On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:33:12 +0200, Matthias Voss
<[email hidden]> wrote in rec.scuba:
Quoted message said:Greg Mossman said:"Matthias Voss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:>Even at rest, a diver with more muscle tissue will be burning more O2
>simply because there is more muscle to feed. At work, the air
>consumption rate for the larger diver increases exponentially since both
>the increased basal MR and the increased working MR must be factored in.No. Bigger animals benefit metabolically speaking, from the
declining-with-mass ratio between mass and surface.Yeah, maybe so, but that just means that the rate of BMR increase slows as
mass increases. It's still an exponential increase when work is applied
because there is simply more muscle doing the work.I tend to disagree becuase an exponential relation here
contradicts recent and current understanding fo physics.
Please provide a cite.
Quoted message said:
The BMR is irrelevant here.
Imagine we were all of sperical shape, which comes
reasonable close for most divers.
The surface increases with the square of the radius, the
mass with third power.
Which means absolutely nothing.
Quoted message said:
Surface area determines heat loss, mass heat generation. So
even a slightly bigger sphere may be able to compensate for
heat loss with a less per mass ratio of muscle generated heat.
Surface area does NOT determine mass heat generation! You're talking
out of your ass.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:And even in the resting case: "Obviously, if one subject is much larger
than another, the total amount of energy utilized by the two subjects will
be considerably different simply because of differences in body size." --
Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology 7th ed. (1986).All other factors being equal, the smaller diver will use less air than the
bigger diver at rest and the difference becomes more profound with work.That does not contradict my rejection of an exponential
relation. In fact, most small divers consume much more than
would be proportional to their weight.
No and fat weight has little affect on ATP, O2 or energy consumption
Quoted message said:
Btw, exponential here does not mean ^2 or ^3, but mostly
power with "e" as a base. Formulas expressing natural
growth, or sat/desat/uration processes.
How about you give us that formula. You're talking out your ass
again.
Quoted message said:
And the data shown by institutes studying exercise related
consumption and in sports seem to prove that a very fit
muscled diver may comsume much less than an unfit diver of
the same weight.
Please provide this cite too.
Quoted message said:Simply because he uses his muscles in a more efficient manner.
Don't listen to athletes doing body sculpture. There goal is
making their muscles impressive, not effective.
Who here does body sculpture? If you are referring to me, I'm a
powerlifter...huge difference.