This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Humans were made to run
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You realize for most of those they don't run; they stalk after the prey, and only start running if they have a 100% chance at the kill. If the animal takes off at sprint, there's no way in hell a human will keep up with them. After all, we aren't built like an actual predator, such as a wolf or a lion, which are made to use their claws or teeth to drop the animal; if you don't have some type of a weapon, the chance of actually killing it, is low to nil.
As for you being a runner and can go for 10 miles at a time; good on you, but Reindeer, Deer, Wolves, and a variety of other animals can easily out pace and out distance you. Humans are not the speed freaks of the world, and lose out 90% of the time if you try running to hunt....not to mention, the chance of you running as silently as any actual predator animal is low; we're not built that way.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I have in fact shown evidence that the human have exhausted an animal to death.No you actually haven't.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
No you actually haven't.
Fail.
You've suggested one example.
Considering that animals like deer and antelope get hunted down by other predators such as wolves and lions, it doesn't really prove anything.
Post by
Skreeran
If I was around with the Dinosaurs, I'd be sure to develop running skills too.
Trollolololololol!
And our ancestors did run animals to exhaustion in the past, according to what I've read and seen on documentaries. Books and documentaries can be wrong, but it certainly seems plausible.
The key here is that humans pace themselves. A group of humans jogging after a sprinting gazelle can wind it, simply because the gazelle, even if it gets away from the humans at first, will run in bursts of sprints, rather than pacing itself like the humans. Add to that it' body hair and inferior thermoregulatory system, and humans will win.
Think about it. If humans cannot survive in the wild without weapons, how the hell did we live long enough to invent weapons?
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
665124
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
You've suggested one example.
Considering that animals like deer and antelope get hunted down by other predators such as wolves and lions, it doesn't really prove anything.
What am I suppose to show? Relatively few people in the world have to rely on food like that in today's world. Other predators use sheer speed (sprinting), like those lions and wolves, (show me a video where those predators utterly exhaust an animal to death) to catch their food, obviously the African Tribe in that video did not use sheer sprinting ability. The burden of proof is not on me any longer.
Your example demonstrated a couple of hours work. That's hardly long-distance running in the animal kingdom sense.
But since you insist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf
Wolf packs travel constantly in search of prey, covering roughly 9% of their territory per day (average 25 km/d or 15 mi/d).
And that's just their day-to-day work. Moreover, that's the entire pack, not just the hunter-gatherers in their pack.
Any assessment of long-distance running is always bounded by the same problems - do you put a higher measure on speed over shorter period of time, or long-term movement time irrespective of speed? Is someone who can run 100km in a day (and need to rest) better at long-distance running than someone who can do 200km over 4 days?
I'm with Adamsm. The wolves who cover 25km a day for their entire lives, to me, are far better long-distance runners than humans. You're welcome to disagree, but your only valid point of disagreement can be on our measure of what constitutes long-distance running.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Humans were made to run
My asthma tells me otherwise. :(
^
Post by
Squishalot
I am not sure how you even consider this long distance. The very definition of sprinting is - running at top speed over short distance. So for Long Distance Running I am talking about how long you can run and how far you can go without stopping. How you use a different definition of that is beyond me.
Because a marathon =/= non-stop running.
My point about 'how long you can run' and 'how far you can go without stopping' is the fact that, as you rightly point out, humans can walk 15m/day non-stop and it wouldn't be considered running. At what speed is the minimum before it's considered running? You see, I wouldn't necessarily class 7km/hr (35km / 5 hr chase, in the persistence hunting article) running either. I can powerwalk faster than that.
To me, 2 hours is a short period of time, as far as endurance events are concerned. I'm not sure how you consider this long-distance either.
You also need to consider the recovery time. If someone is capable of performing an incredible feat, but requires a week to recover, then you can hardly argue that they were 'made to' perform it. If someone does it every day, day in, day out, that's an entirely different story.
Post by
Pwntiff
Wolves are better than humans. Example: Iditirod Tral and the Nome Serum Run.
Twenty of Alaska’s best mushers and their teams carried the serum 674 miles (1,078 km) from Nenana to Nome in less than 5½ days.
That's nearly 125mi a day in the Alaskan wilderness, during the winter, pulling a sled, cargo, and a musher.
Post by
Zoltas
Well its awkward, because our anscestors were far more physically active than us, so the average human 8,000 years ago could run for a long period of time, whereas now its only really trained marathon runners.
Also a point to note is that We (Homo Sapiens) replaced Neanderthals as we were smarter and more adaptable, yet they were far stronger/faster/and could run for longer than us
Post by
jure12
Compared to people two generations before us (i.e., our grandparents), we have several times less physical activity. No matter how slow or fast evolution is, two generations is not enough for anything to happen, for example to adopt to sedentary lifestyle or something.
All the talk about sitting is fine, l2sit is just poor excuse for lazy people (like myself, it's just that I'm ready to admit it).
Post by
445568
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Varaconn
If I may -- I did a once-over of those articles... I'm not sure about the points certain people are making, but I think a lot of people are getting wrapped up in debates that are beside the point. The article isn't saying that humans run faster, longer, or more efficiently than other animals. It's only discussing the idea that we have evolved for endurance running, as opposed to the commonly held belief that we evolved simply to walk, and that running is a bi-product of that.
I didn't see anywhere in the articles where it tried to assert that we out-perform other animals.
Post by
Pwntiff
Okay, the side debates weren't over the articles.
It's mostly on this statement:
OP is right and yall are wrong. Humans have some of the best endurance of any animal. Some tribes in Africa still
hunt
where they run down an animal until utter exhaustion to kill it. Humans sweat(more importantly they thermoregulate) and have a lack of body hair which are key adaptations to make this happen.
Post by
Varaconn
Yeah, I noticed that one, then just started grazing and noticed everyone just jumping on that. My comment was primarily an attempt to bring things back to the article.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.