Yes, the measurement for locomotion efficiency is "how much energy are you spending" per "how much distance can you travel". That's not "my" definition.
I would agree that humans are probably the most efficient runners (but usually this discussion is about non-human animals).
However scientists have shown that because of a spring-like action in their tail muscles, Kangaroos are incredibly efficient - moreso than any other land-animal (possibly besides humans - I've never seen a side-by-side comparison there).
(To be clear, Cheetahs are so inefficient with their speed, they can only manage high speeds for a couple of seconds. And if a cheetah sprints at high speed and doesn't catch prey a couple times in a row, that Cheetah will certainly die from simply using up all their energy.)
Then by definition the animal that can travel the most distance is the most efficient, regardless of how much energy is used. An animal can be more efficient over a short distance, even if a different animal is more efficient over a longer distance. And larger muscles use more energy than smaller muscles, even at rest. So the base energy used will be less for a smaller animal.
this discussion is about non-human animals
My original comment was a response to the ridiculous statement that kangaroos are the most efficient of all animals.
Then by definition the animal that can travel the most distance is the most efficient, regardless of how much energy is used.
Huh? That's not how ratios work.
If animal A can run 10 miles but uses 10,000 Calories of energy, that is less efficient than an animal that can run 5 miles using 500 Calories of energy.
0
u/coffeebribesaccepted 16d ago
So your measurement of efficiency is only over a certain distance? Many animals including humans can maintain their gait for miles and miles.