Does the average person run on 96.85 watts?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Average Watts
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The average person consumes approximately 96.85 watts of energy, derived from a 2,000 calorie diet, which translates to 8,368,000 joules per day. This calculation considers the inefficiencies of human energy use, with maximum efficiency during activities like bicycling reaching only 20%. The discussion highlights that while humans generate heat as a byproduct of energy consumption, this heat is essential for maintaining body temperature and supporting metabolic functions. Additionally, the conversation touches on the energy expenditure during various physical activities, emphasizing the significant caloric burn associated with high-intensity exercises.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of dietary calories and kilocalories
  • Basic knowledge of energy conversion (calories to joules)
  • Familiarity with human metabolic efficiency
  • Awareness of physical activity energy expenditure
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Stefan-Boltzmann law and its application to human energy loss
  • Explore the concept of metabolic rates and their impact on energy consumption
  • Learn about the efficiency of different physical activities, particularly cycling and running
  • Investigate the relationship between caloric intake and energy expenditure in various exercises
USEFUL FOR

Fitness enthusiasts, nutritionists, exercise physiologists, and anyone interested in understanding human energy expenditure and metabolic efficiency.

wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
I tried to figure out how many watts a person runs on who eats a 2,000 calorie diet.

First, dietary calories are really kilocalories, so someone eating a 2,000 calorie diet is really eating 2,000,000 calories.

1 calorie is 4.184 joules, so multiply 2 million by 4.184 and you get 8,368,000 joules.

Divide that by seconds in a day, 86,400, and you get 96.85.

Is that right? Does the average person run on 96.85 watts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well people aren't 100% efficient... but yah that's about right.

Pretty amazing to think that we use as much energy as a lightbulb or two... but a lightbulb is nothing to what your average house runs on. It's like, 10-40 people would have to be eating food and working 24/7 to produce the energy a household needs. Our house uses like 2-4kwh/h... wait... how does that work. 2 kilowatt-hours/hour... yah that makes sense...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that doesn't include what you pee and poop out, but you're in the right order of magnitude. 70w is typical for the HVAC industry, barring more specific info about what they are doing (ie, a weight room).
 
It is still worse. The maximum human efficiency is 20% during bicycling and generally as low as 5%.
 
quark said:
It is still worse. The maximum human efficiency is 20% during bicycling and generally as low as 5%.

Efficiency in what terms? In terms of motive energy?

Keep in mind the body's primary use of energy is to maintain temperature. Unlike an internal combustion engine, the heat is not simply waste -- it's essential to the survival of proteins and enzymes necessary for human life.

- Warren
 
Besides - in the sense we're talking about (generating heat), humans are near 100% efficient. The energy that doesn't go toward building new cells (thus, absorbed as chemical energy) all becomes heat.
 
I think there's another way: use Stefan-Boltzmann law:

q=\sigma(T_{body}^4-T_{room}^4)A_{body}

That's a lose by radiation (which is not negligible at all under standard room conditions). Try to plug in numbers, I remember it works.
 
If you are running up a flight of stairs or something, you could be using more than 1000 watts, if you are sprinting that is...
 
moose said:
If you are running up a flight of stairs or something, you could be using more than 1000 watts, if you are sprinting that is...

Yeah, and go ahead and figure out how many flights you have to run to use up just one can of Pepsi! (I was astonished anyway!)

-Dan
 
  • #10
I can't understand why anyone would want to run up stairs to get exercise. I can't even think of a less enjoyable place to exercise than a dank, confined indoor stairwell. I can burn off a can of Pepsi in 3 miles on my bike -- three very enjoyable miles surrounded by nature and fresh air -- in nine minutes.

Big deal.

- Warren
 
  • #11
For running 3 miles in 9 minutes the path must be facing downwards all the time. When I was in Spain, 17-18 years old (my best moment of shape), I used to run 10 km in 15 minutes in a open-air closed road circuit with my road bicycle. :-p
 
  • #12
What? I'm not talking about running, I'm talking about bicycling. And 3 miles in 9 minutes is 20 miles an hour, which is my normal cruising speed on flats. My fastest recorded flat sprint is about 32 mph for about five minutes.

- Warren
 
  • #13
chroot said:
I can't understand why anyone would want to run up stairs to get exercise. ... I can burn off a can of Pepsi in 3 miles on my bike -- three very enjoyable miles surrounded by nature and fresh air -- in nine minutes.
- Warren

Burning calories surrounded by nature sounds very appealing! Yet I do understand why folks want to run up stairs.. It builds up some different muscles, especially those that come in handy for hiking mountain trails and surface swim with scuba gear.. It is also an intense workout to build stamina. Though I would save it for the colder months or bad weather. We run hills in fresh air, during nice weather for the same effect. :-p
 
  • #14
chroot said:
I can't understand why anyone would want to run up stairs to get exercise. I can't even think of a less enjoyable place to exercise than a dank, confined indoor stairwell. I can burn off a can of Pepsi in 3 miles on my bike -- three very enjoyable miles surrounded by nature and fresh air -- in nine minutes.

Big deal.

- Warren
Clearly, you did not wrestle in high school. "Enjoyment" has nothing to do with why you run a stairwell (though usually "punishment" did...).
 
  • #15
chroot said:
Efficiency in what terms? In terms of motive energy?


- Warren

That is what I meant. If we difine the efficiency as useful energy/energy input, the human actions have a maximum efficiency of 20%. The metabolic activities consume much less energy, for example, human heart consumes about 5 Watt/min.

Including human body, inefficiency of any machine finally leads to heat whether it is required or not. If all the heat generated by the body is required to maintain the temperature, there won't be any perspiration, perhaps.
 
  • #16
quark said:
That is what I meant. If we difine the efficiency as useful energy/energy input, the human actions have a maximum efficiency of 20%. The metabolic activities consume much less energy, for example, human heart consumes about 5 Watt/min.

I don't know what a Watt per minute is.

Besides, like I said, the efficiency of muscle is much higher than 20%, even though the entire human body has to keep itself warm to function, and thus uses a lot of energy to maintain temperature.

If all the heat generated by the body is required to maintain the temperature, there won't be any perspiration, perhaps.

Except when you're burning a thousand calories an hour on a bike. Even if your muscles are 90% efficient, you're still dissipating as much heat from muscle contractions as you do while sleeping.

- Warren
 
  • #17
ah.. that is a blunder. Please read it as Joules/min. For other things, I should better refrain myself from commenting.

Thanks for your views.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
31K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
19K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K