I think calorie-wise running/jogging is roughly half the time to cover a distance for twice the calories per second compared to moderate walking.
You could slice this a million ways to tease out many different efficiencies.
Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
101–110 of 188 posts
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#102This 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…
[dead]
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 do…
Also, walking doesn't trigger your appetite as much as running or weight lifting for the same calorie expenditure. That's purely anecdotal but what I've come to conclude. One poster said walking doesn't burn glycogen, which is your immediate fuel source. That correlates because your body needs immediate fuel much more than fat stores.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#104Hmm 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 runnin…
That is an impressive marathon time but over 3km it’s not very fast at all! I expected military standards to be more stringent?
My lay observance is many soldier's are stronger+heavier than WWII for example. Strength doesn't quite offset the increased body weight effects when it comes to running medium to long distances. So typically you'd be right, but recently I think we're selecting for strength which requires higher bodymass more than in the past.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#105This 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…
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 are…
Wasn't there a Game of Thrones episode which had this exact scenario? As I recall, it didn't go well for the runner guy.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#106No, I don't believe that it would be. In terms of "calories expended over distance", it'd be pretty close, but we're made for endurance, not raw speed. From what I understand, the energy budget of the human body is tuned for 2 things: neurological activity (the energy consumption of which far exceeds any other animal on earth) and endurance.
It's what makes us such terrifying hunters... prey can outrun us but then when they invariably have to stop to recover, we eventually just turn up and they have to keep running again.
So, any activity where you're cranking the ol' powerhouse up to 120% and going for a run is going to incur a cost, both in terms of energy consumption (which, as the post demonstrates, is slightly more efficient than a fast-paced walk), but then also the resultant metabolic waste which needs to be eliminated, which is a process that takes place during recovery in the 24hrs or so after you've completed your "efficient" 7-minute mile, and I don't believe the article takes this into account.
I watched an interesting video recently (I think it was Kurzgesagt?) that talks about the illusion of high-intensity activity vs low-intensity but longer-duration activity.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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…
> 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.
Tor des Géants (78,700' over 205 mi) men's record is 66:44 at just over 3 mph and that doesn't touch the Barkley marathon with 60,000' gain and under 2mph, though that's more to do with the rough terrain than elevation.
190' per mile isn't that much, especially since the Western 100 ends 5,000' lower than it starts.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 guar…
Was your friend perhaps Muhommed Ali, fighting George Foreman in Zaire? Or perhaps Homer Simpson fighting Drederick Tatum?
I think you mean Homer Simpson vs. Boxcar Bob.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 are…
The reason it works against deer is that they can only get rid of a certain amount of heat; once they reach their maximum temperature they are not able to continue moving. The Rock, being human is able to exhaust at least as much heat as you, taking away from your advantage.
>The Rock, being human is able to exhaust at least as much heat as you, taking away from your advantage.
I'm not so sure about this. The Rock has only slightly more surface area than I do (due to his larger physical size); it's not a huge amount more, certainly not double. However, he has much more muscle mass than I do, probably more than double. Therefore, his surface-area/muscle-mass ratio should be lower, meaning he should have less ability to exhaust heat than me. (Muscle mass is what generates all the heat.) Therefore, over time, he should get overheated more quickly than me, though of course this depends entirely on our relative physical activity while we're trying to fight or avoid the other.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#110It'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…
I'm no athlete, just get around town on foot a lot. Even on sidewalks with no baggage, running at a medium pace with a springy step seems less tiring.
If I'm wrong about that, at least it's obviously easier to run downhill. When walking, it can even take more effort vs flat. But when running, by definition both feet leave the ground at some points, so you have less friction and can let gravity do its thing.