Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

joehxblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 188 posts

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#111

Post by arghnoname »

jaggederest wrote: post #99
ithinkso wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop when I'm late I'm tired beyond belief and I just cannot maintain running, have to stop

You are probably sprinting to the bus stop, not running. Running would be below your aerobic threshold, for however well you're trained, and thus should not leave you exhausted or wiped out. The general rule of thumb is that if you can't have a conversation, you're exceeding your aerobic threshold and so are exceeding your pace. Training increases what that pace is, but ultimately no (land?) mammal can exceed their a…

This is true, but just to quantify it a bit, a lot of people can run at their lactate threshold for about an hour. This isn't 'long' but may be longer than most people think.

That said, I remember doing similar 'runs to the parking lot' and being gassed when I was totally untrained despite being capable of long walks/hikes. I suspect there are even more basic adaptations one needs to be able to do these very short activities for which a more trained individual can complete anaerobically.

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#112

Post by taeric »

jaggederest wrote: post #99
ithinkso wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop when I'm late I'm tired beyond belief and I just cannot maintain running, have to stop

You are probably sprinting to the bus stop, not running. Running would be below your aerobic threshold, for however well you're trained, and thus should not leave you exhausted or wiped out. The general rule of thumb is that if you can't have a conversation, you're exceeding your aerobic threshold and so are exceeding your pace. Training increases what that pace is, but ultimately no (land?) mammal can exceed their a…

I started trying to pay attention and do some "zone 2" training recently. I came to the sad realization that a moderate jog pushes me well over zone 2. :(

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#113

Post by RachelM71948937 »

taeric wrote: post #112
jaggederest wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are probably sprinting to the bus stop, not running. Running would be below your aerobic threshold, for however well you're trained, and thus should not leave you exhausted or wiped out. The general rule of thumb is that if you can't have a conversation, you're exceeding your aerobic threshold and so are exceeding your pace. Training increases what that pace is, but ultimately no (land?) mammal can exceed their a…

I started trying to pay attention and do some "zone 2" training recently. I came to the sad realization that a moderate jog pushes me well over zone 2. :(

[dead]

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#114

Post by JadeNB »

shiroiushi wrote: post #105
Mistletoe wrote: post #59

Earlier 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…

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.

Probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_and_the_Viper

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#115

Post by alberth »

Mistletoe wrote: post #59
Zacharias030 wrote: post #13

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…

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…

A corollary might be military special forces.

The biggest most muscular individuals rarely make it through training eval.

Even though you need to run with 70lb rucksack, it’s typically the fit & trim person (lighter body weight) who succeeds.

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#116

Post by matthew-wegner »

ithinkso wrote: post #93
Zacharias030 wrote: post #13

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…

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop when I'm late I'm tired beyond belief and I just cannot maintain running, have to stop

Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#117

Post by ithinkso »

matthew-wegner wrote: post #116
ithinkso wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop when I'm late I'm tired beyond belief and I just cannot maintain running, have to stop

Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.

> i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint

I did horse riding for a bit, that is not true. There is a lot of speed ranges you can choose from

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#118

Post by OrigamiPastrami »

matthew-wegner wrote: post #116
ithinkso wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop when I'm late I'm tired beyond belief and I just cannot maintain running, have to stop

Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.

> hoofed animals can only walk or sprint

Horses have more than two speeds. They can walk, trot, gait, gallup.

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#119

Post by matthew-wegner »

ithinkso wrote: post #117
matthew-wegner wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.

> i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint I did horse riding for a bit, that is not true. There is a lot of speed ranges you can choose from

I was trying to help with a simplified mental model. Sorry, I thought the "another way to think about it" part was clearer than it might have been.

The linked paper in the parent comment has a graph on page 347 (page 2 of the content). The human's walk curve is substantially more efficient than the other gaits, included on the graph, which is the point I was trying to make. Humans best their caloric/distance ratios over time ("endurance hunting").

Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

#120

Post by matthew-wegner »

OrigamiPastrami wrote: post #118
matthew-wegner wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.

> hoofed animals can only walk or sprint Horses have more than two speeds. They can walk, trot, gait, gallup.

I guess the precise definition would be most ungulates, but not migratory ungulates?

> Although not extensively studied in non-humans, endurance running is unique to humans among primates, and uncommon among quadrupedal mammals other than social carnivores (such as dogs and hyenas) and migratory ungulates (such as wildebeest and horses)

Anyway I was attempting a clumsy metaphor to aid someone's understanding, not trying to be pedantic. It's easiest to compare sprinting and not-sprinting.

Post reply on HN