem over 700 time yet the Koran

mentions it
> never.


Oh Gawd! A religious document as the basis for a modern land
claim? Why don't you just say that the Israelis kicked ass and
kept the spoils. That carries more weight with me than a claim
based on a religious document. If a religious document is enough
to support a present claim, I may have to give my house to the
Multnomah tribe or whoever else sees my backyard as a religious
shrine.

> Or the downtrodden are those no longer able to kill women for

wearing
> makup. Or showing their faces. Or seeing a doctor.


My tax dollars should support a Crusade? -- Jay Beattie.
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You may see conspiracies everywhere, but I don't think you're that
>>> nuts (you're welcome): I just think you didn't know the MKK
>>> formula was an approximate rule-of-thumb. Let me know if
>>> I'm wrong, and you actually are nuts.

>>
>> You are wrong (which should be obvious)

>
>Oh dear. Yes, it *was* obvious, but it's still an unexpected admission.


Dang, and I had the whole night's posting all laid out in advance.
;-)

Thanks for the admission.

>Ciao, then.


Zaijian,

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> So, ball's in your court. How many calories / watts DOES it take to
>> send a 190 pound man down the road running 6:40 miles?

>
>There is no evidence that I know of that Bush has run a seven minute
>mile since his weight went up to 190. 190 is the weight he went up to
>during the last year or so when his constant campaigning and "bad
>knees" (what is it, arthritis?) supposedly interfered with his
>workouts. (Me, I think it was his constant eating of that good WH food.
>20lbs of fat can certainly be hard on the joints, too.) How many watts
>does it take for a 170lb man to do seven minute miles, and how fast can
>a 190lb man with the added 20lbs of fat ride a bike at the same output,
>which he probably can't produce anyway because he hasn't been training
>as much?


I'm not sure he's in the same shape he was, but I remember reading
that he's dropped some (all?) of that weight. The watts / calories
should be pretty much proportional to his weight. At any rate, my
point was that the claim of 867 calories per hour didn't seem at all
outrageous when compared to the 1250 per hour rate he had just a year
or so ago (for a lesser time period, of course). The miscalculation
rabbit trails have consumed the thread since that minor (and hopefully
now inarguable) point.

>I think that given his deconditioning over the last couple of years and
>absolute lack of endurance training, the running and cycling outputs
>correspond pretty well as I reported in beginning this post, with his
>cycling being fairly leisurely by our standards.


The reports we've read about his training don't reflect "fairly
leisurely" riding... you generally don't crash riding that way. ;-)

>But seven minute miles
>are not that fast to anyone but a jogger, especially when none are
>recorded at a distance beyond 5k.


I agree - though a 6:40 pace for a 5K (3.1 miles) for a man in his
late 50's is very respectable. It would put him in the upper 10% (?)
of most large races I'd guess (being too lazy to look it up - I'll be
willing to admit I'm wrong if that's a more typical 80 percentile
number).

> I don't care what the charts say, the
>runner equivalent of a cat 1 racer is a marathoner knocking off
>sub-5:30 miles, mile after mile.


Exactly the point I was making through the "calculation thread". I
only WISH I could do the conversions that were being tossed at me...
I'd be out there terrorizing the Cat 2 field next weekend.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>It's not about control. The number of illegals will go down, but I
>guarantee that the total number of illegal and legal will go up and the
>American worker will suffer. This is just another handout to corporate
>America from Bushco at the expense of working America.
>
>Your suggestion that this will control the flow of illegals or where
>they work is ****.


They're already here, and not contributing to the tax roles due to
their illegal status. We can do nothing, and guess what? They're
still here and they're still not contributing to the tax roles.

I'm not at all convinced that the number of illegals + guest workers
will exceed the current number of illegals. There are only so many
jobs that they're currently filling. Once there is an established
guest worker program, it would (finally) be possible to implement
harsh punishment for those who hire illegal workers. I believe in the
end this is what will protect the American worker. Right now it would
be politically impossible to crack down - it would shut down many
industries virtually overnight.

Again, it's not a perfect solution - there ARE no perfect solution.
If you like the current status quo, I could accuse you of being
pro-business and anti-Mexican, but that would be wrong, too.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
[email protected] wrote:

>It's all about suppressing workers' salaraies. Illegals are one of a
>number of ways that American workers salaries are suppressed,

<snip>

Hey, I thought you socialists weren't so jingoistic. Don't you
support your Mexican brothers? ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
I wrote:
> BTW, that original webpage you posted at the top of this thread? The one
> that made you say you were wrong about Bush? I think the Calories
> calculated for cycling are way off.


It's actually pretty clear why Hickey likes it. It's internally
inconsistent.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> The reports we've read about his training don't reflect "fairly
> leisurely" riding... you generally don't crash riding that way. ;-)


I'm not sure that I would agree that crashing is correlated to speed.
It might be inversely correlated to experience. I know there's studies
to that effect with motorcycles. Sometimes novices ride too fast for
their own good, something I would call "riding stupid".

> > I don't care what the charts say, the
> >runner equivalent of a cat 1 racer is a marathoner knocking off
> >sub-5:30 miles, mile after mile.

>
> Exactly the point I was making through the "calculation thread". I
> only WISH I could do the conversions that were being tossed at me...
> I'd be out there terrorizing the Cat 2 field next weekend.


Bush was a decent runner at relatively short distances, and is now a
low average cyclist, slower than most serious cyclists his age, and
faster than the duffers. And I still think that information about and
demonstrations of his athletic performance have been managed in a way
that exaggerates his capability. The mainstream media gushes over his
running and mountainbiking like he's some kind of extraordinary
athlete, which I think we all agree he is not. The only thing I think
is noteworthy about his athletics is that he seems somewhat compulsive
about it, but aren't we all?
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >It's all about suppressing workers' salaraies. Illegals are one of a
> >number of ways that American workers salaries are suppressed,

> <snip>
>
> Hey, I thought you socialists weren't so jingoistic. Don't you
> support your Mexican brothers? ;-)


You've hit the bottom- no tools left except for name-calling.

I'm not a Socialist. I don't believe in government ownership of the
means of production.

I am, however, a pluralistic capitalist, in that I believe that the
continued longterm economic growth of US society requires a balance
between the economic power of consumers, workers and producers. I
believe that the role of the government is to ensure that balance is
maintained.

Furthermore, regardless of whether or not I support my Mexican brothers
(which I do- even as illegals I support their right to a driver's
license, adequate healthcare, a safe workplace and US citizenship and
education for their kids), their illegal employment does suppress blue
collar wages in the US.
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >It's all about suppressing workers' salaraies. Illegals are one of a
>> >number of ways that American workers salaries are suppressed,

>> <snip>
>>
>> Hey, I thought you socialists weren't so jingoistic. Don't you
>> support your Mexican brothers? ;-)

>
>You've hit the bottom- no tools left except for name-calling.
>
>I'm not a Socialist. I don't believe in government ownership of the
>means of production.


Went riding with a buddy of mine a few weeks ago. He was telling me
the story about his wife's friend.

The friend moved from the Midwest and is living large in the Orange
County, CA, ocean-view casa of her realtor Aunt. Said Aunt happens to
have a signed picture of GWB on the wall. I won't speculate about her
politics.

My friend leans happily left, and talks openly about his beliefs--when
asked--including at Aunt's dinner table when they visit.

Aunt's taken to referring to him as "The Socialist." At the last
dinner (Easter Sunday), he said he lost count--at 30--of the number of
times she threw the "Socialist" reference at him.

I told him that he was a far, far better man than I. After about
three utterances, I think I would have said what SSTW did....

I'm not picking on Mark here, but I am picking on the way that certain
groups have developed an entire vocabulary (and I'm absolutely in awe
of this) to create variously positive and negative connotations
associated with certain words to sell policy, demonize opposition, and
win elections.

G-d help this nation if people believe what they're being told without
doing a little independent research . . . and, I'm afraid, that's
*right*where we are....