What Is The Daily Range Of A Bigfoot?

[JDL]

Instead look at that portion of body mass that actually uses the increased lung capacity.  To make it simple, relate the increase in lung volume to the corresponding increase in blood volume as size increases. This gives us a correlation between a normal sized human and a bigfoot sized human.  Granny Smith apple to Granny Smith apple. 

 

Next you have to account for the differences between them and us.  For example, in Raincoast Sasquatch their ability to swim and tread water in inter-island channels is discussed.  They are described as treading water with a larger portion of their bodies bobbing above the water, with approximately their armpits at the water line.  This implies that they are either treading water more forcefully than we do, or that they are more buoyant.  Since the adult males I've seen do not seem to carry excess body fat, I would attribute the buoyancy to their larger lungs.  This, in turn, implies that the height to body mass relationship is not strictly linear, or that there is a significant difference between an 8.5 foot tall human and an 8.5 foot tall bigfoot with regard to the correlation between height and body mass.

 

Also consider those factors that may indicate a higher percentage of hemoglobin in their blood.  This occurs in some humans who are performance outliers and others who are exposed to constant low levels of carbon monoxide, and is attributable to other various factors.  It is also something that is observed in certain mammalian species which can be considered performance outliers.  Do any of the characteristics indicating higher hemoglobin concentrations, either human or otherwise, appear to apply to bigfoot based on reports of either observed morphology or physical capability?

 

Again, average mammalian characteristics are perhaps a good way to look at an average mammal.  You can start with data on average mammals, start with data on average humans, start with data of performance outliers with respect to either mammals as a whole, or hominids specifically.  Any way you slice it, you should eventually factor in the characteristics of bigfoot with regard to morphology and physical performance that are consistently reported.  For example, their physical strength (or that of a chimpanzee, for that matter) does not directly scale with that of a large human.  What does this imply regarding their physiology?  Is it relevant in this case other than to highlight the fact that they are not exactly the same as a human of the same size?

 

Also consider the environmental and sociological factors (both intra and inter species) that may have influenced the selection of genes over the millennia.  What characteristics would be advantageous?  What advantageous characteristics are consistently observed by witnesses?

 

Your analytical approach will greatly influence your conclusions.  If you insist that bigfoot is an average mammal, you will reach one conclusion.  If you consider that bigfoot are unique, perhaps even extraordinary, in certain respects, you will probably reach another.  Your analytical approach is also revealing of yourself.  Are you attempting to fit the extraordinary peg into an average hole, or are you willing to take the time to consider the specific characteristics of bigfoot that indicate a departure from the average?  The latter approach requires more consideration and effort.