To me that data looks sufficiently messy that I wouldn't feel comfortable concluding much, beyond that running is less efficient at lower speeds.
Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
11–20 of 188 posts
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#12I 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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#13This 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...
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#147 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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#15Betteridge's Law of Headlines
I read an article about that one, "Betteridge's Law of Headlines: is it universally true?"
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What determines "slow" or "fast"? These are subjective quantities.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#177 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#187 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
7 min mile is one kilometer in 4:20.
You need to be pretty fit to run that fast, especially over longer distances.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#19Calories are not metric. Joules are.
1 MET = 4184 J/(kg hr),
1 MET = 1.162 m^2/s^3Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#207 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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...