Converting walking to rowing

JohnBove · Post by **JohnBove** » June 29th, 2006, 11:17 am

Cyclists are leaner than rowers.

Thus cycling burns more calories than does rowing.

Might you consider that calories are replenished and that the demands of rowing -- particularly, vis-avis cycling -- on the upper body as well as the lower might mean that as calories are replaced more are assimilated, resulting in a larger body. Considering this, rowing could burn twice as many calories over an equivalent time or distance as cycling, however one wishes to measure and compare, and yet still result in a larger bodied athlete.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 29th, 2006, 11:21 am

The QUACK BUSTER is here!

Since lean means lacking in flesh, it doesn't mean an excess of flesh.

Lean does not mean a lack of curves. And it doesn't mean skinny.

It means what it means.

NEXT QUESTION!

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 29th, 2006, 11:34 am

Yeah I did consider that more calories are "assimilated" and "replenished", resulting in a larger body with rowing.

If you burned twice as many calories and ate no more then you'd be lighter, not larger.

You can't be fit, trim and lean, when you're large, unathletic and fat.

ragiarn · Post by **ragiarn** » June 29th, 2006, 1:08 pm

John Rupp wrote:The QUACK BUSTER is here!

Since lean means lacking in flesh, it doesn't mean an excess of flesh.

Lean does not mean a lack of curves. And it doesn't mean skinny.

It means what it means.

NEXT QUESTION!

I suggest that you look up the meaning of Lean in the english language as it is defined in Merriam-Websters Dictionary of the English Language:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/lean

lean

Main Entry: lean
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English lene, from Old English hl[AE]ne
1 a : lacking or deficient in flesh b : containing little or no fat
2 : lacking richness, sufficiency, or productiveness
3 : deficient in an essential or important quality or ingredient: as a of ore : containing little valuable mineral b : low in combustible component -- used especially of fuel mixtures
4 : characterized by economy (as of style, expression, or operation)
- lean·ly adverb
- lean·ness /'lEn-n&s/ noun

synonyms LEAN, SPARE, LANK, LANKY, GAUNT, RAWBONED, SCRAWNY, SKINNY mean thin because of an absence of excess flesh. LEAN stresses lack of fat and of curving contours <a lean racehorse>. SPARE suggests leanness from abstemious living or constant exercise <the gymnast's spare figure>. LANK implies tallness as well as leanness <the lank legs of the heron>. LANKY suggests awkwardness and loose-jointedness as well as thinness <a lanky youth, all arms and legs>. GAUNT implies marked thinness or emaciation as from overwork or suffering <a prisoner's gaunt face>. RAWBONED suggests a large ungainly build without implying undernourishment <a rawboned farmer>. SCRAWNY and SKINNY imply an extreme leanness that suggests deficient strength and vitality <a scrawny chicken> <skinny street urchins>.

Steelhead · Post by **Steelhead** » June 29th, 2006, 1:22 pm

Ralph,

Excellent posts. Thanks for allowing us to read some of the comments to your posts -- they are just too hilariously foolish to be taken seriously, but do make reading this thread outrageously funny in a perverse way.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 29th, 2006, 1:24 pm

If you listened to your LOCAL QUACK, you'd either be a SKINNY STREET URCHIN or a BIG FAT PIG!!!!

Your choice!!!!

See your LOCAL QUACK for one of those STUPID ALTERNATIVES!!!

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 29th, 2006, 1:28 pm

Mike,

Unfortunately, many people pay attention to hilariously foolish messages.

JohnBove · Post by **JohnBove** » June 29th, 2006, 1:56 pm

Yeah I did consider that more calories are "assimilated" and "replenished", resulting in a larger body with rowing.

If you burned twice as many calories and ate no more then you'd be lighter, not larger.

Forget exercise. If you just didn't eat you'd be light, not larger. What is your point?

You can't be fit, trim and lean, when you're large, unathletic and fat.

Large, doesn't meant unathletic or fat. It means large. Tim Duncan is large.

And what is your opinion of world class swimmers who burn and replenish ferocious numbers of calories? Few are lean, as you choose to misuse the word. Do you think them fat and unathletic?

Neb154 · Post by **Neb154** » June 29th, 2006, 2:09 pm

John Rupp wrote:Very serious, Ancho.

Take a look at competitive runners and they are VERY very lean, compared to the typical rower who is bulky, overweight, and doesn't have the same fitness. Look at Xeno, for example. He is 250 pounds!

Come on give me a break.

250 pounds!

Please don't try to tell me he is burning calories with his rowing.

Now take a look at competitive runners, and this is where you see all round fitness. Runners are leaner than even tour de france cyclists and cross country skiiers!

Rowers being bulky, overweight, and not very fit? Let us look at some of the 2005 US National team

Sam Burns 6'5" 205
Steven Coppola 6'8" 210
Brett Newlin 6'9" 225
Gregg Ruckman 6'1" 155
Matt Schnobirch 6'5" 205
Tom Paradiso 6'1" 150

Would you consider these guys, with their weights and heights, out of shape? Most of them are at least under 6:20 for the lightweights and 6:05ish for the heavyweights. That kind of weight to power ratio is clearly pretty terrible, right?

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 29th, 2006, 2:49 pm

JohnBove wrote:Forget exercise. If you just didn't eat you'd be light, not larger. What is your point?

Have you ever tried that, to find out.

Large, doesn't meant unathletic or fat. It means large. Tim Duncan is large.

I've never heard of him. What is his marathon time?

How much does he weigh? Is he a swimmer, or a runner?

And what is your opinion of world class swimmers who burn and replenish ferocious numbers of calories?

Swimmers can float, so it doesn't matter as much what they weigh or how fat they are. Actually their fat helps them to float. If they were as lean as runners then they wouldn't be able to float as well, and swimming would be much more work for them than it is.

However, Janet Evans was very lean when she set her 400 and 800 meter world records. So a swimmer doesn't HAVE to be fat to swim well.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 29th, 2006, 2:52 pm

Neb154 wrote:Would you consider these guys, with their weights and heights, out of shape? Most of them are at least under 6:20 for the lightweights and 6:05ish for the heavyweights. That kind of weight to power ratio is clearly pretty terrible, right?

I wouldn't say out of shape.

They are probably more fit than someone of similar height and weight who just sits on a couch and does nothing.

But they are certainly not as lean and fit as top runners.

If you are trying to make a comparison, then there isn't one.

p.s. I've never heard of any of them.

hjs · Post by **hjs** » June 29th, 2006, 3:00 pm

Sam Burns 6'5" 205
Steven Coppola 6'8" 210
Brett Newlin 6'9" 225
Gregg Ruckman 6'1" 155
Matt Schnobirch 6'5" 205
Tom Paradiso 6'1" 150

I woundn,t call this bulky.

Someone who is 6.8 and only weighs 210 is very thin.

He could do with a bit more muscle.

hjs · Post by **hjs** » June 29th, 2006, 3:06 pm

John Rupp wrote:Cyclists are leaner than rowers.

Thus cycling burns more calories than does rowing.

Supermodels are leaner than sumowrestlers

Thus walking on the catwalk burns more calories than does doing the eating/training of the wrestlers.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 29th, 2006, 4:14 pm

hjs wrote:Thus walking on the catwalk burns more calories than does doing the eating/training of the wrestlers.

ragiarn · Post by **ragiarn** » June 29th, 2006, 5:32 pm

hjs wrote:Sam Burns 6'5" 205
Steven Coppola 6'8" 210
Brett Newlin 6'9" 225
Gregg Ruckman 6'1" 155
Matt Schnobirch 6'5" 205
Tom Paradiso 6'1" 150

I woundn,t call this bulky.

Someone who is 6.8 and only weighs 210 is very thin. He could do with a bit more muscle.

A commonly accepted gauge of normal vs overweight is the BMI ( body mass index)
BMI Categories: http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

Compare the following elite athletes:

John Rupp 5'9" 143 BMI 21.1
Sam Burns 6'5" 205 BMI 24.3
Steven Coppola 6'8" 210 BMI 23.1
Brett Newlin 6'9" 225 BMI 24.1
Gregg Ruckman 6'1" 155 BM! 20.4
Matt Schnobirch 6'5" 205 BMI 24.3
Tom Paradiso 6'1" 150 BMI 19.8
: Lance Armstrong 5'10" 160 BMI 23.0
( for those who unaware of this last athlete- he is the 7 time winner of the Tour De France- his vital statistics were obtained from: "Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures"
Edward F. Coyle