Hacker News Reader

You objections seem to spring from an incorrect tl;dr. I quote:

"The way we move our bodies further changes the nature of our thoughts, and vice versa"

"Because we don’t have to devote much conscious effort to the act of walking, our attention is free to wander"

"Where we walk matters as well."

The validity of those claims might be up for debate too, but the article in no way claims that it is "simply" increased heart rate. The answer only "begins with changes to our chemistry".

The reason that I'm optimizing those sentences away is, they aren't pulled back into the central question. I take as my central question: why is walking better than sitting for some kinds of intellectual problems? That first quote doesn't connect to that question (it says that there may be differences between different sorts of locomotion), nor does the second quote (which doesn't distinguish walking from sitting), nor does the third (it tries to distinguish city-walking from garden-walking but not walking from sitting). Heart rate was the only thing I saw which actually seemed to answer that question of, "why does walking help us think?" as opposed to "how should I walk, so as to think better?"

But my point was more, "I was hoping for some science," really.

My personal hunch is that, at least for me, the benefit stems from constantly-changing scenery. I'm not actually paying attention to it most of the time, but little bits catch me here and there, and in any case I'm aware of it. This passive, non-urgent sensory stimulation doesn't make me forget what I'm thinking about, but constantly interrupts my inward fixation just enough that I don't get stuck on one thought -- so new ones have a crack to wedge themselves in through.

It could boil down to an instinctive awareness that I'm not in a place I know is absolutely safe, so I have to be ready to accept and react to external stimuli at any moment, even if I'm not currently feeling threatened; and creative thought, in this case, hijacks the "external" tag.

But yeah, science would be nice too.

A moot point. The scientific studies ruled out treadmills as an effective alternative. Your first post make it appear as if you hadn't even read the article. I'd argue that increased heart rate was demonstrated not to be a likely cause.

The connection between movement and the brain has recently been scientifically established . A good breakdown can be found in the book "Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain Paperback – January 1, 2013 by John J. Ratey"

Basically movement, especially aerobic (walk, run, etc.) but also complex movement (sports, music playing , martial arts) as explained in the book

1 causes neurogenesis (release of brain stem cells ) 2 increases the size of your hippocampus and and improves memory 3 creates new brain circuits for the movement but these circuits are able to be recruited by different tasks 4 increases the production and balance of neurotransmitters and other hormones 5 increases and regulates executive function And a lot more complex processes in the brain. This occurs immediately but increases with more exercise . It's interesting stuff and ratey explains well.

Thanks for this info. It will be interesting to read about how new brain circuits are created with movement.

I originally suspected walking has more to do with psychology, specifically paradoxic intention, than it does with physiology. That being easily distracted allows your mind to drift, whereas aiming to solve a problem keeps your mind stuck in the same unfruitful paths of thought. It's great that there is some science behind it.

I'll definitely look into that book; thanks!

You are incorrect on Running. I know lots of runners that use the time to think things through, and I know personally that I have come up with numerous creative ideas while running.

It depends on your level of effort when running. I can only provider you anecdotal evidence for myself and from the author of the excellent: http://www.amazon.com/Lore-Running-Edition-Timothy-Noakes/dp...

Basically, if you are well adapted to running and it does not take a lot of mental effort to run, you aren't really draining your "bucket" of mental energy for the day very much, so you get the positive effects. However, if you go into a place where the training takes a high degree of concentration (say, running easy, but a lot), or by running very hard, this is a heavy cognitive load task that requires much concentration due to the pain, etc.

So, basically, its the same as walking for a lot of people. As long as you are in a reasonably comfortable zone where you can think, it works well.

Yes but people shouldn't be running much outside their bodies comfort zone so it should always be pretty efficient for getting your thoughts in order and think. It does for me at least but it only did once my spacial awareness was at a level that I could do things like get out of the way of people and increase or decrease my level on the pavement without much thought. It doesn't happen straight away but develops pretty quickly at least for me. I can do about 12km/hr for 1-2 hours without issue but sprints etc make me have to focus completely on the running so they're no good.

I have too; I just think that most people don't come up with as many ideas while running as do when walking. I'm not sure why exactly that is, but it is the stereotype, no?

I'd disagree that it can be summed up as "increased heart rate". As you rightly point out, increased heart rate can be achieved by other things that don't necessarily seem to be beneficial. Increased heart rate is just one side-effect of exercise, others being breathing more rapidly and perspiration. It seems like the mechanism of action is something else.

I thought the journal articles linked to do a good job of substantiating the author's claims.

Unlike many other similar outlets, New Yorker editors generally don't try to write a bunch about science that they don't understand (because why should they? they're trained to be write). If you want to understand the exact science behind it, your source should be a journal or actual scientist, not an editorial content house.

Watching porn or scary movies also provide distractions for your mind, in a way that walking doesn't. Intensive exercise is also quite painful which in itself is distracting in a way that a brisk walk or cycling at a moderate pace isn't.