This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Humans were made to run
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Haxzor
WE WERE MEANT TO LIVE FOR SO MUCH MORE!
Post by
Cambo
WE WERE MEANT TO LIVE FOR SO MUCH MORE!
Oh God no.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cambo
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. Not sure about this statement, I would challenge that Marathon runners (that do it for there job/life and excel at it) probably currently train harder than our ancestors did. Of course, the general population does not.
Not necessarily. These days you have specialist diets and technologically advanced footwear and clothing to make things easier and more comfortable. It's all about training smarter, not harder.
Post by
Orranis
But not for hours upon hours, like most actual predator species, again, Sharks, wolves or whales, or even migratory species, such as deer, geese, and other creatures would put us to shame easily.
No, I disagree humans can run marathons with training and even some of us can run ultra-marathons. I don't think you can really include animals other than land animals in this discussion as its a totally different thing. Wolves and deer do not run for hours upon hours anyway.
Yes they do. Wolves do at least. The deer are usually the one's who fall down dying of exhaustion after a few of them, to make easy pickings.
I agree the physical characteristics of humans are under-appreciated, but don't we're nowhere close to the best.
Post by
Squishalot
How is it not? Most young and fit humans who put enough time into training can RUN the whole marathon obviously the winners and even a large percentage of just finishers run the whole marathon.
Your marathons aren't as long as the marathons I have in mind.
For the purposes of my argument the person is doing it day in and day out. A person runs for its food everyday vs an animal that does the same for fair comparison purposes.
There's no suggestion in the article that the person does it day in and day out. Given how long you could preserve food for in the past, it makes little sense to go hunting every day and incurring a stockpile of food; you would only go hunting as and when you required it. And presumably, there wouldn't only be one team of hunters in a village.
There is no "speed" definition of running, this is the definition of running - a gait in which at regular points during the running cycle both feet are off the ground.
You see, this is the issue that Adamsm and I have with it. You can argue that humans are made for walking, because we can walk for long periods of time - so what? Are plankton made for swimming just because they can swim non-stop?
To suggest that an animal is 'made for' X suggests that they have to be capable in all aspects of X. A deer may be able to sprint (i.e. travel at close-to maximum speed) for a longer period of time than a cheetah can, that doesn't make it more 'made for sprinting' than the cheetah!
My point - it doesn't matter how 'made for running' humans are, if there are so many other animals in the animal kingdom that can outrun / outlast us. If our sustained running speed can't keep up with a wolf's steady / stop / start pace over the course of a day, then I'm sorry, but we're not as good at running as they are.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Pwntiff
I personally believe if we were truly adapted to running, we'd be quadrupeds. In fact, I think we're the only animals capable of walking upright that don't use additional limbs for running. Yes, our bodies are capable of running, but several animals are much more capable than we are.
The reason animals don't run cross-country continuously is because they don't have a reason to. They will run down prey or run from danger, but they won't run longer than they have to. There's no real need to be able to run a marathon, and the fact that you have to train extensively to do it is proof that it is not a wholly natural ability.
An animal doesn't give up a chase because it can't run anymore, but because it decides that the cost of continuing is not worth the benefit of succeeding.
Humans are capable of running. However, loping is what we, and most other animals, are more accurately designed for. Running is hard on the body; loping, not so much.
Post by
Squishalot
A sprint is about maximum speed that an animal can travel; not about how long they can do it for. But, for long-distance running by being able to run longer than another animal it does make it 'more made for distance running.' Bad comparison.
No, it makes it more made for endurance, not distance running. And this is my fundamental point. It doesn't matter if you can run for a day non-stop, if the next animal can run three times further in half the time. Or if it can walk three times further in half the time, even. The better long-
distance
runner is the one who can run further, not the one who can run for a longer period of time.
Again, I did not say we were made for general running, I said we were made for distance running. My argument is specific and it has constantly been specific throughout the thread.
You miss the point. The point is that the capability to do something doesn't mean that we are 'made' to do it, nor are we ideally designed to do it. The fact that there are people who can run for 5 hours doesn't mean that
Homo sapiens
is designed to do so.
And again, that's about 'long endurance running', not 'long distance running'.
I do not see how you can argue about wolves ability to run distance when it clearly states they give up when the chase is prolonged.
I believe that Pwntiff clearly states the answer.
Your argument is akin to my following statement:
I give up the chase for rabbits in my parents' back yard (they have acerage) after a couple hundred metres, therefore I can't run more than a couple hundred metres.
Willingness and ability to perform are two separate things.
Post by
445568
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Running is too broad so consider a marathon (26.2 miles) in the African savanna. which animal would win?
Most animals would surpass the humans easily but after a while they will either stop or collapse due to the heat. Thats where humans beat them.
How about running a marathon in the Arctic Circle, which animal would win?
Success in specific conditions =/= 'generally made to run'.
Other animals dont need to run marathons.
I think you missed the point that was being made. Animals don't run cross-country because they don't need to. That doesn't mean that they're not able to. There's no evidence to suggest that a wolf can't run continuously for long periods of time, only that it has no reason to, so it doesn't. Just like I have no reason to run a marathon, so I don't.
Post by
457614
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
How about running a marathon in the Arctic Circle, which animal would win?
You seem to have a weird idea about how evolution works. Are you somehow suggesting that early humans developed features they did not need?
No, I'm suggesting that humans aren't made to run. The lack of body hair and production of sweat is not a prerequisite for running, it's a defense mechanism against hot conditions. The fact that it assists in running in hot conditions is a no-brainer. The fact that it doesn't assist in running in
any other conditions
suggests that such an evolutionary result is not linked to running, and that any benefit to running in hot conditions is merely a side effect.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
457614
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
They might be able to run three times faster but with that human constantly closing in on them once they sprinted ahead the human would be able to catch them due to their poor pacing.
I said 'walk' three times faster, not sprint. A great number of animals can lope for long periods of time significantly faster than humans can.
I think what he's trying to say is that us being good at running for extended periods of time under warm conditions hardly makes us built for running, because if we were built for running we'd be at least decent at it under cold conditions as well. There is no real basis for that conclusion though. Also, we are decent in cold weather running even though we excel at warm weather.
There is no evolutionary basis, which is why it's not the case.
Your argument is essentially:
a) Humans are above average at running in this scenario.
b) Therefore, humans are above average at running generally.
Logical fallacy.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Again:
Your argument is essentially:
a) Humans are above average at running in this scenario.
b) Therefore, humans are above average at running generally.
Logical fallacy.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.