41–50 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. https://www.polar.com/en/grit-x
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, not only is it hard on your body but the energy lost in the strike you'd benefit from storing in your calf.
I don’t think the “hard on your body” part is true anymore (if it ever even was) if you use proper footwear.
Finally I tried barefoot shoes and cautiously increased my distance, I can finally get to that point of leaning forward and hitting mid-foot and feeling the springiness, feels way easier but now my heartrate is the bottleneck.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
There's no good evidence for any of the claims made r.e. heel vs. forefoot striking.
There are more efficient modes of running that aren't really available when walking, and any experienced marathoner knows how to exploit this. It took me years of occasional running before it all clicked, despite more experienced friends having shared youtube videos on the subject. I'd always been running in a fashion more like a slowed down sprint when trying to pace myself. But that's not the efficient way, the eff…
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?
If you have strong earmuffs, consider trying them while running, and you'll hear the shock if it travels up to your neck. Switching rapidly will probably cause injury, but I haven't heard about any sizable subset of the population being unable to adapt.
Another helpful effect is that you don't need shoes to run if you're toe-striking on a clean&smooth surface.
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
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’m guessing this content is true. The listed author has a PhD in sport science.
PS: also, I bought a smartwatch that shows the stats etc which is kind of a fun target to meet/improve upon - not sure if this "gamification" is a good idea or how long until the novelty wears off but its fun for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. https://www.polar.com/en/grit-x