[rtchau]

No, I don't believe that it would be. In terms of "calories expended over distance", it'd be pretty close, but we're made for endurance, not raw speed. From what I understand, the energy budget of the human body is tuned for 2 things: neurological activity (the energy consumption of which far exceeds any other animal on earth) and endurance.

It's what makes us such terrifying hunters... prey can outrun us but then when they invariably have to stop to recover, we eventually just turn up and they have to keep running again.

So, any activity where you're cranking the ol' powerhouse up to 120% and going for a run is going to incur a cost, both in terms of energy consumption (which, as the post demonstrates, is slightly more efficient than a fast-paced walk), but then also the resultant metabolic waste which needs to be eliminated, which is a process that takes place during recovery in the 24hrs or so after you've completed your "efficient" 7-minute mile, and I don't believe the article takes this into account.

I watched an interesting video recently (I think it was Kurzgesagt?) that talks about the illusion of high-intensity activity vs low-intensity but longer-duration activity.

[NoPicklez]

We aren't talking about sprinting or 120% type running in this debate.

We used to catch our prey through running, but not at breakneck speeds. Humans are absolutely made for endurance running, but not at 120% speeds.