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

131–140 of 188 posts

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

#131

Post by jaggederest »

arghnoname wrote: post #111
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…

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 ac…

> a lot of people can run at their lactate threshold for about an hour.

I say this as someone incredibly out of shape, but I doubt any of those people are wiped out by running to the bus stop ;)

> 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.

Yeah absolutely, I found it very interesting that weight training is universal in sprinters, it makes sense as metabolic training as well as the actual muscle growth.

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

#132

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

throwup238 wrote: post #107
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Wester…

There certainly are "ultra" routes that essentially require just speed hiking. But the majority of 100+ mile ultras are not like this, and allow capable runners of moving much faster than "speed hiking" pace.

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

#133

Post by jaggederest »

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.

As other people say here, 9 to 12 miles a week is unlikely to put you in need of that kind of specialization. People I know that do zone training are running 30-50 miles a week, some more.

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by throwup238 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #132
throwup238 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Wester…

There certainly are "ultra" routes that essentially require just speed hiking. But the majority of 100+ mile ultras are not like this, and allow capable runners of moving much faster than "speed hiking" pace.

OP said "Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons of elevation gain" (emphasis mine).

"Tons" is subjective, but their statement is objectively true for a bunch of ultra marathons - Tor des Géants and Barkley were just the ones of the top of my head. He is not "totally incorrect" as you said.

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

#137

Post by jodrellblank »

hilux wrote: post #84
david-gpu wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity if your goal is maintaining good health anyway. There is a neeed for resistance training, cardio, mobility and balance. E.g. lift weights, ride a bike, do some yoga. It is only a matter of finding activities that you enjoy.

> I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity The vast majority of middle-aged people who exercise at all, do only one thing.

The vast majority of people aren't maintaining good health. Most people are overweight or obese and have metabolic syndrome.

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

#138

Post by nayuki »

> 1 MET is 1 kcal/kg/hr

These guys need to get with the program and use metric units. For example, the cycling world uses watts per kilogram (W/kg) to quantify an athlete's output. This is the correct unit to use.

To help with this, note that 1 MET ≈ 1.162 W/kg.

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

#139

Post by Rury »

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

Most animals get tired running very quickly too. A cheetah, just like you, also can't sustain a run at their max speed for very long (about 30 seconds max). But when it comes to endurance, very few animals come close to us thanks to how efficient we are. A lot that comes from us being bipedal, a good amount of our muscles being slow twitch, our ability to breathe independent of our muscle usage while running, and having a very high density of sweat glands across our bodies (10 times the density of chimps) giving us an efficient and superb cooling capacity.

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

#140

Post by shiroiushi »

shrubble wrote: post #121
shiroiushi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Then instead of comparing non-pro-athlete me with The Rock, let's pick some professional runner or cyclist.
Post reply on HN