How Much Energy Does a Dieter Use by Lifting Weights?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the work done by a dieter lifting a 10 kg mass and the energy expenditure related to fat loss. It emphasizes that the potential energy lost when lowering the weight is considered dissipated, meaning only the positive work done while lifting is counted. Participants clarify that this interpretation allows for ignoring negative work against gravity during the descent. However, they also note that in reality, humans expend energy even when lowering weights due to inefficiencies. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurately assessing energy use in weightlifting for weight loss.
Puneet Tanwar
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi -

Question: A person trying to lose weight (dieter) lifts a 10 kg mass, one thousand times, to a
height of 0.5 m each time. Assume that the potential energy lost each time she
lowers the mass is dissipated. (a) How much work does she do against the gravitational
force ? (b) Fat supplies 3.8 × 107J of energy per kilogram which is converted to
mechanical energy with a 20% efficiency rate. How much fat will the dieter use up?

What is the significance of the following line in this question?
"Assume that the potential energy lost each time she lowers the mass is dissipated."

Thanks
Puneet
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Puneet Tanwar said:
What is the significance of the following line in this question?
"Assume that the potential energy lost each time she lowers the mass is dissipated."
It means to ignore the work done by gravity as the weight is lowered. Just count the positive work she does as she lifts the weight.
 
  • Like
Likes Puneet Tanwar
Doc Al said:
It means to ignore the work done by gravity as the weight is lowered. Just count the positive work she does as she lifts the weight.

Is this the right way of looking at it: since the loss of PE is dissipated, she does not have to do any negative work against gravity on the way down?
 
Puneet Tanwar said:
Is this the right way of looking at it: since the loss of PE is dissipated, she does not have to do any negative work against gravity on the way down?
Yes, just ignore the negative work done when the weight is lowered.
 
  • Like
Likes Puneet Tanwar
Puneet Tanwar said:
Is this the right way of looking at it: since the loss of PE is dissipated, she does not have to do any negative work against gravity on the way down?
I agree with @Doc Al that that's intended interpretation of the question, but a couple of other ways to look at it since you seem to be trying to connect this to reality:

1. If a machine like an elevator were doing this work, it might be equipped with a way to recover that energy by charging a battery as it lowers the weight.
2. Humans are very inefficient machines and use energy to generate a force, even when moving backwards. So in reality you actually are still expending energy even when lowering the weight.
 
  • Like
Likes Doc Al and Puneet Tanwar
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top