Who does science in imperial units?! Thats what crashes stuff and people into hard objects.
Well, then again, they use kcal, instead of Joule. Which has conflicting definitions by a small percentage. And usually, the kilo-part is hidden. Making some calcuations off by a factor of one thousand.
Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
41–50 of 188 posts
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#427 min mile as most efficient seems off. Not many people run a 7 min mile especially for the population of people who walk generally
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…
> 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).
20-30km every day for a week, i.e. 140-210 km/week?
Fun fact, according to [1] 160-220 km/week is the training regime of world champion marathon runners like Eliud Kipchoge.
That guy that ran across America did 72 miles (115 km) per day [2]
But these certainly aren't "most people" weekly running distances :)
[1] https://therunningclinic.com/runners/blog/train-like-kipchog... [2] https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20828478/ultrarunner-pete...
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same opinion. There are so many wrong things with how the data is used. For starters, the data is biased because the basal metabolic rate of someone who does sports is higher than someone who doesn't, and that's without taking into account the higher metabolic rate of people who are overweight/obese (albeit for different reasons), and even for people who are fit, runners are trained to be more efficient at running (d…
Isn't same true for any mode of travel? At least terrestrial. Optimal speed is not either top or slowest speed. Lot of factors affect efficiency, but almost certainly neither very slow or maximum speed is most efficient.
It's true for most machines (as in, energy conversion).
The main exception would be heating, and even then, it's usually that the optimum performance is just really close to the top performance; e.g. imperfect combustion of more fuel being less efficient than perfect combustion of less.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#44The difference between an untrained runner, a trained runner and n elite athlete are left completely unanalyzed. Given how seemingly varied for no apparent reason some of these points on the graph are and coming from an anecdotal perspective this analysis is not very useful, and probably even wrong. Seemingly an elite athlete must have been tracked because almost nobody(considering the whole population) can run the g…
It's not like the author says this:
> The answer probably depends on the person. Someone who regularly runs, runs more efficiently than someone who does not.
> But we can still generalize.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#45It'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…
Having done some light ultra events myself I have definitely found that going faster can be less tiring overall because you reduce overall duration - less sleep deprivation, less time on feet, etc.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#46Hmm 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?
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#47The article seems to actually be answering a different question than it poses. From my experience of roughly analysing this a couple of years ago when I was losing quite a lot of weight, I drew two main conclusions: * Calories used is a function of total distance travelled and your weight, your speed isn't really that significant a factor. * Walking rather than running uses about 80% of the calories for the same dist…
Purely anecdotal, but I was surprised to find out that I gained significant weight when I switched from walking 6 hours/week to riding a bike for the same amount of time. I find it much harder to recover from riding, which makes sense because my heart rate goes way higher. Riding is much more fun, but I suspect you are completely right about walking being the better choice for weight loss. I was at my leanest when my…
[deleted]
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#48I 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.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#49Efficient or not (the conclusion may be premature due oversimplified numbers, IMHO), the repetitive impact of running will wear down the cartilage and meniscus, essentially causing premature ageing of the knees when used routinely; this variable should be considered as a deferred efficiency cost also.
It doesn't seem that our body sees running as a method of travel, given our inability to regenerate cartilage and due the dehydration through cooling, it sounds more like a momentarily needed resource for survival.
Re: Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?
#50Efficient or not (the conclusion may be premature due oversimplified numbers, IMHO), the repetitive impact of running will wear down the cartilage and meniscus, essentially causing premature ageing of the knees when used routinely; this variable should be considered as a deferred efficiency cost also. It doesn't seem that our body sees running as a method of travel, given our inability to regenerate cartilage and due…
> the repetitive impact of running will wear down the cartilage and meniscus, essentially causing premature ageing of the knees when used routinely
This concerned me as someone who benefits from running. I found the following study which says "Cumulative number of years running, number of marathons completed, weekly mileage, and mean running pace were not significant predictors for arthritis".