not true.
the same amount of energy gets burnt whether you're running or walking, it just changes how fast it gets burnt. If you're running, you burn it up more quickly then you would walking.
(Poppet some assembly required., Mon 18 Apr 2011, 9:50, 3 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

I'm sure that this makes no sense

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 9:51, Reply)

it makes perfect sense.
I'm sitting here trying to word my response without sounding like a geek and it's failing.
(Poppet some assembly required., Mon 18 Apr 2011, 9:56, Reply)

I'm afraid this isn't true, Poppet.
It's a simple energy and force balance.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 9:51, Reply)

My biology textbook says otherwise.

(Poppet some assembly required., Mon 18 Apr 2011, 9:57, Reply)

Does it really?
Does it say "You burn exactly the same amount of energy walking than you do running"
(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:00, Reply)

Don't be a pedant.
It's not clever or funny
(Poppet some assembly required., Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:01, Reply)

Pedantry aside
I bet it doesn't state that walking and running require an identical amount of energy.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:03, Reply)

where did I say Identical or exact?
I didn't. I said "Around". Ie - not the exact same amount.
(Poppet some assembly required., Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:04, Reply)

You said this
"the same amount of energy gets burnt whether you're running or walking"

Which doesn't leave any wiggle room about "around" or "exact"
(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:06, Reply)

it's about 50% more energy for running
for a given speed. I can't find the reference though, sorry.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:15, Reply)

It does though dunnit?
moving one lump of stuff from point a to point b always requires the same amount of energy if all things are equal.

.... I'm confusing myself now.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:05, Reply)

But they aren't equal are they.
It's the same as walking up a slope versus stairs. Stairs are apparently more efficient.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:07, Reply)

It's true, if you walk 25 miles or run for 20 miles, you'll burn the same amount of energy.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:11, Reply)

Then it's wrong, I'm afraid.
Some guy in the states somehow managed to get a PhD out of it a couple of years ago, but it's pretty obvious Newtonian physics. When you walk, you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs. In running, you jump from one foot to the other. Each jump raises your center of gravity when you take off, and lowers it when you land because you bend the knee to absorb the shock. This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force, essentially to work against gravity, on both takeoff and landing, which doesn't happen in walking.

That's before you even get into the biology aspect of efficiency of anaerobic vs aerobic respiration (anaerobic is more common in running and is less efficient) and issues of wind resistance, although that's a function of speed and you are talking about running vs walking at the same speed so you're correct, that doesn't matter)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:08, Reply)

not having done biology ever
and purely working from the physics point of view, that is fairly obvious
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:10, Reply)

I've done plenty of biology
and by that I mean, I've fucked your mum.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:16, Reply)

I've fucked yours
but she's so fat it was more like astronomy
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:18, Reply)

I'm not sure of the exact answer but surely for a given distance there will be
a difference due to the efficiency of either walking and running. No I get your point about lifting off the ground but I always thought running made more efficient use of momentum than walking.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:01, Reply)

momentum is purely a feature of speed and mass
so if the running and walking speeds are the same then no, of course it doesn't.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:09, Reply)

Oi, you two!
All your science talk is interrupting my thoughts about breasts!
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 9:52, Reply)

*motorboats*

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 9:52, Reply)

Kirsty McColl RIP

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:06, Reply)

haha

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:08, Reply)

arf.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:11, Reply)

Who's breasts?

(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:00, Reply)

Not yours al
Unless that's a deliberate grammatical error, in which case 'breasts' is my dental hygienist, for she keeps resting them on my shoulder while scraping me.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:02, Reply)

Is that no correct?
I thought the apostrophe was indicating that I wanted to know the owner of the breasts about which you were thinking?
(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:06, Reply)

whose

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:07, Reply)

Oh I see, as in "Whose waterproof trousers are those?"

(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:08, Reply)

Hahahahah

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:08, Reply)

What the fuck is up with your sig?

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:09, Reply)

He idolises Godzilla

(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:11, Reply)

It's from that Pearl 'Harbor' Facebook thing

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:13, Reply)

Which must have passed me by

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:15, Reply)

indeed
if Who was a person, then you would have been right
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:08, Reply)

The apostrophe denotes letters have been removed.
Christ you're thick, Al.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:08, Reply)

It also denotes possession
as in "David's car"
(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:09, Reply)

only with a name
or similar

David's...
that guy's...
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:11, Reply)

I was taught that as 'David, his car'
I was taught this in an all-white middle class school. Consequently I never make such a cretinous error.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:12, Reply)

I don't remember being taught it
it's just not that fucking hard. See also: correct use of punctuation, spelling
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:14, Reply)

I was really taught it by my parents when I was about four, I expect.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:16, Reply)

There were three asian kids in my year at school
This must have been why I don't understand English Grammar
(Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:14, Reply)

I'm certain this is the explanation.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:16, Reply)

"Whose breasts" would be correct
Who's breasts is saying "Who is breasts?"
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 18 Apr 2011, 10:08, Reply)