Newsgroups: misc.fitness.weights, rec.martial-arts, rec.running, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.sport.tennis
From: RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Oct 2 2012 4:14 pm
Subject: Re: "fitness vs. efficiency"
On Sep 23, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> From a previous thread:Human body is 20-25% efficient; 200 calories at an
> > these burns require 2 steps at a time.
> I sort of misconstrued this point in the earlier thread, and it is really
> I can tell you definitively that stair-sprinting 2 steps at a
> BUT...... How much energy would I actually be BURNING??
> So the answer is: No one knows the true calorie burn of either,
external load, means 800 - 1000 cal. internally.
Considering that nature and evolution is very efficient, this is
> It *might* could be, that furious single-step climbing *burnsSeems clearly so to me.
> more calories* than 2-step climbing, while *generating* much
> less power. Intuitively/perceived exertion-wise I don't think this
> is so,
You perform the same work, mgh, but churn the legs
> Which all reflects on the initial notion of "fitness vs. efficiency", whichIf you're a competitor (why isn't stair climbing a track
> is a bit of a apples/oranges phrase.
> A better characterization of the issue would simply be "mechanical
> efficiency of physical exertion", which would directly reflect the stair
> climbing vs steps issue: how much electricity could you generate
> from a given calorie burn vis a vis steps?
event?), you want to climb a given height, with maximum
thrust per calorie used. It's a spint, not an endurance
event. Ditto for other anaerobic sports.
> From a pure fitness pov, all this is moot, bec really all we areRight. The goals and motivation of fitness are very different
> intereested in is in fact the calorie burn itself. Mechanical
> (generated) power is technically irrelevant here.
> But from a *competitive* pov, as alluded to up at the top, efficiencyTrue almost by definition.
> IS a very big deal.
> And there are at least two types, altho perhaps efficiency
> starts to blur with *technique/form*.
> One would be the sprinter, who wants the greatest fraction of
> his total thrust directed horizontally.
> Related is the marathoner, who also wants to maximize
> the horizontal component of his thrust, but who ALSO wants
> to maximize the energy efficiency of *the whole stride*, to
> *minimize* glycogen consumption.
> Could we generally assume that, in stair climbing, higher
> But less absolutely when comparing 1 step vs 2 steps.Efficiency will drop with more steps, assuming the same total
> I personally think the calorie burn is higher, judging from perceived
> exertion, altho if the mechanical watts is doubled (from 2 step
> climbing), that may not mean the cal burn is doubled, so direct
> proportionality may not apply when the *gait* is shifted.
> I think the two calorie burns would be
> much closer than a factor of two, but still significantly different.
climb. Leg churn -
But my point is, that's what you want! Efficient form will
If you hire a coach for running, or anything else, he'll
This only applies to 'pure exercise'; running, biking,
In some sports, the question is unclear. I used to
There's been a vast growth in sport science and medicine
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.