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

71–80 of 188 posts

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

#71

Post by geph2021 »

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…

I think this sort of technique is used in boxing and MMA: play a good defense, stay out of trouble, and let the aggressor exhaust themselves until later rounds when you feel you may have a fitness advantage. I think there were good examples of this in the early days of MMA, when there was much less, if any, specialized training, techniques and strategy. It's probably much less effective now, since a well trained aggressor will know how to pace themselves too.

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

#72

Post by munificent »

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…

Somewhat related anecdote: When a friend of mine was in college, he got into some sort of amicable debate with another friend and they decided the way to resolve it was through a boxing match. Neither of them had an ounce of boxing experience.

My friend realized before the match that just holding the gloves up and swinging punches is more tiring than you'd think. So the strategy he settled on was to just put his guard up and not attack at all. He let his friend take a bunch of swings at him until eventually the poor guy was literally too tired to hold his arms up. Then my friend started swinging and quickly won.

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

#73

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Bomboclaat1 wrote: post #58
fire_lake wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Sorry, but this is totally incorrect. The record for the Western States 100, which has nearly 19,000' of elevation gain, is just over 14hrs for men, and about 15.5hrs for women.

Fast hiking in that terrain would be 4mph which translates to 25hrs minimum.

The world's best ultra runners can maintain 6+mph average in insane terrain.

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

#74

Post by deathmachine »

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…

I've thought about this kind of scenario, bizarrely, a decent amount recently. Long story short, assuming your opponent is so strong that once you're in arms' reach, you're done, you have to be faster than said opponent not only at endurance running but also at every distance between. E.g. assuming you start off somewhat close to them, you have to sprint faster and transition into a faster endurance running pace, and at no point can you be so much slower than them at a given distance that they're able to regain any ground you made on them at a different speed.

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

#75

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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…

> I also found it interesting that running slowly and/or walking is better for losing weight as running faster primarily uses glycogen (and makes you hungry), and running slowly primarily uses fat.

This presupposes running using glycolysis for energy. Most runners will do this, but there are quite a few ultra runners who use ketosis instead, and derived almost all their energy to run from fat. It's not great if you want to go very fast (say, track and field events), but it has some distinct benefits for very long ultra trail events.

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

#76

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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?

I use the Navy standards as a rough guide to reclaiming some fitness I've lost over several years.

They are remarkably non-stringent. Basically the ones I pay attention to (running, rowing (on an erg), pushups etc) have a highest level that means "good athletic conditioning, but not particularly competitive at this activity".

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

#77

Post by klyrs »

gowld wrote: post #62
Mistletoe wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if the threw a rock at you? He has longer range and a stronger lift.

He's literally The Rock. He's not gonna throw his fam

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

#78

Post by dmicah »

psb217 wrote: post #63
Mistletoe wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Rock would be bad at persistence hunting, but it would be weird if he was so susceptible to persistence hunting. What incentive does he have to fatigue himself in this scenario? When it's you vs animal, the animal runs from you since if you catch it you kill it. The Rock could just chill and say bring it on. If you were sufficiently mobile and clever, maybe you could prevent him from reaching food and water until…

Unfortunately the hunter might find himself with nowhere left to turn, stuck between the Rock and a hard place.

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

#79

Post by justinator »

a 7 minute mile is the most efficient

That works out to a 3:03 marathon time. That's years of work to become so efficient.

I'm a little bummed that the article doesn't touch on how can maintain that pace for x amount of miles, since plainly: only people who have trained very carefully have a chance. So that running speed is off the table.

Stick to walking.

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

#80

Post by goostavos »

high_na_euv wrote: post #57
kijin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Add a weighted backpack and you can massively ramp up the calorie burning aspect of those shorter walks.

"Load carriage" is a thing the military has put some effort into studying. A 50lb pack turns a brisk walk into something that burns 100s of calories. Even an extra 20lbs on your back adds up. It might not feel like a lot, but the difference in heart rate for same perceived effort is shocking.

Post reply on HN