What Is The Daily Range Of A Bigfoot?

[Guest Urkelbot]

Wouldn't something that highly likely weighs more than double the average human, which is also a primate, have bigger lungs then ?

Bigfoot would have bigger lungs due to a larger body size that follows the ratio found within mammals.  But that would not mean it increases overall metabolism or efficiency.

[BobbyO]

Bigfoot would have bigger lungs due to a larger body size that follows the ratio found within mammals.

Oh right, so JDL may have had some merit to what he said after all.

Edited August 22, 2013 by BobbyO

[Guest Urkelbot]

No JDL claimed their lung to body mass ratio was much greater than in humans. 

 

Regardless of whether that would even be possible there is no way to know unless you have a dead bigfoot to dissect.  Or at least a live bigfoot to run tests on its respiratory system..

[Trogluddite]

With regards to above, I covered 9 miles in 1.5 hours "briskly" walking home from work yesterday. I'm 5'9 so someone 18-24 inches taller with legs to match could no doubt better that if they wanted and keep on going if needs be.

Best I've ever done (not running) is 12 miles in 2 hours, when I was young. I would agree that a hairy animal, more wired for movement regardless of pain/exhaustion, should be able to easily continue going for several hours w/only the occasional stop at a creek to grab some water.  I've only ever driven deer over a short distance, so I'm not familiar with how far a moose, elk, or bear would go if, for example, hunters were tracking it.

[BobbyO]

No JDL claimed their lung to body mass ratio was much greater than in humans. 

 

Regardless....

It's not regardless and the answer to my last question was not "no".

JDL said " With regard to caloric requirements, keep in mind the relative size of their lungs. Much greater than ours. "

That isn't nonsense like you said it was, and you admitted so yourself in your last post.

[Guest Urkelbot]

I don't think you are understanding the "lung to body mass ratio". He is implying that if you scaled Bigfoot down to the average human size then the scaled bigfoots lungs would be much greater in size then the average humans. The article I linked demonstrates that mammalian lungs and respiratory functions all fit to a line with a slope close to 1 when graphed against body mass.

It's nonsense because it goes against trends in mammalian physiology and there is no way it could be known one way or the other without a body live or dead.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

On the subject of mammalian physiology I have brought up the point of the possibility of TWO species of SSQ. This is not only from older comments from Native Canadians but from the John Green database as well. The JGD has a category labeled "Face" which has listed only two face types as I said before: Humanlike and Apelike. This could indicate two different species but I would like to bring up something else about it that I'm looking into. That being the thought that a Humanlike face could indicate females with the apelike face being the males. Differences in the faces of offspring would be present of course but the general trend might remain that the two genders do look different from each other with the females being "prettier" with the more delicate features having more Human facial characteristics. 

 

Again, just my two rocks, knowing that the whole idea could be quite ridiculous. And since this thread is about range of travel then if the idea holds true it would be interesting in that the range of males vs. females could be investigated as separate subjects. Input?

Edited August 23, 2013 by hiflier

[JDL]

This is all nonsense you couldn't know this unless you have dissected measured and weighed the lungs.    

 

Lung volumes and most respritory traits of mammals are scaled to their body mass.  

http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/1966/stahl1966a.pdf

 

You seem pretty sure of yourself.  You relate mammal to mammal regardless of morphology.  How about relating human to human, then hominid to hominid?

 

Have you ever noticed that many of the best Olympic swimmers have longer than average torsos?

 

Have you read any of the studies that relate human lung capacity to human height and torso length?  Even a modest increase in height or torso length results in a significant increase in lung tidal volume, and in performance.

 

I realize you've probably never observed one close up, but their lung capacity far exceeds our own based on the respective size of their torsos.  Also, if you take a human torso and scale it up in three dimensions, scaling up the lungs also you will find that lung volume to torso volume ratio increases as you scale.

 

A better lung to body mass ratio will make a difference as I've described above.

Think back to any reports you may have read indicating how long they can remain submerged while swimming.  Also any that describe the speed and distance they can cover when running.  And if you've ever been fortunate enough to hear them give one of their long moaning howls think back to just how long they were able to howl without stopping to take a breath.

[TD-40]

Why would they need to travel so far every day? With them being gone so much and for so long, it seems like they would be exposing the 'nest' to risk should anything happen back home.

 

So, WHY would they need to travel so long every day? What would be their evolutionary/biological need for doing so?

 

If we all agree that 20-60 miles per day is not far-fetched for our hypotheses, then it stands to reason that there are less of them in number than previously thought if they are covering such swaths every day. Take a nest of sasquatch, then draw a circumference around it as much as 30 miles in diameter (going out and coming back = 60 miles per day). That would reduce the total number of likely sasquatch that exist in N. America.

[Guest]

guessing it depends on food sources and weather. abundant food and bad weather or snow would probably make the rounds much closer.

[Guest Urkelbot]

You seem pretty sure of yourself.  You relate mammal to mammal regardless of morphology.  How about relating human to human, then hominid to hominid?

 

Have you ever noticed that many of the best Olympic swimmers have longer than average torsos?

 

Have you read any of the studies that relate human lung capacity to human height and torso length?  Even a modest increase in height or torso length results in a significant increase in lung tidal volume, and in performance.

 

I realize you've probably never observed one close up, but their lung capacity far exceeds our own based on the respective size of their torsos.  Also, if you take a human torso and scale it up in three dimensions, scaling up the lungs also you will find that lung volume to torso volume ratio increases as you scale.

 

A better lung to body mass ratio will make a difference as I've described above.Think back to any reports you may have read indicating how long they can remain submerged while swimming.  Also any that describe the speed and distance they can cover when running.  And if you've ever been fortunate enough to hear them give one of their long moaning howls think back to just how long they were able to howl without stopping to take a breath.

If you look at the article I posted or any other journal article on comparative respirtory morphology in mammals you will see it fits a regression line with a slopeb of about 1 when plotted against mass. This is seen from a mouse to an elephant.

Comparing human to human torsos And human to Bigfoot torsos is apples to oranges. Without an autopsy there is no way to know what is in the torso of a Bigfoot. Greater relative mass of intestines, muscle, bone.

As far as staying underwater or running faster for longer distances, whether these things are even true or not, could alternately be explained by Bigfoot having a greater concentration of myoglobin within its muscles similar to diving mammals. You wouldn't know unless you had a sample of muscle.

My point is you can't know any of this without a body live or dead

[JDL]

So you contend that mammal to mammal comparisons regardless of family are more applicable than human to human and hominid to hominid comparisons?  And that human to human or hominid to hominid comparisons are apples to oranges relative to a mouse to elephant comparison?

Just checking.

[Guest Urkelbot]

An increase in human torso could correlate to increased respiratory function. Please share your journal source on this whether it is a general trend across all body sizes or simply a few outliers.

But you can't relate this effect across species. A cow will have a larger torso, relative to the rest of its body, than a mouse but lung mass, alveolar surface area, etc are scaled to their respective body mass.

Please share your diagrams on bigfoot anatomy to show exactly how large their lungs are in relation to the rest of their organs within these torsos. How long exactly are their intestines, or size of kidneys liver etc. On top of this do you have numbers on torso length in relation to the rest of their body? What was the sample size and how were they measured? How about relative muscle mass and density, bone density, fat content, brain mass?

No one knows and I am not sure where you came up with the facts and statistics on bigfoots respiratory fitness and metabolism.

[JDL]

Urkelbot,

 

I'm an applied scientist, a licensed professional chemical engineer.  I taught chemistry at West Point from '93 to '97 and directed 18 faculty in the coordinated instruction of over 900 students.  As an officer in the Army the physical training and physical performance of the cadets, soldiers, and junior officers under my command were a daily concern.  I'm not a stranger to physical performance and I'm not a stranger to either research or academia.  I've performed research, published a thesis that became required reading in the chemical engineering department at UVA, and have, since then, been awarded both US and European patents stemming from my own research and development.  It is likely, since we are beginning to commercialize it now, that you will have the technology I've invented in your home within the next two to three years.

 

Now, I've taken a break from the writing of a protocol for the deployment of my technology in a hospital ward to respond to your email (actually, I'm procrastinating).  I'll give you a simple source with embedded references to which you can refer and springboard into your own search.  I'm confident that within an hour you will convince yourself that I have made valid points.  Start with this meta-site regarding Vital Capacity and note the rapid increase in lung volume vs height in human males. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_capacity.  You will note that a mere 10 inch increase in height from 60 inches to 70 inches results in an increase in lung volume from 2900 cubic centimeters to 4300 cubic centimeters.  This is a 48% increase in lung capacity resulting from less than a 17% increase in height.  So a healthy five foot ten inch male has almost half again the lung capacity of a healthy five foot male.

 

There's a point, though, at which you need to stop relying on articles that are the derivative analysis of other articles and start experiencing things directly.  There are plenty of people who write things about bigfoot without ever having seen one.  I've stood face to face at close range with an 8.5 foot adult male for 45 seconds with nothing between me and him but sagebrush that was knee-high on me and shin high on him.  Middle of an August afternoon in direct sunlight.  I was close enough to see the muscle definition of his abs beneath his hair.  He stood fully erect with his shoulders back.  They were wider than a doorway, and his waist was between 2 and 2.5 feet wide.  A triangular torso with an Olympian physique.  Now, they're definitely hominids, and the comparison may not be Macintosh apples to Macintosh apples, but it is definitely Macintosh apples to Granny Smith apples, with us being the Granny Smith apples.  So extrapolate and determine what the lung capacity would be for a putative 102 inch healthy adult human male with an Olympian physique.  You can also look up the relative masses of human males of varying heights and the relative muscle mass as well.  You will find that as height increases, the ratio of muscle mass to lung volume decreases.

 

Oxygenation is a matter of chemistry.  The availability of oxygen (bigger lungs correspond to greater tidal volume) and the prevalence of hemoglobin (more blood volume corresponds to more hemoglobin and better oxygen transport (assuming roughly equal hemoglobin concentrations) translate into a greater oxygen supply.  Assuming a well nourished individual, the supply of oxygen is usually the rate limiting consideration in the conversion of stored energy to physical action, and physical power, or in the most efficient use of stored energy while at rest.  If oxygen is plentiful enough, you get more efficient oxygenation of stored energy with fewer waste compounds, just as your car burns gasoline more efficiently if its oxygen supply is sufficient.

 

You compare mice to elephants.  Where on the graph do cheetahs lie?  How about race horses?  I'm sure that they are outliers.  The danger of boiling the whole mammalian kingdom down to a single linear graph is that you normalize the outlying high performance mammals.  The few outliers are discarded in favor of the norm, in favor of the prosaic, in favor of the unremarkable.  And in a way, I feel that you are trying to lasso the remarkable and force it into the prosaic.

 

I encourage you to supplement the derivation of knowledge from the work of others with the development of knowledge from your own efforts.  It leads to advances that can benefit both yourself and others.  And it can be rewarding.  Become an Urkelnaut!

[Guest Urkelbot]

Your forgetting about mass in your vital capacity figures.  The 10 inch increase between a 5' and 5'10" healthy male also correlates to an increase in weight of 106lbs to 166lbs over 50%.  http://www.rush.edu/rumc/page-1108048103230.html

 

 

Bigfoots height and weight are supposed to be according to wikipedia 6.6-9.8ft and in excess of 500 lbs.  Considering a 7' humans healthy weight is 225-275 lbs bigfoot should have a lot more mass.  A bigfoot with a weight of 500 lbs and 8' would have a lbs/ft ratio of 62.5.  The 5' person 21.2 lbs/ft and 7 foot person 35.7 lbs/ft.  

 

A larger torso full of lungs in bigfoot isn't necessarily going to increase the rates of oxidative phosphorylation in muscle tissue over your average human it might just be needed to oxygenate all that mass.