Response to Jane's post
I read a very interesting post on Jane’s blog today, and thought I would investigate her theory further. You need to read her 'Scientific breakthrough' post first before launching into mine.
I was going to leave the following as a comment on Jane's blog, but it was getting a bit long so thought I’d write it here:
As a complete and utter advocate and exponent of the Entertainment and Economy scale (TM) I am really into this latest development. Further to this, might I throw a few more ideas into the mix.
Your formula relies rather heavily on the mass of accumulated mud during said period of exercise. This concerns me on a number of levels. There are just too many unpredictable situations which might unfairly prejudice the outcome. Weather related or geographical differences - heavy clay soil, versus running on leaves in a wood, or a route that takes you along a beach or over grassy meadows, or heathered peat moors. The quantity of mud is not therefore an accurate measure of the energy expended over a particular terrain. More thought needs to be put into this part of the equation.
As far as the fear factor goes, could heart rate be considered as a general measure of exercise rate combined with the fear of running around lost in a wood in the pitch black?
Your running computer measures all sorts of stats - does it do calories burned? If so, perhaps a simpler equation might be:
calories burned (assuming your computer factors in heart rate) x geographical adjustment coefficient x injury adjustment = calories that maybe consumed in Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
A laminated table of the injury and geographical adjustments maybe worn around your neck or kept in your sports bag to allow easy and quick calculations after your exercise has finished. Here are my initial thoughts – these figures are preliminary and should be scrutinised by experts to ensure I have made the correct analysis.
Injury adjustments
injury that prohibits exercise 0
Cramp 0.7
Blisters ) 1.4
Nettle stings 0.1
Gorse related injuries 1.5
Etc
You requested that, if an injury such as a twisted ankle occurred, all Krispy Kreme doughnut benefits should be wiped out. The 0 value of this adjustment ensures this.
Geographical Adjustments (mean average terrain to be assumed)
Muddy track 1.9
Leafy glen 1.2
soft sandy beach 2
Sprung running track 1
Thick tufty grass 1.3
etc
an example might be:
150 calories burnt during run x 1.9 because it was in a muddy woodland setting x 1.5 for gorse related injuries = 427 calories worth of doughnut or roast potato equivalent.
What do you think?
I was going to leave the following as a comment on Jane's blog, but it was getting a bit long so thought I’d write it here:
As a complete and utter advocate and exponent of the Entertainment and Economy scale (TM) I am really into this latest development. Further to this, might I throw a few more ideas into the mix.
Your formula relies rather heavily on the mass of accumulated mud during said period of exercise. This concerns me on a number of levels. There are just too many unpredictable situations which might unfairly prejudice the outcome. Weather related or geographical differences - heavy clay soil, versus running on leaves in a wood, or a route that takes you along a beach or over grassy meadows, or heathered peat moors. The quantity of mud is not therefore an accurate measure of the energy expended over a particular terrain. More thought needs to be put into this part of the equation.
As far as the fear factor goes, could heart rate be considered as a general measure of exercise rate combined with the fear of running around lost in a wood in the pitch black?
Your running computer measures all sorts of stats - does it do calories burned? If so, perhaps a simpler equation might be:
calories burned (assuming your computer factors in heart rate) x geographical adjustment coefficient x injury adjustment = calories that maybe consumed in Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
A laminated table of the injury and geographical adjustments maybe worn around your neck or kept in your sports bag to allow easy and quick calculations after your exercise has finished. Here are my initial thoughts – these figures are preliminary and should be scrutinised by experts to ensure I have made the correct analysis.
Injury adjustments
injury that prohibits exercise 0
Cramp 0.7
Blisters ) 1.4
Nettle stings 0.1
Gorse related injuries 1.5
Etc
You requested that, if an injury such as a twisted ankle occurred, all Krispy Kreme doughnut benefits should be wiped out. The 0 value of this adjustment ensures this.
Geographical Adjustments (mean average terrain to be assumed)
Muddy track 1.9
Leafy glen 1.2
soft sandy beach 2
Sprung running track 1
Thick tufty grass 1.3
etc
an example might be:
150 calories burnt during run x 1.9 because it was in a muddy woodland setting x 1.5 for gorse related injuries = 427 calories worth of doughnut or roast potato equivalent.
What do you think?
posted by Rach at 12:55
8 Comments:
I think you should get out more, and leave the calculator, log tables, and slide rule at home ;)
jesus wept
you need a holiday
so
can i eat the doughnut?
well Tracy, that's an interesting question. I went onto the Krispy Kreme website where they have a table listing all the calories in their doughnuts. A basic doughnut is 200 calories, or their chocolate glazed kreme filled doughnut is 350. take your pick!
I am dismayed by the negative reaction to what is a truly commendable piece of work.
But (as I'm sure the annals of scientific history will evidence) it is only many years hence that our true genius will be more widely recognised.
you didn't factor in that Krispy Kreme doughtnuts are cooked in partially hydrogenated vege oil, making you put on more weight (and less likely to get into trousers) than the same amount of calories from nnon-trans fats. and yes I've checked on the website. Eleanor xxx
Oboejane,
I knew you would appreciate my utter buy-in to your Krispy kreme concept. As you point out, we may have to die before anyone realises the worth of our talents.
Personally I have never tried a Krispey Kreme doughnut. I assume by your efforts to find an excuse to consume more of them that they are really nice. Is this the case?
If you like them so much, might I suggest either becoming 'a friend of Krispy Kreme' (application for this on their website) or indeed doing further research into becoming a francisee of your very own Krispy Kreme emporium. I can see you in polyester slacks and a baseball cap.
elastic-waisted polyester slacks, I hope.
Post a Comment
<< Home