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

121–130 of 188 posts

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

#121

Post by shrubble »

shiroiushi wrote: post #109
shrubble wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

However people who exercise a lot, sweat more efficiently; so I figure it should be roughly equal.

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

#122

Post by lowdest »

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. :(

Same here! Have you found a solution? I was pretty happy with 3 miles 3-4 times per week, 10 to 11 minute pace, but apparently for me that's pushing too hard according to zone training. I tried going much slower, and even then my HR raises more slowly, but eventually gets way up there. Alternating my slowest possible jog and walking has taken all the fun out of running for the time being.

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

#123

Post by brewdad »

TrackerFF wrote: post #25

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 runnin…

You actually need to run 6:51/mi to break 3 hours in a marathon.

Source: Guy who once ran a marathon in 3:00:06.

I did eventually break 3 hours multiple times but that near miss hurt for a long time. And yes, anyone who can run that fast, even for a single mile, is above average by a fair bit.

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

#124

Post by CrimpCity »

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…

Short answer no. This is because what gets exhausted is aerobic capacity. When you get within striking range The Rock will still have access to fast twitch muscles & some reduced amount of glycogen for energy release. This would probably be enough to grab you and choke you out. Basically the Mountain vs the Viper fight from game of thrones.

If you were of similar size then yes. Basically being smaller really sucks in a fight. So if you can reasonably deflect the Rocks wrestling & grappling offensive you could rope a dope him causing him to gas out and then win. Higher weight MMA fighters & boxers use this tactic all the time. They let their opponent “punch themselves out” and then get off their own offense.

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

#125

Post by jdubner »

culebron21 wrote: post #14

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.

> 7 min/mile, or 100 m in 25 seconds seems doable if you excercise regularly ...

I have to disagree. I run 20 miles per week at about 11 min/mile yet could not run a single 7-minute mile to save my life. The best I can do at a "max effort" is a single 9-minute mile. Never even a 100-yard stretch in the 8s.

But then, I'm 77 years old.

Nowhere in this discussion have I seen an accounting for age. Perhaps with advancing age walking is more efficient (whatever the metric) regardless. Anecdotally (I see that word used here a lot ) I don't see any other runners my age, only walkers, so that must be true.

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

#126

Post by fumar »

CrimpCity wrote: post #124
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…

Short answer no. This is because what gets exhausted is aerobic capacity. When you get within striking range The Rock will still have access to fast twitch muscles & some reduced amount of glycogen for energy release. This would probably be enough to grab you and choke you out. Basically the Mountain vs the Viper fight from game of thrones. If you were of similar size then yes. Basically being smaller really sucks in…

Wouldn’t the endurance preferred human eventually reach a safe distance and not have to fight?

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

#127

Post by NoPicklez »

rtchau wrote: post #106

No, 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 wh…

We aren't talking about sprinting or 120% type running in this debate.

We used to catch our prey through running, but not at breakneck speeds. Humans are absolutely made for endurance running, but not at 120% speeds.

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

#128

Post by exabrial »

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

This is going to sound crazy, but get a Garmin watch and zone 2 train. Three years ago I couldn’t ride 5 miles on my bike. This year I completed my second Unbound 100mi. Honestly I could go a lot further if I had enough nutrition and fixed all the creature comforts like seat and glasses.

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

#129

Post by vostok »

lowdest wrote: post #122
taeric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :(

Same here! Have you found a solution? I was pretty happy with 3 miles 3-4 times per week, 10 to 11 minute pace, but apparently for me that's pushing too hard according to zone training. I tried going much slower, and even then my HR raises more slowly, but eventually gets way up there. Alternating my slowest possible jog and walking has taken all the fun out of running for the time being.

You cam just ignore the Zone 2 advice as a relatively new runner. It's more useful when you're running high mileage.

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

#130

Post by YZF »

lowdest wrote: post #122
taeric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :(

Same here! Have you found a solution? I was pretty happy with 3 miles 3-4 times per week, 10 to 11 minute pace, but apparently for me that's pushing too hard according to zone training. I tried going much slower, and even then my HR raises more slowly, but eventually gets way up there. Alternating my slowest possible jog and walking has taken all the fun out of running for the time being.

When people talk about "Zone 2" they generally do not refer to a specific % of max heart rate. The simple answer is at this volume of training (3-4 times a week 30 minutes) don't even worry about it. Just run. Zone 2 is an optimization. Can you talk while running at this pace? Can you hold a conversation? I think it's unlikely you can over-train at this volume though if you've never run maybe you ease into this over a couple of months.

Adding distance/time into your program is probably going to help, as long as you don't feel too tired/sore or that you're over-training

Consider adding interval training to your regime. That's a more time efficient way of improving your VO2MAX (which should translate to your overall performance). E.g. 1-2 minutes 90%-100%, 1-2 minutes walk/slow/jog, x3-5 (this is rough, do some reading and see what works for you).

Post reply on HN