Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
1–10 of 188 posts
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#27 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#3Betteridge's Law of Headlines
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#4TLDR: no.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#57 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#67 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#77 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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.
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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#87 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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 (d…
I wish 14.5km/h was my "somewhere in the middle" running speed
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#97 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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 (d…
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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#10It'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.