I was reading a comment section on reddit about this, and thought that being able to kill an animal with nothing more than your legs seems pretty efficient. What do you guys think?
I was reading a comment section on reddit about this, and thought that being able to kill an animal with nothing more than your legs seems pretty efficient. What do you guys think?
Define "efficient".
You probably wouldn't kill your prey with your legs. Unless you are a karate dude. The idea is the prey becomes exhausted then you can kill it with spears, clubs etc
It was so ineffective and inefficient that man devised weapons, tactics and skills to do a better job. Thus thriving
I think the question is how many calories are expended hunting vs. how many calories are gained by the prey. Persistence hunting seems like it would have a high calorie cost compared to fishing, lying in wait for game, and other kinds of hunting.
No, extremely efficient. It allows you to bring down large prey that you wouldn't normally be able to kill very often. That's a lotta food which makes up for the effort involved.
People usually overestimate the energy expended during exercise vs basal metabolism. It may take 1000 calories to follow an animal all day, but it takes 2000 to sit around doing nothing. If you can run the animal into the ground, you might as well spend 3000 calories and get a month's supply of food, instead of 2000 calories and get nothing.
From wikipedia, hunts are generally 2 to 5 hours, ranging across 16 to 22 miles. For that effort you'll kill a 400-lb antelope.
Pretty sweet trade-off.
hell yesss wrote:
From wikipedia, hunts are generally 2 to 5 hours, ranging across 16 to 22 miles. For that effort you'll kill a 400-lb antelope.
Pretty sweet trade-off.
What percentage of letsrun.com could be effectively replaced with Wikipedia?
It's only inefficient of you are a modern WalMartite.
dont think so wrote:
You probably wouldn't kill your prey with your legs. Unless you are a karate dude. The idea is the prey becomes exhausted then you can kill it with spears, clubs etc
Really? You can easily find a way to kill a large animal once you have it collapsed. Find a sharp rock. Or just carry a knife.
I don't think this is the most efficient way to live, but it doesn't seem like it would be the worst. More time consuming than anything else.
The "Myth" of Persistence Hunting
The thing about long distance running is that it can turn into a religion. Just as vegans try to prove that humans aren't designed to eat meat, long distance fanatics try to prove that humans are Born to Run.
http://praguestepchild.blogspot.com/2011/05/myth-of-persistence-hunting.html
It appears the default mode for our species is the physique of a decathlete. Lean, muscled, and prepared for almost anything nature can unleash. We know this to be true based on the observations of modern HGs and the anthropological evidence: Thick, strong bones and muscle insertions typical of a hard-working athlete. The bones are evidence of relatively large, strong muscles [...]Robb Wolf
mcflounder quoted:
some fool
who thinks persistence hunting is about running.
Persistence hunters usually walk, or jog at most. It takes advantage not of speed or endurance, but the ability to sweat which the prey lacks. During the heat of the day, the prey overheats even at a slow pace and collapses within a few hours.
It is one of the great advantages of the hairless ape over the hairy ape.
mcflounder wrote:
Just as vegans try to prove that humans aren't designed to eat meat, long distance fanatics try to prove that humans are Born to Run.
I'm a long distance fanatic and the Born to Run fanboys annoy the hell out of me. It's always overweight people who have been running for about 6 months.
Duck curser wrote:
No, extremely efficient. It allows you to bring down large prey that you wouldn't normally be able to kill very often. That's a lotta food which makes up for the effort involved.
People usually overestimate the energy expended during exercise vs basal metabolism. It may take 1000 calories to follow an animal all day, but it takes 2000 to sit around doing nothing. If you can run the animal into the ground, you might as well spend 3000 calories and get a month's supply of food, instead of 2000 calories and get nothing.
Are you going to put that month's supply of food in your refrigerator? How do you plan on getting that big meal back to your cave for the rest of your clan?
Reading these responses is hilarious.
At least one Harvard professor belives in it - Dan Lieberman. I saw his free lecture in 2005 with some of my XC/Track athletes. Gotta say it seemed kind of crazy, but hey, got some kids interested in distance running. And also reminded me to rent The Gods Must Be Crazy.
mcflounder wrote:
Duck curser wrote:No, extremely efficient. It allows you to bring down large prey that you wouldn't normally be able to kill very often. That's a lotta food which makes up for the effort involved.
People usually overestimate the energy expended during exercise vs basal metabolism. It may take 1000 calories to follow an animal all day, but it takes 2000 to sit around doing nothing. If you can run the animal into the ground, you might as well spend 3000 calories and get a month's supply of food, instead of 2000 calories and get nothing.
Are you going to put that month's supply of food in your refrigerator? How do you plan on getting that big meal back to your cave for the rest of your clan?
Reading these responses is hilarious.
Ummm...ever heard of drying out meat to preserve it?
And as far as getting the food back your cave, hate to break it to you but
1) This type of hunting is usually done with a small team
2) Animals tend to run in circles, they don't want to leave familiar territory. If you chase them for ten miles you probably end up within a mile of where you started.
So, you make the kill, one stands guard while another heads home for help with butchering and carrying.
mcflounder wrote:
...
It appears the default mode for our species is the physique of a decathlete...
What the hell does that even mean, the "default mode for our species"?
You get that meal back to your home by carrying it, which is easy when you've got a few guys to carry the carcass. Then you cook most of themeat and preserve the rest (jerky etc.). Not sure what you find so hilarious.
Read anything from Lieberman's studies and it becomes abundantly clear that he's never considered the possibility that he may be wrong.
Long ago people learned to gorge on meat and preserve the rest as biltong or jerky/pemmican.
Steatopygia is also pretty common amongst the most primitive peoples.