The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Science
  3. General Science
  4. How much higher could I jump if I lost some weight?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

How much higher could I jump if I lost some weight?

  • 1 Replies
  • 18292 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maprikel (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
How much higher could I jump if I lost some weight?
« on: 19/05/2008 15:59:45 »
I am an aging volleyball player and my vertical jump is not what it used to be.  General conditioning and strength are key factors.  My question is about how much higher I could jump if I lost some weight.  My thinking is my legs have the strength to lift my body 15 inches, if I lost weight (assuming all other conditions are the same) how much higher could I jump?
Current weight 225 lbs
Loose 10 lbs
Loose 20 lbs
Mark

« Last Edit: 22/05/2008 22:17:31 by chris »
Logged
 



lyner

  • Guest
Re: How much higher could I jump if I lost some weight?
« Reply #1 on: 19/05/2008 17:01:43 »
All things being equal, the gravitational potential from your kinetic energy when you leave the ground would be the same for the new improved mass you will have achieved.
Lose 10lbs, you should be able to jump 225/215 times as high (about 5% better) and with 20lb loss, 225/205 times (about 10% better).
But that presupposes that  you would actually be able to launch  at the higher speed. You might need to train your muscles etc to make full use of  your improvement in mass.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

How would our weight differ on a revolving to that of a non-revolving earth.?

Started by Alan McDougallBoard General Science

Replies: 21
Views: 21130
Last post 26/07/2021 14:21:22
by Bored chemist
Is a "200 calorie a day diet" a good weight-loss strategy?

Started by niknaksbarbequeBoard Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 13
Views: 101486
Last post 29/06/2009 11:03:31
by ruzzel01
What kind of exercise stops loss of muscle mass during weight loss?

Started by nudephilBoard Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 0
Views: 2271
Last post 18/05/2020 17:49:51
by nudephil
Does rapid or slow weight loss effect the resilience of the skin to shrink back?

Started by Karen W.Board Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 11
Views: 16539
Last post 11/01/2007 15:28:06
by Karen W.
If drinking cold water helps to lose weight, would turning your heating off help too?

Started by Daniel JenkinsBoard Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 2
Views: 5505
Last post 16/06/2008 09:01:43
by SquarishTriangle
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.344 seconds with 36 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.