>walking and running the same distance takes the same

>>8052061
>he poasted it again, lol

>>8052061
did you skip out on highschool mechanics?

wHY?

Even walking the same distance separately would take different amount of energy, since walking is unquantifiable.

>>8052061
>same amount of energy
Even if that's true, running still takes more energy per unit time (power).

>>8052061
Energy = Force x Distance
/thread

>>8052061
Running fast involves bigger energy losses. You have to lift yourself a bit higher and and increase your velocity more just to lose a bigger part of it on the landing.

>>8052061
I encountered this interesting problem while working on my Hoverbike™. Energy is extremely limited therefore I had to know which method takes less energy? Slowly gliding on all 10 minutes of battery power or bombing it there at 60 mph but blowing your batteries in 2 minutes? Turns out it's the latter. Therefore for this i'll guess that it follows a similar relationship and say running a distance uses less energy.

>>8052180
Sorry I worded that wrong
*which method gets you the furthest with the same amount of energy?
Therefore the "fast method" must use less energy per meter.

I love how you retards use much high school physics to explain a complicated motion that involves multiple movements x and z axis and heavy energy losses.

Slow walk uses less energy per distance than comparable speed run. Power walking is less effective than jogging, then the faster you run the more energy you will lose and higher your energy cost per meter.

>>8052208
So why did I calculate it to be the exact opposite for aircraft?
And you can do a lot with high school physics, Stuff past differential equations is rarely used especially now when everything is computer simulations.

>>8052170
Congratulations for remembering a tiny formula. You still fail for misapplying it and neglecting real conditions - in the case of powered motion, it's merely a lower bound.

>>8052216
>So why did I calculate it to be the exact opposite for aircraft?
Because you calculated it for a baby aircraft with baby math that doesn't even contain air resistance and I don't even actually know what exactly you calculated. Fucking object with one Force vector perpendicular to the movement vector isn't equal to biomechanics of the human body.
>Stuff past differential equations is rarely used especially now when everything is computer simulations.
Except in COMPUTER SIMULATIONS THAT ARE USED FOR DEFINITIVE ANSWERS
> high school physics,
Only if you use them CORRECTLY which you don't by using huge simplifications.

>>8052223
Ok human motion is different to aircraft motion but unless you know what you are saying as a fact i am inclined to answer OP's answer based on my experience with aircraft.
> baby math that doesn't even contain air resistance
Of course drag was included.

I actually found a study here
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html and here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1283673/
Apparently walking is way more effective than running and gets less effective with speed above some threshold. Running is less effective than walking unless you run kinda fast and want to walk at similar pace.

The more important thing to consider would probably be the fact that power walking or race walking is way more heavy on your muscles than jogging. And similarly running fast is harder than running slow regardless of energy expenditure.

Turns out basic high school physics and even aircraft modelling does jackshit.

Your heart has to pump much faster and harder when running which takes more energy. Your body has to supply sufficient oxygen to your muscles which makes you have to breathe more often, and harder which takes more energy. And much more but I am not going to type out on a phone.

>>8052231
>I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm going to answer a completely different question instead, so there!