Live data from Hacker News

Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

joehxblog.com

151–160 of 188 posts

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

#151

I can walk for hours but can't run more than a few minutes. So obvious conclusion. If the goal is "traveling" then running doesn't even qualify. Soldiers marching 20 miles a day don't run'em. They walk.

Yeah this. I can't imagine running a marathon. But walk 40km straight? I'd be tired, but could definitely do it.

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

#152

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…

Try walking up a rocky mountain pass and measure your horizontal speed.

3mph at Tor des Géants means running at every runnable segment.

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

#153

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

Try running slower? If I run 50k at 7min/km I'm not tired at all, but walking the same distance at 12min/km leaves me exhausted.

The mental model in my head sort of accounts for effort it takes just to be upright for 10 hours even if you don't cover any distance at all. Low-effort running saves me half of that energy because I spend less time upright.

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

#154
post #78
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rock would be bad at persistence hunting, but it would be weird if he was so susceptible to persistence hunting. What incentive does he have to fatigue himself in this scenario? When it's you vs animal, the animal runs from you since if you catch it you kill it. The Rock could just chill and say bring it on. If you were sufficiently mobile and clever, maybe you could prevent him from reaching food and water until…

Unfortunately the hunter might find himself with nowhere left to turn, stuck between the Rock and a hard place.

This punchline is so good I wonder if you and the grandparent poster coordinated this. Bravo.

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90min/day is a lot Ive started doing 6kmh walk for 30min after gym, two times a week and Ive lost like 10kg in 6 months

Add a weighted backpack and you can massively ramp up the calorie burning aspect of those shorter walks. "Load carriage" is a thing the military has put some effort into studying. A 50lb pack turns a brisk walk into something that burns 100s of calories. Even an extra 20lbs on your back adds up. It might not feel like a lot, but the difference in heart rate for same perceived effort is shocking.

I have lived on trail, hiking thousands of miles a year with a backpack filled with food, water, and shelter. To hear the claim that hiking with a 50lb pack has the "same perceived effort" is absolutely untrue for me. The difference between 0lb and 20lb is significant. The difference between that and 50lb is monumental. For me, rucking a 50lb pack after about 30 minutes feels like I'm taking hallucinogens, and not in a fun way! Time slows down to a crawl, I can't really understand audio language or even really form thoughts at all. It's like my whole brain stops working and I am nothing but resistance to getting crushed into the ground.

I can ruck a 20lb pack for 20 miles a day for weeks, but even that took a lot of training. Doing that with 50lb feels like it would be impossible. Maybe my 135# body has some limiting factor.

That being said, I love taking out a 50lb pack just to clear my head. It's like forced meditation.

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

#156

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

There's no contradiction here. The ability to move at a cost of X kj/km has nothing to do with sustaining a power output of Y kj/s.

Your body can be thought of as a directed graph of different pools of energy with different edge weights representing how fast you can move energy between pools, and your fitness as being your ability to move energy into the ATP pool. If you can walk a km in 10 minutes for 200 kj, or run it in 5 minutes for 200 kj, and you can produce 300 kj of ATP in 10 minutes, then you're going to run out of energy running but be able to walk indefinitely, even though both are equally efficient. (In practice the numbers are going to be different, and there are more conversions than just glucose to ATP to think about, but I think the example illustrates the point).

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

#157

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

I often have to use arm swinging and pronouced hip movement to get myself out of the wilderness faster/easier.

I have found it to be more efficient than mindless hiking/walking. I try to loosen my gaite and keep upright when I remember to.

Also, having done extensive Taibata, squats, weight lifting, and cycling. Nothing compared to hiking (often steep terrain) for conditioning. I'm strong from the inside out and it (strength) persists for much longer than other conditioning exercises. And it's crazy enjoyable. Cycling was enjoyable (and far more painful overall) but it guarantees nothing for core strength and will typically result in repetition injuries (years of experience MTB and road).

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

#158
post #92

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 that's reasonable at all. I ride and trail run regularly, and the amount of time that it subtracts from my nerd hobbies is *immense*. Other poster is right, the 99th percentile regular non-professional shredded athletes I know do one thing consistently.

Since you are spending an *immense* amount of time trail running, have you contemplated the pros and cons of reducing some of that time commitment and complementing your running with other physical activity to build other areas of your fitness beyond endurance?

You do you, but it's a bit like somebody consuming only large amounts of meat and somebody suggesting that it may be beneficial to reduce some of that and balance the diet with some other nutrients.

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

#159
post #139

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

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 hav…

> 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.

Being naked helps a lot too.

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

#160
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.

Thanks to all of the peer answers here!

I pretty much settled on what all they were saying. I was taking the exact path you outlined. Since that seems to be working fine for me, and I'm also adding weights, I figured I would wait and try again later. Probably in a year or so, if I can keep up this schedule. Good luck on your exercise!

Post reply on HN