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"

10 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  2. 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.

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

    ... Scientists discovered jogging?

  4. 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!

    --
    .
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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