What happened to barefoot, minimalist, Vibram as the cure for everything that ails the runner?

YMMV wrote:

here we go again wrote:

It's Letsrun, so of course someone will reference a notorious quack who got his medial license revoked.

If you meant "medical license revoked", that is a lie pure and simple; if you think there is a "medial license" issue, feel free to inform us of what the hell that is.

Okay, probation:

BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Licensee: Ken D. Berry, MD, Camden

Violation: Guilty of unprofessional conduct; to wit: The Board adopts, as is fully set out

herein, rules 1200-14-03.01 through 1200-14-03-.03 inclusive, of the

Department of Health and as they may from time to time be amended, as its rule

governing the process for implementing universal precautions for the prevention

of HIV transmissions for health care workers under its jurisdiction.

Action: License placed on probation to extend two years following the expiration of

previous period of probation with terms; assessed civil penalties in the amount

of $3,000.00 plus costs not to exceed $10,000.00

Your forebears wouldn't be able to outsprint a single predatory animal on any continent so we can rule out the foot evolving to sprint.

You want an explanation and then say, but don't give me an explanation. Born to run details lots of the reasons (though Christopher McDougall is a bit too feverish in his criticism of shoes/defense of barefoot running for me). If you want to do your own research, then start looking into the physiological demands of both persistence hunting and a nomadic life. Slow long distance running/walking would've been a cornerstone of human existence:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248408002364

.

I have had plantar fasciitis 3 times in my life for 1-2 years each time.

The first was caused in classic running shoes, during a track session where I had to shovel the track because of snow.

The second time I was wearing minimalist shoes and running on icy footing at an easy pace.

The third time I was wearing minimalist shoes and doing another track session, this time the track was clear but it was very cold.

I have also begun developing a bunion on my right foot. I am a larger runner at 170-185 pounds.

Now that I’m healed up again I am avoiding the track and minimalist shoes, and doing fine so far. I will also be aware of poor footing situations and just use stationary bike when there is snow or ice. I also am keeping my calves warmer and not wearing shorts during the winter fall or early spring.

I kinda doubt that persistence hunting was ever a big source of food.

Plus, if the animal knew the game, they'd figure out how to stay away. It's our brains not our feet that lets us eventually get the animal.

In spite of what Born to Run says, humans are not particularly good at running as a species, even for long distances. The best human can run 100 miles in about 11+ hours. A horse has run 100 miles in

elephino wrote:

I kinda doubt that persistence hunting was ever a big source of food.

Plus, if the animal knew the game, they'd figure out how to stay away. It's our brains not our feet that lets us eventually get the animal.

In spite of what Born to Run says, humans are not particularly good at running as a species, even for long distances. The best human can run 100 miles in about 11+ hours. A horse has run 100 miles in

Not sure why it got truncated.

A horse has run 100 miles in

elephino wrote:

elephino wrote:

I kinda doubt that persistence hunting was ever a big source of food.

Plus, if the animal knew the game, they'd figure out how to stay away. It's our brains not our feet that lets us eventually get the animal.

In spite of what Born to Run says, humans are not particularly good at running as a species, even for long distances. The best human can run 100 miles in about 11+ hours. A horse has run 100 miles in

Not sure why it got truncated.

A horse has run 100 miles in

Take 3. Does it not like less than signs?

A horse has run 100 miles in less than six hours while carrying a human on its back.

The best human optimally trained in perfect conditions has run 26.2 miles in a little over 2 hours. A team of dogs has run 26.2 miles in 1 hour on snow while pulling a human on a sled.

I believe that some ancient peoples in some very specific geographical settings probably did some form of persistence hunting, but I believe it was not the norm at all. I’ll bet most engaged in “normal” hunting that involved some kind of stalking while using a weapon of some sort. All of that running over extreme distances does not pass the smell test for me for many reasons. People would have found easier ways that produced better results when you are taking about basic survival.

Horses and humans were not sympatric, so it doesn't really matter what a horse is capable of. And just because one animal might be better than another animal at something doesn't mean they both can't do the same thing. Just because mountain lions can ambush larger prey doesn't mean crab spiders can't also ambush prey.

And persistence hunting doesn't necessarily have to be the largest food source to be a selective pressure. I also included that early humans were itinerant. So the adaptations for longer distance travel could easily have supported skill at persistence hunting.

Consider how much a kudu would weigh vs an African porcupine. It would make the reward of persistence hunting (prior to the invention of the bow) worth the risk. Ambush hunting doesn't work well on the savanna (unless you're a cheetah and can sprint 65mph). There are very few species that hunt over longer distances (and those that do are all pack animals). Humans could have specialized in a world of intense competition by becoming successful trackers and endurance athletes. The strategy would be pretty easy. Most prey just sprint out of reach of ambush predators and then stop. If you could just keep pushing them to sprint a short distance over and over eventually they would tire/overheat and collapse. You wouldn't need much of a weapon to kill an animal 3x your size.

teage wrote:

Horses and humans were not sympatric, so it doesn't really matter what a horse is capable of. And just because one animal might be better than another animal at something doesn't mean they both can't do the same thing.

True. But Born to Run tried to claim that humans were the best long-distance runners and even mentioned specifically that humans beat horses in long distance running, which may have happened in some specific race at some point but in general is not true. We're relatively good at long-distance running, but there are animals that are better.

Finally a post that makes sense. Correlation does not equal causation. The reason countries on the right side of the graph experience more hip fractures? My guess is that they live longer. The older you are, the more likely you are to experience osteoporosis and hip fracture. Another possible reason? Genetics. Caucasians are predisposed to osteoporosis, making predominantly white countries more prone to hip fractures (USA, UK, Norway, etc.).

"facts" wrote:

John Utah wrote:

[quote]JoeRoganSuperFan wrote:

TOO MUCH SOY MILK DESTROYED OUR BONES

MUSAGA

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/fracturesopti.jpg

facts say the opposite

I love it when people start talking about "facts", and then don't understand the difference between correlation and causation...

teage wrote:

Consider how much a kudu would weigh vs an African porcupine. It would make the reward of persistence hunting (prior to the invention of the bow) worth the risk. Ambush hunting doesn't work well on the savanna (unless you're a cheetah and can sprint 65mph). There are very few species that hunt over longer distances (and those that do are all pack animals). Humans could have specialized in a world of intense competition by becoming successful trackers and endurance athletes. The strategy would be pretty easy. Most prey just sprint out of reach of ambush predators and then stop. If you could just keep pushing them to sprint a short distance over and over eventually they would tire/overheat and collapse. You wouldn't need much of a weapon to kill an animal 3x your size.

They would just stalk the kudu. Why chase it to the end of the earth? Plus, persistence hunting is likely 1000x more difficult than you think it is. Just finning the animal in a time frame before he’s recovered after he’s gone from sight.

Some did this maybe, but all of humanity did not evolve from this base. That is my view.

teage wrote:

Consider how much a kudu would weigh vs an African porcupine. It would make the reward of persistence hunting (prior to the invention of the bow) worth the risk. Ambush hunting doesn't work well on the savanna (unless you're a cheetah and can sprint 65mph). There are very few species that hunt over longer distances (and those that do are all pack animals). Humans could have specialized in a world of intense competition by becoming successful trackers and endurance athletes. The strategy would be pretty easy. Most prey just sprint out of reach of ambush predators and then stop. If you could just keep pushing them to sprint a short distance over and over eventually they would tire/overheat and collapse. You wouldn't need much of a weapon to kill an animal 3x your size.

This.

The African savannah 2.6 million years ago held a vacant niche for a diurnal, social predator of medium size, which was occupied by the wolf in temperate latitudes. We are the ape that ventured out from the trees and transformed into a pack-hunting animal, using intelligence and endurance to track prey, and employing weapons and tools at some point for executing the kill itself and processing large prey animals efficiently.

At some point, humans spread into higher latitudes, encountered wolves as competitors, and it became necessary to either kill them off (as was done once we had weapons to do so) or to assimilate them as hunting partners (as we have done with a uniquely strong social bonding with dogs).

As far as the man v. horse, there is an annual race in wales that pits humans v. horses on a 21 mile xc course. Horses usually win, but British men have won twice. It would be interesting if top African runners were competing this, which woud increase the number of "human wins".

Bernd Heinrich, a legendary biologist and ultrarunner, has an excellent book "Why We Run" that compares the horse, the camel and the human as long-distance athletes. He concludes that there are circumstances where humans will prevail (hot weather, difficult terrain, with available water sources for cooling).

On to the next fad. Barefoot Bill just became Keto Bill. If you can't change your name to reflect the fad it isn't much of a fad.

On average we are not born to run very much ,or as such a high percentage of our ambulatory activity , let alone total physical output. We are born to walk and be very physical in non-running tasks, and be capable of running enough that the best of our species when near their prime , could hunt for us. Injury prevention was everything we would do when not running, as opposed to sitting in a car , at a desk or table, or just sitting so bloody much which is a setup for running injury. When humans did need to stay semi-verticle we would have been squatting, which in itself strengthens( especially get and ankles), and stretches us for hours a day in important ways that we are now missing by sitting in chairs.

Take a class on tracking or learn a bit about the ecology of these animals, and you'll realize that it's not as impossible as it seems to persistence hunt them. There was an interesting NPR story about Scott Carrier (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/80/running-after-antelope) trying to persistence hunt pronghorn antelope. They can run obscenely fast over long distances (co-evolved with dire wolves so had to be good at endurance escape, not just sprinting). They live in the rolling shrublands out in Utah, Nevada, etc. He tried to run one down. It would sprint out of sight and meet up with a new group of antelope. His problem was that he couldn't keep track of which one he'd been following (males and females have the antlers so it's harder to tell them apart). Their defensive strategy was better than his. He could've been successful, as were our ancestors, if he were better at tracking and not hunting pronghorns but the slower pack oriented African mammals that could be isolated and pursued over several hours and less than 20 miles. That distance/timing doesn't sound that big a deal to get a 400+ pound animal.

PT here wrote:

I love it when people start talking about "facts", and then don't understand the difference between correlation and causation...

Are there any primates that can cover 100 meters faster than say 11-12 seconds? Any that can cover a mile in 5 or 6 minutes?

Maybe our speed came from escape needs, our endurance from foraging, and uprightness from reaching for high fruit , instead of climbing, sort or like the evolution of the giraffes neck. That doesn't preclude persistence hunting at some point necessarily. But maybe persistence hunting potential became a side benefit rather than a cause?