Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

polar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#51

Post by agumonkey »

noisy_boy wrote: post #49

For someone who is trying to return to regular walking/running, I find a mix of both works well for me. Stretch and start walking faster to warm your body up, run until your heart/legs don't want to go anymore, resume walking to recover and then run again and so on. I find that doing this creates less resistance in my mind because I'm more attentive/easy going with my body and the overall session is less punishing -…

I second this. There's another psychological aspect to me. Training the "let's resume" action of your brain is very important. And doing this alternating smooth to harder is one good way.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#52

Post by agumonkey »

pengaru wrote: post #9

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…

I had knee and slight back pain, anf always tried to mechanically aim at the smoothest impact (landing on foot ball, ensure enough forward momentum) yet,unless a high enough speed, I found it harder on my joints. To the point where jogging heel striking like a newb felt nicer. I'm still dumbfounded.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#53

Post by carabiner »

spicybright wrote: post #30
Jtsummers wrote: post #27

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.

What? If a fitness company started posting absolute bullshit like "vaccines hurt running performance," I think that would reflect poorly on them and cause them to lose sales. I wear a fitness watch similar to a Polar and would abandon my brand if they started espousing health pseudoscience.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#54

Post by jerlam »

agumonkey wrote: post #51
noisy_boy wrote: post #49

For someone who is trying to return to regular walking/running, I find a mix of both works well for me. Stretch and start walking faster to warm your body up, run until your heart/legs don't want to go anymore, resume walking to recover and then run again and so on. I find that doing this creates less resistance in my mind because I'm more attentive/easy going with my body and the overall session is less punishing -…

I second this. There's another psychological aspect to me. Training the "let's resume" action of your brain is very important. And doing this alternating smooth to harder is one good way.

There's a training program by a former Olympian that uses alternating blocks of running and walking:

https://medium.com/runners-life/how-to-start-running-using-j...

I've had good success with this strategy - it breaks up the monotony of long runs, and overall pacing is accomplished by changing interval duration instead of trying to maintain a precise fixed speed over the entire run.

Unfortunately, I've had no success convincing other beginners to try this method, as the predominant wisdom is that you have to run over the entire duration, and beginners almost always go far faster than they should.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#55

Post by wingerlang »

gundmc wrote: post #12

> 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.

Seems like the target audience is runners? I barely run to catch a train and I've definitely caught this on EuroSport or the Olympics more than a couple of times in my lifetime.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#56

Post by tomjakubowski »

xvedejas wrote: post #11
pengaru wrote: post #9

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?

It may be fine to do while backpacking, assuming you aren't running. The mechanics of running and walking are quite different.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#57

Post by jamiek88 »

spicybright wrote: post #30
Jtsummers wrote: post #27

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.

They are a well known company in the fitness space.

This is like backblaze blogging about drives or square about credit card processing.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#58

Post by dll »

jerlam wrote: post #54
agumonkey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this. There's another psychological aspect to me. Training the "let's resume" action of your brain is very important. And doing this alternating smooth to harder is one good way.

There's a training program by a former Olympian that uses alternating blocks of running and walking: https://medium.com/runners-life/how-to-start-running-using-j... I've had good success with this strategy - it breaks up the monotony of long runs, and overall pacing is accomplished by changing interval duration instead of trying to maintain a precise fixed speed over the entire run. Unfortunately, I've had no success…

Couch to 5K (C25K) is another run/walk training program, which is very popular here in the UK. Even the NHS (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/couch-to-5k-week-by-we...) promotes it.

I started with a C25K plan in November 2020 and ran my first half marathon in October 2021. I'm looking at marathons now, it's changed my level of fitness far more than I could imagine.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#59

Post by dEnigma »

spicybright wrote: post #33
pekkavasala wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I haven't had a good schooling experience growing up, so I'm asking the question to learn and hopefully become more well rounded.

In another content they wrote "hope they raise a financial instrument just so I can short the living daylights out of it". So that's what they're cryptically referring to.

Re: Time to run or time to walk? Your body knows the answer

#60

Post by MauranKilom »

bronson wrote: post #7
MauranKilom wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

Yes, I meant "at normal speeds", not "as fast as possible". That's quite obviously what the statement I replied to was about.
Post reply on HN