How fast would the average Neanderthal run a 400m in?

Here he is wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Neanderthals were not good runners. They were passed in the evolutionary race.

OP, a Neanderthal just replied to your post ^^ Just ask him his 400m PR.

Proof that the Neanderthal genes are still present in some humans today.

Humans are so much more intelligent than other creature on Earth, yet we are being outrun by many of these species. Some even beat us in distance AND sprints, with barely any training.

With our intelligence we should be able to become the strongest and fastest being with the highest endurance - yet we can't. Even with doping our athletes are far inferior to other animals.

Xoman wrote:

Humans are so much more intelligent than other creature on Earth, yet we are being outrun by many of these species. Some even beat us in distance AND sprints, with barely any training.

With our intelligence we should be able to become the strongest and fastest being with the highest endurance - yet we can't. Even with doping our athletes are far inferior to other animals.

Cars and planes, dude.

Say Huh? wrote:

1:10 lap? LOL wrote:

Nowhere near 70. I highly doubt cavemen were doing inetrval training even if they could sprint for a few seconds.

It’s hilarious how LetsRunners seem to think 70 seconds is what the average human is capable of. I would say that runner a 400 in a single digit number of seconds is out of the question for most.

As slow as it is comparsed to te supposed average here, it’s still a time that requires at least some specific training for most. Even if it is just a few months of training.

Many people would be capable of sub 60 off just a Neandertal lifestyle. You don't need specific training for that. Or maybe YOU do.

Then, I'm not sure you know what a single digit is.

Double digit lap* but then again, I’m sure it doesn't take a genuis to know what I meant and that it was an obvious mistake.

Also, sure 1 or 2 out of 1,000 or so college-aged in-shape male outliers could go sub 60 off no specific 400 training but speaking for 99% of the human race, people tend not to run fast over distances longer than 100m unless they specifically train. Regular HIIT is the only thing that gets you in shape for that.

“Many people would go sub 60 off a Neathderthal lifestyle”

I assume you meant many people would feel malnourished from a Neathandal lifestyle.

LOLLLL wrote:

Say Huh? wrote:

Many people would be capable of sub 60 off just a Neandertal lifestyle. You don't need specific training for that. Or maybe YOU do.

Then, I'm not sure you know what a single digit is.

Double digit lap* but then again, I’m sure it doesn't take a genuis to know what I meant and that it was an obvious mistake.

Also, sure 1 or 2 out of 1,000 or so college-aged in-shape male outliers could go sub 60 off no specific 400 training but speaking for 99% of the human race, people tend not to run fast over distances longer than 100m unless they specifically train. Regular HIIT is the only thing that gets you in shape for that.

“Many people would go sub 60 off a Neathderthal lifestyle”

I assume you meant many people would feel malnourished from a Neathandal lifestyle.

WAY more than a couple of outliers would crack 60. It does not take interval training of any sort to do this. Do you even run? In Neandertal days just surviving made you a huge outlier relative to a person today. EVERY male made the football team, or else.

Neandertals were very well nourished. You don't evolve and maintain a brutish physique on a malnourished diet.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Here he is wrote:

OP, a Neanderthal just replied to your post ^^ Just ask him his 400m PR.

Proof that the Neanderthal genes are still present in me today.

Radical CJ wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

where's your research about the sprints?

OP is spot on. Sprinting is all about hitting a good top speed and holding it, and that means high cross-sectional muscle mass in the legs to gain speed in the drive phase. They would be like clean Ben Johnsons in the 100. At least some would run a great 400 too.

I am fairly confident that having exceptionally poor storage and release of elastic strain energy would result in a very slow 400 meters.

I'd give them a chance at the 40 meter dash. Or better yet, cross country skiing, which would suit their physique and habitat.

Dont they have muscle attachment points for the prime movers that were farther from the joint than humans? This would make them capable of higher forces, but less speed.

So, think excellent squat for a given body weight, but poor top end running speed. Basically, mechanical advantage is tipped towards force more than we are, which the other side of the coin is less speed.

So they may have been equal to us on a bicycle, they could just use a lower gear/cadence than us for the same cycling speed. But running they would probably beat us out of the blocks, then get passed quickly in the early stages of the race.

Radical CJ wrote:

NoNameNoShame wrote:

...I'm guessing you could take one at random, put a pair of spikes on his feet and tell him a dinner of roast bison is one lap of the track away and he could scorch round in 20 seconds, a full 50 seconds faster than the average modern American male.

Incorrect, their longer heel bone meant that they couldn't store energy in their Achilles tendon in the way that we do when we run.

Not joking. They were extremely slow, which was one of several anatomical disadvantages when compared to modern humans. They also couldn't throw properly.

See this peer reviewed research backing my claims:

David A. Raichlen, Hunter Armstrong, Daniel E. Lieberman, Calcaneus length determines running economy: Implications for endurance running performance in modern humans and Neandertals, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 60, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 299-308

Sorry to crush your Neanderthal running fantasies.

Might be a bit out of date mate:

5'1" to 5'3" Neanderthals with short legs, built like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble. were not fast sprinters. I'm sure they were able to wrestle and choke out mammals.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

Dont they have muscle attachment points for the prime movers that were farther from the joint than humans? This would make them capable of higher forces, but less speed.

So, think excellent squat for a given body weight, but poor top end running speed. Basically, mechanical advantage is tipped towards force more than we are, which the other side of the coin is less speed.

So they may have been equal to us on a bicycle, they could just use a lower gear/cadence than us for the same cycling speed. But running they would probably beat us out of the blocks, then get passed quickly in the early stages of the race.

Apparently their lower leg structure was also poor for jumping, so I'm not sure they would be fast out of the blocks. Maybe they used the race walking style of locomotion. Isn't the 20km record for that about 1:15? We'll test that first, and then put him on a bicycle. Then xc skis. Well find his event eventually.

I wonder if there were Neanderthal outliers who could sprint as well as modern humans? The Jeremy Wariners of the Neanderthal world!

someone go get a stopwatch on Coevett

wait, the average American male can run the 400 in 70 seconds?

LRC's Automatic Post Corrector wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Proof that the Neanderthal genes are still present in me today.

Neanderthals had a very limited vocabulary. You confirm that by only being able up to come up with one new word in someone else's sentence. Stick to grunting.

Look, all these "experts" with their science on calcaneus bones and gait analysis are applying fake knowledge about what makes people fast. We all know that has yet to be figured out with today's runners, let alone prehistoric ones.

That they didn't throw well is based on good science, and that is a good reason to believe they could run fast - they had to get close to their prey and stab it.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Look, all these "experts" with their science on calcaneus bones and gait analysis are applying fake knowledge about what makes people fast. We all know that has yet to be figured out with today's runners, let alone prehistoric ones.

That they didn't throw well is based on good science, and that is a good reason to believe they could run fast - they had to get close to their prey and stab it.

Wrong. Again. The latest scientific evidence on Neanderthals were that they lived in heavily forested snow-bound areas, which precluded running after prey. They apparently used their weapons in close ambush - but not throwing. As the climate changed, the environment became more open with grassland. Homo sapiens was more suited to running down prey in this environment and was able to use projectile weapons in a way that Neanderthals weren't. It marked the end of the their days.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Radical CJ wrote:

See this peer reviewed research backing my claims:

[quote] David A. Raichlen, Hunter Armstrong, Daniel E. Lieberman, Calcaneus length determines running economy: Implications for endurance running performance in modern humans and Neandertals, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 60, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 299-308

where's your research about the sprints?

OP is spot on. Sprinting is all about hitting a good top speed and holding it, and that means high cross-sectional muscle mass in the legs to gain speed in the drive phase. They would be like clean Ben Johnsons in the 100. At least some would run a great 400 too.

OP is wrong that they were replaced! 25% of their genome is still with us. Not bad for a relatively small population after 30,000 years without the environmental conditions that made them what they were.

Are you bending science because of personal DNA? Most individuals in USA/CAN except recent African arrivals have some Neanderthal blood. It's okay.

Armstronglivs wrote:

LRC's Automatic Post Corrector wrote:

I think I am funny and have very clever comebacks.

LRC's Automatic Post Corrector wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I think I am funny and have very clever comebacks.

Well, no one can accuse you of that. You make a Neanderthal seem like Oscar Wilde.