Power vs Energy
Replies
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
Your average engineer tends to know basically nothing when it comes to biology cause they are exempt from biology classes in college, at least that was my experience.
Which is why I am encouraging the OP to go read about it instead of me trying to cover it. There's a lot out there and if they insist on getting that in depth will cellular activity they should go study it.
Yea, I was agreeing with you. I graduated Mechanical Engineering and Materials Engineering, then when I got into fitness I realized that the only way to get past all the broscience was to learn the actual science behind it, it's the only way to go.
I did a bs in mechanical and ms in electrical (control theory).
Energy can be converted between all sorts of sytems as you know. There is potential energy (chemical, thermal, mechanical, pneumatic, etc.). There is kinetic energy also.
The body converts chemical energy (cals) to mechanical energy which moves the body which DOES obey the laws of physics. Some of the biologists don't seem to get that last part.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
Your average engineer tends to know basically nothing when it comes to biology cause they are exempt from biology classes in college, at least that was my experience.
Which is why I am encouraging the OP to go read about it instead of me trying to cover it. There's a lot out there and if they insist on getting that in depth will cellular activity they should go study it.
Yea, I was agreeing with you. I graduated Mechanical Engineering and Materials Engineering, then when I got into fitness I realized that the only way to get past all the broscience was to learn the actual science behind it, it's the only way to go.
I did a bs in mechanical and ms in electrical (control theory).
Energy can be converted between all sorts of sytems as you know. There is potential energy (chemical, thermal, mechanical, pneumatic, etc.). There is kinetic energy also.
The body converts chemical energy (cals) to mechanical energy which moves the body which DOES obey the laws of physics. Some of the biologists don't seem to get that last part.
And then you throw metabolism, hormones and hormonal responses into the mix.0 -
I thought this would generate some discussion!
What is there to discuss? You can't 'dumb down' the human body into a physics 101 equation, no matter how often you claim you can.
ETA: Well, I suppose you probably CAN...if you're able to accurately account for each system, chemical response, etc. But a simple X miles ran = Z energy, because W=fxd doesn't do that.0 -
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
Go ahead and help explain to me how running 2 miles and walking 2 miles should burn the same amount of calories.
Energy = force x distance (not speed). That is the definition of mechanical work/energy.
10miles/hr x .5 hr = 5mile
5miles/hr x 1hr = 5 miles
At the lower speed your only going for 1/2 the time. Assuming the force is constant (isnt with our bodies going different speeds).
E1 = F x D1 = F x (V1 x T1) = F x (V2 x T2). E is energy, D is dist, V is velocity, T is time.
There's an efficiency involved that this formula neglects, not too mention that it neglects the complex mechanics of movement inherent in the human body.I need to read about cellular respiration
Yes, you doyou need to pick up a physics book!
No, I think she's good.
Not you too! I believed I have stated that the equation is simplified, the underlying concept is valid.
The motion of the body with all the complexity could be modeled with a power equation. You would then integrate over time to get the mechanical energy over the distance. Then you could model the biological body also with a power equation with all its complexities and derive how many calories it took to provide the mechanical energy needed to move the body the distance covered. You dont' agree with that?
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Correct.
I think the biology comes into play on training effect. This is increasing ones cardio capacity. If you keep your heart in a cardio zone (65 to 85 percent of your MHR) for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop, and a minimum of 3 times per week, you will get a minimum training effect (you will minimally increase your cardio capacity). If you do it for 30 minutes to an hour 3 to 4 times a week, you will get a good training effect.
This is why the 2 main components of cardio training effect are heart rate & time.
So, to use myself as an example, if I walked 3 miles in 45 minutes (a 4mph pace) I am usually in zone 3 (70 to 80 percent of my MHR), so I would get a training effect. If I walked that same 3 miles in 90 minutes (a 2 mph pace), I would maybe be in zone 2 (60 to 70 percent of my MHR), so I would get very little if any training effect. I would probably burn a little more calories doing the faster walk too, because heart rate is also a factor of calories burned.
I'm not sure but I think the slower walk would burn a higher percentage of fat compared to the faster walk. Maybe that is why they call zone 2 the fat burn zone.
So, even though both walks would use the same amount of total energy, the faster walk would be more beneficial for increasing cardio capacity, plus you can get it done in half the time.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I thought this would generate some discussion!
What is there to discuss? You can't 'dumb down' the human body into a physics 101 equation, no matter how often you claim you can.
ETA: Well, I suppose you probably CAN...if you're able to accurately account for each system, chemical response, etc. But a simple X miles ran = Z energy, because W=fxd doesn't do that.
I have agreed with all the complexities brought up. My main arguments have been the body obeys the laws of physics and I have asked for more pieces of the bio-chem side of the equation.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
So as an engineer, have you ever used a car? Because I don't get the same mpg's at all the different speeds my car can go.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
So as an engineer, have you ever used a car? Because I don't get the same mpg's at all the different speeds my car can go.
You need to read futher posts in this thread.0 -
Do you burn more energy standing in one place on one leg versus two?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150
I have no idea. I would think the power required by the leg doing all the work is double what the other leg is doing so due to some effects it might be more on one leg. I think the rest of the bodie's energy requirements would be a bigger factor than standing on one leg though. That was a funny question, were you being serious?
Funnily enough I am being serious. I work with engineers so I'm trying to talk your language. Standing on one leg takes more energy as many more muscles are involved to maintain balance.
Running takes a little extra energy as the stride means only one foot is on the ground at a time, and there is a little extra lift. Vertical as well as horizontal movement.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
ETA: It's in the proportions, not the time. You burn greater calories per minute at a faster rate. If I were to walk 2 miles at 3 mph I would burn 226 calories in 40 minutes. If I were to run 2 miles at 6 mph I would burn 316 calories in 20 minutes. Doesn't matter that it was a shorter time for the same distance.
I wonder what is being used for the calculations. It isn't energy = force x distance or they would be the same.
They must be including factors for wind, increasing friction forces as a function of speed, or more heat loss while going faster. I acknowledge all these could use up more energy while going faster.
My bio question is will it also result in an increased bmr by going faster consistently. I think it will.
Even if you could have machines or humans do work in a vacuum, there would be differences. Just as with a machine, humans have limited abilities regarding both torque and horsepower. Within these finite limits you also have to be able to provide a constant source of fuel. Even assuming a person could eat enough to fuel maximum effort work around the clock, the mechanics of a human would not endure it for long. The muscles would fail, the digestive system wouldn't keep up, and the joints and bones would be quickly stressed.
If the power vs energy equation were always a constant, it wouldn't matter. But they are not. I'd challenge you to provide any example of a mechanical device in operation that could be driven by any selection of engine or motor and be equally efficient. It won't exist.
And unlike mechanical devices, the human body can adapt somewhat based on use. If a motor vehicle is always designed to carry heavy loads at low speeds, it can't adapt. But if a person were to do the same, their body would adapt to the demands at hand. That same person could then slowly transform from a heavy lifter type build to a marathon runner build due to change of use and gradual adaptation.
"If you connect a 10 hp motor to a 12 hp load, eventually the motor will break. If you connect a 10 hp human to a 12 hp load, they will become a 12 hp human." - from Arnold's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding.0 -
Do you burn more energy standing in one place on one leg versus two?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150
I have no idea. I would think the power required by the leg doing all the work is double what the other leg is doing so due to some effects it might be more on one leg. I think the rest of the bodie's energy requirements would be a bigger factor than standing on one leg though. That was a funny question, were you being serious?
Funnily enough I am being serious. I work with engineers so I'm trying to talk your language. Standing on one leg takes more energy as many more muscles are involved to maintain balance.
Running takes a little extra energy as the stride means only one foot is on the ground at a time, and there is a little extra lift. Vertical as well as horizontal movement.
Agree0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
We have no mass and don't respond to forces?
Yes, but we aren't simple machines. We aren't talking about a hypothetical single force pushing a stationary box up a frictionless inclined plane at a constant rate of acceleration in a vacuum here.
Running (for example) increases heart rate more than walking (for example), so more heart beats = more energy spent. More breaths taken by the lungs = more energy spent. Maybe a glycogen spike is needed ...more digestion...more energy. There are probably other body systems and functions as well that will speed up and increase energy burn when vigorously exercising vs. walking at a moderate pace.
Speak for yourself. I'm indeed a simple machine. I eat and lift. Eat and lift. You can come check my abs of steel if you don't believe me ( they are made of steel , because I am a machine ) Lmao !!0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
I think you're forgetting the vectors involved. The force times distance must be parallel. The force component parallel in a simple calculation would be zero for constant velocity.
Walking and running both involve constantly changing speed against the force of gravity, even sticking to pure mechanics without the biochemistry to generate that force.
Edit: corrected perpendicular to parallel.0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equations and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.0 -
Physics applies to all matter.0
-
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.
They don't predict that. They show you can apply engineering equations to model things.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Physics applies to all matter.
Yep, except when you get to the quantum level, the physics change.0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.
They don't predict that. They show you can apply engineering equations to model things.
If they don't match the empirical results, they don't model.0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.
They don't predict that. They show you can apply engineering equations to model things.
If they don't match the empirical results, they don't model.
So you just add complexity to the model or adjust model parameters or both tell they fit. Your point being?0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Physics applies to all matter.
Yep, except when you get to the quantum level, the physics change.
My head hurts...
0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
So, are you saying if for two miles I stroll at 2.5 or power walk at 4.5, the calorie expenditure will be the same?
I think you might be wrong about that, because a 4.5 power walk will use a whole lot more oxygen than that 2.5 stroll.
Not that I'm into power walking, as I'm not because my cardio choice is running (hence my username)
No, higher speed will be more cals but a doubling of speed will not double cals expended. Since your going faster you get there quicker and are going faster for less time.
Well, of course not. I might have missed the boat, but I don't think anyone said that doubling your speed will double the calories burned. You will burn more calories at a higher speed, but....where did the double analogy come from? For the calorie burn to be double would be kind of odd, in my opinion.
I think he was just trying to illustrate that there wasn't a linear relationship between speed and energy
Ah, I understand.0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.
They don't predict that. They show you can apply engineering equations to model things.
If they don't match the empirical results, they don't model.
So you just add complexity to the model or adjust model parameters or both tell they fit. Your point being?
"That's a not a ham sandwich, that's clearly turkey."
"So just take the turkey out and put in ham."0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.
They don't predict that. They show you can apply engineering equations to model things.
If they don't match the empirical results, they don't model.
So you just add complexity to the model or adjust model parameters or both tell they fit. Your point being?
"That's a not a ham sandwich, that's clearly turkey."
"So just take the turkey out and put in ham."
Your point?0 -
I would like to remind everyone that these discussions are for debating, not for attacking each other or airing issues from other threads. If there are any issues with members or their post, either contact an admin or moderator.
psuLemon
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
If the power vs energy equation were always a constant, it wouldn't matter. But they are not. I'd challenge you to provide any example of a mechanical device in operation that could be driven by any selection of engine or motor and be equally efficient. It won't exist.
@blambo61
See the above. I think this is where the flaw in your reasoning is. Even in real world situations with machines, efficiency is a key. And those machines can be turned off. Humans don't turn off.
0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.
They don't predict that. They show you can apply engineering equations to model things.
If they don't match the empirical results, they don't model.
So you just add complexity to the model or adjust model parameters or both tell they fit. Your point being?
"That's a not a ham sandwich, that's clearly turkey."
"So just take the turkey out and put in ham."
Your point?
Saying you can revise the model when it is wrong doesn't change that as it stands it is wrong.
By that standard, I can say all exercise burns 5 calories, and be correct. Once you give me the exact exercise and pertinent data, I'll just revise that 5 to be the right number.0 -
usmcmp is wrong that the body doesn't obey the laws of physics as you stated earlier. She is right that the body is a complex system that produces energy in a non linear fashion (double the demand/speed would more than double the cals needed to provide the mechanical energy).
I know I dont know much biology but to state the body doesn't obey the laws of physics is absurb (using your words in previous entry)! That is why I stated she should look at a physics book (and some calculus is needed to integrate) and I should look at the biology book. Peace!
I didn't say the body doesn't obey the laws of physics. I'm saying you can't apply engineering equations to the body. Wait until you learn about cortisol, leptin and other hormones or the effects of different macros or even the psychological effect that exercise and diet have on a person.
Of course you can apply engineering equations (math and physics or emperical equations which are not physics based). I works like this.
Body chem energy rate = f (biological processes, calorie rates) = body mech power = f(body mechanics) + thermal energy dissipation rate.
The equation would be similar to above. You can solve for the mecanical power and thermal power, then solve for the calorie rate needed which can then be integrated to get calories. I've done these type of calculations as part of my career on mecanical systems. There is a whole collaborative field out there were the differential equations are generated for biological systems (using engineering equations) that model biological process with more complex math than has been traditionally done. The biologists need the math guys for their math and the math guys need the biologists for their knowledge. I've worked with people who work in this field and have attended technical lectures on the subject during grad school which was in the field of signals and systems.
You can apply these type of equations to any dynamic system for insight into the systems including mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, biological, economic systems etc. Learn about thism. There is great work that can be done with colkaboration using higher math to understajd complex dynamical systems.
See the link below for an example of a quantitative biological grad program that uses a lot of engineering equation and biological ones to model complex biological systems. There are many programs out there like this.
http://cqb.rutgers.edu
If those equations predict running is equal in energy to walking for the same distance, they cannot be applied for the simple reason that empirically that is false.
They don't predict that. They show you can apply engineering equations to model things.
If they don't match the empirical results, they don't model.
So you just add complexity to the model or adjust model parameters or both tell they fit. Your point being?
"That's a not a ham sandwich, that's clearly turkey."
"So just take the turkey out and put in ham."
Your point?
Saying you can revise the model when it is wrong doesn't change that as it stands it is wrong.
By that standard, I can say all exercise burns 5 calories, and be correct. Once you give me the exact exercise and pertinent data, I'll just revise that 5 to be the right number.
If it was the right model you wouldn't change it. I never said the model I gave was exactly right. Models are never reality, they just need to be good enough.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions