h a l f b a k e r y
I think this would be a great thing to not do.

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# Einsteinian Fitness

calculate one's weight loss by using Einstein's e=m*c*c
 (-1) [vote for, against]

Cannot help but wonder how much exercise it would take a human being to get fit by considering the energy - mass equation. Well, according to my calculus, considering the average human could have a 60W output while riding a magnetic bike, that he/she could keep that output constant for 2 hours (7200 seconds) and that his/her energy source wouldn't come from chemical reactions, but from nuclear reactions, then the consumed mass would be somewhere around 0,00000000432 grams. Although quite small, some may say, this mass is greater than null!

It's now easy to understand that the weight loss which comes as a consequence of chemical reactions is much grater than this. My point: there's no way one who rides the bike for 2 hours at constant speed loses less than 0,00000000432 grams.

Works as motivation for those who don't know anything about chemistry and have excessive fat, to go to a gym. Also works as motivation for those who plan moving the earth the way Aristotle proposed.

 — sweet, Apr 16 2007

(?) My take on E=mc2 http://www.cafepres...readmynips.42335930
[DrCurry, Apr 16 2007]

How is it motivating to know that you wouldn't lose any weight at the gym if you happened to use nuclear fission in your digestive tract?
 — placid_turmoil, Apr 16 2007

Well, you are sure you DON'T use nuclear fission, but chemical reactions. That makes you feel lucky and able to actually have relevant weight loss while working-out.
 — sweet, Apr 16 2007

I get 0.00000000481 grams. And that's for chemical or nuclear, no difference. The moisture loss per breath is just under .02 grams. So about 40 grams over the two hour period, and perhaps more than that from sweat. You will also expire carbon in CO2.
 — ldischler, Apr 16 2007

I would just expire, period.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 16 2007

And then there's the weight of the soul--21 grams according to nineteenth century science.
 — ldischler, Apr 16 2007

That's someone everyone looks forward to, I guess: "Well, lady you can be sure you'll lose weight. When you die! Lots of weight: that's your current weight minus the insignifiant 21 grams which your fat soul represents"
 — sweet, Apr 16 2007

Einsteinian Fitness, surely, should be something to do with losing more weight the closer you are to the speed of light, or maybe how all weight loss is relative...?
 — DrCurry, Apr 16 2007

Length contraction doesn't apply, at any rate. Time dilation, on the other hand...
 — placid_turmoil, Apr 16 2007

 I thought a body gained apparent mass as it approaches the speed of light?

 So one might argue that by slowing down (i.e. sitting on the sofa in front of daytime TV) one weighs less than at speed (i.e. cycling).

It must be all those short trips to the fridge during the commercials that do it.
 — Twizz, Mar 03 2011

sp. much greater
 — pertinax, Mar 03 2011

 Hi Brandon, thanks for the link, your contributions to this site are always so timely and prescient! It's great to have you around, you are 'one of the family' now I think!

 //My point: there's no way one who rides the bike for 2 hours at constant speed loses less than 0,00000000432 grams.//

How about one who constantly chomps chocolate bars for the entire ride?
 — pocmloc, Mar 03 2011

the mass-energy equation holds whether the reaction is nuclear, chemical, or whatever in nature. So you will still have lost that tiny tiny tiny amount of weight afte doing that exercise.
 — EdwinBakery, Mar 03 2011

 [annotate]

back: main index