If humans evolved to run, why do we suffer so many injuries?

korviev wrote:

Hilarious, you say I know nothing and then accuse my friends of being obese and lazy. I just won this argument.

Friends, I don't care what you put on your feet (or don't), just do your best to stay off of hard surfaces when you're out there.

Nice reading comprehension, where did I say you knew nothing or that your friends were obese and lazy? Go read it again dipshit:

"The fact that your friends have weak bones from spending most of their lives in a sedentary environment instead of an active physical environment is forcing you to call BS on the theory that humans ran for thousands upon thousands of years barefoot? My, you're a smart one.

The fact that your friends got stress fractures from running in minimalist shoes isn't proof that minimalism is BS, it's proof that your friends have spent too much of their lives sitting around on their asses and not enough time on their feet. Your bones internally adapt themselves and re-arrange their cellular make-up to account for whatever stresses are frequently placed upon them. Spend alot of your time on your feet moving around and your internal bone structure will adapt. Spend alot of your time sitting around watching TV and your bone structure will go to hell."

As you may notice, I merely accuse your friends of living in a sedentary environment, as well basically all do now. Not a knock on them, or even on our society, merely a comment on it. We are nowhere near as physically active now as we had to be 500-1000+ years ago, the time when most of our basic physical evolution occurred. Hell I spend too much time sitting around on my ass doing nothing, I'm not judging here, I'm just stating the facts: Had your friends been on their feet doing manual labor for 8-12+ hours a day since their childhood, no stress fractures. It's that simple. We as a society spend more time sitting around than working (working physically that is), and we're just not as strong or resilient as our forefathers. It's not because we're lazier, it's because we've earned the luxury - which is what it is, a luxury. But the other side of the coin is that when we actually try to do strenuous physical activity, we're gonna get hurt, because our bodies just aren't prepared for it.

The poster asking about selective pressures and eye development almost certainly intended to make the same old "the eye is too complex to have evolved" argument, as anyone can think of dozens of reasons eyes might be useful from an evolutionary standpoint. Clearly he/or she intended to ask how eye structures could evolve without direction. Without even getting into the vast bodies of science on this issue developed in the last 130+ years, here are the intermediary eye forms (all of which can be observed in nature) that Darwin posited in 1872. Sadly, even though this argument was over by the end of the 19th century, some individuals with no scientific education still insist on ignorance.

photosensitive cell

aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin

pigment cells forming a small depression

pigment cells forming a deeper depression

the skin over the depression taking a lens shape

muscles allowing the lens to adjust

The idea that evolution produces perfect functioning marvels of engineering is a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. A simple read that I would recommend is the book Kluge by Gary Marcus which has a thorough development of the idea that selection produces features that from an engineering standpoint, are quite flawed and often disfunctional. This spans from memory and cognitive processes to anatomy.

Also it is clear that despite a sedentary lifestyle or running shoes many are born with an anatomy that disadvantages them in running, whether it be the feet, legs, knees ect. People have this idea that in primitive days there was no variation between individuals. Im sure that there were early humans who could not keep up physically. Perhaps if we had stayed primitive for an extended period of time poor runners may have been selected out.

Its the repetition. Steady 8 miles a day on any surface wearing shoes or not is NOT natural. Hunter gatherer man loafed around a lot then as a group they'd chase down food. Yes they might cover 10-15 miles or something but it was continuously broken up by walking. And they did not do this every day. In other words we all run too much and fast.

The no-shoes thing is bunk. Old timers (now 60+) will tell you the rate of injury PC (pre-cushioning) was much greater prior to say 1970.

Humans didn't evolve to run. They evolved capable of running.

Damn. Perfect. Analogy

This thread is bad even by letsrun standards. Just about every argument proposed so far is idiotic. How can all of you people (on both sides of the argument here) make so many random generalizations.

Maybe in the grand scheme of things we're more prone to injury from running because of shoes, but shoes have become a modern fact of life. This makes them VERY valuable for alot of people who didn't have the luxury of growing up barefoot (or the current luxury of tons of time to work their way up to running barefoot).

The "luxury" or growing up barefoot? Have you lost your mind? There are billions of people in the world living below the poverty line. Having grown up without access to quality footwear (or food) myself, I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt that shoes are the luxury, not a lack of shoes. I injured myself countless times as a child due to a lack of quality shoes, and my feet bear the permanent scars. And furthermore, can you explain how an argument can be idiotic, Mr. fitthat?

lets get him! wrote:

Our Ancestors wrote:

What selected pressure was responsible for designing the workings of an eye? While my understanding of evolution may be limited I just cant see how such a process could begin without the end goal in sight.

for one: our eyes are on the front of our heads so we can see in 3-D as we run after our prey.

our prey, on the other hand, tends to have eyes on the sides of their heads so they can spot predators approaching.

How do you get that without the end goal of humans being the predators? Who planned for humans to be the dominant species?

If I could only get a few more levers and springs on my running shoes, I am sure I can break 4 miutes for the mile.

We have been scammed brothers!!

I have seen the emperor and he is not wearing clothes.

It isn't necessary for anyone to have planned for anything. That's not the way it works, if we're talking about evolution.

it has nothing to do with concrete or hard surfaces...humans did not invent hard surfaces..ever tried running through the woods completely barefoot and not on ANY sort of "path" or "trail"? Over rocks? Or on the snow/ice? Then try running barefoot on concrete/pavement...hard surfaces were around when humans were running barefoot.

really wrote:

The "luxury" or growing up barefoot? Have you lost your mind? There are billions of people in the world living below the poverty line. Having grown up without access to quality footwear (or food) myself, I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt that shoes are the luxury, not a lack of shoes. I injured myself countless times as a child due to a lack of quality shoes, and my feet bear the permanent scars. And furthermore, can you explain how an argument can be idiotic, Mr. fitthat?

I award you 0/10. Apparently you grew up without access to reading comprehension skills as well. The use of the word "luxury" was sarcastic.

idiotic: senselessly foolish or stupid

argument: a discussion involving differing points of view; debate

Therefore I propose that much of the discussion on this thread is senselessly foolish (much like my own post is starting to become).

Also, fitthat is my first name. If you must address me formally please do so using my surname: Bubbletrousers

You did not answer my question Mr. Bubbletrousers. You merely looked up the definitions of two words, without explaining how they are related. Additionally, you pasted the wrong usage of argument. To save you the time, I will paste the correct definition in this context: "A statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition; spec. in Logic, the middle term in a syllogism." (OED)

really wrote:

You did not answer my question Mr. Bubbletrousers. You merely looked up the definitions of two words, without explaining how they are related. Additionally, you pasted the wrong usage of argument. To save you the time, I will paste the correct definition in this context: "A statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition; spec. in Logic, the middle term in a syllogism." (OED)

ah, touche sir...you are correct

I concede defeat, but please call me fitthat

We don't have the expertise in coaching. There are only a few coaches that are truly experts.

Fine. But when I listen to my body, like you wrote in your earlier post, it says I will stop running if you run without reasonable protection. I don't crave cushioning as much as I do protection.

Not enough protein.