Efficiency of the human body
Discussion
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
kambites said:
According to wikipedia:
The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
So an IC engine is better?The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Government! We need to ban human beings...
Never done the sums myself though.
CC07 PEU said:
Wouldn't you know accurately how many calories you burned if you were using a heart rate monitor linked up to the cardiovascular machine?
NoBut you could measure energy consumption by measuring CO2 production and O2 utilisation.
John
Edited by Dr John on Tuesday 24th March 16:04
ewenm said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
kambites said:
According to wikipedia:
The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
So an IC engine is better?The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Government! We need to ban human beings...
Never done the sums myself though.
eddie1980 said:
What a great consequence of the government's focus on CO2!
Edit: And the "average" jogger does not do 4min/km - that's 2:49 pace for the marathon and much quicker than most joggers.
Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 24th March 16:15
ewenm said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
kambites said:
According to wikipedia:
The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
So an IC engine is better?The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Government! We need to ban human beings...
Never done the sums myself though.
The jiffle king said:
8Ace said:
kambites said:
According to wikipedia:
The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Interesting. So even if I'm super efficient (27%), then 300 cals work requires over 1100 calories to produce.The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Nice one, I'm off for a Creme egg.
Do the machines measure energy out, or do they adjust for energy in as well?
pacey_sot said:
ewenm said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
kambites said:
According to wikipedia:
The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
So an IC engine is better?The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Government! We need to ban human beings...
Never done the sums myself though.
http://www.dontjogdrive.com/Dont_Jog_Drive/Home.ht...
Edited by eddie1980 on Tuesday 24th March 16:15
eddie1980 said:
pacey_sot said:
ewenm said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
kambites said:
According to wikipedia:
The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
So an IC engine is better?The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Government! We need to ban human beings...
Never done the sums myself though.
http://www.dontjogdrive.com/Dont_Jog_Drive/Home.ht...
Edited by eddie1980 on Tuesday 24th March 16:15
It's a facetious argument all round. I would be surprised if anyone out running would be doing so primarily because they think it's "greener" than driving.
ewenm said:
eddie1980 said:
pacey_sot said:
ewenm said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
eddie1980 said:
Chris71 said:
kambites said:
According to wikipedia:
The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
So an IC engine is better?The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 14% to 27%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost.[citation needed]
Government! We need to ban human beings...
Never done the sums myself though.
http://www.dontjogdrive.com/Dont_Jog_Drive/Home.ht...
Edited by eddie1980 on Tuesday 24th March 16:15
It's a facetious argument all round. I would be surprised if anyone out running would be doing so primarily because they think it's "greener" than driving.
eddie1980 said:
I agree, this is part of the issue, weighing up all the causes and effects is nearly impossible due to the complex integrated interdependent nature of our advanced society.
Not nearly impossible, entirely impossible. We can't even predict now from the info we had yesterday, we just don't know enough.Anyway, don't go promoting ideas that runners produce more CO2 than cars or this government will want to tax me for the 100 miles I run each week!
I enjoyed reading that website, the most telling bit was, "We're not scientist and don't really know what we're talking about, but we're right until someone that does says we're wrong." or something like that.
They might have a point, I really don't know, but their presentation of a conclusion based on their interpretation of some facts that appear annecdotal and unsubstantiated is fairly weak. I noted that they say an average jogger does 4 mins per km, but also that an average jogger does 6.5 mins per km and wondered how many of their other facts were poorly put together. I won't get into all the other factors that they've not accounted for, such as the oversimplification of human metabolism and car CO2 stats.
They might have a point, I really don't know, but their presentation of a conclusion based on their interpretation of some facts that appear annecdotal and unsubstantiated is fairly weak. I noted that they say an average jogger does 4 mins per km, but also that an average jogger does 6.5 mins per km and wondered how many of their other facts were poorly put together. I won't get into all the other factors that they've not accounted for, such as the oversimplification of human metabolism and car CO2 stats.
This is a complicated question. Because you also burn calories after exercising as your body is cooling down.
You should also become more efficient as exercising in the long run, thus using less calories. I think that is why they invented the 'Perceived Exertion' index instead of relying on calories burned..
I am sure some boff can work out energy using it, but if you just took that figure you would be wrong.
You should also become more efficient as exercising in the long run, thus using less calories. I think that is why they invented the 'Perceived Exertion' index instead of relying on calories burned..
I am sure some boff can work out energy using it, but if you just took that figure you would be wrong.
8Ace said:
I spent half an hour on the cross trainer this morning. At the end of it, I felt pretty tired. According to the numbers on the readout, I burned north of 300 calories. Well done me. But I am assuming that this is simply a measure of the energy I was putting into the machine. As nothing is perfectly efficient (I know I'm not, I was sweating like a mofo at the end of it), does anyone know what level of efficiency I was working at. Ie: In putting in 300 cals worth of energty to the Cross trainer, how much did I use myself?
Any ideas? Would be interesting to get a vague clue.
The machine reading is telling you how many calories you've burnt...not how many calories the machine has recieved. So you burnt 300 calories.Any ideas? Would be interesting to get a vague clue.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff