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

Is running a more efficient way to travel than walking?

joehxblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 188 posts

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

#51

Post by 5555624 »

david-gpu wrote: post #33
ralferoo wrote: post #21

The 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…

Walking is a weight bearing exercise, while cycling is not. That's why cyclists can develop osteopenia. (https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-cycling-is-bad-for-bo...)

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

#52

Post by TrackerFF »

fire_lake wrote: post #46
TrackerFF wrote: post #25

Hmm 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?

A 7 min mile would pass most special forces (selection) requirements around the world.

For BUD/S (Navy Seals), it seems like a 1.5 mile run is part of the physical screening test, a 10m30s time would put you 10 seconds from the "competitive category". Minimum requirement is 11m

And from my memory, that was roughly the same requirements in my country for most SOF positions.

But, of course, those screening tests aren't necessarily done under ideal conditions. But if you can do a 7 min mile, it's not your conditioning that will stop you. You should be able to pass the minimum requirements for every position in the military.

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

#53

Post by carlmr »

echelon_musk wrote: post #50
drtgh wrote: post #49

Efficient 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". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm…

I found running style is a major contributor. I got knee pain preparing for a 10K run in my early 20s. When I stopped for a month it would go aways, but when I started again it would instantly come back.

I then learned about natural running (forefoot strike, using your joints for suspensions) which made logical sense to me. I could run again, even every day, and even more than a decade later no knee pain when running.

It does have the added benefit that you don't even need expensive running shoes anymore, because you use your body's joints for suspension instead of some gel midsole.

There is a slightly higher risk of ankle injury, which did happen once in over a decade. But otherwise I think natural running just makes so much sense.

You should also ease into it, because you need to train your calf muscles to do a bit more work.

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

#54

Post by david-gpu »

5555624 wrote: post #51
david-gpu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Walking is a weight bearing exercise, while cycling is not. That's why cyclists can develop osteopenia. ( https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-cycling-is-bad-for-bo... )

Sure, but I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity if your goal is maintaining good health anyway. There is a neeed for resistance training, cardio, mobility and balance. E.g. lift weights, ride a bike, do some yoga. It is only a matter of finding activities that you enjoy.

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

#55

Post by thefz »

david-gpu wrote: post #33
ralferoo wrote: post #21

The 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…

Higher heart rate zones are notoriously not for weight loss/fat burn. That happens in 1-3, and only for a sustained period. Above you are just destroying your glicogen stores

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

#56

Post by echelon_musk »

carlmr wrote: post #53
echelon_musk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm…

I found running style is a major contributor. I got knee pain preparing for a 10K run in my early 20s. When I stopped for a month it would go aways, but when I started again it would instantly come back. I then learned about natural running (forefoot strike, using your joints for suspensions) which made logical sense to me. I could run again, even every day, and even more than a decade later no knee pain when running…

Thank you for providing this information. I've been getting hip pain when running so I'll see if I can incorporate and test the effects of a forefoot strike.

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

#57

Post by high_na_euv »

kijin wrote: post #38
david-gpu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

90min/day is a lot

Ive started doing 6kmh walk for 30min after gym, two times a week and Ive lost like 10kg in 6 months

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

#58

Post by Bomboclaat1 »

fire_lake wrote: post #45
donquichotte wrote: post #10

It'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.

Less time on feet but under a bigger strain with less efficiency which will make you more tired. It's the same for all of these. >(sun, rain, wind, snow)

You are are not as long in the sun but you are longer in the sun under a less efficient energy expenditure. You will sweat more because your are not in an ideal window.

If you look at the Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons of elevation gain, even the winners have an avg pace of a fast walking speed. There are some hikers who only hiked these events and got very good results.

The more you weight the further the efficiency goes away. Even the top runners only walk the steep uphills. And in long races with lots of elevation gain at the and they are walking all hills. It's exactly because it becomes so inefficient even for lightweights

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

#59

Post by Mistletoe »

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'm a runner and have had a weird question, could a runner defeat a larger human in this way? Like if I found myself in mortal combat with The Rock at 260 lbs after his steroids cycle, could I just repeatedly run away and follow him (while staying out of range) until he tired out and then bonk him on the head with a rock, like a tired antelope? (No offense to The Rock, seems like a great guy)

Might explain why we aren't all musclebound and huge? Although I'm sure food availability had more influence.

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

#60

Post by underlipton »

Mistletoe wrote: post #59
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'm a runner and have had a weird question, could a runner defeat a larger human in this way? Like if I found myself in mortal combat with The Rock at 260 lbs after his steroids cycle, could I just repeatedly run away and follow him (while staying out of range) until he tired out and then bonk him on the head with a rock, like a tired antelope? (No offense to The Rock, seems like a great guy) Might explain why we are…

Layman: skeletal muscles are expensive to maintain in terms of caloric and protein/water intake, and larger muscles are less efficient at dumping the heat that their use generates because volume increases faster than exposed surface area with muscular hypertrophy. If food and body temperature regulation were more immediate concerns than violent conflict, then the ability to gas out your opponent was probably less influential.
Post reply on HN