Mass - Distance - Time - Energy

auntiebabs

I keep thinking I can figure this out as a science problem, but I was an art major. and haven't figure out the right equation.

MY QUESTION IS:
If I'm moving the same amount of MASS over the same DISTANCE does the variable of TIME change the ENERGY needed to complete the task?

If I walk
Mass - Distance - Time - Energy
146 -.6 miles - 13 minutes - Calories Burned

If I run
Mass - Distance - Time - Energy
146 -.6 miles - 7 minutes - Calories Burned

Here's what prompted this:

I'm really inconsistent in the morning.
I've got a .6 mile walk to the train.
Some days I'm up and out and mosey sleepy-eyed to the train
Some days I cut it close and sprint the whole way.

Something in me says that it should burn the same amount of calories.
Does running only burn more calories because you cover more ground more quickly?
Does it take a set amount of energy to move a certain amount of mass a certain distance?

Any fitness physicists out there?

LynneT44

Is it simply because your heart rate is higher during sprinting??

AllanMisner

If you're talking energy output for a walk/run, the only variables that matter are mass and distance. The only difference in running vs walking might would be movement efficiency. You may have a very efficient walk but an inefficient run. But the difference would be negligible.

Time would be a factor when you have a muscle under tension and that would affect muscle activation. The difference in effort will affect calories, but again, not enough to matter.

ElliottTN

Distance is only a factor a velocity. Mass, velocity, and time.

Check out Newton's second law of motion for a better understanding.

Edited: to correct where I misspoke about distance.

auntiebabs

Is it simply because your heart rate is higher during sprinting??

Don't know?
Because I don't have an HRM so don't know if I'm actually burning more calories on the run.

Heart rate is more elevated on a run, but for a shorter amount of time, less elevated on a walk, but for a longer time.
Just wondering if it is a wash?

auntiebabs

Distance isn't a factor. Mass, velocity, and time are.

Check out Newton's second law of motion for a better understanding.

Ah Ha! will do! I was discounting time, not distance.... Googling...

neandermagnon

Distance isn't a factor. Mass, velocity, and time are.

Check out Newton's second law of motion for a better understanding.

you also need to add biomechanics into it because walking and running are two different gaits and the energy efficiency of each is not the same.

OP to answer your question simply, if you walk and run the same distance, the energy expended won't be the same, because of the different biomechanics of walking and running.

stumblinthrulife

It's all about efficiency and effort.

Running burns roughly the same energy per distance regardless of speed. Although greater speed requires greater exertion, the exertion is lasting for less time.

Walking normally burns fewer calories than running. When walking, you are always anchored to the ground, you don't need to exert energy to leave the ground, by contrast, running is jumping.

Speed-walking burns more calories than running because the biomechanics are less efficient. In running you can store more energy in your legs as you bound along. In speed walking you are approaching the same speeds, without that energy storage.

ElliottTN

Distance isn't a factor. Mass, velocity, and time are.

Check out Newton's second law of motion for a better understanding.

you also need to add biomechanics into it because walking and running are two different gaits and the energy efficiency of each is not the same.

OP to answer your question simply, if you walk and run the same distance, the energy expended won't be the same, because of the different biomechanics of walking and running.

I think the running vs walking gate is covered by mass (gravitational mass on lifting your leg) and velocity (covers the the acceleration)

Could be mistaken though.

neandermagnon

Distance isn't a factor. Mass, velocity, and time are.

Check out Newton's second law of motion for a better understanding.

you also need to add biomechanics into it because walking and running are two different gaits and the energy efficiency of each is not the same.

OP to answer your question simply, if you walk and run the same distance, the energy expended won't be the same, because of the different biomechanics of walking and running.

I think the running vs walking gate is covered by mass (gravitational mass on lifting your leg) and velocity (covers the the acceleration)

Could be mistaken though.

no it's not.

Okay my knowledge on this comes from palaeoanthropology more than sports biomechanics. But for example if a human and a chimp who weigh the same walk the same distance on two legs, the chimp burns a lot more energy in the process, because humans have evolved adaptations that make our walking gait very efficient, while chimps are mostly quadripedal, although they're capable of bipedal walking when they want to. So the gait has a very big impact on the amount of calories burned, even when the mass and distance travelled is the same.

When running you bounce more than walking, and during a running gait both feet are off the floor, so you're expending more energy than walking, where one foot is on the floor all the time. getting your whole body in the air repeatedly is going to burn more energy. Also, energy is wasted, i.e. not all the energy you use when walking or running is used to make your body move at a constant velocity. You don't move at a constant velocity when walking or running (you have differing degrees of bouncing up and down, plus some degree of lateral motion), but you're closer to it when walking, which is one factor that makes walking a more efficient gait. You also expend energy holding your body upright and stabilising yourself. this is where the chimp is going to be expending a lot more energy than a human, because they're physiologically adapted to be knuckle walkers and climbers rather than bipeds, so they'll waste a lot of energy staying upright (compared to humans, they're pretty good at bipedal walking compared to other quadripeds). Also they waddle, i.e. move side to side, which also wastes energy.

So yeah, gait makes a huge difference to how much energy you burn moving yourself from A to B.

bacitracin

It's all about efficiency and effort.

Running burns roughly the same energy per distance regardless of speed. Although greater speed requires greater exertion, the exertion is lasting for less time.

I can't say I've found that to be true. I've varied from estimated 350 calories to over 500 calories burned during a 5k depending on going 6.2MPH versus 7.5MPH. I was able to shave off a couple minutes of the time it took me to run the same distance, but my fuel consumption (and oxygen consumption and temperature and sweatiness...) increased dramatically.

Of course, the more you run, the more efficient you get at it, too. There are a lot of variables.

stumblinthrulife

It's all about efficiency and effort.

Running burns roughly the same energy per distance regardless of speed. Although greater speed requires greater exertion, the exertion is lasting for less time.

I can't say I've found that to be true. I've varied from estimated 350 calories to over 500 calories burned during a 5k depending on going 6.2MPH versus 7.5MPH. I was able to shave off a couple minutes of the time it took me to run the same distance, but my fuel consumption (and oxygen consumption and temperature and sweatiness...) increased dramatically.

Of course, the more you run, the more efficient you get at it, too. There are a lot of variables.

A lot of research has been done into this subject, and it conflicts with your personal experience.

BrianSharpe

Running burns approximately twice the number of calories as walking the same distance would (with the exception of race walking) the formulae suggested by Runners World (net calories expended as a direct result of the activity) are:

Walking .30 x weight in lbs x distance in miles

Running .63 x weight in lbs x distance in miles

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

BrianSharpe

It's all about efficiency and effort.

Running burns roughly the same energy per distance regardless of speed. Although greater speed requires greater exertion, the exertion is lasting for less time.

I can't say I've found that to be true. I've varied from estimated 350 calories to over 500 calories burned during a 5k depending on going 6.2MPH versus 7.5MPH. I was able to shave off a couple minutes of the time it took me to run the same distance, but my fuel consumption (and oxygen consumption and temperature and sweatiness...) increased dramatically.

Of course, the more you run, the more efficient you get at it, too. There are a lot of variables.

I'm going to guess that the change in caloric expenditure is based on a heart rate monitor?

You've just stumbled a cross one of the reasons HRMs can be inaccurate, many of the algorithms assume an almost linear relationship between heart rate and calories expended when no such relationship exists.

auntiebabs

Walking normally burns fewer calories than running. When walking, you are always anchored to the ground, you don't need to exert energy to leave the ground, by contrast, running is jumping.

you also need to add biomechanics into it because walking and running are two different gaits and the energy efficiency of each is not the same.

Running burns approximately twice the number of calories as walking the same distance would (with the exception of race walking) the formulae suggested by Runners World (net calories expended as a direct result of the activity) are:

Walking .30 x weight in lbs x distance in miles

Running .63 x weight in lbs x distance in miles

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

Well, I guess there is a benefit to "running" late in the morning. Thanks for including your resource BrianSharpe

ElliottTN

Distance isn't a factor. Mass, velocity, and time are.

Check out Newton's second law of motion for a better understanding.

you also need to add biomechanics into it because walking and running are two different gaits and the energy efficiency of each is not the same.

OP to answer your question simply, if you walk and run the same distance, the energy expended won't be the same, because of the different biomechanics of walking and running.

I think the running vs walking gate is covered by mass (gravitational mass on lifting your leg) and velocity (covers the the acceleration)

Could be mistaken though.

no it's not.

Okay my knowledge on this comes from palaeoanthropology more than sports biomechanics. But for example if a human and a chimp who weigh the same walk the same distance on two legs, the chimp burns a lot more energy in the process, because humans have evolved adaptations that make our walking gait very efficient, while chimps are mostly quadripedal, although they're capable of bipedal walking when they want to. So the gait has a very big impact on the amount of calories burned, even when the mass and distance travelled is the same.

When running you bounce more than walking, and during a running gait both feet are off the floor, so you're expending more energy than walking, where one foot is on the floor all the time. getting your whole body in the air repeatedly is going to burn more energy. Also, energy is wasted, i.e. not all the energy you use when walking or running is used to make your body move at a constant velocity. You don't move at a constant velocity when walking or running (you have differing degrees of bouncing up and down, plus some degree of lateral motion), but you're closer to it when walking, which is one factor that makes walking a more efficient gait. You also expend energy holding your body upright and stabilising yourself. this is where the chimp is going to be expending a lot more energy than a human, because they're physiologically adapted to be knuckle walkers and climbers rather than bipeds, so they'll waste a lot of energy staying upright (compared to humans, they're pretty good at bipedal walking compared to other quadripeds). Also they waddle, i.e. move side to side, which also wastes energy.

So yeah, gait makes a huge difference to how much energy you burn moving yourself from A to B.

I see exactly what you are saying and agree that if you looked at total energy expenditure between animal to different animal or even human to different human then sure. At the same time I feel it kinda muddy's the water up a bit with what we are trying to determine.

For example, we could say that auntiebabs one day runs to her train and burns X amount of calories according to her heart rate monitor. The next day she feels a bit froggy and decides to run again but at the same time so is going to flap her arms and squack like a seagull while she runs. Her heart rate monitor now says she burned X calories + 200 more than yesterday. It makes sense still because energy or force she is applying is not just straight forward to her train, you've got to add in every second of good ole auntibabs flapping up and down as well. Every single motion of her body for total energy expenditure. It is never just 1 plain equation. Its thousands of equations every second added together for total expenditure at that point. Things like gate efficiency just reduce the number equations you have to add together because you are not expending energy waddling side to side like the monkey, it does not however negate the basic equation.

I completely see where you are coming from though, it just doesn't escape the equation. I believe you are looking (or I interpret) you to look at it as newtons second law is just taking account velocity moving just forward for just that second when in reality the equation applies to every motion you are making and have to be added together for total energy expenditure for that specific time frame.

So yeah, of course gate makes a difference because you are changing the amount of results from the equations being added together but it is still doesn't equate the equation, it is included in it.

Also,
Thanks for having a mature conversation about this. Kind rare and fun to be able to discuss things without F bombs or names being thrown around.

auntiebabs

The next day she feels a bit froggy and decides to run again but at the same time so is going to flap her arms and squack like a seagull while she runs. Her heart rate monitor now says she burned X calories + 200 more than yesterday. It makes sense still because energy or force she is applying is not just straight forward to her train, you've got to add in every second of good ole auntibabs flapping up and down as well. Every single motion of her body for total energy expenditure.

Good suggestion! will "seagull it" to the train everyday next week. :happy: :flowerforyou:

Lonestar5775

[/quote]

Good suggestion! will "seagull it" to the train everyday next week. :happy: :flowerforyou:
[/quote]

We want pictures

WalkingAlong

Running burns approximately twice the number of calories as walking the same distance would (with the exception of race walking) the formulae suggested by Runners World (net calories expended as a direct result of the activity) are:

Walking .30 x weight in lbs x distance in miles

Running .63 x weight in lbs x distance in miles

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

I understand this and I've read the articles. But here's where I have trouble wrapping my brain around it. Running burns twice as much as walking there because it's netting out your BMR estimate. If you look at their article without 'netting' the multipliers are like .57 for walking vs. .72 for running. But I'm going to burn about 1 calorie per minute in BMR regardless of what I do in a day. If every day I'm willing to walk 4 miles or run 4 miles, my BMR shouldn't be a factor because it's going to be the same regardless. So why would I care about the 'net calories' formula? If I run it, I'm not going to run further. I'm going to be done sooner is all. Or should my logic be that I ONLY care about the 'net calories' formula? Does that make any sense?

neandermagnon

Distance isn't a factor. Mass, velocity, and time are.

Check out Newton's second law of motion for a better understanding.

you also need to add biomechanics into it because walking and running are two different gaits and the energy efficiency of each is not the same.

OP to answer your question simply, if you walk and run the same distance, the energy expended won't be the same, because of the different biomechanics of walking and running.

I think the running vs walking gate is covered by mass (gravitational mass on lifting your leg) and velocity (covers the the acceleration)

Could be mistaken though.

no it's not.

Okay my knowledge on this comes from palaeoanthropology more than sports biomechanics. But for example if a human and a chimp who weigh the same walk the same distance on two legs, the chimp burns a lot more energy in the process, because humans have evolved adaptations that make our walking gait very efficient, while chimps are mostly quadripedal, although they're capable of bipedal walking when they want to. So the gait has a very big impact on the amount of calories burned, even when the mass and distance travelled is the same.

When running you bounce more than walking, and during a running gait both feet are off the floor, so you're expending more energy than walking, where one foot is on the floor all the time. getting your whole body in the air repeatedly is going to burn more energy. Also, energy is wasted, i.e. not all the energy you use when walking or running is used to make your body move at a constant velocity. You don't move at a constant velocity when walking or running (you have differing degrees of bouncing up and down, plus some degree of lateral motion), but you're closer to it when walking, which is one factor that makes walking a more efficient gait. You also expend energy holding your body upright and stabilising yourself. this is where the chimp is going to be expending a lot more energy than a human, because they're physiologically adapted to be knuckle walkers and climbers rather than bipeds, so they'll waste a lot of energy staying upright (compared to humans, they're pretty good at bipedal walking compared to other quadripeds). Also they waddle, i.e. move side to side, which also wastes energy.

So yeah, gait makes a huge difference to how much energy you burn moving yourself from A to B.

I see exactly what you are saying and agree that if you looked at total energy expenditure between animal to different animal or even human to different human then sure. At the same time I feel it kinda muddy's the water up a bit with what we are trying to determine.

For example, we could say that auntiebabs one day runs to her train and burns X amount of calories according to her heart rate monitor. The next day she feels a bit froggy and decides to run again but at the same time so is going to flap her arms and squack like a seagull while she runs. Her heart rate monitor now says she burned X calories + 200 more than yesterday. It makes sense still because energy or force she is applying is not just straight forward to her train, you've got to add in every second of good ole auntibabs flapping up and down as well. Every single motion of her body for total energy expenditure. It is never just 1 plain equation. Its thousands of equations every second added together for total expenditure at that point. Things like gate efficiency just reduce the number equations you have to add together because you are not expending energy waddling side to side like the monkey, it does not however negate the basic equation.

I completely see where you are coming from though, it just doesn't escape the equation. I believe you are looking (or I interpret) you to look at it as newtons second law is just taking account velocity moving just forward for just that second when in reality the equation applies to every motion you are making and have to be added together for total energy expenditure for that specific time frame.

So yeah, of course gate makes a difference because you are changing the amount of results from the equations being added together but it is still doesn't equate the equation, it is included in it.

Also,
Thanks for having a mature conversation about this. Kind rare and fun to be able to discuss things without F bombs or names being thrown around.

no probs and I love your seagull running example :laugh:

yes, Newton's laws would hold true for different gaits (human or animal ones)* just that the maths is oh so ridiculously complex because there are so many factors to take into account.

*provided you're in a moderate gravitational field and not moving too close to light speed but that's for a whole other branch of physics... :laugh: