Home Chat General Chat

20%? Really?

BritspinBritspin Posts: 1,655
This I meant to post at the time, but forgot.
Refer to last months 220 (or the month before, I can't check as I am at work) something on the advice page about breathing & powerbreathe thingys a quote about respiration taking up to 20% of your energy.
Really? 20%? seems a touch high to me, can anyone justify this figure or find some research that may back it up as a viable reliable figure rather than a sales pitch figure?

Comments

  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    Before I head off to look that up, my gut feeling is that this figure might be for when you are at steady state.. i.e. lying down in one of those bubble chamber things that measure your base metabolic rate etc. I.e. your breathing is the only movement going on.

    They've probably picked that figure up, then taken it out of context.

    As I said, that's just my current hunch...
  • BritspinBritspin Posts: 1,655
    Was what I was thinking...as in it is some figure that has validity in context, but change context & it becomes invalid. Intuitively if I am running my 5/10k race pace then how can 20% be used just breathing when my legs require so much energy to move me along? I am also particularly rubbish at google searches & finding the correct terms to get the answer I want. I have googled & found interesting stuff out....but which does not help me get to that 20% figure.
  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    Britspin wrote:
    I am also particularly rubbish at google searches & finding the correct terms to get the answer I want. I have googled & found interesting stuff out....but which does not help me get to that 20% figure.
    Likewise.. I now know lots of things about ATP, mitochondria, Respiratory Quotients, cellular respiration and siberian hamsters.

    But respiration covers a lot more than just the lungs... transport of oxygen to the cells, then what happens at a cellular level with ATP, oxidisation etc... which makes a figure of 20% while resting seem more credible. i.e. my hunch is more reinforced than not.
  • BritspinBritspin Posts: 1,655
    I did wonder if they meant breathing rather than respiration..but as powerbreathe sells itself as a respiration trainer....
  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    Marketing, Schmarketing.

    Take a device that may well have a positive effect on the performance of a few - i.e. a subset of elites. But to take it to market (i.e. sell in volume to justify costs of production), you have to increase the market share way beyond those that would really derive a significant benefit. How to do that? Take some figures and somehow let them be applied out of context so that you can flog the device to a much bigger group than otherwise...

    From what I have read in my research into respiration, that lung volume/strength is the factor that is hardest to change in training - i.e. the benefits are all to be had in different areas (cellular adaptation etc. etc.).

    Ho hum.

    All this is just my opinion of course!
  • BritspinBritspin Posts: 1,655
    Indeed, I believe I have espoused my 'when was your lung 'strength' a limiting factor in achieving your ultimate time/race/performance?' theory before on this very subject.
    I find it annoying that the press in general & in this case 220 trot out these PR/marketing 'statistics' without any checking or quoted reference to back it up, advise not advertise...
Sign In or Register to comment.