Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking? • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by david-gpu » Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 5:23 PM UTC

meroes wrote: post #103

kijin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also purely anecdotal, but I once lost 17kg (37lb) just by walking an additional 90 minutes a day for several months straight. And successfully maintained the new low weight for years afterward, also by walking moderately more than the usual. The great thing about walking is that you can just keep doing it mindlessly, while also doing other things such as commuting, shopping, running errands and taking care of the do…

Also, walking doesn't trigger your appetite as much as running or weight lifting for the same calorie expenditure. That's purely anecdotal but what I've come to conclude. One poster said walking doesn't burn glycogen, which is your immediate fuel source. That correlates because your body needs immediate fuel much more than fat stores.

Wow, that's really insightful. Glycogen is consumed during all forms of exercise, even low intensities. What changes is the ratio of glycogen as a percentage of all energy expenditure, called the Glycolytic Quotient or simply Q factor.

It sounds plausible that the amount of hunger we feel when we feel a fixed number of calories may depend on how much that depleted our glycogen stores, among other factors.

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

#172

Post by muchas_gracias » Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 5:44 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #162

YZF wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, I thought this might be the case. But I never got a good answer on if power zone or heart rate zone was what to pay attention to. Since I'm not competing and don't plan to, I don't really care that much. But, no reason not to try and train a bit more properly. :D 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.

My ex lost 80 pounds and went from unable to run to running ultras and she found that she had to alternate between walking and running in the beginning to keep her heart rate in the lower thresholds. On the converse side, maybe integrating some strength training or speed workouts or stair climbs will help you develop a strength reservoir to make it easier to run at a low heart rate.

Now that you've recognized how gentle a low heartrate feels I'm sure a conversational pace is totally adequate for staying under your lactic threshold (but if you could sing you're going too slow!)

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

#173

Post by riku_iki » Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 6:10 PM UTC

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

> 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

you are probably not trained as well as our ancestors, who were consistently jog-hunting since very young ages, which translates to more efficient mind-body connection, target muscles and energy systems development, and fat to body mass ratio.

There are plenty of people who can jog for many miles and likely has higher aerobic threshold for moderate sprinting.

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

#174

Post by taeric » Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 6:37 PM UTC

muchas_gracias wrote: post #172

taeric wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I thought this might be the case. But I never got a good answer on if power zone or heart rate zone was what to pay attention to. Since I'm not competing and don't plan to, I don't really care that much. But, no reason not to try and train a bit more properly. :D 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.

My ex lost 80 pounds and went from unable to run to running ultras and she found that she had to alternate between walking and running in the beginning to keep her heart rate in the lower thresholds. On the converse side, maybe integrating some strength training or speed workouts or stair climbs will help you develop a strength reservoir to make it easier to run at a low heart rate. Now that you've recognized how gen…

Kudos on that progress! I don't see myself moving to marathons anytime soon. I /think/ I could do a 5k in about 30 minutes. I would be zone 4 in heart rate for dang sure, though. :D

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

#175

Post by meroes » Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 8:16 PM UTC

david-gpu wrote: post #171

meroes wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, walking doesn't trigger your appetite as much as running or weight lifting for the same calorie expenditure. That's purely anecdotal but what I've come to conclude. One poster said walking doesn't burn glycogen, which is your immediate fuel source. That correlates because your body needs immediate fuel much more than fat stores.

Wow, that's really insightful. Glycogen is consumed during all forms of exercise, even low intensities. What changes is the ratio of glycogen as a percentage of all energy expenditure, called the Glycolytic Quotient or simply Q factor. It sounds plausible that the amount of hunger we feel when we feel a fixed number of calories may depend on how much that depleted our glycogen stores, among other factors.

Thanks for the extra detail. Maybe another brush on it is something like, walking burns glycogen but since the ratio is lower for the same calorie expenditure, it’s harder to fully deplete your glycogen, which is what causes the more intense forms of hunger.

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

#176

Post by dvzk » Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 9:26 PM UTC

david-gpu wrote: post #158

dvzk wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bal…

I'm more tempted to stop running again. I am less skilled at mountain biking today since I moved to a 1:3 weekly schedule (4h running and 6-16 hours riding). Our insane single friend who XCs from summit to summit 7-14 days straight 3mo/year is enjoying my conjured dream.

Health isn't my goal, it's a second-order effect. I just know that you can achieve top 1% fitness without the time-consuming yoga and gym routines.

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

#177

Post by YZF » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 1:50 AM UTC

taeric wrote: post #162

YZF wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, I thought this might be the case. But I never got a good answer on if power zone or heart rate zone was what to pay attention to. Since I'm not competing and don't plan to, I don't really care that much. But, no reason not to try and train a bit more properly. :D 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.

Supposedly this is the definition: "Zone 2 is defined as the highest metabolic output/work that you can sustain while keeping your lactate level below two millimole per liter.". Unless you can measure lactate level you just don't know what heart rate this corresponds to. The heuristic that's used is "able to have a conversation".

For a beginner a good tip is just to go a little bit easier than they think they should be going. Once you've built some sort of aerobic base your training should start including intervals and runs that push you harder.

There are two risks in pushing yourself too hard. Injury and over-training.

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

#178

Post by nonameiguess » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 1:50 AM UTC

LandR wrote: post #27

serial_dev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's obviously wrong? 7:00 min/miles is a 4:21 min/km, which would result in 21 min 5K, 43 min 10K, 1h 32 min half marathon and 3h 3min marathon. I can run a 7 min mile pace, but I can't sustain it for a long time, and when it comes to comparing running VS walking, 20-30 km feels like the distance you should use, as that's a distance most people could walk daily over an extended period of time (e.g a week). I…

I'd be very happy if I could just maintain a 8min mile over 10k. 7 min mile sustained feels like an impossible goal. Hell, my best single mile is 6:48 and I'm dead at the end of that.

You're probably just getting old and I don't think most people appreciate the effect that years of being relatively sedentary can have on you. I ran competitively in high school and stayed at it mostly recreationally, but not consistently, joined the Army at one point, then got badly injured in my 30s and didn't run for nearly a decade. Now I run again in my 40s, frankly more than I ever did before.

At age 12, I ran a 5:05 mile with no training except running a weekly all-out mile for PE class. At age 14, I ran a 17:14 5K after three months of training in my first cross-country meet of my first season. I PRed at 16:04 two years later. In my late 20, I was still hitting an 11:30 2-mile in the Army's fitness test pretty easily, mostly without running. I swam every day, did a lot of rowing, and ran track repeats for 8 weeks leading up to the test.

Today, I run almost 80 miles a week right now, a structured, principled program, and I can't get anywhere remotely close to the times I once used to run almost effortlessly. Same person, same genetics, but in my 40s after a decade of being mostly sedentary. It takes its toll and it makes people who take this up as a hobby because they got fat in their 30s think something is impossible that likely would have been quite doable if they'd been doing it their entire lives.

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

#179

Post by taeric » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 6:29 AM UTC

YZF wrote: post #177

taeric wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I thought this might be the case. But I never got a good answer on if power zone or heart rate zone was what to pay attention to. Since I'm not competing and don't plan to, I don't really care that much. But, no reason not to try and train a bit more properly. :D 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.

Supposedly this is the definition: "Zone 2 is defined as the highest metabolic output/work that you can sustain while keeping your lactate level below two millimole per liter.". Unless you can measure lactate level you just don't know what heart rate this corresponds to. The heuristic that's used is "able to have a conversation". For a beginner a good tip is just to go a little bit easier than they think they should…

So fairly removed from heart rate? Can I assume I'm not going to hard if I recover rather quickly?

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

#180

Post by two_handfuls » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 3:25 PM UTC

A nitpick: the author states that `kcal/kg/h = kcal/kgh`. This is false, because multiply and divide have the same priority and so are applied left to right.
The correct way to write this is:

`kcal/kg/h = kcal/(kgh)`

The actual computations in the article are unaffected.