9 ms·

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a b

I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop when I'm late I'm tired beyond belief and I just cannot maintain running, have to stop

crazygringo 2y ago
I think it assumes you run regularly and are therefore fit for running. The same way if you lie in bed for a month you're not going to be doing 20 hour hikes either. Fitness isn't a one-dimensional thing -- our muscles adapt efficiently to our specific activities and only our specific activities. So comparing the efficiency of walking and running only makes sense for someone who is already well-adapted to both.
jaggederest 2y ago
You are probably sprinting to the bus stop, not running. Running would be below your aerobic threshold, for however well you're trained, and thus should not leave you exhausted or wiped out. The general rule of thumb is that if you can't have a conversation, you're exceeding your aerobic threshold and so are exceeding your pace. Training increases what that pace is, but ultimately no (land?) mammal can exceed their aerobic threshold for long, since there are limits to stored oxygen. Cetaceans and pinnipeds might be an interesting exception.
- arghnoname 2y ago
  This is true, but just to quantify it a bit, a lot of people can run at their lactate threshold for about an hour. This isn't 'long' but may be longer than most people think. That said, I remember doing similar 'runs to the parking lot' and being gassed when I was totally untrained despite being capable of long walks/hikes. I suspect there are even more basic adaptations one needs to be able to do these very short activities for which a more trained individual can complete anaerobically.
  - jaggederest 2y ago
    > a lot of people can run at their lactate threshold for about an hour. I say this as someone incredibly out of shape, but I doubt any of those people are wiped out by running to the bus stop ;) > I suspect there are even more basic adaptations one needs to be able to do these very short activities for which a more trained individual can complete anaerobically. Yeah absolutely, I found it very interesting that weight training is universal in sprinters, it makes sense as metabolic training as well as the actual muscle growth.
- taeric 2y ago
  I started trying to pay attention and do some "zone 2" training recently. I came to the sad realization that a moderate jog pushes me well over zone 2. :(
  - RachelM71948937 2y ago
    [dead]
  - lowdest 2y ago
    Same here! Have you found a solution? I was pretty happy with 3 miles 3-4 times per week, 10 to 11 minute pace, but apparently for me that's pushing too hard according to zone training. I tried going much slower, and even then my HR raises more slowly, but eventually gets way up there. Alternating my slowest possible jog and walking has taken all the fun out of running for the time being.
    - vostok 2y ago
      You cam just ignore the Zone 2 advice as a relatively new runner. It's more useful when you're running high mileage.
    - YZF 2y ago
      When people talk about "Zone 2" they generally do not refer to a specific % of max heart rate. The simple answer is at this volume of training (3-4 times a week 30 minutes) don't even worry about it. Just run. Zone 2 is an optimization. Can you talk while running at this pace? Can you hold a conversation? I think it's unlikely you can over-train at this volume though if you've never run maybe you ease into this over a couple of months. Adding distance/time into your program is probably going to help, as long as you don't feel too tired/sore or that you're over-training Consider adding interval training to your regime. That's a more time efficient way of improving your VO2MAX (which should translate to your overall performance). E.g. 1-2 minutes 90%-100%, 1-2 minutes walk/slow/jog, x3-5 (this is rough, do some reading and see what works for you).
      - taeric 2y ago
matthew-wegner 2y ago
Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.
- ithinkso 2y ago
  > i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint I did horse riding for a bit, that is not true. There is a lot of speed ranges you can choose from
  - matthew-wegner 2y ago
    I was trying to help with a simplified mental model. Sorry, I thought the "another way to think about it" part was clearer than it might have been. The linked paper in the parent comment has a graph on page 347 (page 2 of the content). The human's walk curve is substantially more efficient than the other gaits, included on the graph, which is the point I was trying to make. Humans best their caloric/distance ratios over time ("endurance hunting").
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  > hoofed animals can only walk or sprint Horses have more than two speeds. They can walk, trot, gait, gallup.
  - matthew-wegner 2y ago
    I guess the precise definition would be most ungulates, but not migratory ungulates? > Although not extensively studied in non-humans, endurance running is unique to humans among primates, and uncommon among quadrupedal mammals other than social carnivores (such as dogs and hyenas) and migratory ungulates (such as wildebeest and horses) Anyway I was attempting a clumsy metaphor to aid someone's understanding, not trying to be pedantic. It's easiest to compare sprinting and not-sprinting.
exabrial 2y ago
This is going to sound crazy, but get a Garmin watch and zone 2 train. Three years ago I couldn’t ride 5 miles on my bike. This year I completed my second Unbound 100mi. Honestly I could go a lot further if I had enough nutrition and fixed all the creature comforts like seat and glasses.
Rury 2y ago
Most animals get tired running very quickly too. A cheetah, just like you, also can't sustain a run at their max speed for very long (about 30 seconds max). But when it comes to endurance, very few animals come close to us thanks to how efficient we are. A lot that comes from us being bipedal, a good amount of our muscles being slow twitch, our ability to breathe independent of our muscle usage while running, and having a very high density of sweat glands across our bodies (10 times the density of chimps) giving us an efficient and superb cooling capacity.
- scns 2y ago
  > having a very high density of sweat glands across our bodies (10 times the density of chimps) giving us an efficient and superb cooling capacity. Being naked helps a lot too.
oktoberpaard 2y ago
That’s because you’re using more energy per time unit, and there’s only so much that you can sustain. The article is about energy per distance unit. So to translate this: run the same distance faster, and you’ve burned about the same amount of calories, but you’re more exhausted from having to burn through the calories at a faster rate. However, from an efficiency perspective you got there faster at the same cost.
alexey-salmin 2y ago
Try running slower? If I run 50k at 7min/km I'm not tired at all, but walking the same distance at 12min/km leaves me exhausted. The mental model in my head sort of accounts for effort it takes just to be upright for 10 hours even if you don't cover any distance at all. Low-effort running saves me half of that energy because I spend less time upright.
strken 2y ago
There's no contradiction here. The ability to move at a cost of X kj/km has nothing to do with sustaining a power output of Y kj/s. Your body can be thought of as a directed graph of different pools of energy with different edge weights representing how fast you can move energy between pools, and your fitness as being your ability to move energy into the ATP pool. If you can walk a km in 10 minutes for 200 kj, or run it in 5 minutes for 200 kj, and you can produce 300 kj of ATP in 10 minutes, then you're going to run out of energy running but be able to walk indefinitely, even though both are equally efficient. (In practice the numbers are going to be different, and there are more conversions than just glucose to ATP to think about, but I think the example illustrates the point).
datavirtue 2y ago
I often have to use arm swinging and pronouced hip movement to get myself out of the wilderness faster/easier. I have found it to be more efficient than mindless hiking/walking. I try to loosen my gaite and keep upright when I remember to. Also, having done extensive Taibata, squats, weight lifting, and cycling. Nothing compared to hiking (often steep terrain) for conditioning. I'm strong from the inside out and it (strength) persists for much longer than other conditioning exercises. And it's crazy enjoyable. Cycling was enjoyable (and far more painful overall) but it guarantees nothing for core strength and will typically result in repetition injuries (years of experience MTB and road).
dyauspitr 2y ago
I agree and contrary to what the other commenters are saying, I can walk all day on a 16-17 min/mile pace but if I bump that up to a 10-12 min/mile jog, I am completely tired by the 3-5 mile point. It’s not a full sprint, it’s a pretty slow jog and somehow that completely taps me out.
riku_iki 2y ago
> I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop you are probably not trained as well as our ancestors, who were consistently jog-hunting since very young ages, which translates to more efficient mind-body connection, target muscles and energy systems development, and fat to body mass ratio. There are plenty of people who can jog for many miles and likely has higher aerobic threshold for moderate sprinting.

crazygringo 2y ago

I think it assumes you run regularly and are therefore fit for running. The same way if you lie in bed for a month you're not going to be doing 20 hour hikes either. Fitness isn't a one-dimensional thing -- our muscles adapt efficiently to our specific activities and only our specific activities. So comparing the efficiency of walking and running only makes sense for someone who is already well-adapted to both.

jaggederest 2y ago

You are probably sprinting to the bus stop, not running. Running would be below your aerobic threshold, for however well you're trained, and thus should not leave you exhausted or wiped out. The general rule of thumb is that if you can't have a conversation, you're exceeding your aerobic threshold and so are exceeding your pace. Training increases what that pace is, but ultimately no (land?) mammal can exceed their aerobic threshold for long, since there are limits to stored oxygen. Cetaceans and pinnipeds might be an interesting exception.

arghnoname 2y ago
This is true, but just to quantify it a bit, a lot of people can run at their lactate threshold for about an hour. This isn't 'long' but may be longer than most people think. That said, I remember doing similar 'runs to the parking lot' and being gassed when I was totally untrained despite being capable of long walks/hikes. I suspect there are even more basic adaptations one needs to be able to do these very short activities for which a more trained individual can complete anaerobically.
- jaggederest 2y ago
  > a lot of people can run at their lactate threshold for about an hour. I say this as someone incredibly out of shape, but I doubt any of those people are wiped out by running to the bus stop ;) > I suspect there are even more basic adaptations one needs to be able to do these very short activities for which a more trained individual can complete anaerobically. Yeah absolutely, I found it very interesting that weight training is universal in sprinters, it makes sense as metabolic training as well as the actual muscle growth.
taeric 2y ago
I started trying to pay attention and do some "zone 2" training recently. I came to the sad realization that a moderate jog pushes me well over zone 2. :(
- RachelM71948937 2y ago
  [dead]
- lowdest 2y ago
  Same here! Have you found a solution? I was pretty happy with 3 miles 3-4 times per week, 10 to 11 minute pace, but apparently for me that's pushing too hard according to zone training. I tried going much slower, and even then my HR raises more slowly, but eventually gets way up there. Alternating my slowest possible jog and walking has taken all the fun out of running for the time being.
  - vostok 2y ago
    You cam just ignore the Zone 2 advice as a relatively new runner. It's more useful when you're running high mileage.
  - YZF 2y ago
    When people talk about "Zone 2" they generally do not refer to a specific % of max heart rate. The simple answer is at this volume of training (3-4 times a week 30 minutes) don't even worry about it. Just run. Zone 2 is an optimization. Can you talk while running at this pace? Can you hold a conversation? I think it's unlikely you can over-train at this volume though if you've never run maybe you ease into this over a couple of months. Adding distance/time into your program is probably going to help, as long as you don't feel too tired/sore or that you're over-training Consider adding interval training to your regime. That's a more time efficient way of improving your VO2MAX (which should translate to your overall performance). E.g. 1-2 minutes 90%-100%, 1-2 minutes walk/slow/jog, x3-5 (this is rough, do some reading and see what works for you).
    - taeric 2y ago

matthew-wegner 2y ago

Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.

ithinkso 2y ago
> i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint I did horse riding for a bit, that is not true. There is a lot of speed ranges you can choose from
- matthew-wegner 2y ago
  I was trying to help with a simplified mental model. Sorry, I thought the "another way to think about it" part was clearer than it might have been. The linked paper in the parent comment has a graph on page 347 (page 2 of the content). The human's walk curve is substantially more efficient than the other gaits, included on the graph, which is the point I was trying to make. Humans best their caloric/distance ratios over time ("endurance hunting").
OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
> hoofed animals can only walk or sprint Horses have more than two speeds. They can walk, trot, gait, gallup.
- matthew-wegner 2y ago
  I guess the precise definition would be most ungulates, but not migratory ungulates? > Although not extensively studied in non-humans, endurance running is unique to humans among primates, and uncommon among quadrupedal mammals other than social carnivores (such as dogs and hyenas) and migratory ungulates (such as wildebeest and horses) Anyway I was attempting a clumsy metaphor to aid someone's understanding, not trying to be pedantic. It's easiest to compare sprinting and not-sprinting.

exabrial 2y ago

This is going to sound crazy, but get a Garmin watch and zone 2 train. Three years ago I couldn’t ride 5 miles on my bike. This year I completed my second Unbound 100mi. Honestly I could go a lot further if I had enough nutrition and fixed all the creature comforts like seat and glasses.

Rury 2y ago

Most animals get tired running very quickly too. A cheetah, just like you, also can't sustain a run at their max speed for very long (about 30 seconds max). But when it comes to endurance, very few animals come close to us thanks to how efficient we are. A lot that comes from us being bipedal, a good amount of our muscles being slow twitch, our ability to breathe independent of our muscle usage while running, and having a very high density of sweat glands across our bodies (10 times the density of chimps) giving us an efficient and superb cooling capacity.

scns 2y ago
> having a very high density of sweat glands across our bodies (10 times the density of chimps) giving us an efficient and superb cooling capacity. Being naked helps a lot too.

oktoberpaard 2y ago

That’s because you’re using more energy per time unit, and there’s only so much that you can sustain. The article is about energy per distance unit. So to translate this: run the same distance faster, and you’ve burned about the same amount of calories, but you’re more exhausted from having to burn through the calories at a faster rate. However, from an efficiency perspective you got there faster at the same cost.

alexey-salmin 2y ago

Try running slower? If I run 50k at 7min/km I'm not tired at all, but walking the same distance at 12min/km leaves me exhausted. The mental model in my head sort of accounts for effort it takes just to be upright for 10 hours even if you don't cover any distance at all. Low-effort running saves me half of that energy because I spend less time upright.

strken 2y ago

There's no contradiction here. The ability to move at a cost of X kj/km has nothing to do with sustaining a power output of Y kj/s. Your body can be thought of as a directed graph of different pools of energy with different edge weights representing how fast you can move energy between pools, and your fitness as being your ability to move energy into the ATP pool. If you can walk a km in 10 minutes for 200 kj, or run it in 5 minutes for 200 kj, and you can produce 300 kj of ATP in 10 minutes, then you're going to run out of energy running but be able to walk indefinitely, even though both are equally efficient. (In practice the numbers are going to be different, and there are more conversions than just glucose to ATP to think about, but I think the example illustrates the point).

datavirtue 2y ago

I often have to use arm swinging and pronouced hip movement to get myself out of the wilderness faster/easier. I have found it to be more efficient than mindless hiking/walking. I try to loosen my gaite and keep upright when I remember to. Also, having done extensive Taibata, squats, weight lifting, and cycling. Nothing compared to hiking (often steep terrain) for conditioning. I'm strong from the inside out and it (strength) persists for much longer than other conditioning exercises. And it's crazy enjoyable. Cycling was enjoyable (and far more painful overall) but it guarantees nothing for core strength and will typically result in repetition injuries (years of experience MTB and road).

dyauspitr 2y ago

I agree and contrary to what the other commenters are saying, I can walk all day on a 16-17 min/mile pace but if I bump that up to a 10-12 min/mile jog, I am completely tired by the 3-5 mile point. It’s not a full sprint, it’s a pretty slow jog and somehow that completely taps me out.

riku_iki 2y ago

> I don't doubt the results but I cannot imagine how that can be true, I'm not fit but I've had many 20+hours hikes to the high mountain peaks but if I run to a bus stop you are probably not trained as well as our ancestors, who were consistently jog-hunting since very young ages, which translates to more efficient mind-body connection, target muscles and energy systems development, and fat to body mass ratio. There are plenty of people who can jog for many miles and likely has higher aerobic threshold for moderate sprinting.