Running in the wild: Energetics explain ecological running speeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human runners have long been thought to have the ability to consume a near-constant amount of energy per distance traveled, regardless of speed, allowing speed to be adapted to particular task demands with minimal energetic consequence. 1–3 However, recent and more precise laboratory measures indicate that humans may in fact have an energy-optimal running speed. 4–6 Here, we characterize runners' speeds in a free-living environment and determine if preferred speed is consistent with task- or energy-dependent objectives. We analyzed a large-scale dataset of free-living runners, which was collected via a commercial fitness tracking device, and found that individual runners preferred a particular speed that did not change across commonly run distances. We compared the data from lab experiments that measured participants' energy-optimal running speeds with the free-living preferred speeds of age- and gender-matched runners in our dataset and found the speeds to be indistinguishable. Human runners prefer a particular running speed that is independent of task distance and is consistent with the objective of minimizing energy expenditure. Our findings offer an insight into the biological objectives that shape human running preferences in the real world—an important consideration when examining human ecology or creating training strategies to improve performance and prevent injury.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".