|
|
Re: Fossils and Pseudoscience
Rod Hagen (rodhagen@netspace.net.au)
Mon, 30 Jan 1995 09:33:57 +1000
In article <3fv77k$ggi@rebecca.albany.edu>, pn8886@csc.albany.edu (Phil
Nicholls) wrote:
> In article <3fuu86$pep@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Sir CPU <sircpu@aol.com> wrote:
> >-In general, the average human will not hold his or her breath
> >-for three minutes OR run a four minute mile. Both are
> >-achieved by training. However, I am willing to bet that
> >-bipedal running is energetically more efficient than swimming.
> >-Every child, unless physically disabled, learns to walk and
> >-run. Every child does not learn to swim and some people never
> >-learn to swim.
> >
> >- Phil Nicholls
> >
> >This is not true Phil. I just saw some exercise information the other day
> >that said, behide cross country skiiing, running burns more calories than
> >any other exercise, and swimming was included in the list, along with
> >bicycling and some other activities.
> >
> >Troy Kelley
>
> That's very interesting, Troy. However, calorie burning is not how
> the energetic efficience of an activity is measured. Calorie consumption
> measures energy used but not work done. Running burns more calories but
> I am willing to bet that the amount of work you get out of those calories
> is greater.
>
Apart from the odd exception (I've just been watching Agassi chasing down
everything that Sampras could throw at him in the Australian Open tennis
championship) it strikes me that most humans spend a lot more time walking
than running, and probably always have. How does walking compare with
swimming in the calorie stakes?
--
Rod Hagen
rodhagen@netspace.net.au
|