Secondarily, please cite your references out of respect for your audience(s).
Thirdly, I believe your logic in the are of calorie counts to be fundamentally flawed.
Please note that in terms of dietary advice, there is by convention NO reference to human 'energy efficiency'. From a public education standpoint and for the ease of advice, only food energy content and energy expense (basal metab rate plus extra energy spent on activity) are revealed to consumers. Thus there is NO mention efficiency of energy output per activity performed, rather, following the caveat of "Remember that these are only guidelines, your lean muscle percentage, skill and fitness level will alter your expenditure." only an estimate energy expenditure from an activity duration is disclosed. There is thus no intention to "twist", energy "conversion" is just unnecessary in the context of general caloric-dietary advice.
- The HPB public food calorie and nutrition advisory is at: [HPB nutrition]
- The Recommended Calorie Intake (Average activity by age, sex etc) [vitalhealthzone.com]
- 'CALORIE EXPENDITURE CHART PER HOUR FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES' [netfit.co.uk]
...u eat 4 plates of chicken rice at 600+ kcal, u used that to run ur daily body functions, and the extra goes to fat. but once u convert it to mechanical power thru muscle usage,
go read about it. ..
If you are an average American male adult (19- 50yrs)with the recommended intake of 2550 cal as in the 2nd chart above, then fine, consume your 4 plates of 607kCal SG chicken rice. Please note that the 2550kCal is supposed to cover for average activity, so if your activity wasn't too strenuous, then the 2550kCal should cover for it. If however, the activity was strenuous or of a prolonged duration, then the third chart 'CALORIE EXPENDITURE CHART PER HOUR FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES' should be instructive in advising the amount of extra calories one ought to consume to make up for what has been expended on such activity.
..and nope, americans invested in green tech cos it is marketing it. oil prices? they controlled the oil prices. green tech expensive to go? start a war and jack up oil prices to 100bucks a barrel, bio/synthetic fuel suddenly appeared cheap at $33 bucks, and in 2 yrs energy giants completed their transformation with the paper earning from huge oil prices differences ($20+ per gallon to $100+ per gallon, plain income from paper gain).
and footprint a diversion? u know the pop density in sg and in US? 7000/sq km and 92/sq km. so footprint no a problem? can u fold a bike into 1/70 it's original size?
oh bikers can cramp closer. why not u suggest cars stop observing the 1m clearance?
Please note that bio-synthetic fuels may not be better depending on a few variables: opportunity cost of lad used for fuel crop, competition from other technologies (e.g. electric cars which are cheaper to run due to energy efficiency), cost of production.
Sure, physical footprint might be an issue but please keep this discussion to the energy efficiency of cycling as a mode of transport as compared to driving passenger less cars (driver only) which is the premise of my original post, which in my 2nd post to you [B.C., (28-03-2011, 06:36 AM)] showed the drive of an average i.c. car to expend 26.065X energy (in terms of gasoline) as the cyclist would (in food calories).
In conclusion, whilst I am not insisting that cycling become the main mode of transport in Singapore, I hope that having provided clear and concise calculations of energy expenditures between 2 contrasting modes of transport: cycling vs car (driver without passenger), the public can better understand cyclist and appreciate what a green mode of transport it is that they behold.
~ "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"-- Matthew 25:40 (NIV)