There are more efficient modes of running that aren't really available when walking, and any experienced marathoner knows how to exploit this.<p>It took me years of occasional running before it all clicked, despite more experienced friends having shared youtube videos on the subject. I'd always been running in a fashion more like a slowed down sprint when trying to pace myself. But that's not the efficient way, the efficient way is to logically run with your knees and let your lower legs/feet come along for the ride. Lean forward enough to prevent heel striking, and this also naturally imparts forward thrust when your foot leaves the ground in response to the knee driving forward. Your calves become more like springs storing and releasing energy, without being explicitly activated.
> You’ve probably seen it on TV multiple times. Exhausted, depleted of energy, and barely capable of taking another step, elite race walkers collapse as soon as they reach the finish line.<p>I'm not sure if I have unusual TV habits or if the author is overestimating the amount of watch time and coverage race walking gets.
For someone who is trying to return to regular walking/running, I find a mix of both works well for me. Stretch and start walking faster to warm your body up, run until your heart/legs don't want to go anymore, resume walking to recover and then run again and so on. I find that doing this creates less resistance in my mind because I'm more attentive/easy going with my body and the overall session is less punishing - that makes going for that next session psychologically that much more easier, which is the key to maintaining a regular schedule, atleast for people like me who do not "love" exercising.<p>PS: also, I bought a smartwatch that shows the stats etc which is kind of a fun target to meet/improve upon - not sure if this "gamification" is a good idea or how long until the novelty wears off but its fun for now.
This concept exists also with CPUs and even cars. A slower more power efficient CPU might be worse off because it simply takes longer to do tasks. The per unit of time cost is lower but the total energy cost for a task is higher
I think this is the paper I read about this a while ago.
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7481300_Preferred_Transition_Speed_between_Walking_and_Running_Effects_of_Training_Status" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7481300_Preferred_T...</a>
In some endurance sports there is also the question of whether to use poles or not, on this subject last week I've seen these fascinating tweets:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/nicgiovanelli/status/1488411562515869696" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/nicgiovanelli/status/1488411562515869696</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/nicgiovanelli/status/1490374195326464007" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/nicgiovanelli/status/1490374195326464007</a>
I wouldn't trust this website. It's based around selling a fitness product, so there's a very good chance it's biased.<p><a href="https://www.polar.com/en/grit-x" rel="nofollow">https://www.polar.com/en/grit-x</a>