Without question born to run
Without question born to run
I’d think we were born to live, no?
I think that a neglected aspect of our heritage is the fact that Africans from rain forested areas like West Africa are much more fast-twitch and muscular than their East African savanna-adapted counterparts. Also, Neanderthals, who could literally toss NFL lineman over their heads, were almost certainly adapted to taking down megafauna almost exclusively, probably with almost no long running at all, although they nomadically followed the herds. Once the megafuana died out, their days were numbered, allowing modern humans to enter their domain and succeed with smaller, more agile quarry.
It is pretty obvious that humans were adapted to different hunting strategies in different environments. It is problematic to use modern-era hunter-gatherers as models as they are often pushed into marginal habitats by agriculture and subsist on a sub-optimal menu, usually of smaller less fatty game.
Excellent documentary. Sheesh..five days covering up to 30 a day in the desert with little water, and then only "brackish"! Then putting their spears right on target while dodging deadly hooves. Butchering and hauling the meat home for miles. On the other hand, four men working four days fed a village for a week and a half.
Must say the title sounds about as catchy as Buttigieg’s “Medicare for all who want it”.
I think hunting has always been a little more leisurely than the he-man types like to think. The real answer to the running riddle can be found by determining how long a bear or tiger will chase a human before it gives up (or catches the human). That's the distance you should run for optimal health.
Whoever says humans didn't evolve to run is just ignoring pretty recent history. Just about every culture that didn't have horses yet is known to have used runners to carry information or do military patrols long distance.
The Zulus for example, and since it is still party-for-Paddy day, the Irish Fianna Fail also were a roving band of long-distance footsoldiers.
Yes, these people were often ultra type, but they weren't always going 100 miles in a day. If they needed to get 10 miles lickety split they would do it, no problem.
IF we weren't meant by nature to run, we wouldn't have such finely tuned quads and hamstrings, which allow a very efficient gait cycle shortening the leg on the recovery stroke to save energy. Likewise, our ability to sweat wouldn't be near as important for walking as it is for running, because walking just isn't heat-intensive no matter how briskly you do it. We have an uncommon ability to exert ourselves for a long time pretty easily.
Yeah we evolved to be 30 pounds overweight and not to walk around . Yeah. We weren’t even born really if you think about it.
This is correct, we are terrible runners and need to dedicate our lives to run quickly. Just look at our biomechanics and physiology, we are walkers and joggers.
The statement “We can run, but we are not runners” is true. That’s not to take away from any of else who attempted to run as fast as we can for whatever distance we are running.
Funny I say this as running coach, lol
Thanks for mentioning the Zulus. It’s an example that enforces my point.
Zulu warriors were subjected to strict training, with very severe punishments if they did not. Hardly an argument to support the fact that they ran voluntarily.
However when they did run, it was done by a version of a Galloway run / walk approach. The idea being that they would turn up earlier than expected to catch opponents unawares, but still being fresh enough to fight. Imagine crossing the finish of a 10K race having just beaten your PB, only to be told that you had to fight for your life for an hour or two, straight away. As you can see, even the Zulus didn’t run as we practice it today.
Baden Powell the founder of the scouts movement, observed the Zulus doing this kind of running and adopted it as a test for the scout movement, calling it scouts pace. Fifty steps of running, alternated with fifty steps of walking. The test was to see who could run a mile, without a timing device in as close to twelve minutes as possible using this approach, not the fastest mile. Some sections of the British military also adopted this approach, but only when necessary, when “double time” pace was required, which was quicker than brisk walking, but still kept you fresh enough to fight at the destination point.
Why wouldn’t we have such finely tuned quads and hamstrings? They are used for other activities other than running, walking being one.
move never said that we didn’t run. Obviously it was required on OCCASIONS. But walking was our primary mode of movement. We really just were not running everywhere, or as often as some romantic born to run types would have us believe. At the other end of the scale, there weren’t a band of muscular Usain Bolts wandering around ready to knock out a sub 10.5 second 100 at a moments notice, not barefoot on uneven and unreliable terrain.
I went for a brisk walk this morning. For about fifty minutes. The temperature was about 13 degrees. Hardly baking. But by the end I had a sweat on. There is a David Attenborough narrated video on persistence hunting. A group of men basically walk after, and track an animal to exhaustion ( with the occasional jogs thrown in). It’s only at the end that ONE man takes up the final stretch with a bit more intense running.
Running is far more energy expensive than walking. To be used sparingly. Imagine indulging in a hunt, only to fail ( which happens ( ed) often, and then being glycogen depleted, with your ability to hunt being diminished for the next time.
As others have posted videos…here’s mine.
Hardly a scene from your local 5 or 10K.
The locals don’t train for these “efforts” either. Training is a foreign concept to them.
Looks all fairly relaxed and a bit stop start to me…
It's a cherry you think you can pick to blah blah blah whatever you're on about. Take that to letsidiot.com, won't work here.
They'll love your comment about quads and hamstrings. Tell me you haven't heard of biarticulate muscles, without telling me! Complete ignoramus.
These marvelous works of evolution can simultaenously flex at one end and extend at the other, in a complex but natural oscillation of leg length which enables both sprinting and middle-to-long distance running. The moment arm on the recovery stroke is drastically reduced, allowing either increased cadence or greatly reduced force to move the leg forward.
Walking has nothing to do with that. Absolutely nothing! Once you have figured out why and are done crying, commit yourself to fixing your useless brain.
Wow…and now the insults start. I was always taught that if you started insulting someone…then you’d already lost the debate.
I’m well aware of biarticulate muscles thank you. I did say that our quads and hamstrings are used for more activities than running…squatting, climbing etc. They would also be used more extensively for walking uphill…as I’m sure we, as a species did not just stick to the flat lands.
Try to be a bit more civil in your responses if you can, because you come across as an ignoramus otherwise…
Since most humans can run, we are therefore born to run. Thats why we are built to move upright on our 2 legs. We are designed to be able to run. And walk. Because we walk as well as run, does not mean we aren't designed to run.
No mammal spends all of its time running. Take equines. Equines have 4 legs and are designed to run fast, but even equines spent only a minority of their time running. They don't only run from danger, they run for play, young horses often race each other and so on. But most of their time is spent with their heads down grazing, or sleeping, or scratching other horses, or just grazing into the distance.
Big cats also run fast, particularly cheetahs. However, cheetahs spend the vast majority of their time not running.
Humans migrated over large distances on foot in order to colonise this planet. That would have involved running at times equivalent to other mammals who hunt. I'm not really seeing what the issue is here. Running is not something that humans find it particularly difficult to do.
I think that in the emotional uproar from some who have responded on here…( it’s like I’ve insulted a family member) the context of the subject matter has been lost.
I NEVER said that we didn’t, or couldn’t run. I’ve merely said that it wasn’t our PRIMARY mode of movement, and it wasn’t performed in a manner that we see on the roads, or the athletics tracks of today.
For those who look to the past for inspiration and guidance for how we should exercise today, there seem to be two camps.
There are the born to run types, who, would practically have us believe that ancient man ran practically everywhere and that the Savannah was full of Kipchoges criss crossing the plains at tempo speeds or above.
Then there are those like Mark Sisson and Art DeVaney who believe that ancient men walked, but when they ran it was like watching Usain Bolt in full flight.
Obviously, as the video shows, neither extreme is true. Yes we ran, but it was neither as extensive or as fast / impressive as those on either end of the spectrum would have us believe.
Please provide a source and quote from a scientist- heck- anyone claiming that running was our primary mode of movement. I don't think you'll even find a Chris McDougall quote. You know that noone is actually claiming this, therefore you're vociferously arguing against a strawman.
Wow…okay didn’t think I had to spell it out for those who can’t see beyond the literal.
The born to run types cite running as being the MAIN reason for our development ( brain expansion etc). Based on the video I posted that bit of running is powerful stuff.
It’s clear that 90+% of the hunting was done via walking. So for running to have such a profound effect on us as a species…a little really does go a long way it seems.
The born to run types imply that it was some expansive volume of running done ( at a fair clip) that was responsible for human development. Where as the truth is more likely that there wasn’t as much running done as they would like to think, and that a combination of factors actually led to our progression.
Hope that clears it up for you. If you need any help reading between the lines, let me know…😉😂
Matthew Centrowitz will win the 2024 US Trials and medal in Paris
Could Jakob Ingebrigtsen complete 20x400 at 1 minute rest at mile pace?
Julien Wanders pulls out of the Hannover Marathon citing “poor shape”