[quote]GathCity wrote:
I fear for the sanity of certain individuals when the justification for a certain practice becomes, “well, that guy agrees with it”.
You’re right, Charles Poliquin is just “that guy”. He probably doesn’t even know what he’s talking about anyway.
What we should do is just direct every question straight towards you…since you seem to be proclaiming yourself as the leading expert in the field of…everything.
[/quote]
LOL
Owned!
[quote]GathCity wrote:
I fear for the sanity of certain individuals when the justification for a certain practice becomes, “well, that guy agrees with it”.
You’re right, Charles Poliquin is just “that guy”. He probably doesn’t even know what he’s talking about anyway.
What we should do is just direct every question straight towards you…since you seem to be proclaiming yourself as the leading expert in the field of…everything.
[/quote]
How much of a difference is drinking cold water going to make in anyone’s training? Is it more effective than a thermogenic supplement? Is it as effective as cutting back on calories? If not, then who cares what anyone has to say on the subject outside of random scientific mental masturbation?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know what obese people have to do with this approach actually burning the supposed amount of calories it is said it does. I don’t have too much of a problem losing fat when it is my goal, but like I said, I’m not burning hundreds of extra calories from drinking a lot of cups of very cold water. Therefore, I think that 50 calorie statistic for 8 ounces of cold water is significantly inflated.
[/quote]
It takes about 37000 calories to raise 1 liter of water from just above freezing to normal body temperature. Unfortunately, the Calorie commonly used in nutrition is 1000 calories as defined in thermo. So drinking 1 liter of ice water will only lead to an expenditure of about 37 Calories.
[quote]Kliplemet wrote:
same goes for aerobics
http://www.liquidgeneration.com/content/a55hat.aspx?cid=1760[/quote]
I’m gonna shoot myself.
Can’t believe so few people here are educated in physics, by the amount of bullshit I read…
Few marks:
Why doesn’t drinking insane amounts of cold water shed fat?
Basically because in a state of hypothermia your body has better things to do, like slowing down non-vital functions in favor of stuff like brains etc. Jump in mid-winter in a cold lake and watch the fat shed… not!
(effective way to get rid of the genetic morons though)
Hmmmmmm, interesting…I tried it when I had read it along time ago, but nothing like starting your day on the wrong foot with some serious shrinkage…And I only did it once or twice so I couldn’t tell if it helps at burning a few extra calories or not or whether or not if it is worth it…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
xjayx300 wrote:
well it isn’t drinking cold water, but Dan Duchaine suggested that when taking a shower to turn the water to cold…The instant cold would basically cause a shot of adrenaline which in returns pumps up the metabolism, or something like that. I believe he wrote this in his Body Opus book.
Yes, it could also potentially be a great way to die for someone with any heart conditions. I believe CSI even did an episode like that. Someone just finishing an exercise session runs into a cold shower and drops dead because the rush of blood from peripheral areas during vasoconstriction overloaded the heart. It may be relatively rare, but it can happen.
[/quote]
[quote]veruvius wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong (which I probably am), but the energy used for the evaporation of water off the surface of the skin would not be expended by your body, rather through an energy transfer in the atmosphere, because the evaporation of water is the dispersion of the water into the air.
You’re also assuming that the body would use stored fat first to fuel the evaporation process, which is not necessarily the case, no?
A more foolproof idea would be to just boil away the fat through the application of intense heat to the skin. Literally “melting away” the fat.
DB
You’re wrong. The heat source would be your body. Air is an insulator, terrible for heat transfer (this is the idea behind down feather comforters and jackets).[/quote]
Air is an insulator but MOVING air will transfer heat very quickly. The air passing through a mid size evaporative cooler will vaporize 2 kilos of air an hour in a dry climate.
Also, just because something is a good insulator does not make it terrible for heat transfer (!?!?!). Rate of heat transfer is one thing, but so is specific heat capacity which is pretty high for air. Metal has a low specific heat capacity and heat of vaporization (not high as mentioned previously).
If you’ve ever wondered how scientists started to get those atomic mass values that set the stage for the periodic table and basically all of modern chemistry, here is step 1:
Determination of atomic masses:
In 1819, two French scientists, Pierre Dulong and Alexis Petit proposed the first direct approach to calculating atomic weights. They used laws of motion and energy from physics to posit that the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a single atom of a solid by a given amount should be independent of the type of atom. According to Dulong and Petit, the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 mole of a solid element by 1?C should be constant (although they did not formally use the term mole, rather they used gram atomic mass, which was later used to officially define the mole). Dulong and Petit’s law is usually expressed in terms of specific heat, which is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by 1?C. In its modern form, the law says that it should require about 6 calories of heat to raise the temperature of a mole of a solid element by 1?C. In practice, Dulong and Petit’s law is far from exact, with many elements showing deviations by 10% or more. Nevertheless, it does yield good approximate values for most metals.
Here is an example:
It takes about 0.09 calories to raise 1 gram of zinc metal by 1?C. Since it should require about 6 calories to raise a mole of zinc atoms by 1?C, it can be construed that 1 gram of zinc is about 1/67 of a mole,
or that 1 mole of zinc atoms should have a mass of about 67 grams (actual value is 65.39 grams).
From these rough estimates, more precise results could then be refined by determining the volume of oxygen or chlorine that combines with the metal in a chemical reaction. This required that scientists worked out the combining ratios of atoms of different metals with atoms of oxygen and chlorine, and also the fact that a mole of oxygen or chlorine at STP had a volume of 22.4 liters.
For example, when 22.4 liters of oxygen (1 mole) is reacted with zinc, it is found that 130.78 grams of the zinc is used up. Not knowing initially that zinc atoms combines with oxygen atoms in a 1:1 molar ratio, scientists can refer to Dulong and Petit 's law to see that a mole of zinc is about 67 grams, and since oxygen is diatomic, and 1 mole of oxygen provides 2 moles of oxygen atoms, then 130.78/2 or 65.39 grams becomes the most likely choice for the exact molar and atomic mass of zinc. Knowing that oxygen accepts 2 electrons, we can also see that a zinc atom has a valence of 2 (donates 2 electrons in ionic bonding). From this, the masses and valence electrons of other elements could be built up. 40.08 grams of calcium combines with 22.4 Liters of oxygen-the atomic mass of calcium is 40.08. 40.47 grams of aluminum combines with 22.4 liters of oxygen, but aluminum’s atomic mass is closer to 27 from Dulong and Petit 's law, so it is assumed that aluminum combines 2:3 with atoms of oxygen, or 1:3 with molecules of O2 and therefore the valence of aluminum is 3 and the molar mass is 2/3 x 40.47 or 26.98 grams/mole.
[quote]CestMoi wrote:
Can’t believe so few people here are educated in physics, by the amount of bullshit I read…
Actually, the whole concept of sub-boiling evaporation is a pretty high level problem and I am not sure that most collge chemisty or physics professors could give a precise description of the top of their heads.
For one, there will be a percentage of water molecules on the surface of the body that actually reach 100 Centigrade, because the speed of individual particles is a skewed normal distribution, with a small percentage of particles existing at the high and low end of the temperature scale. By removing these “hottest” molecules from the distribution, the average speed drops, and so the temperature drops.
An example is an evaporative cooler. How can it cool 40 degree air by evaporation, when the boiling point of water is 100? Because the 40 degree air has a percentage of particles whose above this level. An evaporative cooler then cools a room by slowing down the 3-5% of the air particles in a 40 degree room which are the “hottest”
This is still a simplistic answer though. It is actually an equilibrium process, and since water is able to exist the immediate system to the “world” the process continues to be pulled to the left.
Also, I think one would have to conclude that the air provides MOST of the energy which vaporizes sweat, or water on the surface of someone because air has a much wider distribution of particle speed than the body, however, this process would also cool the air in the immediate vicinity of the body, so the slightly cooled air which pulls heat out of the body.
Anyway, look. If you get out of a swimming pool even on a “warm” day, you may shiver. This IS a heat producing mechanism which does increase daily metabolic expendature.
As for the previous -4 question, Water is most dense at +4 (not -4)Centigrade. It becomes less dense as it drops down to 0. (It then stays at 0 for the entire freezing process.)
I can’t believe you twits are still calculating caloric expenditure by ignoring the state of the body prior to consumption of said ice water.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Actually, the whole concept of sub-boiling evaporation is a pretty high level problem and I am not sure that most collge chemisty or physics professors could give a precise description of the top of their heads…
[/quote]
Heh, I think you are talking out of your butt.
The evaporation of water is a phase change, and energy has to be fed in to make that change.
There reverse process is one of the reasons that steam is so dangerous with respect to getting serious burns.
Anyway, you’ll also want to consider humidity, because it affects the propensity for liquid water to evaporate.
That’s why they give you a “humidex” temperature rating as well as the actual temperature.
This thread sucks.
[quote]vroom wrote:
This thread sucks.[/quote]
but…but what I if a really famous personal trainer from Canada likes this thread?!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
but…but what I if a really famous personal trainer from Canada likes this thread?!![/quote]
Well, if he’s from Canada, then I’d better listen!
You suck a little, too, if only because you pretend to know what you are talking about yet you don’t take time to explain but just type ‘you suck’.
Anyway, I agree on the molecule distribution balance where different metastable phases exist and are statistically distributed to balance zero. YET you don’t always need energy to change a systemic balance - here, energy is but merely re-distributed to create balance. Meaning, add salt to a non-salted water bad and the salt will over a matter of time spread through the whole bath untill concentration is equal everywhere.
Same goes for bodywater-air system. Not saying that everything about a drying process is explained by this, but partially it is…
[quote]CestMoi wrote:
because you pretend to know what you are talking about yet you don’t take time to explain[/quote]
I did explain. If you can’t tell that I explained myself… then I guess it doesn’t matter what I said anyway.
Did you hear that if you rub your belly, it’ll shrink? Yeah, it’s true, the added heat because of friction drives the fat out of the cells, and voila, fat loss.
Try it!
This thread sucks.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The evaporation of water is a phase change, and energy has to be fed in to make that change.
[/quote]
Even at human body temperature, water has a vapor pressure of about 45 mmHg due to random redistribution of heat. On the surface of a body, this vapor is free to leave the system, therefore dynamic equilibrium is not reached. Two things can happen.
One is that the temperature of the system can drop (because it is an open system). Therefore, energy does not have to enter the system to cause evaporation. Two is that the temperature can re-stabilize-in this case involving the entrance of energy into the system.
My point is that its primarily the surrounding air that loses the vast majority of the heat in this process. There is no reason why the surrounding air must maintain a constant temperature, and since you are not locked in a calorimeter, heat leaves the system.
Look, its all very simple. I suggest that we all agree to take some before photos. Then we spray ourselves down with water every 30 minutes or so for a day or two and post after photos.
I don’t believe you. You’ll have to find something to back you up…
[quote]vroom wrote:
My point is that its primarily the surrounding air that loses the vast majority of the heat in this process.
I don’t believe you. You’ll have to find something to back you up…[/quote]
Why? Its not my job or desire to convince you. Its my best hypothesis right now based on knowledge, common sense, and experience. When you say you dont believe me, are you saying you believe the opposite? If so, fine (well you can try to back it up).
If you are saying that you don’t want to make a hypothesis-you require external support for your beliefs-that’s acritical thinking at its finest. Its not being open minded, its just refusing to think at all-like so many high school kids. Critical thinking is a process of evaluation. Its about accepting all possibilities hypothetically, not doubting all that has not been proved.