Efficiency of the human body
Discussion
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.
Any ideas? Would be interesting to get a vague clue.
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?
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...
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?
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?
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?
So "theroretically" your session "burned" 300 calories - howver I'd be suprised if it was that accurate, and.......you're not going to like this..................but I believe they are woefully optimistic generally as to the amount you have really burned.
So belay that Creme egg order!
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?
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...
Tuna 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?
rhinochopig said:
Tuna 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?
http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/bmr.php
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?
- sadly exchanges Creme Egg for sugar-free gum*
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.
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...
Edited by fido on Monday 23 March 16:34
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.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff