Google called ur BS : Skipping is a perfectly fine way of locomotion, but it requires more metabolic energy than walking does at most speeds, or running does at high speeds," he said. ... "In low gravity, like on the moon, skipping is more energetically efficient than walking," Gregg said.

by Anonymous 3 years ago

Well, I think Gregg is wrong. Most children actually start skipping naturally because it's the best way of moving, but if you weigh a certain amount and have a certain level of body fat it might cease being the best option at some point

by Anonymous 3 years ago

Even if you weight withing your BMI, you're lifting all of your weight off the ground and thrusting yourself forward, which requires more energy.

by Anonymous 3 years ago

But you're also carrying your momentum way more effectively and using it to push you forward. If you had to get from point A to point B you would get there faster and burn fewer calories by skipping than you would if you walked the full distance. I think no matter what, though, if you skipped for an hour or walked for an hour you would burn more calories skipping, but you'd travel way farther

by Anonymous 3 years ago

So it's more efficient in distance traveled but not in energy used. I won't disagree with your point of traveling further but I definitely disagree with the less energy part of your statement.

by Anonymous 3 years ago

I think you've hit the nail on the head

by Anonymous 3 years ago

Do you have a source to back this up? Sounds dubious.

by Anonymous 3 years ago

a living soul shall never catch me skipping

by Anonymous 3 years ago

Test this assumption at your earliest convenience.

by Anonymous 3 years ago

Hmmm, somehow inspiring! 😁

by Anonymous 3 years ago

If skipping is more efficient than walking, then why aren't we all skippers?   It seems to me that natural selection would have favored the skippers in prehistoric times, because they would have been able to forage for food more efficiently, if what you say is correct.

by Anonymous 3 years ago