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. :(
You might want to check yourself for conditions such as asthma in that case. Mild cases often go undiagnosed but medication makes a huge difference on the heart rate during a slow jog.
Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
161–170 of 188 posts
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
When biking, it really doesn't help that I have some silly hills surrounding the house. Even if I'm not going all out, a 10% climb takes its toll.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#163> 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.
Calorie is a part of International System of Units (SI). But I agree it's lame.
Like all SI derived units, the joule is obtained by multiplying or dividing any number of SI base units, without using numeric scaling factors. 1 joule = 1 newton × 1 kilogram = m^2 × kg × s^−2.
The calorie measures the same quantity as the joule (energy or work), but 1 calorie = 4.184 joules. SI generally disallows having multiple units that measure the same quantity (e.g. tesla vs. gauss), especially ones that have numerical scaling factors (e.g. 1 bar = 100 kilopascals).
Quotes and references:
> the kcal is not officially part of the International System of Units (SI), and is regarded as obsolete, having been replaced in many uses by the SI derived unit of energy, the joule (J)
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
> (this page does not contain any mention of the word "calorie")
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
> (Section 4: Units outside the SI) (page 29) Examples of other non-SI units: calorie
> (page 52) (year 1948) calorie
> (Section 2.2: SI derived units) (page 21) SI derived units with special names and symbols: joule | J | N ⋅ m | m^2 ⋅ kg ⋅ s^−2
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#164Earlier 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…
Is your name Fabian, by chance?
Lightly-armed Athenians trapped heavily-armed Spartans in hilly terrain, and instead of fighting them in a phalanx, wore them down with a long day of hit-and-run. Hundreds of exhausted Spartans were taken alive, which was a massive scandal for the Spartan reputation at the time.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#165This 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
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#166Earlier 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…
Make him angry (by publicly confronting him about his juicing or something) and have him want to chase you down.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#167Earlier 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.
My heart rate goes down way faster, so if I stop for 1 second (literally), my heart rate drops immediately and it takes a lot of effort for it to go back up.
I suspect at this point training in zone 2 is trivial, my body gets naturally there
TL; DR; train hard first, your heart gets stronger and brings you to zone 2 naturally?
I'm no athlete or expert, so please do your research and ignore everything I said
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#168It'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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#169Earlier 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…
I think this sort of technique is used in boxing and MMA: play a good defense, stay out of trouble, and let the aggressor exhaust themselves until later rounds when you feel you may have a fitness advantage. I think there were good examples of this in the early days of MMA, when there was much less, if any, specialized training, techniques and strategy. It's probably much less effective now, since a well trained aggr…
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#170Hmm 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?