Man I thought I was in great shape

[EndoGlo]

Eh, it made sense, but then I thought about it. How do you justify a MLB who can run a 40 in 4 seconds? Training. I would say overall, it could be true for the common individual.

[XTrainer]

Originally Posted by dugforeva

Apparently humans were designed to hunt prey over long distances though. I either read an article or watched a documentary that talks about it. There is still that one or two tribes in africa that chase down prey over super long distances. Also some evidence for this was that in endurance sports such as marathons the curve of performance evens out where youth isn't an advantage over the more elderly. So everyone could participate in this type of hunting. Pretty interesting shit.

I don't know how this idea got started. My runner roommate was trying to tell me the same thing, that humans literally ran after animals continuously for hours and hours until the animal collapsed from exhaustion. I believe he got the idea out of book that is extremely popular in the running community, can't remember the title though.

Anyway, it is ridiculously illogical on so many levels:

1. Consider how many calories would be expended in a chase that lasts several hours, and must be at at least intense enough to keep the animal in sight. Even if you do get the animal in the end, the calories expended by the chasing tribe would not be worth the kill. (If you're chasing solo, you have to kill and carry the whole thing back yourself=more calories )
2. If you've been running, conservatively, say 10 MPH for 3 hours, you'd be LUCKY if you were still within 10-20 miles of the rest of the tribe (infants, young children, mothers, etc.). And that's assuming you spotted the animal while the whole tribe was together, not when you're starting 5 miles away on a hunt. So now, you have to carry the beast back to the tribe that whole distance, burning even more calories.
3. Even an exhausted animal is going to put up a heck of fight once you approach it. And you will be exhausted at that point, too.
4. A gazelle is literally twice as fast as a human...good luck keeping him in sight long enough to see him collapse. Same goes for most prey animals, albeit to a lesser extent. They're both faster and more enduring.
5. Sick animals might make easier targets, but, eating sick and animals can have some serious consequences.


Yeah anyway I was just waiting to get that rant ever since I heard this BS the first time

Rocks and spears>Chasing

[Steakeater]

Originally Posted by XTrainer

I see where you're coming from. Not that I don't respect all of the various "ultra-endurance" athletes, but that type of sport/training has been idealized in our culture for a long time, almost to the exclusion of everything else. The downplay of other physical attributes, including strength, power, shorter term/higher intensity conditioning is irksome to me. Even when training methods such as strength training are addressed, they are usually considered in terms of aesthetics, not health or capability. There is a pervasive idea in our culture that "health and fitness" is indicated by how far you run.

Again, nothing against pure endurance athletes. I certainly respect them, I just think the "endurance athlete model of fitness" (my made up term ) is seriously over hyped.

Yeah I agree that long endurance athletes should automatically be the official role model for the athletic American. However it probably does reduce many health problems Americans suffer from, namely obesity and insulin sensitivity.

Its weird though, I too heard that humans were long term runners tthat out endured many animals for hunting

[thornton]

Originally Posted by XTrainer

I don't know how this idea got started. My runner roommate was trying to tell me the same thing, that humans literally ran after animals continuously for hours and hours until the animal collapsed from exhaustion. I believe he got the idea out of book that is extremely popular in the running community, can't remember the title though.

Anyway, it is ridiculously illogical on so many levels:

1. Consider how many calories would be expended in a chase that lasts several hours, and must be at at least intense enough to keep the animal in sight. Even if you do get the animal in the end, the calories expended by the chasing tribe would not be worth the kill. (If you're chasing solo, you have to kill and carry the whole thing back yourself=more calories )
2. If you've been running, conservatively, say 10 MPH for 3 hours, you'd be LUCKY if you were still within 10-20 miles of the rest of the tribe (infants, young children, mothers, etc.). And that's assuming you spotted the animal while the whole tribe was together, not when you're starting 5 miles away on a hunt. So now, you have to carry the beast back to the tribe that whole distance, burning even more calories.
3. Even an exhausted animal is going to put up a heck of fight once you approach it. And you will be exhausted at that point, too.
4. A gazelle is literally twice as fast as a human...good luck keeping him in sight long enough to see him collapse. Same goes for most prey animals, albeit to a lesser extent. They're both faster and more enduring.
5. Sick animals might make easier targets, but, eating sick and animals can have some serious consequences.


Yeah anyway I was just waiting to get that rant ever since I heard this BS the first time

Rocks and spears>Chasing

I saw the same documentary a previous poster was referring to. It is on youtube, but I can't find it right now.

I doubt it was common to all cultures, but there is at least one tribe that still does this. The documentary was pretty cool. The hunters separate one animal from the pack, I don't remember what kind, something like a deer. Once it is separate from the pack, they chase it all day. At first the "deer" has a big advantage, but it wears down because it can cool down as fast as a person. Eventually it gives up exhausted. The hunter then walks up and slits its throat. In the documentary, the "deer" was so tired it did not really fight back at all.

Personally, I would have to be pretty desperate to chase down an animal. We are supposed to be the smartest animal. I like to think I could come up with a more efficient way of hunting.

[XTrainer]

Originally Posted by thornton

I saw the same documentary a previous poster was referring to. It is on youtube, but I can't find it right now.

I doubt it was common to all cultures, but there is at least one tribe that still does this. The documentary was pretty cool. The hunters separate one animal from the pack, I don't remember what kind, something like a deer. Once it is separate from the pack, they chase it all day. At first the "deer" has a big advantage, but it wears down because it can cool down as fast as a person. Eventually it gives up exhausted. The hunter then walks up and slits its throat. In the documentary, the "deer" was so tired it did not really fight back at all.

Personally, I would have to be pretty desperate to chase down an animal. We are supposed to be the smartest animal. I like to think I could come up with a more efficient way of hunting.

They do this as their primary means of sustenance? Or is it a "when we can" sort of thing?

EDIT: Also, there is a HUGE difference between doing this strategically, using a coordinated group to push the animal where you want, when you want, with intermittent starts and stops depending on the animal's behavior and your responsibility within the group, and just "chasing" it.

My whole issue here is that the die-hard runner culture would have you believe people are literally just running after these animals, non-stop, "which is how we know humans are well-suited to running marathons."

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by XTrainer

Again, nothing against pure endurance athletes. I certainly respect them, I just think the "endurance athlete model of fitness" (my made up term ) is seriously over hyped.

Yeah I agree and I'm selfish in that I want it all. Just various aspects of what it means to be fit or athletic. Not just a great aerobic base, but strong, fast, coordinated, flexible, skilled, etc. Who doesn't though?

Also - if you did any true speed training and have good lower body relative strength I bet many of you could catch these marathon runners in a short sprint. ;) A lot of them have one speed and are not what I consider fast or explosive. 5 minute mile (12 mph) pace is very slow over a short distance.

[SowChoy]

Originally Posted by thornton

Personally, I would have to be pretty desperate to chase down an animal. We are supposed to be the smartest animal. I like to think I could come up with a more efficient way of hunting.

Eventually we got dogs to do this for us

[dugforeva]

Originally Posted by XTrainer

They do this as their primary means of sustenance? Or is it a "when we can" sort of thing?

EDIT: Also, there is a HUGE difference between doing this strategically, using a coordinated group to push the animal where you want, when you want, with intermittent starts and stops depending on the animal's behavior and your responsibility within the group, and just "chasing" it.

My whole issue here is that the die-hard runner culture would have you believe people are literally just running after these animals, non-stop, "which is how we know humans are well-suited to running marathons."

As I recall from the documentary this is their main method of hunting. Obviously only one person does the whole chase and their job is basically track the animal and follow it until it collapses from exhaustion. Then they kill it. I don't recall how the kill is parsed out (if he returns and tells the other of the kills location or butchers some of it and takes it back). The human isn't running continuously because he would have to stop and check for tracks from time to time, but basically they need to constantly pressure the animal.

My take is that this was mans first form of hunting before we developed superiior long distance kill weapons like the bow and arrow, so we used this method of hunting early in our evolution.

Edit:
Just found a wikipedia article about this, it's called persistence hunting. Obviously not the best source but I am too lazy to find others.

Persistence hunting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


sorry xtrainer, looks like your friend was right!

[redbeard]

Originally Posted by XTrainer

I don't know how this idea got started. My runner roommate was trying to tell me the same thing, that humans literally ran after animals continuously for hours and hours until the animal collapsed from exhaustion. I believe he got the idea out of book that is extremely popular in the running community, can't remember the title though.

Anyway, it is ridiculously illogical on so many levels:

1. Consider how many calories would be expended in a chase that lasts several hours, and must be at at least intense enough to keep the animal in sight. Even if you do get the animal in the end, the calories expended by the chasing tribe would not be worth the kill. (If you're chasing solo, you have to kill and carry the whole thing back yourself=more calories )
2. If you've been running, conservatively, say 10 MPH for 3 hours, you'd be LUCKY if you were still within 10-20 miles of the rest of the tribe (infants, young children, mothers, etc.). And that's assuming you spotted the animal while the whole tribe was together, not when you're starting 5 miles away on a hunt. So now, you have to carry the beast back to the tribe that whole distance, burning even more calories.
3. Even an exhausted animal is going to put up a heck of fight once you approach it. And you will be exhausted at that point, too.
4. A gazelle is literally twice as fast as a human...good luck keeping him in sight long enough to see him collapse. Same goes for most prey animals, albeit to a lesser extent. They're both faster and more enduring.
5. Sick animals might make easier targets, but, eating sick and animals can have some serious consequences.


Yeah anyway I was just waiting to get that rant ever since I heard this BS the first time

Rocks and spears>Chasing

Lol the amount of thought that has gone into this, brilliant.

[XTrainer]

Originally Posted by dugforeva

As I recall from the documentary this is their main method of hunting. Obviously only one person does the whole chase and their job is basically track the animal and follow it until it collapses from exhaustion. Then they kill it. I don't recall how the kill is parsed out (if he returns and tells the other of the kills location or butchers some of it and takes it back). The human isn't running continuously because he would have to stop and check for tracks from time to time, but basically they need to constantly pressure the animal.

My take is that this was mans first form of hunting before we developed superiior long distance kill weapons like the bow and arrow, so we used this method of hunting early in our evolution.

Edit:
Just found a wikipedia article about this, it's called persistence hunting. Obviously not the best source but I am too lazy to find others.

Persistence hunting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


sorry xtrainer, looks like your friend was right!

Look at the sources of that wiki article..."Born to Run" and similar cult hits of the running crowd.

I do not doubt that it CAN be done, I do doubt that it can be the primary means of sustenance for a people.

Furthermore, since humans obviously subsist(ed) far better (and therefore, develop(ed) faster and farther) with other forms of hunting, drawing the conclusion that humans are naturally well-suited to marathon-esque running (and therefore, extended endurance running should be the primary measure of athleticism and physical capability) is obviously not sensible.