Foot pounds-force second to Kilocalories (th)/hour

James Watt calculated that a mill horse could turn a mill wheel 144 times per hour, doing 32,572 ft·lbf of work per minute — he rounded up to 33,000 ft·lbf/min (550 ft·lbf/s) for marketing purposes. He wanted to sell steam engines by comparing them to horses, so he likely overestimated the horse to make his engines look like better value. A real horse sustains closer to 350–500 ft·lbf/s, so Watt's "1 HP" is actually more than one horse.

Power (ft·lbf/s) = Torque (ft·lbf) × RPM × 2π / 60. This is the workhorse formula (pun intended) of US mechanical engineering. For example, an engine producing 200 ft·lbf of torque at 3,000 RPM delivers 200 × 3,000 × 6.2832 / 60 = 62,832 ft·lbf/s ≈ 114 hp. The formula works because angular velocity in rad/s times torque in ft·lbf gives power directly in ft·lbf/s.

Pushing with 1 pound of force at 1 foot per second — roughly the effort of slowly sliding a light book across a table against friction. Lifting a 1-pound weight 1 foot in 1 second. Turning a doorknob with a very light touch. It's about 1.36 watts — enough to dimly light an LED. In human terms, it's almost effortless: casual walking produces about 50–80 ft·lbf/s of mechanical power, and you don't even notice.

Yes, particularly in ballistics (muzzle energy rates), mechanical testing (dynamometer output), agricultural machinery specs, and industrial equipment designed for the US market. However, even in the US, many engineering firms are switching to SI units for international compatibility. The automotive industry increasingly quotes power in both hp and kW. Aerospace has been mostly metric since the 1990s. Ft·lbf/s survives mainly in traditional mechanical and manufacturing industries.

Bullets are rated in ft·lbf of muzzle energy (not per second), but the power of a firearm is the muzzle energy divided by barrel time. A .308 rifle bullet exits with about 2,600 ft·lbf of energy over a barrel transit time of ~0.001 seconds, meaning the instantaneous power is roughly 2,600,000 ft·lbf/s (about 3,500 hp). That's why rifle recoil feels punchy — for a millisecond, you're absorbing the reaction force of a truck engine.

In microgravity, muscles never work against their own weight — even walking requires zero effort. ISS astronauts exercise ~2.5 hours/day burning 400–600 kcal/h on resistive machines and treadmills with bungee harnesses, yet still lose 1–2% muscle mass per month. The problem is not total energy expenditure but the absence of constant low-level gravitational loading that Earth provides 24/7. Ground-based standing and walking burn only 80–120 kcal/h but provide continuous mechanical stimulus that exercise bursts cannot fully replace.

Most machines use crude formulas based only on speed/resistance and assume a 70–80 kg user. They often report gross calories (including resting metabolic rate you'd burn anyway) rather than net additional calories from exercise. Studies show treadmills overestimate by 15–20%, ellipticals by 25–40%, and stationary bikes by 10–15%. The machines have an incentive to flatter you — higher numbers keep you coming back. Always discount the displayed number by at least 20%.

Surprisingly little extra. The brain uses about 20% of resting metabolic energy (~15–20 kcal/h) regardless of what you are thinking. Intense mental work — chess tournaments, exams, complex coding — increases brain glucose consumption by only 5–10%, adding roughly 1–2 kcal/h. Chess grandmasters who lose weight during tournaments are not burning it with their brains — they lose it through stress hormones elevating heart rate, skipping meals, and disrupted sleep. The brain is always "on" at nearly full power; thinking harder barely moves the needle.

Almost linearly for weight-bearing exercise: a 100 kg person burns roughly 60–70% more kcal/h than a 60 kg person walking or running at the same speed. For cycling and swimming (where body weight is supported), the difference is smaller — maybe 20–30%. This is why heavier people find it "easier" to create a caloric deficit through exercise, and why lightweight people need to exercise longer for the same caloric burn. It's simple physics: moving more mass requires more energy.

Basal Metabolic Rate for adults is typically 55–85 kcal/h (1,300–2,000 kcal/day), depending on age, sex, weight, and muscle mass. It accounts for 60–75% of total daily energy expenditure — far more than exercise for most people. This is why crash diets backfire: severe calorie restriction can drop BMR by 10–20% (metabolic adaptation), reducing your burn by 200–400 kcal/day. Your body literally becomes more efficient, fighting your weight loss efforts.