[HN Gopher] Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
___________________________________________________________________
Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
Author : freediver
Score : 69 points
Date : 2024-08-09 05:09 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.joehxblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.joehxblog.com)
| pverghese wrote:
| 7 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7
| min mile especially for the population of people who walk
| generally
| polotics wrote:
| Lots of missing variables in the equation: how much do you
| carry, how much of your body weight is useful muscle versus the
| rest, etc... I suspect the announced most-efficient run speed
| is for the most efficient (light) runner.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite generalizable. The
| lost efficiency has to be from the increased vertical travel
| required from running (followed by the additional
| stabilization required), I wouldn't be surprised if the most
| efficient ratio of vertical to forward travel was very
| similar for a wide range of weights.
|
| I'd be more interested in how they collected the data. A
| skilled and fit runner will run a lot more efficiently than a
| less skilled and less fit runner, and you'd also expect a
| skilled/fit runner to run faster than a less skilled/fit
| runner. So depending on how they collected the data, that
| could be a big confounder.
| fer wrote:
| Same opinion. There are so many wrong things with how the data
| is used.
|
| For starters, the data is biased because the basal metabolic
| rate of someone who does sports is higher than someone who
| doesn't, and that's without taking into account the higher
| metabolic rate of people who are overweight/obese (albeit for
| different reasons), and even for people who are fit, runners
| are trained to be more efficient at running (duh).
|
| But the underlying message isn't really all that insightful:
| the optimal running pace isn't the slowest nor the fastest, but
| somewhere in the middle, which is pretty obvious to anyone
| who's done some running.
| Gasp0de wrote:
| I wish 14.5km/h was my "somewhere in the middle" running
| speed
| throwaway12223 wrote:
| yah they obvoiusly never ran a day in their life :P
| Ekaros wrote:
| Isn't same true for any mode of travel? At least terrestrial.
| Optimal speed is not either top or slowest speed.
|
| Lot of factors affect efficiency, but almost certainly
| neither very slow or maximum speed is most efficient.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| What determines "slow" or "fast"? These are subjective
| quantities.
| fer wrote:
| It's true for most machines (as in, energy conversion).
|
| The main exception would be heating, and even then, it's
| usually that the optimum performance is just really close
| to the top performance; e.g. imperfect combustion of more
| fuel being less efficient than perfect combustion of less.
| statguy wrote:
| I was curious so I looked it up, it turns out that the men's
| world record for a mile is 3 minutes and 43 seconds, the
| women's is 4 minutes and 7 seconds. These are the very best in
| the world at their prime. I would conjecture that less than 50%
| of adults in an industrial society would be able to run a 7 min
| mile, which is less than twice the world record times.
| stavros wrote:
| > Less than 50% of adults
|
| That's a fancy way of saying "around 5%".
| newaccount74 wrote:
| 7 min mile is one kilometer in 4:20.
|
| You need to be pretty fit to run that fast, especially over
| longer distances.
| pastage wrote:
| As a 17 year old I got there by running an hour three times a
| week, maybe I just had the body for it low weight and long
| legs. You will be top 25% in our local 10 km competition[1].
| The track is considered perfect for running in a fast pace,
| people compete to get a good PB.
|
| [1] https://www.marathon.se/racetimer?v=/sv/race/resultlist/5
| 768...
|
| This is two minute bins that made 10km in X minutes, only
| those under an hour are included. min count
| percentage 30 9 1 32 18 1 34
| 46 3 36 89 6 38 182 12 40
| 160 10 42 162 10 44 150 10 46
| 159 10 48 176 11 50 83 5 52
| 102 6 54 111 7 56 69 4 58
| 61 4
|
| Edit: changed bin size to remove 40 minute bias.
| serial_dev wrote:
| I'd say it's obviously wrong?
|
| 7:00 min/miles is a 4:21 min/km, which would result in 21 min
| 5K, 43 min 10K, 1h 32 min half marathon and 3h 3min marathon.
|
| I can run a 7 min mile pace, but I can't sustain it for a long
| time, and when it comes to comparing running VS walking, 20-30
| km feels like the distance you should use, as that's a distance
| most people could walk daily over an extended period of time
| (e.g a week).
|
| I was never a great long distance runner, but I took it
| seriously for 1.5 years and I could run a half marathon just
| under 2hrs. The pace the whole time felt dynamic, everything
| went perfect, I was significantly faster than all the joggers
| by the river. I needed two days to recover, and the suggested
| place would have been 30 minutes faster.
|
| With 7 min/mile pace, I would qualify for the Boston Marathon
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_Qualifying_S...
| LandR wrote:
| I'd be very happy if I could just maintain a 8min mile over
| 10k.
|
| 7 min mile sustained feels like an impossible goal.
|
| Hell, my best single mile is 6:48 and I'm dead at the end of
| that.
| Fnoord wrote:
| When I did a running course, I started from a bit above
| nothing (hence first weeks were boring) and ended at 5 km
| in 30 minutes (easily, with 8 min remaining). The course
| took 12 weeks to reach, approx 3 runs a week (so sometimes
| one extra day off). I was around 35 y.o. then, so it was
| still relatively easy to get in shape. If you're older,
| this is more difficult. But the course was nice because I
| had a (Belgian) woman in my ears telling me what to do.
| Really easy. You do what she tells you to. And if you
| can't, you still give it your best. Oh, and dear reader, do
| yourself a favor: do a proper warming up, every time. You
| don't want to retract a muscle.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> when it comes to comparing running VS walking, 20-30 km
| feels like the distance you should use, as that 's a distance
| most people could walk daily over an extended period of time
| (e.g a week)._
|
| 20-30km every day for a week, i.e. 140-210 km/week?
|
| Fun fact, according to [1] 160-220 km/week is the training
| regime of world champion marathon runners like Eliud
| Kipchoge.
|
| That guy that ran across America did 72 miles (115 km) per
| day [2]
|
| But these certainly aren't "most people" weekly running
| distances :)
|
| [1] https://therunningclinic.com/runners/blog/train-like-
| kipchog... [2]
| https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20828478/ultrarunner-
| pete...
| gns24 wrote:
| I don't see why that means there's anything off. Just because
| most of us can't produce enough energy per unit time to
| maintain this pace doesn't mean that it's not the most
| efficient pace per unit distance.
|
| Anecdotally, when I start (or re-start) running I find the pace
| I can run at increases quite rapidly. That makes sense with
| this data - although my fitness is only increasing slowly,
| being able to produce slightly more power actually gives a
| disproportionate increase in pace because the higher speed is
| more efficient per km.
| awelxtr wrote:
| Betteridge's Law of Headlines
| bux93 wrote:
| I read an article about that one, "Betteridge's Law of
| Headlines: is it universally true?"
| jrflowers wrote:
| TLDR: no.
| donquichotte wrote:
| It's an interesting question, but only looking at energy
| expenditure probably does not cut it.
|
| I hike a lot and started running races in alpine territory (e.g.
| this one [1]) about a decade ago and think if you take into
| account fatigue (mental, muscle, tendons) and exposure to the
| elements (sun, rain, wind, snow), a light running pace can
| definitely make you arrive at your destination less exhausted
| than walking the same distance, given that you can move
| confidently in the given terrain.
|
| So it is a multi-dimensional optimization problem (as opposed to
| only optimizing for energy expenditure) and very dependent on how
| comfortably you can move at the given velocities.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-12ghcODMM
| fire_lake wrote:
| Having done some light ultra events myself I have definitely
| found that going faster can be less tiring overall because you
| reduce overall duration - less sleep deprivation, less time on
| feet, etc.
| Bomboclaat1 wrote:
| Less time on feet but under a bigger strain with less
| efficiency which will make you more tired. It's the same for
| all of these. >(sun, rain, wind, snow)
|
| You are are not as long in the sun but you are longer in the
| sun under a less efficient energy expenditure. You will sweat
| more because your are not in an ideal window.
|
| If you look at the Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons of
| elevation gain, even the winners have an avg pace of a fast
| walking speed. There are some hikers who only hiked these
| events and got very good results.
|
| The more you weight the further the efficiency goes away.
| Even the top runners only walk the steep uphills. And in long
| races with lots of elevation gain at the and they are walking
| all hills. It's exactly because it becomes so inefficient
| even for lightweights
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > If you look at the Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons
| of elevation gain, even the winners have an avg pace of a
| fast walking speed. There are some hikers who only hiked
| these events and got very good results.
|
| Sorry, but this is totally incorrect. The record for the
| Western States 100, which has nearly 19,000' of elevation
| gain, is just over 14hrs for men, and about 15.5hrs for
| women.
|
| Fast hiking in that terrain would be 4mph which translates
| to 25hrs minimum.
|
| The world's best ultra runners can maintain 6+mph average
| in insane terrain.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| 4mph per hour hiking is pretty fast. I can do maybe 3.5
| without starting to jog.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| That's my experience too. When I hike in the mountains there
| are places where I can run for a while without getting tired
| and gain a lot of time. Usually it's the slightly downhill
| sections. Wouldn't want to fall there though.
| NeoTar wrote:
| To me that data looks sufficiently messy that I wouldn't feel
| comfortable concluding much, beyond that running is less
| efficient at lower speeds.
| itohihiyt wrote:
| I can't say I agree with the running findings, having had to
| start training for a long distance run recently from not having
| run any sort of distance in over eight years. My physical heart
| cannot cope with 13km/h for anything longer than 1.5k on a
| treadmill. However the author has a full Wikipedia page about
| himself which is impressive.
| ralferoo wrote:
| I referred to it in my other comment in this thread, but if you
| really want to boost your range, look into MAF (maximum aerobic
| fitness).
|
| The general principle is that you stay in the metabolic range
| where you're primarily burning fat reserves rather than using
| glycogen. The body typically has sufficient reserves for about
| 30 minutes of maximum glycogen use. The faster you run, the
| more glycogen you're using compared to fat, and so the quicker
| you'll run out and hit the wall.
|
| A lot of people don't get on with MAF because it forces you to
| stop running and walk a lot in the early stages (essentially,
| you have a target HR of 180-age and if your HR is above that,
| you switch to walking), and even when your body does adapt and
| you can keep running all the time, you have to run much, much
| slower than you think you're capable of and that you probably
| want to be running at. But, over time you'll find your body
| gets more efficient and your speed at the target HR goes up
| over time. But to translate it into normal terminologoy, it's
| like you're always training in zone 2, although for most people
| 180-age is lower than the calculated top of zone 2.
|
| An anecdotal result is that I used to be exhausted at the end
| of a 5km because I was running as fast as I could. Within a few
| weeks of switching to MAF training, I was routinely doing
| 10km-15km without really feeling tired and within a month I'd
| accidentally done a half marathon (very slowly, of course)
| after getting lost and being stuck on the wrong side of the
| river for 4km longer than I planned, and then an extra 3km the
| other side. I was tired at the end of that, but I also never
| would have believed I was even capable of that distance a month
| earlier.
| Zacharias030 wrote:
| This problem was treated with a bit more sophistication by
| Harvards Lieberman in ,,A story of the human body" and the
| corresponding nature article [0] establishing persistence hunting
| as an ancestoral hunting technique of homo sapien. See figure 2b
| for the plot you were looking for. Running faster is less
| efficient but only slightly so and walking is a U-shaped curve
| like most mammal gaites.
|
| It shows that in contrast to most animals, the efficiency curve
| of humans for running speeds is extremely flat, ie, we are about
| equally efficient at many different speeds, while the kind of
| game that we hunted was not.
|
| The discrepancy allowed us to find a speed where we could exhaust
| the animal after 10-30km (as I understand) provided we were also
| excellent trackers.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052.epdf?sharing_tok...
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I'm a runner and have had a weird question, could a runner
| defeat a larger human in this way? Like if I found myself in
| mortal combat with The Rock at 260 lbs after his steroids
| cycle, could I just repeatedly run away and follow him (while
| staying out of range) until he tired out and then bonk him on
| the head with a rock, like a tired antelope? (No offense to The
| Rock, seems like a great guy)
|
| Might explain why we aren't all musclebound and huge? Although
| I'm sure food availability had more influence.
| underlipton wrote:
| Layman: skeletal muscles are expensive to maintain in terms
| of caloric and protein/water intake, and larger muscles are
| less efficient at dumping the heat that their use generates
| because volume increases faster than exposed surface area
| with muscular hypertrophy. If food and body temperature
| regulation were more immediate concerns than violent
| conflict, then the ability to gas out your opponent was
| probably less influential.
| gowld wrote:
| What if the threw a rock at you? He has longer range and a
| stronger lift.
| klyrs wrote:
| He's literally _The_ Rock. He 's not gonna throw his fam
| psb217 wrote:
| The Rock would be bad at persistence hunting, but it would be
| weird if he was so susceptible to persistence hunting. What
| incentive does he have to fatigue himself in this scenario?
| When it's you vs animal, the animal runs from you since if
| you catch it you kill it. The Rock could just chill and say
| bring it on. If you were sufficiently mobile and clever,
| maybe you could prevent him from reaching food and water
| until he's weak enough for you to attack.
| dmicah wrote:
| Unfortunately the hunter might find himself with nowhere
| left to turn, stuck between the Rock and a hard place.
| wordpad25 wrote:
| I think the term you're looking for is endurance.
|
| Endurance advantage is a big factor in many sports and offers
| a viable strategy.
|
| The issue with your suggestion is that it's not uncommon for
| massive heavy athletes to also have excellent endurance too,
| so even if they may not catch you, they would still be the
| one stalking you.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Why would he chase you if he could never catch you?
|
| He would just sit down and try to stay awake longer than you
| and then bop you on the head.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i don't think it would work on human vs human because the
| other one would go find a tool to work in their advantage. In
| this case, The Rock would get a gun and a car and then you're
| SOL.
| geph2021 wrote:
| I think this sort of technique is used in boxing and MMA:
| play a good defense, stay out of trouble, and let the
| aggressor exhaust themselves until later rounds when you feel
| you may have a fitness advantage. I think there were good
| examples of this in the early days of MMA, when there was
| much less, if any, specialized training, techniques and
| strategy. It's probably much less effective now, since a well
| trained aggressor will know how to pace themselves too.
| munificent wrote:
| Somewhat related anecdote: When a friend of mine was in
| college, he got into some sort of amicable debate with
| another friend and they decided the way to resolve it was
| through a boxing match. Neither of them had an ounce of
| boxing experience.
|
| My friend realized before the match that just holding the
| gloves up and swinging punches is more tiring than you'd
| think. So the strategy he settled on was to just put his
| guard up and not attack at all. He let his friend take a
| bunch of swings at him until eventually the poor guy was
| literally too tired to hold his arms up. Then my friend
| started swinging and quickly won.
| deathmachine wrote:
| I've thought about this kind of scenario, bizarrely, a decent
| amount recently. Long story short, assuming your opponent is
| so strong that once you're in arms' reach, you're done, you
| have to be faster than said opponent not only at endurance
| running but also at every distance between. E.g. assuming you
| start off somewhat close to them, you have to sprint faster
| and transition into a faster endurance running pace, and at
| no point can you be so much slower than them at a given
| distance that they're able to regain any ground you made on
| them at a different speed.
| saagarjha wrote:
| And what if he has a decoy snail?
| darth_avocado wrote:
| It is called persistence hunting and practiced by humans &
| animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
| hilux wrote:
| What you're suggesting seems similar to rope-a-dope.
|
| Absolutely a successful strategy.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Is your name Fabian, by chance?
| culebron21 wrote:
| 7 min/mile, or 100 m in 25 seconds seems doable if you excercise
| regularly, but not for an average human. Higher speeds mean
| higher power (watts or cal/sec), to which there are limits.
| LandR wrote:
| Depends on how many miles you are doing. If you only want to do
| 1 mile at 7 min, then that is doable, if you want to do 10k at
| that pace... I reckon you'd have to be a VERY fit and strong
| runner.
| FabHK wrote:
| Calories are not metric. Joules are. 1 MET = 4184
| J/(kg hr),
|
| and, since a joule is a kg m/s^2, 1 MET = 1.162
| m^2/s^3
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| >Calories are not metric. Joules are.
|
| To make that unit even more confusing, by convention a _C_
| alorie is equal to a kilocalorie or 1000 _c_ alories.
| ralferoo wrote:
| The article seems to actually be answering a different question
| than it poses.
|
| From my experience of roughly analysing this a couple of years
| ago when I was losing quite a lot of weight, I drew two main
| conclusions:
|
| * Calories used is a function of total distance travelled and
| your weight, your speed isn't really that significant a factor.
|
| * Walking rather than running uses about 80% of the calories for
| the same distance compared to running. It seems to be based on
| the mechanics of changing gait. If you at walking speed (google
| MAF - maximum aerobic fitness for more info), you use more
| calories than just walking.
|
| While these would seem to be opposite to the conclusions in the
| article, it's worth noting that the MET value is a function of
| calories over time, not calories over distance. The faster you're
| moving, the more calories you're using and the greater the
| distance you're covering, and they roughly cancel out.
|
| I also found it interesting that running slowly and/or walking is
| better for losing weight as running faster primarily uses
| glycogen (and makes you hungry), and running slowly primarily
| uses fat. This doesn't really affect energy efficiency, per se,
| but fat is a more efficient energy storage source, so this might
| be relevant in answering the posed question. But in any case, if
| you want to lose weight, walking is significantly more useful
| than running as you can generally sustain the activity over a
| longer period of time, and with less stress on your body.
| rob74 wrote:
| Well, the answer to the initial question is kind of obvious I
| think: running is less efficient (for the same speed) because
| when running more of your energy goes into vertical motion
| (jumping from one foot to the other) than into horizontal
| motion. Of course, above certain speeds walking just isn't
| "feasible" anymore, but running will never be as efficient as
| walking at the optimal speeds for walking.
|
| ...but if you want the most efficient way to travel only with
| the power of your own muscles, you need a bicycle :)
| david-gpu wrote:
| Purely anecdotal, but I was surprised to find out that I gained
| significant weight when I switched from walking 6 hours/week to
| riding a bike for the same amount of time. I find it much
| harder to recover from riding, which makes sense because my
| heart rate goes way higher.
|
| Riding is much more fun, but I suspect you are completely right
| about walking being the better choice for weight loss. I was at
| my leanest when my breakfast was just black coffee and it was
| followed by a 60-90 minute walk.
| kijin wrote:
| Also purely anecdotal, but I once lost 17kg (37lb) just by
| walking an additional 90 minutes a day for several months
| straight. And successfully maintained the new low weight for
| years afterward, also by walking moderately more than the
| usual.
|
| The great thing about walking is that you can just keep doing
| it mindlessly, while also doing other things such as
| commuting, shopping, running errands and taking care of the
| dogs, which you need to do anyway. The inefficiency, compared
| to running, is more than offset by the fact that it's so much
| easier to find an opportunity to walk.
| high_na_euv wrote:
| 90min/day is a lot
|
| Ive started doing 6kmh walk for 30min after gym, two times
| a week and Ive lost like 10kg in 6 months
| goostavos wrote:
| Add a weighted backpack and you can massively ramp up the
| calorie burning aspect of those shorter walks.
|
| "Load carriage" is a thing the military has put some
| effort into studying. A 50lb pack turns a brisk walk into
| something that burns 100s of calories. Even an extra
| 20lbs on your back adds up. It might not feel like a lot,
| but the difference in heart rate for same perceived
| effort is shocking.
| ralferoo wrote:
| I'm not a particularly fast cyclist (usually average around
| 20km/h), but I'm generally in zone 2 for most of my ride and
| just creeping into zone 3. On the other hand, being quite
| fat, I find hills push me much harder than running because
| I'm forced to go at least 5km/h * because of the gearing of
| the road bike and having to maintain a cadence of at least 60
| (because lower cadence actually makes it harder).
|
| Last year, I mostly switched from a road bike to a gravel
| bike and found the lowest gear far more comfortable for steep
| hills because the lowest speed was about half.
|
| * I actually can't remember the exact speeds, but I think it
| was about 5mph / 8km/h on the road bike and roughly about
| 5km/h on the gravel bike.
| dvzk wrote:
| Common gear ratios for MTB (and gravel) do favor steep
| inclines much more. It doesn't matter how exhausted you
| are, if you have a granny gear 46-52t cassette and 30-36t
| chainring setup, you're solid.
| 5555624 wrote:
| Walking is a weight bearing exercise, while cycling is not.
| That's why cyclists can develop osteopenia.
| (https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-cycling-is-bad-for-
| bo...)
| david-gpu wrote:
| Sure, but I don't think it is reasonable to perform a
| single physical activity if your goal is maintaining good
| health anyway. There is a neeed for resistance training,
| cardio, mobility and balance. E.g. lift weights, ride a
| bike, do some yoga. It is only a matter of finding
| activities that you enjoy.
| hilux wrote:
| > I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single
| physical activity
|
| The vast majority of middle-aged people who exercise at
| all, do only one thing.
| thefz wrote:
| Higher heart rate zones are notoriously not for weight
| loss/fat burn. That happens in 1-3, and only for a sustained
| period. Above you are just destroying your glicogen stores
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > I also found it interesting that running slowly and/or
| walking is better for losing weight as running faster primarily
| uses glycogen (and makes you hungry), and running slowly
| primarily uses fat.
|
| This presupposes running using glycolysis for energy. Most
| runners will do this, but there are quite a few ultra runners
| who use ketosis instead, and derived almost all their energy to
| run from fat. It's not great if you want to go very fast (say,
| track and field events), but it has some distinct benefits for
| very long ultra trail events.
| rcastellotti wrote:
| what a fantastic example of
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Hmm a 7 min mile is equivalent to 13.79 km/h.
|
| That gives you a hair over 13 min time on a 3000m run. When I was
| in the (Norwegian) military, that time would get you a 7 out of 9
| score for males, and 8 (or 9) out of 9 score for females on a
| physical test. Pretty solid score.
|
| It would also almost give you a sub 3 hour marathon.
|
| You'd be a pretty capable runner if you can keep a steady 7 min
| mile, for the sake of running efficiently!
| kijin wrote:
| Another commenter talked about prehistoric hunters chasing
| game. I would assume that those hunters were quite a bit more
| fit than the average Western dude today. It's also not
| surprising that a human body in good shape is still optimized
| for that prehistoric lifestyle.
| davzie wrote:
| I think they benefited from slower runs across the course of
| days rather than sprints to chase game. Lots of animals are
| faster than humans, but in order to cool down they have to
| stop. From what I've read, humans' ability to run and stay
| cool through sweating allowed them to, over the course of
| days track and just simply wear out animals to the point the
| animal would just collapse from exhaustion.
| fire_lake wrote:
| That is an impressive marathon time but over 3km it's not very
| fast at all! I expected military standards to be more
| stringent?
| TrackerFF wrote:
| A 7 min mile would pass most special forces (selection)
| requirements around the world.
|
| For BUD/S (Navy Seals), it seems like a 1.5 mile run is part
| of the physical screening test, a 10m30s time would put you
| 10 seconds from the "competitive category". Minimum
| requirement is 11m
|
| And from my memory, that was roughly the same requirements in
| my country for most SOF positions.
|
| But, of course, those screening tests aren't necessarily done
| under ideal conditions. But if you can do a 7 min mile, it's
| not your conditioning that will stop you. You should be able
| to pass the minimum requirements for every position in the
| military.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I use the Navy standards as a rough guide to reclaiming some
| fitness I've lost over several years.
|
| They are remarkably non-stringent. Basically the ones I pay
| attention to (running, rowing (on an erg), pushups etc) have
| a highest level that means "good athletic conditioning, but
| not particularly competitive at this activity".
| T4iga wrote:
| The difference between an untrained runner, a trained runner and
| n elite athlete are left completely unanalyzed. Given how
| seemingly varied for no apparent reason some of these points on
| the graph are and coming from an anecdotal perspective this
| analysis is not very useful, and probably even wrong.
|
| Seemingly an elite athlete must have been tracked because almost
| nobody(considering the whole population) can run the given top-
| end pace for a sustained amount of time (More that 100metres).
|
| I was hoping for more from the article, or at least that it was
| called 'calorically More efficient'.
| wiether wrote:
| It's not like the author says this:
|
| > The answer probably depends on the person. Someone who
| regularly runs, runs more efficiently than someone who does
| not.
|
| > But we can still generalize.
| derriz wrote:
| Requires a correction: "about 9 mph or a pace of 6.6 miles per
| minute" should be "about 9 mph or a pace of 6.6 minutes per mile"
| a3w wrote:
| Who does science in imperial units?! Thats what crashes stuff and
| people into hard objects. Well, then again, they use kcal,
| instead of Joule. Which has conflicting definitions by a small
| percentage. And usually, the kilo-part is hidden. Making some
| calcuations off by a factor of one thousand.
| jowdones wrote:
| I can walk for hours but can't run more than a few minutes. So
| obvious conclusion. If the goal is "traveling" then running
| doesn't even qualify. Soldiers marching 20 miles a day don't
| run'em. They walk.
| drtgh wrote:
| Efficient or not (the conclusion may be premature due
| oversimplified numbers, IMHO), the repetitive impact of running
| will wear down the cartilage and meniscus, essentially causing
| premature ageing of the knees when used routinely; this variable
| should be considered as a deferred efficiency cost also.
|
| It doesn't seem that our body sees running as a method of travel,
| given our inability to regenerate cartilage and due the
| dehydration through cooling, it sounds more like a momentarily
| needed resource for survival.
| echelon_musk wrote:
| > the repetitive impact of running will wear down the cartilage
| and meniscus, essentially causing premature ageing of the knees
| when used routinely
|
| This concerned me as someone who benefits from running. I found
| the following study which says "Cumulative number of years
| running, number of marathons completed, weekly mileage, and
| mean running pace were not significant predictors for
| arthritis".
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37555313/
| carlmr wrote:
| I found running style is a major contributor. I got knee pain
| preparing for a 10K run in my early 20s. When I stopped for a
| month it would go aways, but when I started again it would
| instantly come back.
|
| I then learned about natural running (forefoot strike, using
| your joints for suspensions) which made logical sense to me.
| I could run again, even every day, and even more than a
| decade later no knee pain when running.
|
| It does have the added benefit that you don't even need
| expensive running shoes anymore, because you use your body's
| joints for suspension instead of some gel midsole.
|
| There is a slightly higher risk of ankle injury, which did
| happen once in over a decade. But otherwise I think natural
| running just makes so much sense.
|
| You should also ease into it, because you need to train your
| calf muscles to do a bit more work.
| echelon_musk wrote:
| Thank you for providing this information. I've been getting
| hip pain when running so I'll see if I can incorporate and
| test the effects of a forefoot strike.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Every time I have had a leg-related running injury
| (knees, ankles, calfs, hip - you name it) the solution
| from the physio has _always_ included doing squats.
|
| Now if I feel a niggle coming somewhere I just do a bunch
| more squats throughout the day (whenever I remember
| really) and that usually solves it after a week or two.
| Nothing super strenuous - just like 10 to 15, perhaps 2
| or 3 times a day
|
| I have tried minimal shoes as well as super-spongy ones
| over the years, or trying to change heel strike Vs
| forefoot rtc and it seems it is only squats that make a
| difference!
|
| Good luck.
| wslh wrote:
| A little bit stretch but as someone who decide to run "slowly" in
| long distances, the other metric is sweating. If it not were by
| sweating I prefer to run at a controlled pace than to walk.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I suppose a lot could depend on form. Most people run in a manner
| where they push them selves up and slap back down. If you run so
| that from the hips up you stay at the same altitude, I expect it
| would use much less energy.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Need to take into account different body types, and whether the
| goal is to burn calories or not. Whether there is time gained or
| not. Say, walking is evidently more efficient than running. Why
| do people run then? Because circumstances demand it; because they
| like to stay or get into shape, because they want to burn fat,
| because they enjoy a change of pace, or because they need to
| catch a bus. Or simply: because they can / find it fun
| (children). Speaking of children: hopping is the most efficient
| form of movement for small children (IIRC around the age of 6).
| justinator wrote:
| _a 7 minute mile is the most efficient_
|
| That works out to a 3:03 marathon time. That's years of work to
| become so efficient.
|
| I'm a little bummed that the article doesn't touch on how can
| maintain that pace for x amount of miles, since plainly: only
| people who have trained very carefully have a chance. So that
| running speed is off the table.
|
| Stick to walking.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| One of the more shocking and helpful things I learned while
| managing my weight was to understand that the amount of calories
| typically burned from walking a mile isn't very much less than
| running a mile - I hate running but enjoy walking a lot. I used
| to think you had to run to burn any meaningful amount of
| calories, but that was not true.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-12 23:01 UTC)