TIL that as you increase your walking speed there is a point where walking any faster would take more energy than running
Over the same distance, you’ll go faster by running, but you’ll be active for longer by walking. What costs us the most energy?
You're viewing a single thread.
I am really struggling to understand what this title is trying to say.
Walking takes energy. Walking fast takes more energy. At what point does it take more energy to run rather than try to walk fast?
Walking and running are distinct by whether or not both your feet leave the ground
Yes, I agree that it's a hodgepodge of linked concepts. Sorry! Here's my attempt at explaining:
When you eat food, it's like your battery gets filled. If, after eating a good meal you were to stand up and just stand there idly, your battery would slowly drain. Eventually, over the course of hours, you'd get hungry and need more of the food; you'd need to recharge your battery. Now, if your battery is full and you start walking, the battery will drain a little bit faster. You know this from taking walks, going on hikes, or commuting; they can make you hungrier! Now walk a little faster and the battery will drain even a little bit faster. If you take your sweet time on a walk, you will not nearly get as hungry compared to walking as quickly as you can.
Another useful image is holding a cup full of water and tilting it more and more, spilling the water; the more you tilt it, the faster the water gets drained from the cup.
Now, think about when you walk. When you walk faster and faster and faster, there is a point in which you automatically start running. Turns out, this point in which you go from walking to running is special because it leads to energy savings.
Weird, isn't it? Here's a way to look at it: if you try to walk a long distance at a very high speed, you'll get exhausted, but if you run the same distance at that same speed, you'll be less tired.
This is similar to some cars and bikes. If you've driven a gear-shift car or a bicycle with gears, you'll understand that, past a certain speed, it's much more efficient to switch gears. If you don't switch gears, your motor will get exhausted or your legs will get exhausted. If you do, your car's battery or your legs' batteries will be able to push forward for longer.
I got the idea of the article after looking it over, but the title of this post is really difficult.
Does this sum it up similarly?
TIL that as you increase your walking speed there is a point where walking any faster would take more energy than running
TIL that as you increase your walking speed there is a point where walking any faster would take more energy than running
Ah! Gotcha! I agree your title is way better! I'll change it.
I appreciate it. <3
When you walk faster and faster and faster, there is a point in which you automatically start running.
Really? for me, this does not happen. If I actually want to walk faster and faster I begin walking super funny (the steps become wider and wider while still maintaining a foot always on the ground) and it becomes harder and harder to increase speed beyond a certain point when my muscles cannot move any faster. If I want to switch to running I need to consciously switch to running, it only takes me a split second to decide to switch, but it does not happen "automatically".
When I want to reach a certain speed, I make a very quick decision on what's the most comfortable (or sometimes, socially acceptable) way (run or walk?) and based on my internalized experience I do that.. but it's not on the level of a reflex like removing your hand from fire, but rather closer to reaching to get a glass of water with your hand and tracing a comfortable path with your arm. I expect the better you know your body the closer you'll be at making the right call, just the same as there's people that sit with good posture and people that sit with bad posture, I find it strange that it would be an "automatic" thing. I'd also guess that a person that's more used to marching would be more comfortable walking at faster speeds, whereas people that are not used to marching will switch to running much earlier because they aren't used to walking fast. And vice-versa, someone who's not used to running might take longer to switch.. this might also depend on the state of their joints, if the person is overweight, etc.
Here’s a way to look at it: if you try to walk a long distance at a very high speed, you’ll get exhausted, but if you run the same distance at that same speed, you’ll be less tired.
I feel I'm missing something because this seems contradictory with the previous statement. If you are at a high speed but you don't "automatically start running" and can walk, then that would mean you are below the switching threshold. And you said that under that threshold walking is more efficient, so shouldn't it make you less tired to walk?
I feel the kind of "exhaustion" I get from walking is fundamentally different than the "exhaustion" from running.. walking too fast for too long can make my muscles hurt but it does not make me lose my breath the way running (even at low speeds) does.
I agree that mental rules add complexity, mental rules such as "If I run, I'll be seen as weird".
I also agree that the change to running not a reflex in the sense of "This pan is hot! I'll instantly move my arm!"
Without looking at the data, I'd assume the switch-to-running point is arrived at statistically. Most people have a point —or a range or a distribution of points— at which they start running. It could be that this switch-to-running point is similar to breathing: most people go from inhalation to exhalation (a point we could call switch-to-exhalation or, if reversed, switch-to-inhalation) without thinking about it, but they can also consciously control it.
The contradiction you mentioned disappears if you don't consider the switch-to-running point a reflex, and instead consider it like breathing. You can consciously hold your breath and therefore change the switch-to-exhalation point. You can also consciously walk faster and therefore change the switch-to-running point.
I agree that the exhaustion is different: different muscles are being used and they're being used differently. Maybe saying that was factually wrong. My bad. I was trying to get across the point that energy expenditure past the switch-to-running point is higher if you choose to keep walking than if you run. But the fact that there's more energy expenditure doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be more exhausted; it could be that when you run, even though you can save energy, it actually uses muscles that are not properly trained and therefore get fatigued faster than the muscles you'd use if you walked.
I had a look at wikipedia, and it seems that there are conflicting studies about this:
This view was largely unchallenged until the late 1980s. Since that time, several studies have shown that transitioning from walking to running actually resulted in an increase in energy expenditure, while other studies have supported an energetic benefit from the transition. In the time since the energetics optimization view was first challenged, a number of mechanical, kinetic, and kinematic factors have been explored to explain the transition. Weak to moderately strong correlations have been found between several variables and the PTS, but work from a variety of researchers in the 1990s and 2000s agrees that ultimately it is fatigue and discomfort (or imminent fatigue/discomfort) in the tibialis anterior and other dorsiflexor muscles of the ankle that is the primary stimulus for the transition from walking to running in humans
Interesting. The conflicting studies could be unified by a theory presented in this article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096663622100120X The article explicitly addresses the "trigger theory" (the fatigue and discomfort in the tibialis anterior and other muscles triggers running), but I don't know how they integrate those findings into the unified theory because I haven't read the article yet 😅