Talk:Running/Archive 1

Archive 1

what is "runners bladder"?

This needs a link or explanation. I could find nothing on Google and have ran for many years. 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.247.3 (talk)

Runners bladder is when the inner surfaces of an empty bladder chafe against each other and cause's a very minor bleed. Blood may be seen in the urine which can be worrying but unless a pre-existing urinary/bladder infection exists Runners bladder has no serious consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.195.198 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hemorrhagic_cystitis is the medical term for runners bladder. Not to be confused with specialist hydration gear CamelBak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.149.102 (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Slowest form of movement?

first line....ummm, what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.194.243 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Angular momentum of the feet?

In my opinion the entire section of "Using smooth circular leg motion" is nonsense. Simply put, the angular momentum of the feet is insignificant compared to that of the leg. Whoever wrote that passage must have all the weight of his lower body concentrated on his feet, which would make his leg+foot feel like a weightless string+a heavy lead ball. No wonder there couldn't be any proper citations because the entire paragraph is pseudoscience. It is so obvious for anyone who has received preliminary trainings(advanced high school to college freshman) in physics. Suggest deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.75.173 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section should have been removed, and thank you for removing it. I'd like to ask, on talk pages, shouldn't new comments be added at the end of an existing section, or added as a new section at the bottom of the page? SlowJog (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jogging

This section doesn't from a "runner's" point of view.

I agree. While I am a very avid ruunner myself, avid joggers may disagree that jogging is less efficent.-Jonathan235

Exercises

For some exercises on running see Mediawiki Sense-Think-Act contributors to this section are invited to take from or add to this site.

Szczels 16:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite advice

Hi all. Can I get some input on how I would go about making this article specific to human running. Currently the article contains a general definition of running for all species. I'd like to turn this into a useful resource for people who are runners or are looking to get into running. I'd like the rewrite to include links or discussion on training schedules, hydration, gear, etc. Monkeyman 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles really should stay true to their topic. The article on running should discuss all important facets about running, in a depth appropriate to the length of the article. But I suppose most topics of non human running could be written in animal locomotion or something, so focusing this on human running would be fine. So lets see, advice. This article should cover reasons for running, sport, recreation, exercise; the mechanics of it, a bit of exercise physiology, injury, injury prevalance; major sporting achievements, races, the major distances, sprints, distance, etc; nutrition, the conflicting advice; cross training and weight training and stretching, psychological aspects, etc. Pick up a couple good books on running, like Daniel's book, maybe Lore of running, maybe the Runner's World book, and look at what topics they cover and try to prioritize. Don't go into too much detail on relatively minor topics, instead cover more on the important ones. So it shouldn't be a resource for runners exactly, but a general overview of the subject to cover all facets of the topic. If you want to make a resource for runners, that detail should go into daughter articles, or perhaps not on Wikipedia for some of the specifics. See both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what not to cover and Wikipedia:Summary style for more on how to organize it all. - Taxman ^Talk 02:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Any thoughts on renaming this article to "Human running", or something similar? Also have information about running in other species in articles about terrestrial locomotion and gait? 206.53.196.126 SlowJog (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, we should split the content. Make a new page, human running, and keep this page for general stuff (there's a LOT of running that's common in everything from humans to dogs to lizards to insects). I've been meaning to do something along these lines for a while, but I've been quite busy. Mokele (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Runner's High

Someone please edit the part about 'runners high.' If you search google for the phrase, most sources will alude to it probably being a physiological phenomenon (endorphins), rather than a psychological one.

I think most would say it is both endorphin and a feeling of accomplishment. Certainly most runners I talk to. Although the POV bit about no one has ever done could stand to be toned down. - Taxman ^Talk 01:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am very surprised that there is no mention of the Training Effect, as found by Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper for the Air Force in the 1960s. The basic idea is that if you exercise at a certain level for a long enough period (for me, 35 minutes five times a week for 5.5 weeks) your body kicks into a higher metabolism rate. As long as you maintain a base rate of exercise after that (for me, 3.5 miles of running 3 times week) you stay in that metabolic rate - you have more energy, think more clearly, and sleep better. I have been in and out of the Training Effect a dozen times (winters, job moves, etc.), and can attest that it is very real. Simesa 18:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's probably better suited to exercise but even then you need more verifiable evidence of it than one report in the 1960's. Up to date exercise physiology textbooks, recent journal articles, etc. A lot of things that you may believe occur, are not necesarily what is going on physiologically. - Taxman ^Talk 18:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is a valid point - a series of books in the 1980s isn't sufficient. There are articles on Cooper test and VO2 Max, but something fresher would obviously carry more weight. I'll look around in the bookstore. Simesa 19:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I added two external links, one from 2003, to Training Effect. Simesa 19:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There is more to 'runner's high' than endorphins. There is the effect of oxygen, for one thing. Also dopamine may be involved, because running for extended periods is inherently boring and repetitive. It becomes addictive in the same way as television and video games. Dopamine could be what is responsible for the reinforcing effects that motivate runners to continue doing things that seem crazy to normal people, like running for three hours or more. There is also a serotonin effect from intense stop-and-go interval training exercise, which for me is the only type that reliably produces any kind of high any more. That type of exercise releases free fatty acids into the blood stream, which compete against tryptophan for binding to the albumin protein. Free tryptophan is taken up by the brain where it is a precursor for the formation of serotonin. Elevated serotonin leads to a dopey good feeling. Then there is also that theory that running releases endogenous cannabinoids. And of course, let's not overlook that exercise causes physiological arousal which the athlete may interpret as emotional arousal in combination with other cues. I don't want to write any of this stuff into the article, but suffice it to say that the sometimes elusive runner's high is probably quite a complex phenomenon --KazKylheku 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC) :-)

Running Injuries

I don't believe there is a "strong consensus among the scientific community" that proper running shoes minimize running injuries. There may indeed be consensus among the running community (excepting fringe groups who run barefoot), but all the science I've read at best finds correlations between excessive pronation for example, and a certain injury. There is no evidence that shoes designed to reduce pronation actually prevent injury; the frequency of running injuries has not changed with high tech shoes. I'll have to dig up my references, or someone could save me the time by pointing to something saying that proper shoes can prevent injury. I get the impression that the science suffers by trying to measure things that are difficult to measure or that might put subjects at unacceptable risk for injury. --Pat

I looked at various studies and I saw nothing about bear attacks being a common source of injury to runners so I removed that part of the list of common injuries. -- Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiff (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree this appears to be a problem with the article. I can't find the reference online, but my understanding is that a study of running shoes found that cushioning foot falls actually increased the stress on the ankles and led to more frequent ankle twist injuries. Health of the connective tissues in joints is not well understood. Damage to connective tissues is common, but not universal. -- M0llusk (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have been running competitively since I was in the third grade. I have really never felt endorphins, but I do feel a sense of accomplishment every time I get 1st place. It's probably the second best feeling I ever felt in my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.104.203 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is the correct placement for this question. I'm trying to add an external link to a page that discussed running injury prevention in both text contains a YouTube video. There is no copywrite infringement by including this link and it is relevant to this category of injury prevention. I have included this external link twice and had my contribution reversed and been labeled "spam". I'm not attempting to spam this entry, but provide further relevant information. Can anyone offer suggestions on how to include an external link that contains a video for running prevention? Thank you Kam012069 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Kristi

It's best to review Wikipedia:External links, then bring up your specific link at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Location (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try posting the link on the Noticeboard.Kam012069 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Kristi

Jogging

This page seems very informative, but I was disappointed to learn that the word 'Jogging' redirected here. I know very little about jogging, but its place in our culture is enormous. Jogging needs to have its own page that can further do it justice, explaining topics covered from who is likely to jog, the attire involved, how it helps the body, etc. I'm putting some kind of a tag on the page (not sure what, yet) and I will work on something in my free time, but can't promise any real article for quite a while. If anybody else feels up to this task, please take some action.

Atchius 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

speed of running?

What is the usual speed of running? dash, short-distance, and long-distance, for average persons and for athletes? I am trying to come up with a list of speed in the page for speed so this information will be useful. --Leo 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, varying speed is a consequence of "running", but speed does not define "running". Non-aerobic jogging is what I call "running". To consider one's self as "running" is to surpass 80% of one's maximum heart rate (MHR). In other words, a gait which creates between 40% and 80% of MHR is, in my opinion, called aerobic jogging because both the heart and lungs best process oxygen (necessary for burning corporal energy) at these percentages. To calculate MHR, substract your age from the number 220. For example, if a person is 30 years old, then that person's MHR is 190. Thus, this 30 year-old is considered to jog when the gait forces the heart to beat at a rate of anything between 76 and 152 beats per minute, but if that person's heart attains more than 152 and under 191 bpms, then the heart and lungs can barely process the oxygen. The result is that muscles produce lactic acid. You would then witness a lot of violent exterior corporal movement, but, inside, no energy is being burnt. So, to answer your question, varying speeds would depend on muscle fitness. That is to say, speed depends on those muscles' ability to function, inspite of the presence of lactic acid. I guess bigger muscles can function with X amount of lactic acid present, than smaller muscles with the same amount. When the owners of those two muscles compete against each other, and they have both entered their respective non-aerobic zones, then it is obvious that the person with the bigger muscles is capable of attaing a higher speed. Please note that some sources consider aerobic jogging not to surpass 70% of MHR.

This is interesting, but hardly consequential. Leo is looking for an approximate land speed for a runner so readers of the Speed article have a point of reference. Atchius 23:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelial running or training methods

What about adding a section about the special running and training methods that have been developed. For example, the Pose Method of Running http://www.posetech.net/, or chi running www.chirunning.com/ ?

Male and Female Running

Don't know if there should be a place for this, but, National Geographic recently ran a piece which mentioned that due to the shape of the female hips for childbearing, women have to put about 10 percent more effort than men do to move forward when walking/running. DEL 66.57.225.77 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also said that the hip difference causes knee problems to be more common in women than in men. 216.188.214.126 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

DAB page

The page's see also links are getting long, thoughts on moving the page to Running (exercise) and making Running a disambiguation page? WLU 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

With three other uses plus the links for Run, I created a disambiguation page and replaced the template. Though there has to be a better way of integrating running and run, the disambiguation pages and main pages. Anyone have any ideas? WLU 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about energy cost but female runners are showing similar, if not even better, performance as their male counterparts in ulta-marathons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarc (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Smooth circular motion - innacuracy

Part of the "smooth circular motion" contains something which is innacurate (if not incorrect):

In comparison to a pendulum motion, a circular motion is one that preserves the angular momentum of an object revolving around a center. An object moving in a circular orbit will not require any additional energy for continued motion in the absence of friction regardless of the frequency. When running efficiently, the foot motion approximates a smooth circle, capturing as much of the rotational kinetic energy of the foot as possible.

A human foot is not revolving around a centre when running. It does move in a circle, but it's not swinging around the middle of the circle. The bolded text would be true for a satellite in orbit around a planet, or a bicycle wheel, but not a person, as the foot is attached to a leg that pivots at the knee and the hip - it is not on some rod going in circles around a point 1 foot off the ground.

Going offtopic (you can ignore the rest of this), this lends to the pendulum idea -- except that as the pendulum starts to slow down, the string holding it lengthens, and the next time it slows down, the string shortens (then the sequence repeats). The pendulum would create a circle, similar to the way that a piston in a car creates a circle. The real world analogy to the stretching + shrinking of the string would be the knee bending, and the pendulum would be the foot. I recall reading an article a few years ago about a running style that involved, paradoxically, leaning forward very far, which a group of researchers had discovered using the extending + contracting pendulum model I just described. They found that the style they discovered and the style that people naturally use were the most efficient avaliable. Just wish I still had the article...

(Hmm, this became long, didn't it?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.28.149 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I doubt that the feet do move in a circle. Is a source for the circle view available? How about one of those videos where reflective dots are placed on the athlete, in order to record the motion of the joints?

Note that the "Drive" section of the article says "In some running styles, notably long-distance "shuffles" which keep the feet close to the ground ..."

How does the circular foot motion hypothesis account for variations in style? (Marathoner Uta Pippig and sprinter Asafa Powell must have different styles. Uta was noted for using the shuffle while gaining late in the race. (I would guess that the foot motion of the shuffle is likely to resemble an elongated oval.))

I agree that conservation of angular momentum does not apply without a centripetal force. However, it could be the case that this is not entirely lacking in running. In looking at some still pictures of a 5K runner, I would guess that, as the driving foot looses contact with the ground, and recovery begins, the foot moves back in a curve similar to an arc, with the knee at the center. (The lower leg acts as a spoke.) As the thigh moves forward, and the knee nears it forward-most point, the lower leg again swings in a curve similar to an arc with the knee at the center. This time, the foot is moving forward. In addition, in some running styles (sprinting?), is it possible that some of the kinetic energy from the lower leg is captured and returned by soft tissues (tendons, ligaments, muscles) of the leg? For example, could it be that, as the foot reaches it rear most, it stretches some of the tissues, and they respond by helping snap the lower leg forward?

What I've posted here is speculation, and not suitable for the article. I've posted it here to try to help motivate some experts to look look into this "circular leg motion" section in the article. Hopefully, they will be able to describe what really happens, and provide citations.

In addition, the section begins with the following:

Many people have compared the motion of the legs and feet when running to pendulums.

The editor needs to be more specific. Either state who are the people who do this (such as by citing some of them), or cite a quality survey that shows many people do this. SlowJog 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stride Length" as distinguishing short- versus long-distance runners

The article states, "The main difference between long- and short-distance runners is the length of stride rather than the rate of stride." (at least as of when I checked it just now). Does anyone know which direction this runs? Do the sprinters have shorter strides? I assume so, but given the unavailability of these articles (freely) on the Web, I'm curious if anyone has any other knowledge of this. Thanks!

I don't know either, it would help if someone were to clear this up. But, in the movie Chariots of Fire, Harold Abrahams's coach tells him he is "over-striding" -- taking too may steps. A sprinter should take fewer, longer steps, he indicates. I've heard just the opposite for marathoners -- for them, "over-striding" is taking steps that are too long. SlowJog 00:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops ... Since we know that sprinters move faster than long distance runners, the "Stride Rate" paragraph does indicate that sprinters have longer steps. SlowJog 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Error in running vs. walking (taken care of as now)

I've discovered an error in this paragraph, the first sentence says:

Running can burn approximately 50 percent more calories per hour than walking

If you, as I, run more then twice as fast as you walk, this would mean that you would expel less energy per distance when running than walking. However, in the last sentence it says

The act of running involves using more energy to accomplish travel over the same distance and running is a less efficient means of locomotion in terms of calories expended, though it is more efficient in terms of distance travelled per unit time.

One of these two statements is clearly wrong!

I'm guessing that running is, in fact, less energy efficient per distance then walking. 130.243.153.103 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I've checked the source for the + 50% calories per hour. [[1]]. My weight is 67 kg and I typically run at about 8 mph which, according to the source, would burn 838 kcal/h. If I walk briskly I could manage 4 mph which would require 272 kcal/h. Now, 838/272 = 3.08088, an increase of work in excess of 200% !

I'm gonna change it to:

Running can burn approximately 200 percent more calories per hour than walking

I know very well that I might not be the typical person and that several samples of different weights, running and walking speeds should be made. If someone has the energy, please do so! In the meantime I think + 200% per hour is a lot closer to the truth than + 50%. 130.243.153.103 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the official page about running in wikipedia, when we talk about energy expenditure of running Vs walking (source 11 on the page) the study is not well cited. as it says, according to the page, running uses 1.20X more energy than walking on the track, and 1.01 on the treadmill , but according to the study it should be 1.41X ( 481Kj/340Kj ) more energy on the track and 1.43X (480/334) on the treadmill! modify this please or find a more accurate and valid study!

Lack of distinction

Am I the only one who thinks that, right at the beginning of the article, a clear distinction should be made between 'running (type of movement)' and 'running (sport)'? Currently, it looks like the article treats the two things as being fundamentally the same. 145.116.9.223 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this. Any other thoughts? --Banime (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When I stumbled upon this article I thought it was only going to talk about animals. It doesn't mention humasn until further down. Even the image is of a horse. --Gchick (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the introduction spcifies Running is a means of terrestrial locomotion allowing a human or an animal to move rapidly on foot. which not only singles humans out as being distinct from animals, it also presuposes than non-animals (ie robots) can/do not run. --T 27 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.195.198 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be difficult to create a machine that can run. I'm not sure, but I think researchers created a machine that could hop (one leg) before they created a machine that could walk on two legs. Anyway, if having "all feet off the ground" at times in the cycle is a necessary characteristic of running, then some animals can't run. Insects, for example, will always have some feet in contact with the ground (or wall or ceiling). Neither would an elephant seal be able to run. SlowJog (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations?

I'm not sure why this page needs additional citations? What are they needed in? I read through the entire article and I don't think "running" needs to be cited more (if at all). --Banime (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Running benefits

I just came across this page and, why is going faster not a benefit of running? Its the reason we can actually do it as a species.81.207.48.216 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The myth of increased joint damage for runners as they age needs to be dispelled. Indeed the truth is that runners with proper form typically enjoy better joint health as they age. I would like to add joint health as a benefit in the list. A recent, peer-reviewed, article was published that does well to verify this claim. In summary, a collection of various aged runners were studied for 21 years against a control group, and the runners showed a statistically significant reduction in incidence of joint injury and osteoarthritis.

Reduced Disability and Mortality Among Aging Runners A 21-Year Longitudinal Study Eliza F. Chakravarty, MD, MS; Helen B. Hubert, PhD; Vijaya B. Lingala, PhD; James F. Fries, MD Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(15):1638-1646.

Would this be appropriate?--75.72.148.96 (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs photos

Needs photos. --David Shankbone 03:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I added three pictures, the third of which is described in file description as "jogging" but appears to be running in the image. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the photo of Jeanette Kwakye should be moved to the top of the article. The current one doesn't indicate much action of the legs, while the one of Kwakye clearly shows she is running. I think a series of photos or other graphic of a single cycle would be useful. It doesn't have to be fancy; it could be an animated .svg or .gif of a stick figure. SlowJog (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it's pure coincidence that the pic of "people" running a 20K happens to feature a super hot blone. My compliments to someone; excellent choice. Piratejosh85 (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice and howto

Much of this article (eg the "Elements of good running technique" section) seem to be written to give advice to runners. This is not particularly encyclopedic, per WP:NOT. It looks like it is going to take some serious work to clean this up. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I plan on massively revamping it soon as part of WikiProject_Organismal_Biomechanics - most/all of the human stuff will be offloaded onto another page, in order to make it more broad and comparative, dealing with the biomechanics and energetics of running across a broad range of species.

Meta Talk: Table of Contents

Could someone fix it so the table of contents for this talk page is not, by default, hidden in the Sports Project "to do" list? Thanks. SlowJog (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't with this page. It has something to do with the sports project template. The problem appears on several pages with that template. SlowJog (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The above has been fixed. SlowJog (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Reference?

The citation for the statement that "is the usual recommended therapy to treat people with clinical depression and people cope with addiction" doesn't seem to be a primary source. Can a better source be found? SlowJog (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikihow?

To me, Some of this article reads like a wiki-how page instead of encyclopedic page... just my opinion anyways.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.197.200 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Elements of Good Running Technique

I agree with the 'wikihow' comment. The 'Elements of Good Running Technique' section in particular reads like a how to. I would suggest putting a template up on this article (or at least the aforementioned section) flagging the problem. 72.0.72.98 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A 'B' class rated article should have this cleaned up sooner rather than later, I think. 72.0.72.98 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Category for running events

I can't find any category for running events, only Category:Running. Should one be created? JIP | Talk 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Swinging of arms

I removed the following doubtful uncited information from the article. If it is actually correct, please re-add to the article, making appropriate citations. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the upper body also helps to propel the body up hills. The faster one swings their arms up a hill, the faster the person will move up the hill because the legs will match the speed at which the arms are moving.

Move or fix?

Ok, so this article has some pretty massive deficiencies, mostly due to its exclusive focus on human running. The actual definition of a run never appears anywhere in the article (synchronous kinetic energy & potential energy fluctuation during a stride cycle, 180 degrees out of phase with limb spring energy), and the closest is an erroneous extrapolation of the old/obsolete kinematic definition that only works for bipeds. The history of running skips over the vast majority of history in favor of focus on one group of anatomically bizarre anthropoids of negligible evolutionary importance. And the description of how it works is just, well, awful. The role of tendons is completely ignored.

I suggest that we move the entire article to Running (human), fix the article by massively de-emphasizing humans, or both. Mokele (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST

Earliest dates, and the Tailteann Games

I don't know anything about the Tailteann Games, but I do know that we have no reliable sources for Irish history dating back to 1829BCE! This needs to be corrected--I suggest references to these are removed. Alarichall (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, 1829 BCE is nonsense (see the Wikipedia page on Tailteann Games). Please remove this disinformation. 71.21.161.41 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Humans were around 4.5 million years ago?

The second paragraph of the article reads, 'Early mankind developed the ability to run about four and a half million years ago in order to hunt animals.' What joker put that line in? :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.30.35 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that "mankind" in too vague. Replace it with hominins and it works, at least according to the "endurance hunting" hypothesis. Mokele (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that it still doesn't. Not being able to run long distances is different from not being able to run at all, which is what this sentence claims. It might be that homonins evolved the ability for endurance running 4.5 million years ago, but why could they quadrupedally or bipedally, doesn't matter- before then? Fast moving predators existed long before 4.5 million years ago, so this statement makes no sense.--137.146.143.192 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hominids is a better term. See an article from 2004: Bramble DM and Lieberman, DE (2004) Endurance running and the Evolution of Homo. Nature. 432: 345-352. http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/Nature2004_EnduranceRunningandtheEvolutionofHomo.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarc (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Running speed over increasing distance

The data presented in this table would be made more interesting by the addition of a graph showing speed/distance. Androstachys (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition of running

"The defining feature of running is spring-mass energy exchange, in which the vertical oscillations of the center of mass match changes in speed and energy storage is accomplished by springy tendons and passive muscle elasticity." This definition by Mokele makes little sense as a definition of running. It does nothing more than regard the moving body as an oscillating system of spring and mass. While this is useful from a physics viewpoint, it is not a definition of running, since the same process of mass and spring covers walking. If this unreferenced excerpt is from some textbook it would help to see the context in which it appears. Androstachys (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This edit was unreferenced and should be treated as original research and left out until it is properly sourced. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Spring-mass is the biomechanical definition of running, as opposed to walking (inverted pendulum). Any biomechanics or locomotion textbook published in the last 40 years can confirm this. I'm implanting the original reference for the former, and one of the many, many textbooks for a ref in the latter, which I previously forgot to do. While there is "slop" in any model, of course, these models actually apply extremely well across a huge range of animal sizes, anatomies and gaits, accounting for almost all mechanical energy exchange observed. You get spring-mass mechanics in a human, a mouse, a lizard, a cockroach, and even a centipede. "Mixed mechanics" (in which energy exchange is neither one nor the other completely) only predominate in very old organisms or in other special circumstances. Other definitions of "run" fail egregiously - "both feet off the ground" completely fails for many quadrupeds and hexapeds, and elephants employ spring-mass mechanics with the same kinematic profile seen walking (a "grounded run"). Furthermore, while there is *minor* elasticity effect in walking, inverted pendulum mechanics predominate, with springy tendons and muscles accounting for a tiny percentage of energy exchange. Mokele (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The source quoted states "Different from walking, in running the work due to the forward speed changes (variation of kinetic energy) and to the vertical displacement of the center of gravity (variation of potential energy), throughout the step cycle, are substantially in phase." This is not a definition of running, but a comparison of one gait with another. In both gaits (walking and running) there is a vertical displacement of the center of gravity and kinetic energy due to forward speed, so that the differences are quantitative and not qualitative. Finally, the article is about human running ("This article is about locomotion in humans") and not about elephants, quadrupeds or animals with any other number of legs. I am reverting the edit to its previous state. Androstachys (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's perfectly simple. During walking, kinetic and potential energy fluctuate 180 degrees out of phase, and the net mechanical energy of the body does not substantially change. This PE to KE to PE exchange is called the inverted pendulum. During running, kinetic and potential energy fluctuate in phase (0 degrees), and the large resultant changes in body net mechanical energy are stored in elastic structures, usually tendons, hence the 'spring mass model'. These two models a) accurately represent and account for the vast majority of energy expenditure in human locomotion and b) have a non-overlapping distribution of phase offsets. The latter means that this is a qualitative difference - while there is variance around the ideal phase offsets, there is no overlap ("mixed mechanics") in healthy human running or walking.

If you remove factually correct information from the page again, I will report you to the admins for vandalism. Furthermore, what's your proposed alternative, the obsolete "foot contact" definition? It's completely inadequate, often wrong (high speed race-"walking" uses spring-mass mechanics), and the "discrete" nature of the categories is merely an artefact of observing a biped.

As for the page being about humans, I intend to fix that as soon as I get around to it - the fact that a common mode of locomotion is solely being discussed in relation to a bizarre, poorly-formed bald monkey is just plain silly.Mokele (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The foot contact definition is completely adequate and accurate for the scope of the article. High speed race-"walking" may well use spring-mass mechanics, but that is irrelevant since a foot is always in ground contact at any part of the cycle. A treatment of the biomechanics of running is inappropriate in the introduction, where a simple, intelligible summary is required and customary. Your intention of changing the remit of the article to include running by all species is academically laudable, but completely misplaced, and until the article's scope is changed, it remains about human running. Androstachys (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, we should change snake to "any legless reptile or worm" and whale to "a type of big fish". Accuracy supersedes ALL other concerns. Now, could it be phrased better and more clearly, yes. But to use an inaccurate description flatly contradicts the whole purpose of WP, which is to provide information. Mokele (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've re-phrased it, so it might be more readable and less technical. Mokele (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also rephrased it. Simplicity doesn't always equate with inaccuracy and it needs someone skilled in their craft to phrase difficult ideas so that even idiots can understand. JBS Haldane was such a person. The phrase "changes in kinetic and potential energy within a stride occur simultaneously" sticks in my craw. I think that when the body's CoG is descending, that loss of potential energy is balanced by a gain in potential energy stored in the muscles and tendons - a sort of see-saw effect of potential energy. The kinetic energy of forward movement remaining more or less constant. Androstachys (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's where it gets more complex - technically there's 3 types of energy (kinetic, gravitation potential and elastic potential) *and* one obscure physiological trick (stretch enhancement of muscle force) going on, and even more complex stuff going on during impact and step transition. But kinetic energy *does* fluctuate substantially during both (though the *relative* magnitude is smaller in running simply because of the higher speed).Mokele (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion: Having "spring mass mechanics" in the introduction is too early. The introduction should be simpler. Most people reading the introduction will have an idea of what running or walking is, but not necessarily what the difference is. In the introduction, a "both feet off the ground" type explanation should suffice. An overly technical introduction can turn some people off. I suggest a section within the article to cover physics of running, with can include more accurate definitions. SlowJog (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Efficiency of running vs. walking

It's fine to state that "as reported by Hall et al. males on a track running at a pace of 6.3 mph use 1.20 times as much energy to travel the same distance as walking at a pace of 3.15 mph, but on a treadmill running 6.3 mph uses just 1.01 times as much energy to travel the same distance as walking at 3.15 mph." But I would not generalize that to say that "on a treadmill running and walking require the same amount of energy to cover the same distance." An all-out sprint for 100m on a treadmill uses a lot more energy than a leisurely walk on a treadmill for 100m! Patiwat (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that, or is it merely anecdote? Remember, sprinting is highly anaerobic and builds up oxygen debt, so will require more recovery time and "feel" more costly, even if the cost is the same. Mokele (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that running down or up a hill is going to be an exception so were it says: "Therefore, running is less efficient than walking in terms of calories expended per unit distance, though it is faster." I think that should be ammended to: "Therefore, running on a flat surface is less efficient than walking in terms of calories expended per unit distance, though it is faster." ZKDLBNHX (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thing worth pointing out is that both running and walking on a level surface at constant speed are 0% - there's no overall change in total external mechanical energy across multiple strides, in spite of the metabolic input. What we're talking about is actually called Net Cost Of Transport, the calories burned per meter (above the usual metabolic expenses). Mokele (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.128.19.157, 11 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The naked man should be in naked running. it has nothing to do wiht mainstream running. 72.128.19.157 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture stays - it's historically significant, and besides, WP is not censored. Mokele (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was a little worried when I read this (I saw this on the talk page before looking at the article), as even though we're not censored, we're also not supposed to needlessly titillate readers. However, after seeing the article and the picture, I think it's completely fine. For one, as Mokele notes, this is a historical photo with a clear reason for inclusion. For another, unless you actually click on the picture, it's not like you can actually see the so-called "naughty bits". I mean, each individual photo in that collage is tiny, much less the details. I'm untranscluding this request as it seems to be asked and answered. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tropswanky, 29 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Section MOTION discusses energy expenditure of running versus walking. It incorrectly states that running on the treadmill and walking are equivalent, while citing a source that contradicts it. According to the cited source: running 1600 m requires more energy than walking the distance on a treadmill (481 v 340 kJ) or on a track (480 v 334 kJ). Additionally, running does not consume more energy than walking due to air resistance (as the article states), but rather due to increased energy demands in posture and balance maintenance.

Tropswanky (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done All that's nice and okay, but please read the instructions before making another request. Be specific: tell us exactly what you want removed, and exactly what you want added. KrakatoaKatie 06:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.24.199.237, 19 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The statement that running and walking the same distance on a treadmill requires the same number of energy is refuted by: http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/viewFile/450/390 Seeing as it has no citation so support it I believe it should be removed. Please change "However on a treadmill running and walking require the same amount of energy to cover the same distance." to ""! 86.24.199.237 (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done --CutOffTies (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption

The second photo is captioned "People running at the 2007 Brussels marathon" in the article. The description is "People running at the 2007 20 kilometer road race through Brussels.". The filename is "File:Brussels marathon 2007.jpg". The source page (flickr) calls it "20000 Meter durch Brüssel".

Well, which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed 20K. Location (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian

In Bulgarian "Враг" means "enemy", not "running", so don't add this interwiki any more! --Al Silonov 07:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1