Slashdot Mirror


Walk or Run: Are We Built To Be Lazy?

sciencehabit writes "A quick visit to Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks shows just how many ways humans (or at least British comedians) can think of to travel from point A to point B. So why don't we high kick our way to the bus stop or skip to the grocery store? New research suggests that there may be a deep biomechanical reason governing the gaits we choose in different situations. In short, people consistently choose to walk when they need to travel slower than 2 m/s to reach their goal in the given time; when they needed to move about 3 m/s or faster, they ran. But in between—in 'the twilight zone between walking and running'—people tended to mix the two gaits, minimizing their energy expenditure. The findings could help scientists design better prosthetic limbs and even build more human-like robots"

138 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Looking around me... by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

    It is tempting to say we're built to be lazy. Just look at all the slothful people. On the other hand, being able and willing to NOT be lazy when the time comes has a distinct evolutionary advantage, just as saving energy when one needs to does. I supposed we're meant to be a blend.

    1. Re:Looking around me... by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I actually had the opposite reaction. I'm 31, and I constantly fight the urge to run everywhere. I remember all through school, even into early highschool, I'd run everywhere I wanted to go.

      Then it was uncool to run. Then inappropriate. Then unprofessional. A year ago, effectively 15 years after I stopped running everywhere, I started running for exercise. I'm getting back into shape. And I'm finding it annoying that I can't just run all the time - I'll get sweaty or smelly, and that's just socially unacceptable.

      I'm pretty sure we're all meant to run a LOT more than we do - and we've forced ourselves to stop due to social pressure.

      --
      .
    2. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You like to run. That's cool. I've got a great friend from high school who was a cross-country runner back then and is now a marathoner (we're in our late 30s). He likes to run too. Me, on the other hand, I hate running. I've never been good at it, I've never been fast, and it always makes me feel like crap to do it. Combined with a family history of bad knees, there's no way I'm running anywhere. But I do walk awfully fast...

    3. Re:Looking around me... by epiphani · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You misunderstand. I'm impatient. Now that I'm actually capable of running a reasonable distance, I get annoyed walking because I could be getting there faster!

      --
      .
    4. Re:Looking around me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look up "Runner's high". You always want to run because you crave that high again. Bring a change of clothing and learn to take a dry or sponge bath. You won't be sweaty or smelly anymore in social settings.

      There are some credible theories that we evolved and are Born To Run (name of a good book). Research it if you want to know more. Do you want to know more?

    5. Re:Looking around me... by ksemlerK · · Score: 1

      I love you Bruce!!

    6. Re:Looking around me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Me, on the other hand, I hate running. I've never been good at it, I've never been fast, and it always makes me feel like crap to do it. Combined with a family history of bad knees, there's no way I'm running anywhere.

      I used to feel exactly the same way you did. I then purchased a book on how to run (The POSE Method of Running, by Romanov - you can also look up Chi running or natural running), worked at it so I had zero joint impact (including at the knees), and now I can run 10 miles at a shot pretty easily.

      Did I mention that I started this at age 38?

    7. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You must live somewhere cold...

      Actually, I think you're probably a really good example of someone who's at the other end of the spectrum from obesity - the obese have metabolisms which over-retain energy, while people like you tend to under-retain it. The latter definitely makes you look better, at least until a famine comes around...

    8. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Well, I do appreciate the input. I'll check it out, although when I tried Couch to 5K (an appropriately modest program, not like couch potato to P90X in one step) a couple of years ago it took three months for my knees to quit hurting after two weeks of running. I could barely walk for a month. Sad, really, because I really noticed the aerobic benefits quite rapidly - every run was noticeably easier than the one before. But I still hate exercise. I played American football in high school as an offensive and defensive tackle, so I've trained at a reasonably high level, and I never got a runner's high or anything like it. I do feel better, overall and in a general sense, if I exercise, but the problem is that any specific bout of exercising leaves me feeling like a dead man. I have never felt immediately better after exercising than before.

    9. Re:Looking around me... by m00sh · · Score: 1

      I'll get sweaty or smelly, and that's just socially unacceptable.

      You can run without getting sweaty if you keep your pace down to around 12 minutes or less. If it's summer, run with the shirt in your pocket and then when you reach your destination, dry off in the restroom and put the shirt on. It will be no worse than the smell from walking around.

    10. Re:Looking around me... by Vaphell · · Score: 4, Informative

      haven't you overused heels by any chance? not that i am a runner, but people doing barefoot running say it's because heel running skips all the dampening effect provided by foot muscles/tendons+calf and the whole shock goes along the rigid bone straight to the knee. Soft heel in a shoe provides false sense of security but doesn't offset the lack of natural shock absorption.
      If you are barefoot on a hard stone floor, are you able to use heels at all? i know i don't, it fucking hurts and that tells me it's not how it's supposed to be done.

    11. Re:Looking around me... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Same here.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Your point is actually quite valid generally, but there is the secondary issue here: I have exercised at levels ranging from "walking in the neighborhood for 15 minutes" to "near-maximal effort for one hour straight followed by two hours of high-moderate activity", and I have never once felt better after a workout than before it. We are all different, and while I'd love to be one of those people (like my friend) who can get a runner's high, I just don't. Exercise makes me tired, hungry, and sore. It has never done anything else.

    13. Re:Looking around me... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Old bull and young bull are on top of a hill. They look around and see a herd of cows. The young bull gets all excited, says: 'I'm going to run down there and fuck a cow'. The old bull says: 'I'm going to walk down there and then fuck _all_ those cows.'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Looking around me... by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Knowing how to run has made a big difference for me. I was a cross-country track runner in High School, but fattened up for about a decade afterwards until about 30 before becoming a runner again. I've always ran with good quality shoes, etc. but ran the way I was taught in High School: rolling off your heels and lengthening your stride as long as possible in order to maximize speed.

      Over the years, I picked up some injuries (ankle, foot, hip, knee) that bothered me while running until I decided to run decidedly on my toes. Mind you, I still have the expensive, therapeutic running shoes, I just run off my toes and shorten my stride somewhat.

      The difference has been rather startling. People should NOT run on their heels!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    15. Re:Looking around me... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Get yourself a bicycle. Way faster and less energy expenditure (i.e. less sweating) than walking or running.

    16. Re:Looking around me... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure we're all meant to run a LOT more than we do - and we've forced ourselves to stop due to social pressure.

      Hate to break it to you... but we're not. Humans run worse than just about every vaguely similar sized animal on the planet. The reason that we are the way we are is most definitely not because we can run fast.

      It's up to you whether you run - I hate running personally, but love swimming, football (yes I know that involves running), rowing, tennis (see before). My knees are not cut out for long distances.

    17. Re:Looking around me... by scheme · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm pretty sure we're all meant to run a LOT more than we do - and we've forced ourselves to stop due to social pressure.

      Hate to break it to you... but we're not. Humans run worse than just about every vaguely similar sized animal on the planet. The reason that we are the way we are is most definitely not because we can run fast.

      It's up to you whether you run - I hate running personally, but love swimming, football (yes I know that involves running), rowing, tennis (see before). My knees are not cut out for long distances.

      Actually, if you look at the stats, people tend to be the most efficient runners on the planet (with kangaroos coming in second). Although quadrupeds can run faster, they tire out much more quickly as well as overheat. The end result is that over longer distances (45+ km), humans are pretty competitive with animals such as horses. There's actually a hunting technique that's been used called exhaustion hunting, where people chased a deer or whatever until it collapsed from exhaustion and then ran up to it and killed it. It works because running on two legs is more efficient than running on 4 legs and because people have a few adaptations (e.g. hairless skin, etc.) that allow them to get rid of heat more easily.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    18. Re:Looking around me... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Don't forget how much more stylish and hip cyclists are. Also, we get to really annoy car drivers.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    19. Re:Looking around me... by quadrox · · Score: 2

      I know exactly how you feel, been like this all my life. When I'm walking with other people I constantly have to remind myself to slow down because they can't keep up.

    20. Re:Looking around me... by frenchbedroom · · Score: 1

      Runner's high or not, exercise *always* leaves you in worse shape than before. Proof : do your exercise. If you just *think* you're feeling great after it, just try doing it again...

      The effects of exercise can only be felt after a period of rest. Your body will naturally react to the exertion it went through by strengthening itself, just to be prepared. Imagine being a primitive man 70,000 years ago in Africa. If you succeeded in outrunning a predator, you'd want your muscles to not only heal themselves, but become stronger in case you're attacked again.

      That's why I don't go bouldering every day : 3 times a week is plenty enough for steady improvement and it gives me lots of resting time to build my muscles back, and then some.

      A nice illustration : http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Supercompensation

    21. Re:Looking around me... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      It may be tempting, but its certainly shines of ignorance.

      There is no other animal on the planet that can run for the distances we can. We are the definitive long distance runners of the planet. Our ancestors on the plains of Africa hunted not by being quicker than other animals but by running them down until heat exhaustion took its toll and practically killed them without a weapon.

      I didn't RTFA but the summery sounds like regurgitation of shit I've known since high school.

      We aren't built to be lazy, we're efficient as shit.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:Looking around me... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Most (not all, but certainly most) obese people don't have metabolism problems they have gluteny problems. They are fat asses, nothing more.

      When the famine comes around, said person who is inshape will out last Mr Obese lazy bastard because the guy who can run, can beat out the fat guy.

      The fat won't keep him alive long enough to get in shape and compete with the guy who already is. The fat guy won't have the skills to compete for food either.

      Contrary to popular believe, being obese doesnt' help you survive food shortages in any way.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    23. Re:Looking around me... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You could not possibly be more incorrect.

      Humans are the most efficient running animals on the planet. We can literally run down ANY creature on the surface of the Earth. We can literally kill creatures by running them into heat exhaustion and in fact still do in many parts of the world such as Australia and the plains of Africa.

      We aren't the fastest, but we are by far the most efficient long distance runners to exist.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    24. Re:Looking around me... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Exercise makes me tired, hungry, and sore. It has never done anything else.

      Maybe your brain is broken, but odds are you can produce the same endorphins as everyone else, and you're simply not pushing yourself hard enough. My personal problem is asthma, it's very difficult for me to reach that point before I collapse and wheeze, even with an inhaler. Maybe your problem is just giving up too soon. Personally I find that my joints hurt before I get there by running, even if I can breathe, but bicycling is just the ticket.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Looking around me... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I'm "obese", and I currently eat only one or two meals worth of food in a given day. So, I have a gluttony problem? (notice the correct spelling there, since I'm already being a dick (as you are))

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    26. Re:Looking around me... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      When I'm walking with other people I constantly have to remind myself to slow down because they can't keep up.

      Ditto. As a friend of mine used to say: Long limbs and a short temper.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    27. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      The hardest I've ever pushed myself was, as noted, in high school playing football, in a reasonably demanding program - weights four times a week (I could bench 250, squat 370 - not enough for Division I, but also not "I walk around the block once a week and don't get the point of exercise"), three days of three to four hours of full-contact practice a week, plus games. I was losing weight while eating north of 5000 calories a day just to try to keep up. If that's not hard enough to get a runner's high, then indeed my brain must be broken.

    28. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      This is going to sound completely lame, but I hate being wet. Good idea, though.

    29. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Runner's high or not, exercise *always* leaves you in worse shape than before

      Completely true, but the runner's high makes some people enjoy exercise. I hate it, because I get all the crappy and none of the good.

    30. Re:Looking around me... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who's never been overweight by more than a couple of pounds, or perhaps has always struggled to gain weight. One of my college roommates was like that; his lunch plate was piled high with potatoes and meat covered in sauces, and he always had a piece of pie or cake and usually a cookie too, for dessert, and he didn't do any exercise, but at 6'2" he never weighed over 140 pounds.

      Are some people gluttonous fatasses? Yes, I suppose so. Funnily enough, though, if you eliminate sugar and starch from their diet, most people can lose quite a bit of weight while eating all they care to eat. Obesity is enough to cause massive social stigma, significant professional consequences (for most), and bad health, and all fat people already know they're fat. If it were simple for them to stop eating, they would, but most really don't consume any more than a thin person of roughly equal lean mass when they're at a steady-state weight (which most are - the occasional 700-pound nightmare aside). They have a disease that can be treated in many cases by altering what they eat, not how much they eat. This isn't new; it's old knowledge that we've just ignored.

    31. Re:Looking around me... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Huh, sure is some fattening tap water, tea, and occasional coffee with a teaspoon of agave nectar.

      I certainly try to avoid liquids like you mention. As you say, most people don't realize exactly how much is in there.

      Granted, I put quotes around obese because I meet the medical definition of the term. I probably do not fall under what most think of when the word is used. (5'10" 260lb, 42" belt)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    32. Re:Looking around me... by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Or just make sure your carbohydrate intake stays around 100 g per day.

    33. Re:Looking around me... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Aw, come on, troll, really? It was a JOKE. Personally, I think it would be cool if more people just ran everywhere they wanted to go in real life. Don't know if I'd want to sit next to them in a meeting, though.

    34. Re:Looking around me... by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      The high doesn't always work.
      I used to feel pretty good after hard cycling (e.g. averaging 91% of max heart rate over half an hour) and going to the gym, but I've lost that feeling. Now I just feel wasted or minimally pleasant. I've already seen a few people here disputing that the high can disappear, but they have nothing to back it up, apart from "I'm not familiar with it". I think being unhappy *may* have something to do with it.

    35. Re:Looking around me... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I'm 5'10", 210lbs and I consider myself fat. My BMI is 30, which puts me in the "obese" category, statistically speaking. Adding 50lbs would put me way into "visibly obese" territory, in fact that's what I used to weigh before I started working out and eating healthier food.

      Then again, no matter what I do I can't seem to get below 200lbs. I do crossfit 3-4 hours per week, always take the stairs, stand at my desk at work, ride my bicycle, cut out white rice, white bread, potatoes etc. from my diet, stay away from sweets and all those things. I wouldn't even mind weighing in at 210lbs if I could just lose the gut.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    36. Re:Looking around me... by jpkunst · · Score: 1

      There's actually a hunting technique that's been used called exhaustion hunting, where people chased a deer or whatever until it collapsed from exhaustion and then ran up to it and killed it.

      Still in use: Human mammal, human hunter.

    37. Re:Looking around me... by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Sounds like excuses. Run to the gym near the office before 8am or only run to home after work and for mornings, run to a co-worker's house who will let you shower in his house and you pay for gas.

      You can do jumping jacks or rope skipping for aerobic workout. If you just run for aerobic exercise, then you're doing it wrong.

  2. Fuck Sake by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not called being lazy. It's called SURVIVING on LIMITED RESOURCES, which is what Humans had to do for hundreds of thousands of years before developing the technology to increase food availability.

    Expending the least amount of energy was called SURVIVAL.

    We really have completely lost touch with reality, haven't we? We are living in the idiocracy.

    1. Re:Fuck Sake by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Angry much?

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    2. Re:Fuck Sake by schlachter · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not called being lazy. It's called SURVIVING on LIMITED RESOURCES, ....

      And I totally pictured a bunch of nerds in their parent's basements living off energy drinks and cheetos...reaching for their mouse

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    3. Re:Fuck Sake by mister2au · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think there is a more subtle point to the study ...

      Energy expenditure for walking above 2m/s (7.2kph / 4.5mph) increases quite dramatically and for above 3m/s (10.8kph / 6.8/mph) you physically need to be running.

      In the transition (between 2-3 m/s) it seems to be more economical to access the low energy walking at low speed supplemented by whatever limited running is needed. For example, to average 2.5 m/s (9kph or 5.6mph) it is better walk half of it at 2m/s and run half at 3m/s rather than power-walk or slow-jog at 2.5 m/s consistently.

      Point of the study is that people tend to naturally optimise this ... or conversely i would argue that people are poor at judging speeds and have to increase/decrease to make the time limit - it would be interesting to repeat but give people a pace-indicator and see if people still maintained alternating speeds or changed instead to a steady pace.

      Obviously the title is stupid and really should been focused on how WELL people optimise their energy output not whether people do.

    4. Re:Fuck Sake by similar_name · · Score: 2

      Not just humans, I would argue most (if not all) life expends as little energy as necessary.

    5. Re:Fuck Sake by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The headlines are just flamebait to get page views and comments.

      But there's nothing wrong with the science, sure it confirms something that seems pretty obvious, but it's important for science to do that sometimes.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Fuck Sake by m00sh · · Score: 1

      The happiest and joyous moments of our lives are when we have spent large amounts of energy. The times when we did nothing and spent very little energy is not memorable or significant part of our lives.

      Our bodies are designed to want to expend energy, efficiently expending energy helps. But, the whole point of being alive is to spend energy.

      Isn't saying humans had to survive on limited resources for hundreds of thousands of years a wild guess? It could be very well that humans did pretty well hunting and gathering. There are many animals out there who don't have to survive on limited resources - like deer. They have all the food they want out there.

    7. Re:Fuck Sake by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      We really have completely lost touch with reality, haven't we?

      Welcome back

    8. Re:Fuck Sake by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      Where is the "mod parent to +stackoverflow."? option

    9. Re:Fuck Sake by Leuf · · Score: 1

      Please explain this to the squirrels and chipmunks in my backyard that dart and twitch around like meth heads on a sugar high.

    10. Re:Fuck Sake by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      And Cliff Young proved it long ago without resorting to random CAPITALIZATION that sounds like RANDOM SCREAMING to the inner voice that most of us USE when reading your blimey POST.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    11. Re:Fuck Sake by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      reaching for their mouse

      I've never heard it called that before.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:Fuck Sake by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not called being lazy. It's called SURVIVING on LIMITED RESOURCES, which is what Humans had to do for hundreds of thousands of years before developing the technology to increase food availability.

      Lazy is when you're too lazy to open the dictionary to see what lazy means. It means "averse to work" (or prone to slowness or idleness) which is what you are when you're hungry, which is to say it's called being lazy. You could also say a lizard is lazy, and you'd be right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Fuck Sake by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Reminded me of zippy the pinhead.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  3. Is it lazy to be prudent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Consider our ancestors. Would it be a good idea to always rush from point A to point B, risking near constant exhaustion? Predators would find us an easy kill at that point.

    I'd argue that this conservative behavior is evolutionarily driven.

    1. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by GreyLurk · · Score: 2

      Which is a good part of the reason that dieting and exercise are so hard to get into for a lot of people. We have deeply ingrained evolutionary drives to eat whatever food is available to us, and conserve our calories as much as possible, because as animals, we never knew when our next meal would be available, so you darn well better eat as much of that deer carcass as you can before it goes bad, or some bigger predator tries to take it from you.

    2. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by erice · · Score: 1

      Consider our ancestors. Would it be a good idea to always rush from point A to point B, risking near constant exhaustion? Predators would find us an easy kill at that point.

      I'd argue that this conservative behavior is evolutionarily driven.

      Quite so. Though, I think you have the scenario backwards. Our ancestors were the predators. They relentlessly "ran" down their prey, moving efficiently while forcing the quarry to sprint erratically trying to get away until they collapsed from exhaustion.

    3. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by mister2au · · Score: 1

      Completely not the point of the article ...

      It's not about slection of speed to get somewhere, but instead about how people optimise for whatever average speed they select

    4. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Also: dieting and exercise are often misapplied. Exercise is for making you stronger or increasing your endurance. Diet is for changing your body fat. Using one when you should use the other is not going to work, long-term. Try getting rid of sugars and starches and see how much weight you lose. I've dropped 75 lbs / 35 kg since last March, and the only change I have made is that I now eat less than ten grams of carbohydrate a day as a goal, with less than twenty grams as the absolute limit. I have not engaged in an exercise plan, although doing so would be beneficial, and I didn't quit drinking alcohol, although I do stay away from beer (loaded with maltose) and try to keep wine down to two or three glasses a week. Spirits (but not liqueurs) are carbohydrate free, after all, as long as you use sugar-free mixers.

      Try it. Change your life. It sure changed mine. Remember: Obesity is a disease of fat storage. If your body is predisposed to store energy as fat, and you thus have low circulating levels of energy (glucose, fatty acids, and ketone bodies), you will of course be hungry all the time, until you accumulate enough fat that the basal release of fatty acids from all your tissue is adequate to provide for the body's energy needs. You will be puzzled why you have thin friends who plow through half again as much food as you do with no ill effects, but this is because they don't share your problem - they metabolize carbohydrates rather than storing them. And you will struggle with your weight, as I did for the first 37 years of my life. Then I found the way out. The last time I was this thin, I was eating 800-1000 calories a day and was constantly hungry. Tonight I had a two-egg omelet cooked in a tablespoon of lard stuffed with ground pork sausage and cream cheese and topped with sambal oelek (basically chunky Sriracha without the sugar) for dinner. I had fried chicken with the breading and skin pulled off for lunch. I had eight strips of bacon for breakfast. Yesterday, I skipped breakfast, ate half a NY strip for lunch, and had green beans, mushrooms, and a T-bone for dinner. I don't have the constant hunger anymore. I feel great. And I can totally eat like this for the rest of my life.

    5. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      If you think humans were successful endurance hunters, you've probably never tried to chase down so much as a dog.

      I'd say it was a miracle our ancestors survived long enough to invent the thrown spear, but that wouldn't be fair to Thag Grobnak. Real predators would have driven us to extinction long ago if not for his efforts.

      So if you're reading this, drink a toast to Thag Grobnak and his highly successful chain of Opposable-Thumb Massage Parlors.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    6. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      If you think humans were successful endurance hunters, you've probably never tried to chase down so much as a dog.

      I've also never tried to hunt a woolly mammoth with a sharpened stick but that does not mean that it did not happen. The same is true of persistence hunting.

    7. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You've chosen the only other example of a cursorial hunter. Over the course of a few days, no other land animals can outpace fit humans and dogs.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Try getting rid of sugars and starches and see how much weight you lose.

      Alternatively, try getting rid of sugars and starches and see what you're allowed to eat... then compare it to a decent low calorie diet.

      I can totally eat like this for the rest of my life.

      No one is claiming you can't.

    9. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that. Got any citations?

    10. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Seriously off topic question... How did people kill mammoths with their tools? If they killed mammoths, why not elephants?

    11. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      How did people kill mammoths with their tools?

      They chased them over cliffs.

      If they killed mammoths, why not elephants?

      Mammoth tastes better than elephant.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      You're partially right about excercise and diet, but combining the two can be very effective. If you excercise in the aerobic range (about 50-65% of max heart rate) then your body is going to burn your fat resources for energy. Also, if you increase your muscle mass, it becomes easier to metabolise excess calories.

      Carbohydrates aren't necessarily bad; it's the amount of them that causes the problem. If you keep carbs limited to fruit and vegetables, then you're extremely unlikely to put on weight. Your diet sounds like it's almost an Atkins style diet which is not the most healthy - it can punish your liver if you eat like that forever.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    13. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You need to do some research, hell even google can solve this in one short search.

      Our hairless bodies coupled with some nice quirks of our hips make us the undisputed long distance runners.

      That dog you're chasing can't run a marathon, it'll over heat. It might out run you for what you think is a long distance, but people can run all day long without so much as a break, no other animal can, none even come close.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    14. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've dropped 75 lbs / 35 kg since last March, and the only change I have made is that I now eat less than ten grams of carbohydrate a day as a goal, with less than twenty grams as the absolute limit.

      Congratulations, you have rediscovered the low-carbohydrate modified fast, also known as the Atkins diet. Make sure to eat foods with beneficial oils, especially nuts. Coconut and Macadamia are the primary examples. Avocados will also give you much-needed oils. It's a good diet for weight loss for people with proper liver function.

      In general what is wrong with our diets today is overconsumption of carbohydrates, which was pushed on us by the USDA and NIH on behalf of corporations hawking prepared foods. It dovetails best with the so-called "green revolution" farming techniques which destroy topsoil in order to maximize corporate profit, which actually decreasing per-acre yields as compared to zero-tilth organic agriculture.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didn't mean to claim I did any of the work to "rediscover" it - ultimately I was inspired by Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories - but I find that calling it Atkins leads to two problems: people who think about someone who is on maintenance and think that's how I plan to eat, and thus serve me stuff I don't want to eat, and people who are just batshit nuts Atkins haters.

    16. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Metabolically, alcohol is no different than fat. Animals can't make three-carbon fragments out of two-carbon fragments. Protein can be turned into sugar, but alcohol and fatty acids can't. And it's the sugar that makes your adipose tissue blow up, via the effect of insulin.

    17. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I find that calling it Atkins leads to two problems: people who think about someone who is on maintenance and think that's how I plan to eat, and thus serve me stuff I don't want to eat, and people who are just batshit nuts Atkins haters.

      Yeah, I've had a good time schooling those people. Usually the clincher is that Atkins didn't invent it, and the diet is used to treat chronic recurring seizures...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's roughly equivalent to Atkins induction, actually. Just out of curiosity, why would you think it would punish the liver? Synthesizing ketones or synthesizing glycogen or fatty acids, either way it's going to be synthesizing one form of metabolically available energy or another.

    19. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      then compare it to a decent low calorie diet.

      I have. See:

      The last time I was this thin, I was eating 800-1000 calories a day and was constantly hungry.

      The line about "I can totally eat like this forever" is a comparison between eating like this and eating like I did the last time I lost a lot of weight. One is sustainable, because it doesn't make me hungry. One isn't, because it does. Just trying to help more people escape their weight.

    20. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Hah! My wife is an epileptologist. A few months ago, she was at a conference and the topic of ketogenic diets came up. Several of the people were from pediatric institutions and reported that they had great results but that it was often hard to get compliance, especially if the rest of the family wouldn't go along. She piped up and mentioned what I was doing - and they told her that she was wrong, that nobody could keep up a ketosis for seven months (my duration at the time). Oh well; there are none so blind as those who will not see.

    21. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Sorry I didn't put this in the other comment, but it just occurred to me. There's a woman at work who is about 50 years old and at least 50 pounds overweight, but she's an avid bike rider, routinely doing 50+ miles a weekend in addition to her weekday workouts, year-round, in the South. She has plenty of muscle mass, which I know because I've watched her move heavy objects with ease. And her meals at work are pretty modest - she might go home and gulp a gallon of ice cream every night, but I don't think she does.

      What is she supposed to do to lose weight? Increase from ten hours of vigorous exercise a week to twenty? Forty?

    22. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, I don't think humans succeeded by virtue of their endurance.

      That said, in some regions humans run down quadrupedal game with their endurance:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

      "During the persistence hunt an antelope, such as a kudu, is not shot or speared from a distance, but simply run down in the midday heat. Depending on the specific conditions, hunters of the central Kalahari will chase a kudu for about two to five hours over 25 to 35 km (16 to 22 mi) in temperatures of about 40 to 42 ÂC (104 to 108 ÂF). The hunter chases the kudu, which then runs away out of sight. By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches up with it before it has had enough time to rest in the shade. The animal is repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too exhausted to continue running. The hunter then kills it at close range with a spear."

      Kind of a brutally hard way to make a living, but it works for these guys apparently.

    23. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      If she wants to lose weight, then eating less is definitely what she needs to do. However, it sounds like she's perfectly fit and healthy, so she might not need or want to lose weight. Sammo Hung is a good example of an agile fit martial artist who carries a few extra pounds.

      Ultimately, it boils down to calories in vs calories expended, but it's a lot easier to discuss than to put into action for a lot of people.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    24. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I don't know any details, but I recall reading studies that long term low-carbohydrate diets (which I assume Atkins is one of) can cause liver/kidney disease. I'm not a biologist or nutritionist, so I haven't got a clue as to why that may be.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    25. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I lost 90lb in 9mo, and 120lb overall in about 13mo, and kept up ketosis for that period AFAIK.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      it boils down to calories in vs calories expended

      Only at a cellular level. As soon as you have more than one cell, you find that hormones interfere. This is the point where you really need to read something like Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories (the longer, more scientific of the two) or Why We Get Fat (the shorter, more accessible of the two).

      I'm not a biologist or nutritionist

      Don't let that stop you. I'm a physician, and I was giving out the same awful advice even as I saw it didn't work in my own life, because that's what I was taught (see, at least you had an excuse - I was supposed to know better). Learn this stuff and make up a plan that suits you.

    27. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Ultimately though, reducing calorific intake below calorific expenditure will result in eventual loss of weight due to simple physics. It gets a lot more complicated with things like biological availability of the calories, but unless you've got insane water retention, the body can't gain mass that you're not eating.

      I don't need to lose weight myself as I've been doing a lot of cycling which makes it easy to shift excess weight. I do pay a lot of interest in my diet, though as I eat gluten free (helps with my psoriasis) and am also a pescetarian (fish, no meat) which is a tricky combination.

      The simple answer to most diet issues is to switch to a non-processed diet - lots of fresh produce. If it doesn't rot, then it's not good food.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    28. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I've been doing a lot of cycling which makes it easy to shift excess weight

      I just gave you a completely on-point counterexample. You find it easy to shift excess weight while cycling, likely because your body metabolizes carbohydrates properly. Others (like the lady I know at work) don't. If you find the prospect hard to believe, consider pregnancy, which is famous for odd food choices, before you tell me that hormones don't play a role in what we eat. I know it sounds insane because you've learned the conventional wisdom, but the CW is wrong. If you think you can ignore the sensation of real hunger picking at your sensorium 24/7, you're either one in a million or you've never tried.

      reducing calorific intake below calorific expenditure will result in eventual loss of weight due to simple physics

      This is the fundamental disconnect between basically-thin and basically-fat people, because the former group has never really felt what it's like to be truly hungry all the time even when you're overweight, and the latter has. If you don't believe me, eat less until you've cut a third or more of your daily caloric intake off your diet and see how you feel. The deficit between what your body accepts as adequate to maintain a steady state of weight and what you consider an acceptable minimum intake is what matters here, not the absolute value, because everyone is different. Mind you: if you can't do that, your explanation is it's your fault for being a glutton tied to your stomach. If it's easy for overweight people to cut a thousand calories, it should be easy for everyone else too. But it's not, because in the overwhelming majority of cases gluttony is not the problem. I out-eat my father-in-law in terms of calories, though I weigh about 100 pounds less, because I don't touch the carbs.

      Calories in = calories out is only correct at a cellular level. I'll give you the short version of why: let us assume that there is a hormone that could cause the liver and muscle tissue to pull sugars out of circulation, and that could cause fat tissue to store fatty acids as triglycerides. It exists, and it's insulin. In that case, it is entirely possible that the circulating stores of energy in the bloodstream could run amazingly low in response to this hormone, triggering a sense of hunger (which is clearly neurologically driven - otherwise gastric bypass would be a cure for obesity) even while the abundant stores of energy (those sugars and fatty acids) in the bloodstream are being stored rather than utilized. The person then eats more food, but they're not becoming obese because they overeat - they're overeating because they're storing their energy intake as fat rather than using it and are chronically energy-deprived in the only place that counts when you're regulating food intake: the bloodstream. We don't try to pretend that teenage boys grow because they're overeating - their appetite increases because their body is growing. Why is this completely the accepted wisdom when the growth is vertical, but not when it's horizontal? One of the major hormones involved is called insulin-like growth factor!

      If it doesn't rot, then it's not good food.

      Well, that's very true, and actually a pretty clear path to a low-carbohydrate diet. What doesn't rot? Refined carbohydrates... go read one of those books I mentioned (they're on Pirate Bay, if you don't want to pay $12), or go read eatingacademy.com. Taubes is an experienced science reporter who has published academic articles, and the eatingacademy guy is a Stanford med school grad who did a surgery residency at Johns Hopkins, so we're not exactly talking about a couple of backwoods practitioners trying something out on their cousins.

    29. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Isn't it tragic? Since I started doing this I've run into plenty of people at the hospital (I'm a physician) whose attitude toward Atkins is "Well, it does work, but...". Bizarre. I was furious for months over having the fact that oh, unlike all the others, this diet actually works for most people who follow it professionally hidden from me in order for a handful of researchers and nutritionists to feel better about themselves. Now I just try to tell everyone I can, because getting mad at those jokers isn't going to accomplish anything except making me look like a nut. BTW, totally impressed by your weight loss. I wish I could have kept up the 10 lbs/mo for as long as you did. Big props.

    30. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Reducing calorific intake is not necessarily an easy thing to do (especially if you're feeling hungry all the time). The biggest problem is that evolution has prepared us for a world of limited available food and we live in a world (or maybe just some parts of the world) of ridiculous availability of calories.

      However, it doesn't matter what kind of metabolism you've got if you're put on a low calorie diet without access to other food (think concentration camps), then you will definitely lose weight. It makes little sense to talk about "true at the cellular level" when it's true at any level of a system. This doesn't help people who are unwilling/unable to endure a strict calorie controlled diet, but it's probably more useful to examine where/how/why the extra calories are coming from.

      My personal opinion is that sugar is one of the biggest obstacles to losing weight. It seems that whenever people eat sugar, it produces a craving for more sugar. When you see someone eat a biscuit, it's almost as though it creates the desire to eat more biscuits and pretty soon the whole packet has gone (and 1000 calories added to your daily intake).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    31. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by Faffin · · Score: 1

      Did you find you hit a plateau? I lost 30 lbs over 3 months then stopped. For the past 3, I haven't moved up or down. I've started doing bodyweight strength exercises to supplement the walking I do, and I guess I should look at reducing carbs even more. A rough estimate of what I eat at the moment would be 30-80g a day. What amazed me about low carb was the effect it had on my blood pressure and cholesterol. In 3 months, both went from extremely high to the high side of average or slightly above.

    32. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I've plateaued a couple of times. Started last March, had a plateau in early June for a couple of weeks, big spurt in October, obviously a slowdown at the holidays as I took five days off from the diet for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and parties, and I've just started making progress again since maybe first week of January. Based on my experience I find I lose a lot faster if I'm very strict, so my default is less than 10g a day, basically seasonings, salad dressing, and cheeses only. I've also found that doing an occasional intermittent fast can kick-start the process by making sure you're in continuous ketosis for a while - IME I find it easiest to eat a nice big breakfast (usually just bacon, actually) and then not eat until the next morning, especially when I know I'm going to have a busy day at work and will appreciate not having to break for lunch.

      I'd definitely cut your carbs, just to accelerate things, but I'd also ignore the scale and use clothes to measure yourself (since you're exercising). Go buy a cheap pair of jeans at Old Navy that are just a little too tight and use them to measure your progress.

    33. Re:Is it lazy to be prudent? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      That's the central thesis of the biology behind the Atkins diet: carbohydrates cause excessive fat storage in a significant portion of people. These people are known as "overweight". Getting rid of carbohydrates eliminates their abnormal insulin reactions and leads to them leaking fat from their tissue at proper rates. They feel more energetic, so they tend to be able to eat more calories while still losing weight. It's not the exercise that causes the weight loss; it's the excess energy from weight loss that causes people to exercise.

  4. Kind of obvious by DaemonDan · · Score: 1

    So when people need to run, they run, but if they don't need to run, they don't? Is that really all this is saying? I sure hope there is some more technical benefit to the field of prostheses or this study was probably a waste of money.

    --
    Enjoy post-apocalyptic and singularity science fiction? Check out www.demonarchives.com, a new online graphic-novel.
    1. Re:Kind of obvious by hawguy · · Score: 2

      So when people need to run, they run, but if they don't need to run, they don't? Is that really all this is saying? I sure hope there is some more technical benefit to the field of prostheses or this study was probably a waste of money.

      My dog doesn't follow this pattern, she runs pretty much everywhere, even when she has no obvious reason to get there in a hurry. Except of course, when I'm standing by the car calling her and trying to coax her to come quickly so we can go home, then she walks slowly and meanders her way back to the car.

    2. Re:Kind of obvious by DaemonDan · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of an article I saw from BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21142870) showing that one of the key differences between dogs and wolves was in brain development. Dog are essentially mentally handicapped and stuck in a permanent state of puppyhood. Maybe that's why they don't move in "energy efficient" ways. Either that or running is just fun.

      --
      Enjoy post-apocalyptic and singularity science fiction? Check out www.demonarchives.com, a new online graphic-novel.
    3. Re:Kind of obvious by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Running is fun. Children will run around as play, for no obvious purpose.

      Domesticated dogs are in many ways smarter than wolves and foxes, although there's a lot of variation by breed. They can be trained to pick up on human gestures, and wolves (generally) can't.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Kind of obvious by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      My dog doesn't follow this pattern, she runs pretty much everywhere

      Because she (and domesticated dogs in general) have very few survival pressures on them these days. In fact, by running around and being cute they probably get more treats.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Kind of obvious by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you all just have stupid dogs.

      Every Springer Spaniel my family has raised has been damn sharp. They will only run if they are excited by something, or if they are chasing something. Otherwise, they walk. Granted, they walk fast - but it's not a gait change.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  5. There is a social stigma about running too by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    If you get in shape, you become more prone to bouncing around and spending more energy. The better you are in shape, the more you'd prefer to run than walk. Problem is, if you're booking it everywhere you go, you turn everyone's heads and they glare at you. I think it has something to do with the social idea,"If that guy is running, maybe he just did something wrong, aka a thief." Or maybe it is just jealousy. Seriously, go around running everywhere you go, and you'll get lots of upset people looking at you. I just got tired of it and forced myself to slow down to a walk so everyone didn't glare at me any more.

    Sure, if you run on accepted running paths, it is no big deal. But go running around stores, or running down campus, or running on sidewalks, and the glares will make you wonder if it is socially acceptable to run everywhere you go.

    1. Re:There is a social stigma about running too by jxander · · Score: 1

      If anything, your perceived social stigma from running comes not from potential thievery, or other wrongdoing, but lowered ability to maneuver and avoid collisions. If you're running down the grocery store aisles, you are much more likely to clip a display, knock over the sodas, or crash into an old lady as you turn a corner. Moving slowly, i.e. walking, gives you time to react and avoid those dangerous situations, and lowers the impact should you still manage to bump into someone. Plus, the wheels on shopping carts/trolleys aren't built to handle the RPM inherent in a full sprint. They barely handle a brisk walking pace.

      Your "accepted running paths" are simply places with a good visibility of what's ahead, lower density of bystanders, and virtually no property that can be damaged if bumped.

      --
      This signature is false.
    2. Re:There is a social stigma about running too by mister2au · · Score: 1

      Spot on ...

      Same social stigma as driving 100mph everywhere ... you may have the energy, ability and preference to do it - but safety (not jealousy) suggests moderation in many situations is the social norm

    3. Re:There is a social stigma about running too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      go running around stores, or running down campus, or running on sidewalks, and the glares will make you wonder if it is socially acceptable to run everywhere you go.

      Shit, you can't even walk quickly in a store or people look at you like you're a mugger or a thief. I know what I want and where it is most of the times I go shopping, and don't see the need to dawdle as if the store were the most interesting place I'll go all day. I suppose for most people, it is.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:There is a social stigma about running too by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you look like a child molester.

      Or more likely, you have some social anxiety issues and only believe they are looking at you with derision.

      Or you just live in a really shitty area?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:There is a social stigma about running too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you look like a child molester.

      I don't even wear a collar.

      Or more likely, you have some social anxiety issues and only believe they are looking at you with derision.

      I may or may not have social anxiety issues, but often they actually look at me with fear. I am sufficiently empathetic to be able to tell. I'm not a people person, but I'm not Rain Man.

      Or you just live in a really shitty area?

      Well, I do live in Lake county, California. Arguably that's a yes, but it's a matter of perspective.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Sounds like great research. by ciaohound · · Score: 1

    I'd like to obtain a government grant to help me develop it.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  7. already have prothesis when I need to move fast by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Funny

    My "time to move fast" prothesis accomodates 7 humans comfortably and has a 150 hp engine and goes 180 kph

  8. So let me get this straight... by theIsovist · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Scientists discovered jogging?

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Shhh. Don't let Apple know or they'll try to patent it. With rounded corners.

    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by m00sh · · Score: 1

      2m/s is 13.4 min/mile and 3m/s is 8.9 min/mile.

      Definitely jogging pace but I think walking gait while jogging would probably count as heel striking and bad running/jogging form.

      But racewalkers can do 6 min/mile walking.

  9. And when you need to go up to about 10m/s... by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

    ...you cycle.

  10. If I need to go faster than 3m/s... by ksemlerK · · Score: 2

    I'm driving or flying there. Fuck using my feet.

  11. Anecdote by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    I used to work in an office with an extremely athletic lady. She used to run (actually more of a jog) down the aisles between cubicles. Not bad looking either.

    One day, my boss was standing in the doorway, talking with me when she ran by. He gave her sort of an odd look. When he turned back to speak with me, I said, "If I were her, I'd run by this cubicle as well."

    He was laughing so hard, it was pretty much the end of our conversation.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. The plenny-step by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    After WWII ended, German POWs in the gulags of the Soviet Union adopted a particular method of movement known as the "plenny-step". This was designed by the prisoners to conserve energy when the Communists provided a starvation diet. Not much is known of the exact method used, other than it "turned the camp inhabitants into a mass of bent, crawling figures". You have to realize that the human body (and all animals) do a really good job with optimizing energy output for work achieved.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:The plenny-step by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      This is kind of a fun Website about the Soviet POW camps, as told by a Japanese soldier:

      The Notes of Japanese soldier in USSR - Kiuchi Nobuo, retired Air Corps

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  13. I always run everywhere! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    At least in Skyrim. But I play that a lot, so I think it counts.

  14. why not run everywhere? by Wansu · · Score: 1

    ... like Forrest Gump? There are short term problems like perspiration to deal with unless you and those around you don't mind you smelling gamey.

    Then there are long term issues like joint wear. I used to enjoy running but my knees wore out and knee replacement really doesn't fix that.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    1. Re:why not run everywhere? by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Then there are long term issues like joint wear. I used to enjoy running but my knees wore out and knee replacement really doesn't fix that.

      The whole joint wear thing is absolute bullshit.

      There are former long distance runners who have run for decades at 120 miles per week and now even in their 60s and 70s, don't have joint wear. Plus, in their youth, they were running elite marathon pace, around 12 mph for marathons.

      Why is it that joint wear only happens to the "exercise" runners?

    2. Re:why not run everywhere? by mister2au · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is it that joint wear only happens to the "exercise" runners?

      Because it is not joint wear but a symptom of prior joint damage.

      Serious runners run within their limits and typically run with good form ... Exercise runners are more prone to 'over-train' relative to their ability and are typically in worse shape than serious runners (eg. more body weight, poorer running form, less conditioning of muscles and ligaments).

      Hence, exercise runners are more prone to do damage that will later develop into osteoarthritis.

      I think there is reasonable evidence that amateurs in most sports have higher injury rates than professionals, despite the professionals undertaking physically more demanding activities.

      Likewise, plenty is evidence that knees (and joint in general) do not just "wear out" as you correctly suggest.

    3. Re:why not run everywhere? by Nos. · · Score: 1

      A lot of this comes down to form. Run well, with proper gait and you're very unlikely to injure yourself running. Run with poor form, constant heal striking, and yes, you're going to put a lot of extra stress on your body that is unnecessary and actually takes MORE energy than running properly. Like any exercise, learn to do it properly before worrying about "how much" of it you do.

    4. Re:why not run everywhere? by L1mewater · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the former long distance runners you mention probably top out at 140 lbs, if that. Being small helps a LOT.

    5. Re:why not run everywhere? by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      I'm not specifically addressing the joint wear, but to use the elite as examples for everyone is bullshit, and I suspect you know that and just got carried away. I'm sure exercisers doing things incorrectly is a contributing factor, but it's much more likely that for some reason they aren't as well suited to the task and will never be elite. We aren't all equal.

    6. Re:why not run everywhere? by m00sh · · Score: 1

      If joints don't wear out for the elite marathoners who run the most miles at the highest intensity, then it's more likely that joints don't wear out.

      The biggest difference between an elite runner and an amateur runner is the number of miles run. If you are one of those people who believe that elite runners are super-human genetic freaks, then you can make all sorts of claims.

    7. Re:why not run everywhere? by m00sh · · Score: 1

      But they run at twice or three times the speed and the force of impact is probably the same.

      Or maybe it isn't. Anybody done calculations?

    8. Re:why not run everywhere? by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      Nah, you're right; it's all supplements and positive attitude.

  15. Energy distribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think part of it is that we try to distribute our muscle use. We first use our walking muscles, after a while their energy runs a little low so we switch over to jogging which uses different muscles. By the time their energy runs low our walking muscles have recovered a little bit so we switch back. It's the same reason why, when lifting weights, you plan your workout, or workouts in general are planned.

  16. Skipping by Highland+Deck+Box · · Score: 1

    Skipping is actually a quite efficient and speedy way to cover ground. You do feel a little silly doing it as an adult male though :D

    1. Re:Skipping by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 1

      I remember skipping as a kid. I did it in the local mall when my family did our weekly Friday meal/shopping. I did it when I got to our meeting place while waiting for everyone else. I would skip off looking for them instead of just waiting around.

      The thing is, after a month of doing this, I wasn't just skipping, I was leaping. It would be a couple of skips to build up enough rebound and then I was leaping. I was able to cover ground much faster than I would normally running in-and-out of the crowd because I could leap over shorter people (I could jump over my own height, easily bounding onto the concrete planters whose edge-tops were above my height) and keep skipping along at that pace with the rebound energy without tiring anywhere near as fast as running. I would guess looking back at it now that I only used about as much energy as jogging, but got better distance/speed.

      I eventually stopped doing it because my older brother kept telling me to stop doing it because it was too embarrassing. I grudgingly complied.

      Now that someone else brings it up (I was also naturally very good at broken-field running), I wonder at what the result would have been had I not listened to my brother. Could I have continued on with my skipping/leaping to the point that I built up my muscles and technique to keep up a proportionate increase in my leaping ability and set myself up with a better way to travel through crowds or would I have (much more likely) ended up blowing out my knees and/or ankles since human physiology normally doesn't seem to allow for such feats (as the biochemical reactions that allow great leaping abilities in insects reach a point of diminishing returns as you attempt to scale them up)? Perhaps I'm missing something in my evaluations that people have seen in their research in things such as the materials and techniques used in robotic exoskeletons?

    2. Re:Skipping by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 1

      This is the thread that I was looking for. Skipping may well be the ultimate bipedal locomotion. It is a shame that it's embarrasingly silly, but I guess that's really everyone else's problem. Let's just call them jealous.

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
    3. Re:Skipping by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      This 1998 paper on skipping seems to be free to read--at least in my country. It's not fun reading, but maybe you can skip some of it.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    4. Re:Skipping by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Are you tigger?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    5. Re:Skipping by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck what the passerby around you think?! Chances are good you will never see them again. If skipping to get from point A to B gives you a fulfilling and happy feeling: Just go for it!

      If someone stops you and asks, just tell them you practice Parkour.

      Life is too short. Don't let social pressures hold you back!

    6. Re:Skipping by TomJetland · · Score: 1

      If you had kept it up you could have been an Olympic high jumper like Stefan Holm!

  17. Weight loss by samplehead · · Score: 1

    So the best average speed for weightloss purposes is to jog between 7.2 and 10.8 km/h ?

  18. Not Lazy by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

    Not Lazy but Efficient and Adaptable. Most lifeforms adapted to a specific environment we as humans adapted to change.

  19. How is this news? by CurunirAran · · Score: 1

    When we aren't in a hurry, we walk. When we are in a hurry, we run. When we are only somewhat in a hurry, we speedwalk/semirun.

    How the fuck does this qualify in anyway as news? SMH.

    1. Re:How is this news? by Aserrann · · Score: 1

      Actually, you seem to have completely missed the point. First two you got, but the point of the article was that when we are in somewhat of a hurry, we don't speedwalk/semirun, as one might expect. We mix walking and running, which is more efficient.

  20. Re:Automated paydays ad on the bottom? by VanessaE · · Score: 1

    What is this thing you call an "ad"? Is it contagious?

  21. Goodies by Whiteox · · Score: 2

    I prefer the 'Policeman' walk - gait or whatever. It's a one leg leap forward with a pointed foot. Gracefull but silly.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  22. Walking is normal by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    Given the obesity problem, skipping to the grocery store or doing a goose step to the bus stop is probably a good idea as no doubt it expends more energy and uses more muscles than just slowly plodding along.

    Doesn't seem like a good idea though. I'm all for doing your own thing and not worrying TOO much about what society considers "normal" (like I'm sure goes for most of Slashdot's readership) but I think you'd pretty soon be known as "that idiot who goose steps to the bus stop"

  23. Discombobulated Doctor by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

    Motorized Feet, or How I Learned to Stop being Lazy and Love Exercise.

  24. Are We Built To Be Lazy? by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

    No, we are built to cover as much ground as possible while expending as little energy as possibly. That's not lazy, that's a good survival strategy.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  25. Missing the obvious? by js3 · · Score: 1

    People don't run because..

    -It makes them sweat
    -They may tire out faster if they run making it longer to reach the said destination
    -They might be carrying something that makes it hard to rime
    -Time is not of the essence
    -Bad knees
    -Out of shape or obese
    -"makes me look stupid"

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  26. Laziness by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

    Hard work may pay off in the future, but laziness pays off now.

  27. We are built for Tracking by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

    We are so used to humans being not very strong physically, we forget that we are actually the best, bar none at some things.

    What humans are crazy good at is best speed over time. Many animals are faster than us in the short run, but few or none can outdistance us over time. We are the tortoise to most animals hare.

    So if you can track an animal and are determined to walk it down, it really can't keep away from a human. So once you are smart enough to track something out of site, the animals odds of getting away become slim. And what is one skill EVERY primative culture has? Tracking.