Is there a difference if you are 6’4” and 4’6” if you walk the same set distance?
Meaning does either participant exert more or less energy from the other?
For this example. Consider both parties to be fit and healthy weight to height ratio otherwise.
Is there a difference if you are 6’4” and 4’6” if you walk the same set distance?
—————————————————————————————
Depends on whether you are walking uphill or down dale…
Mr Ironic said:
Is there a difference if you are 6’4” and 4’6” if you walk the same set distance?
—————————————————————————————Depends on whether you are walking uphill or down dale…
Why is that?
Or were you only trying to be funny?
Why is that?
———————
Because there is more work to do for the bigger guy going uphill…
On the flat, dunno, the advantages v’s the disadvantages propbably rule each other out.
Mr Ironic said:
Why is that?
———————Because there is more work to do for the bigger guy going uphill…
On the flat, dunno, the advantages v’s the disadvantages propbably rule each other out.
there are more steps required by the shorter person. why does that not factor higher or equal to the taller guy?
there are more steps required by the shorter person. why does that not factor higher or equal to the taller guy?
————————————————————
I suggested equal, because mass is less yet stride is shorter…
What are their masses?
What are their masses?
——————————————
Equivalent to their, there, they’re height.
Thanks (I think).
> Is there a difference if you are 6’4” and 4’6” if you walk the same set distance? Meaning does either participant exert more or less energy from the other?
Hmm, it’s not as simple as that. If both people had perfectly elastic soles to their feet and perfectly elastic joints and if you ignore wind resistance and set the slope to zero then the energy required for walking approaches zero. But joints and the soles of feet (particularly of heels, the rest of the foot just provides propulsion) act as spring plus ‘dashpot’ systems where energy is lost in each dashpot. The faster a dashpot operates the less energy is lost.
A lot of energy is lost through the knees, this is necessary so that you don’t accelerate uncontrollably when going down a hill.
So apart from doing a physical experiment there’s no obvious way to tell.
On the other hand, look very closely at the definition of the word “fitness”. Fitness is defined as the oxygen consumption for a given unit of work. But work here is not well defined. If work is taken to be walking on a horizontal surface, such as a treadmill near zero load, and oxygen is taken as energy input, then by definition an equally fit person will require the same energy to walk the same distance.
>Fitness is defined as the oxygen consumption for a given unit of work.
Is it?
I’ve never actually seen a definition of fitness before.
mollwollfumble said:
> On the other hand, look very closely at the definition of the word “fitness”. Fitness is defined as the oxygen consumption for a given unit of work.
Who defines fitness like that?
Seems a very strange definition to me.
Seems a very strange definition to me.
————————————————————-
I’ve always been taught that fitness can be graded on the time it takes to recover and go again.
So how much oxygene it takes to recover from the risidual lactic acid makes sense.
I’ve never actually seen a definition of fitness before.
—-
You’re remarkably polite.
dv said:
I’ve never actually seen a definition of fitness before.
—-You’re remarkably polite.
I always am.
Now, what the fuck are you doing here?
Hoping to teach and learn.
dv said:
Hoping to teach and learn.
Learning to use the oxford comma should be one of your first educational experiences :)
WTFAYTA?
I haven’t missed an Oxford comma.
dv said:
WTFAYTA?I haven’t missed an Oxford comma.
dv said:
WTFAYTA?I haven’t missed an Oxford comma.
>WTFAYTA?
Whilst I do comprehend the first five letters of your acronym, the last two do seem to allude me; saying that, is there any real reason to use such crude language on a forum that may be sighted by kiddies?
Really! hurrummphh
…and I’ve just put the lat two letters together.
I’m a fucking guiness.
sibeen said:
>WTFAYTA?Whilst I do comprehend the first five letters of your acronym, the last two do seem to allude me; saying that, is there any real reason to use such crude language on a forum that may be sighted by kiddies?
Really! hurrummphh
dv said:
Hoping to teach and learn.
To be serious, if only for one moment.
ASAIK, an oxford comma is used after an ‘and’. So, your sentence above, with an oxford comma added would become: “Hoping to teach, and learn”.
ASAIK, an oxford comma is used after an ‘and’. So, your sentence above, with an oxford comma added would become: “Hoping to teach, and learn”.
—-
That would not be an Oxford comma. You need at least items for it to be an Oxford comma.
>You need at least items for it to be an Oxford comma
Hmm.
Someone ate my three.