> You’ve probably seen it on TV multiple times. Exhausted, depleted of energy, and barely capable of taking another step, elite race walkers collapse as soon as they reach the finish line. I'm not sure if I have unusual TV habits or if the author is overestimating the amount of watch time and coverage race walking gets.
I have never witnessed race waling in my life, not even in passing. I am aware it exists and have seen clips of it, but I've never actually seen a race live, nor do I know anyone who has.
Is heel striking bad? I am not a runner, but I've practiced heel striking while backpacking to give myself more foot-stamina. Maybe there's a better way?
Heel striking is generally considered suboptimal from an efficiency and injury risk standpoint. But there are major variations in what works best due to individual physiology and type of shoes worn. There are a few elite distance runners who have had long, successful careers with heel striking even though it's supposedly "bad".
The risk of injury between foot strike styles is rather similar. It’s not a big deal. I would definitely emphasize individual physiology. I have seen way to many folks try to change their stride too quickly and injure themselves. Same with too much running too soon for new runners. Cadence is a better predictor of injury than foot strike style. I always encourage people to work on their turn over and get their cadence off, many novice runners overstride, which is inefficient and safe to correct with higher cadence.
The article talks about that: Running is roughly the same energy/distance, but it's more energy/time because you cover more distance per time.
the article says “walking 50km as fast as possible takes nearly double the work and energy than running a marathon, even though the distance is just 8km longer”
I wouldn't trust this website. It's based around selling a fitness product, so there's a very good chance it's biased.
I wouldn't trust this website. It's based around selling a fitness product, so there's a very good chance it's biased. https://www.polar.com/en/grit-x
What would they gain by lying to people about the relative efficiency of marathon runners versus race walkers, or ways to burn more energy when walking? How would those lies (if lies) lead to more sales for them (that's the only benefit I can imagine)?
I wouldn't trust this website. It's based around selling a fitness product, so there's a very good chance it's biased. https://www.polar.com/en/grit-x
What would they gain by lying to people about the relative efficiency of marathon runners versus race walkers, or ways to burn more energy when walking? How would those lies (if lies) lead to more sales for them (that's the only benefit I can imagine)?
It's basic scrutiny of an article. If a company primarily sells fitness watches, publishing articles on fitness will net them sales, whether it's true or not. The incentive to be correct isn't there, unlike more rigorous sources of information.
It's the same reason you shouldn't blindly believe the marketing words on the back of a box of cereal.