Does Running or Walking the Same Distance Use More Energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ddelaiarro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity Work
AI Thread Summary
Running and walking the same distance can involve different energy expenditures due to factors beyond just the work done in moving a mass. While the basic physics suggests that the work done (force times distance) remains constant for equal masses over the same distance, the energy used in running includes additional factors like increased heart rate and heat production. The discussion highlights that while the mechanical work may be similar, the total energy expenditure differs due to physiological responses. The concept of energy output must account for kinetic energy changes and thermal energy generated during the activity. Ultimately, running typically results in higher overall energy expenditure compared to walking, despite the same distance covered.
ddelaiarro
Messages
41
Reaction score
3
You'll have to excuse me if this issue has been discussed here before. I did about 30 minutes worth of searching and didn't come upon it, so I decided to post.

A colleague and I had a lengthy discussion today on whether running a set distance spends more calories (energy) than walking that same distance.

My main argument centered around moving a mass over a distance.

My contention is that work is the product of force and distance:

W = F * d

If the same mass, m, is moved across the same distance, d, then the same force, F, is exerted. The hinge point of my argument is the assumption that your acceleration/deceleration is instantaneous.

If you look at the free body diagram, you'll note that you have force acting in two axis on the mass.

In the x-axis, you have the applied force, F, and the friction force, F_f. According to Newton's Second Law, a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon. Hence, in order to keep a constant velocity,

F = F_f hence \Sigma F_x=0

In the y-axis, there's a gravitational force,

F_g = m * g

and the equal and opposite normal force, F_N


F_g = F_N hence \Sigma F_y=0

The kinematic coefficient of fricition, u, is the same, regardless of velocity. The equation for friction force is:

F_f = F_N * u * cos(theta) <-- Theta being the angle at which the plane the mass is on is at. Assume a flat plain (cos0 = 1) for simplicity here.

Regardless of velocity, u and F_N are the same, hence F_f is the same.

So, if F_f is the same, F is the same. And, in the end,

W = F * d produces the same product regardless of velocity.

In the end, I convinced my coworker that my approach was correct. Although, he didn't buy the end result.

I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on this subject.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider the heat output from someone who just ran x vs someone who just caught up to that person by walking. The work done in transporting the body is the same (assuming exactly equal body masses) however there is other energy that is spent. You have to consider total energy difference, dE = dK + d(k*Temperature) in this case.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top