Talk:Exercise intensity

article seems biased

The values in this article seem completely out of line with what I've read elsewhere. Other sources describe "low intensity exercise" as being something like 50% or 60% of maximum heart rate, not up to 80%. Probably, this article was written by a trained athlete who is thinking in terms of additional training for greater athletic performance, not in terms of goals for the general population. I feel this article needs major revisions or should just be deleted; however, I would like someone with more expertise in this area to weigh in. JudySerenity (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen those numbers elsewhere, although I think that high intensity interval training ought to be mentioned in this page as it has subjectively provided equivalent results and appears to disagree with the 'heart rate zone' theory the numbers here are predicated upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.247.71 (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

fat targeting

Does this mean I would burn more fat by walking for two hours than by sprinting for two hours? (Of course, I couldn't sprint for two hours, but what's the answer?) I'm a flabby beast and I want to lose weight. I don't mind running or walking, but what is the best way to burn fat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.249.73.200 (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you sprinted for 2 hours presumably your body would have burned off all of the carbohydrates your body had stored as glycogen in your liver, and your body would have to break down some of your fat to replenish the glycogen. That is unless you previously ate a rather large meal of carbs. 75.16.110.132 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You would burn a higher PERCENTAGE of fat at slower speeds, not necessarily a higher total amount of fat. Although, at sprinting speeds, you would likely have to burn muscle vs. fat to maintain as you would run out of carbs. Dunc0029 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

examples and overview needed

Examples of each type of exercise would be helpful to define different intensities. Also, this page is lacking in a complete overview of exercise intensity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkristem (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

suggested improvements

After reading the article, here are my thoughts:

• 1- In "measure of intensity," I'm not sure what this sentence means: "As the intensity of an exercise increases, steady state VO2max, respiratory exchange ratio, and caloric equivalent increase." This may be, in part, because these terms have not been defined and described appropriately.
• 2- The heading "Expression of intensity" is probably not needed. I think this paragraph can be folded into the "measure of tensity" section.
• 3- The reader should'nt be confused upon finishing the measurement section about what intensity is. Because this section is so technical, I didn't really grasp the concept until I got to the table and saw intensity defined as a percentage of the individual's max heart rate. THAT makes sense. See if you can dumb this down for people without any background in the area.
• 4- The article seems to lack organization. I'm unsure why the headings "Fuel Used" and "Training Effect" are necessary. I think if you started with an outline in mind for what you wanted to communicate in the article, it wouldn't look this way.
• 5- Both tables might need a little more introduction and explanation.
• 6- It's unclear what MET means. I see a link to another article (metabolic equivalent), but I think this article should stand on its own as much as possible. Jesserjames (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

METs and WATTs

Please add discussion and information about converting between METs and Watts. Many common exercise machines now use both those units. Conversion tables and formulas? -71.174.175.150 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This Can't Be Right

Measures of Intensity "For example, two individuals with different measures of VO2 max, running at 7 mph are running at the same absolute intensity (miles/hour) but a different relative intensity (% of VO2 max expended)." So a 3 year old with a stride of 1 ft, a 16 year female old with a stride of 3 ft and a mass of 150kg, an Olympic athelete (age 20) with a stride of 5 ft (weight 65 kg, height 6'6"), and a 85 year old with a stride of 2 ft. all will have an identical absolute intensity if they're all running at 7 mph? I don't think so. And this doesn't even consider air temperature & humidity, fatigue, elevation, and incline of path, among other things (asphalt running surface, synthetic, sand, shale,...). Speed is no doubt a good indication of energy expenditure if you assume similar metabolic efficiencies under similar conditions. But this section doesn't say that. It claims that anyone running the same speed will be (basically) burning the same number of calories (one interpretation) or doing the same amount of work (a different, not equivalent, interpretation). In both cases, it is wrong. It is well established that calories burned depends on fitness level (among other things) and it is obvious that given f=ma, W= fd, then Work per mass per time interval will depend on the acceleration of the body. A person with a stride of 2 ft will have a much higher acceleration (of his/her feet and legs (and possibly arms)) than one with 5' or 6' stride, when traveling at the same speed. (How differences in leg mass modify this, I have no idea, but certainly it won't exactly balance out.). 216.96.77.125 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, also.I suggest removal of "for pleasure" from the table of METs. The table claims that biking "for pleasure" has an MET of 4. This is obviously wrong, since you have no idea how fast I bike (for instance) for "pleasure", and trying to put an average on something which is inherently a range of values (with a multitude of contributing factors) is hardly useful. What if I bike "for pleasure" downhill? Or off-road?216.96.77.125 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)