Talk:Walking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Walking 2 Walking speeds 3 Alternative medicine 4 Robotics 5 Suggestions 6 Main picture 7 Category:Walking? 8 trolling

[edit] Walking

The reference to walking with crutches is more misleading than anything: firstly it assumes underarm/axillary crutches, which are little used in major parts of the world (I can't remember the last time I saw a European using anything but forearm crutches), equally permanent users across the developed world, including the US, tend to use forearm crutches and generally won't use the described gait (which is either swing-to or swing-through depending on whether the feet are brought up to or past the crutches. More common is a three-point (crutches, left leg, right leg) or four point (right crutch, left leg, left crutch, right leg) gait. DWG, 5 Feb 2006

[edit] Walking speeds

The article in two different places states two different average walking speeds. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.181.219 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing here about the average speeds of walking on various terrain. I'd like to know this.

I am an avid hiker (that means I like to walk in wilderness areas, typically on trails and up and down hills or mountains) and a competent English speaker. From this article, I couldn't tell what you meant by "walking"--I mean, it would really help if you would explain exactly what happens, where you go, what you do, etc., when you are "walking" in the sense you describe here. --LMS

undated comment above by LMS 16:44, 12 September 2001

I'd like to see some discussion about walking speed when used as transportation for long distances in the past; various forms of infantry's speeds for example. I remember a figure of 20 miles in a day...

• • 20 miles of walking in a day is a lot. Most people can do it - once. The next day they will be sore in the feet, ankles and legs and will need to rest for several days before they attempt such a long walk again. With a lot of regular distance walking, someone might condition himself for 20-mile daily walks, but that's a major goal that only the most persistent can reach. Most of the time, when someone claims to have walked 20 miles every day for several days in a row, they're lying.

• • When you walk distances over five miles, you will discover that the condition of your shoes and socks is very important. A minor irritation, such as a hole or a thin spot in the socks, can be "put up with" for a couple of miles. But if you try to ignore that irritation for ten miles, you will end up with an injured foot - a bad blister, at least.

• • Beginning distance walkers often think that "walking speed" is five miles per hour, and they are surprised to discover that they can barely average half that speed over several miles. With regular walking to improve the relevant muscles and increase the stamina, someone might raise his average speed to almost four miles per hour. A few long-legged and very practiced walkers may reach five miles per hour on long walks, if they push themselves hard.

• • There's a formula for determining calories burned per hour on level-ground walks as a function of the walker's weight, pace distance, and average speed. I don't remember what it is. Obviously, the equation can be transposed so that distance becomes the independent variable.

• • What I'd like to know is the mechanical efficiency of the muscles involved. What percentage of the calories burned by the body go into covering ground, and what percentage is lost as heat and motion that doesn't really do anything important? Ditto for climbing stairs; I'd like to know the percentage of calories burned that actually satisfies the difference of gravitational potential energy between the bottom of the steps and the top. (Jerry Abbott, 2 July 2006)

Yes, I'd very much expect to find at least the average energy expenditure (calories, joules...) of walking as a funcion of distance, time and perhaps the walker's weight? Anybody familiar with this? 66.211.237.156 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several tabulations on the web of energy output in METS (factor times metabolic base rate) as a function of speed, and also Kenneth Cooper's tabulations of 'Training points' which are a slightly different thing, but still pretty interesting. Bob aka Linuxlad 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the automobile, the efficiency of transport in animal life does not vary with the rate at which it occurs. Running is neither more or less efficient than walking. Instead the efficency varies with the mass of the organism. I don't feel that the table is good enough for inclusion in articles, because I question its accuracy. See the summary of the image for details.

Cira 17:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative medicine

The latest addition encapsulating walking within Alternative Health is not very convincing. There are, of course, health benefits to walking but there are plenty of reasons for walking which have nothing to do with health, for example, it is a form of transport. Would the health enthusiast care to reconsider...

Every article can be classsified more than one way. So, it is with a lot of mainstream activities like exercise and diet. They are part of natural approaches to health such as Natural hygiene which is classified alternative medicine. I have replaced the orange box with one that doesn't even look like a box. -- John Gohde 07:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, this is certainly an improvement. However, whether it is a box or not, my point is that the extended reference to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is inappropriate. I do not readily accept the argument that since every article can be cross-referenced in more than one way this entitles a proponent for one of these ways to make a "land grab" for the topic. On that argument, we could anticipate banner cross-references cluttering up the page from every sort of enthusiast. I advocate moderation and discretion in promoting your links. For example, how about suitable links to Health as well as CAM? I am a supporter of CAM but I do not believe that it should be cross-referenced in this way. The reasons for my opinion are :firstly, the reference is unnecessarily large especially in relation to the overall size of the preceding text. One gets the impression that one is reading an entry in some faddish health advertising-supported website rather than an encyclopaedia. Secondly, the reference itself includes subreferences to major topics such as philosophy and history which is (a) misleading since they refer only to the philosophy and history of CAM (as opposed to philosophy and history in general or the philosophy and history of walking) (b) unnecessary since if the interested reader wants to find out about these topics they can follow the link from the main CAM page.

PS The correct spelling of "Complimentary medicine" should be "Complementary medicine"

-- JPF 09:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If someone put in more about the health benefits or otherwise of walking it might make sense. At the monement I don't see that it does.Geni 22:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove the references to alternative medicine from the bottom of the article until someone cares enough to write something to actually link it in to the article; as it stands, the alt-med links at the bottom are wholly divorced from the article, and so are inappropriate. I have neither the expertise, nor time and inclination, to do so myslef...

James F. (talk) 13:45, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Robotics

Should this page have any reference to efforts to get robots to walk? It is a non-trivial problem, and one that hasn't been completely solved yet.

[edit] Suggestions

1. As per a question on the Reference desk, why do people swing their arms whilst walking?
2. Yes, there should be a section on getting robots to walk - could anyone contribute to this?
3. Are there any good diagrams of walking motion available? Perhaps an animated gif?
4. Info on the muscles used in walking would be good.

I think this is a really good option for the article improvement drive, as there's a lot that could be done on this article that has not yet been done, and it's quite an important area in human development. And if I knew the answers to the above suggestions myself, I would add them. Proto t c 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The segment in section 2 stating "Others have major flaws in their urban planning and public transit that leaves them entirely dependent on the automobile and fossil fuels, being a major cause of global warming and extreme weather events." seems to me to be rather biased, or at least of an unnecessarily condemming tone. Jccleaver 23:49 07 January 2006

Shouldn't we talk about the health benefits of walking? As well as bring up new emerging lifestyles about walking such as working from home and having your computer setup on a treadmill, allowing you to walk all day along at low pace while working? I have seen few different people build their own solutions for this and there is now a commercial product for this as well. [www.thenetrunner.com] Tuke 03:12 25 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.24.157 (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main picture

I like the fact that the main picture gives a good idea of what it looks like to walk, but I think there are several problems with that picture; 1. It's too small. Its size makes it very difficult to see clearly without clicking to enlarge it or plastering your nose to the computer screen. 2. She's naked. It's not pornographic, and one DOES expect to see nudes in articles about the body or art, but I think the nudity is unnecessary in THIS ARTICLE. 3. She's going down stairs, and it might be better to have something that shows a person walking on a flat surface, as the process is a little different. Perhaps something better could be found? Additionally, it would be nice to have some pictures that illustrate how things other than humans walk. Perhaps horses (4 legs) and insects (6, or even 8 legs). What do others think? ONUnicorn 21:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image. While I'm all for anti-censorship, "walking" is an article I can easily see a child looking up and it is unneeded. Also, I think this page needs a gif.--SeizureDog 02:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a gif on Insect which I copied here. My new digital cameral is capable of "continuous action" shooting, and I've managed to make animations with pictures taken that way and powerpoint, but I don't have the software to make an animated gif from them. If I upload them frame by frame, is there anyone who can assemble them into a gif? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Walking?

Would anyone be for the creation of this category? There is already a Category:Running and since there are a large amount of articles on walking and it's various incarnations and expressions, I thought it would be a good addition to Wikipedia. Thoughts? Tyciol 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good category addition to me. ONUnicorn 13:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trolling

I removed this:

Walking in a "shopping mall" is often called "trolling."

Where is this true? It is certainly not called that anywhere I have ever lived (and I have lived in a number of English speaking countries) and the OED does not list this as a meaning for "trolling". So if it is to be included then the locations where this is common should be included in the same way the next sentence (taken from the article) does "In some countries walking as a hobby is known as hiking (the typical North American term), rambling (a somewhat dated British expression, but remaining in use because it is enshrined in the title of the important Ramblers' Association), or tramping (the invariable term in New Zealand)." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)