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

81–90 of 188 posts

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

#81

Post by saagarjha »

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…

And what if he has a decoy snail?

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

#82

Post by darth_avocado »

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…

It is called persistence hunting and practiced by humans & animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

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

#83

Post by hilux »

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…

What you're suggesting seems similar to rope-a-dope.

Absolutely a successful strategy.

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

#84

Post by hilux »

david-gpu wrote: post #54
5555624 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity

The vast majority of middle-aged people who exercise at all, do only one thing.

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

#86

Post by rqtwteye »

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…

That's my experience too. When I hike in the mountains there are places where I can run for a while without getting tired and gain a lot of time. Usually it's the slightly downhill sections. Wouldn't want to fall there though.

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

#87

Post by rqtwteye »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #73
Bomboclaat1 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

4mph per hour hiking is pretty fast. I can do maybe 3.5 without starting to jog.

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

#88

Post by akira2501 »

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…

Is your name Fabian, by chance?

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

#89

Post by dvzk »

ralferoo wrote: post #39
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…

I'm not a particularly fast cyclist (usually average around 20km/h), but I'm generally in zone 2 for most of my ride and just creeping into zone 3. On the other hand, being quite fat, I find hills push me much harder than running because I'm forced to go at least 5km/h * because of the gearing of the road bike and having to maintain a cadence of at least 60 (because lower cadence actually makes it harder). Last year,…

Common gear ratios for MTB (and gravel) do favor steep inclines much more. It doesn't matter how exhausted you are, if you have a granny gear 46-52t cassette and 30-36t chainring setup, you're solid.

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

#90

Post by shrubble »

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…

The reason it works against deer is that they can only get rid of a certain amount of heat; once they reach their maximum temperature they are not able to continue moving.

The Rock, being human is able to exhaust at least as much heat as you, taking away from your advantage.

Post reply on HN