Scientist says ultraruners are lazy people

We aren't Neanderthals though.

“We found that the majority of these power-associated genetic variants were typically more common in Neanderthals than in humans today, who are known to be more endurance-adapted, reflecting their generally more slender builds,” says Yoan Diekmann, a member of the team at University College London.

¿Quien es esa Chica? wrote:

According to new research humans are sprinters rather than long distance joggers:

Article you linked says opposite: humans are long distance joggers while Neanderthals were sprinters.

This actually makes a lot of sense when you compare modern sprinters and distance runners intelligence.

Wow. This discussion took a sharply racist tone pretty quickly. Par for the course, of course.

It think it woudl be very beneficial for society in general and the media specifically to not use the words "research" and "study" and replace them with "some dude said". That would give a more realistic assessment of the credibility of the theories and ideas that are presented is such articles.

MurderDub wrote:

Wow. This discussion took a sharply racist tone pretty quickly. Par for the course, of course.

and here comes the race-baiter, par for the course

What's racist about that statement?

visible confusion wrote:

What's racist about that statement?

I dunno. Most of the best sprinters and distance runners nowadays have African ancestry. People with African ancestry have far less Neanderthal DNA than people descended from groups that left Africa earlier (Asians, Caucasians). So, yeah, ...

More likely that they have some Denisovan DNA. Denisovans were found in Siberia and their cold weather genetic adaptations in EPAS1 made them well suited to high altitude, which is why most of the people who live in the Tibetan Plateau have this genetic mutation. Take a look at this reconstructed image of a Denisovan and tell me it doesn't look like your typical ultra runner:

https://www.zmescience.com/science/archaeology/humans-neanderthals-denisovans-interbred-20112013/

As for the Neanderthal DNA, humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred to some extent so it is not too uncommon to find traces of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. My brother-in-law has Neanderthal DNA, and he ran distance for a Division 1 college and is quite intelligent.

Oh, oh. Look like someone's girlfriend ran off with the big, strong sprinter. Not surprising she got tired of a guy who she could bench press.

myopic thinking above.

sprinting and distance isn't an either or thing in the animal kingdom.

and it isn't for humans either.

you got guys that can break 22 seconds in the 200, and can run a quality 5 or 10k.

antelope can go top speed for 5 10k, that's 60 mph ....

as for powerful builds, very few monsters at the gym can sprint worth crap compared to medium light builds. ...

some info for brain dead scientists...

the fastest animals, are not elephants, rhino, hippo, sloath, gorilla ...

the skinny ones, cheetah, gazelle, greyhound, thoroughbred, top the lists ..

though lions are way up there in speed ...

John Utah wrote:

It think it woudl be very beneficial for society in general and the media specifically to not use the words "research" and "study" and replace them with "some dude said". That would give a more realistic assessment of the credibility of the theories and ideas that are presented is such articles.

Society could do that, or you could just stop being so lazy and actually read the original article for yourself and look at the data they present to draw your own conclusions. You know, like how scientific articles are meant to be read. Try growing up for a change and solving your own problems rather than blaming others. Your generation has a lot to learn.

longjack wrote:

some info for brain dead scientists...

the fastest animals, are not elephants, rhino, hippo, sloath, gorilla ...

the skinny ones, cheetah, gazelle, greyhound, thoroughbred, top the lists ..

though lions are way up there in speed ...

Drivel...welcome back Ventolin. We have missed you.

bootstraps wrote:

John Utah wrote:

It think it woudl be very beneficial for society in general and the media specifically to not use the words "research" and "study" and replace them with "some dude said". That would give a more realistic assessment of the credibility of the theories and ideas that are presented is such articles.

Society could do that, or you could just stop being so lazy and actually read the original article for yourself and look at the data they present to draw your own conclusions. You know, like how scientific articles are meant to be read. Try growing up for a change and solving your own problems rather than blaming others. Your generation has a lot to learn.

Do you have any clue as to how many "studies" and how much "research" there is "published" on an annual basis? And my point is that this ocean of gibberish is not "scientific". It's only scientific in form and appearance. In reality it is just countless people in academia dreaming up ideas (most of which are silly and useless) and then cherry picking data and structuring the study/analysis to support their conclusions. Credibility level = zero. Yet presented as nearly fact, especially by the media.

Lastly, you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm likely older than you and value individual accountability more than you do.

It seems like you're either too intellectually lazy to understand it, or otherwise incapable of doing so. Do you understand the purpose of publishing scientific papers? It's not so a 3rd-party can publish a misleading summary or catchy headline. If you're relying on the media to learn about scientific articles, you're being lazy. The purpose of publishing scientific articles is to share experimental results and describe how they fit in the context of other scientific literature. If you want to understand a paper, you need to read that original paper and other relevant papers.

I think you're certainly older than me, and that explains everything I need to know. You should know better than this. You have no clue what you'e talking about. You don't know anything about academic literature. Is this the lens you see the world through? Blaming others for your ignorance/laziness? Making baseless assumptions to back up condescending judgments about large groups of people? Grow up.

bootstraps wrote:

I think you're certainly older than me, and that explains everything I need to know. You should know better than this. You have no clue what you'e talking about. You don't know anything about academic literature. Is this the lens you see the world through? Blaming others for your ignorance/laziness? Making baseless assumptions to back up condescending judgments about large groups of people? Grow up.

that just about explains most posts by him...