It’s all really interesting. The Times, and maybe a few others, have been doing a series focusing on that human ability, I think with the Terahumara Tribe. I’ve done some barefoot running, and might get a pair of Vibrams. Also, last weekend, I did a 12 hour run around a 1 mile loop, and managed 55.2 miles and 8th place with only a week of training (and weighing 200 at 5’10"). So I do think most humans are capable of running very long, very slow, but it’s not pleasant, and it sure as hell doesn’t have any correlation to how most people live their lives. My $.02: We’re built for it, but that build is assuming a lifestyle that supports that amount of running and provides a base for it.
NY times is losing business for a reason.
[quote]Amonero wrote:
The human body is built according to the demands of its enviroment.[/quote]
This.
If that article was truly the case (as will some endurance athletes be considering it as dogma) then the sport of powerlifting wouldn’t and shouldn’t be humanly possible. But, it is. It’s like I say to all my clients: “The human body is extremely adaptive. It’s why we’ve prospered as a species, it’s why we excel at such an extreme range of athletic competitions, and on a much smaller level, it’s why we mix up workouts so often.”
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I love that people assume we should do EVERYTHING as our “ancestors” (read: cavemen) did. Didn’t Poliquin say some stupid shit like the reason why men enjoy flipping channels is because it mimics the flickering of a fire in a dark cave? Kiss my ass. The only reason a statement like that would have “legs” and linger for any amount of time is because it SOUNDS cool.
Several generations ( ~ 90 years) is enough to weed out the weak (based on the demands of an environment or of lifestyle); we don’t need to look back 10,000 years to find things that may have some relevance to our current lifestyles.
Example: You do NOT need to eat like cavemen. Your digestive system is probably much more in line with what your grandparents ate than what people thousands of years ago ate.[/quote]
really? so soon trans fats and HFCS will be a healthy efficient fuel for the body?
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Example: You do NOT need to eat like cavemen. Your digestive system is probably much more in line with what your grandparents ate than what people thousands of years ago ate.
really? so soon trans fats and HFCS will be a healthy efficient fuel for the body?
[/quote]
No, silly. What he’s saying is, cavemen didn’t have certain tools to accomplish basic tasks. Today, we have the luxury of digital levels and other measuring devices to help with the arduous task of hanging a mirror.
Everyone likes to talk about our distant ancestors and human evolution, but I think alot of people are overlooking the main (physical) characteristic that seperates us from other primates; we walk on two feet. While other primates may be able to walk upright for short amount of time, their natural method of movement is knuckle-walking.
That the human branch evolved bipedalism was an adaptation that allowed humans to cover large distances. Note that no one is saying run long distances. Homo erectus was the first anatomically modern homonid, and he was also the first to move out of africa. I wonder how he was able to do that? (Keept in mind, this happened over thousands of years)
Bipedalism is efficient for long distances, knuckle walking is better for speed and power. Now, just because walking upright is more efficient for distance, doesnt mean we can’t develop speed or power. That’s why training works. The muscle is there, its what you do with it that will make a difference.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
spyoptic wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Example: You do NOT need to eat like cavemen. Your digestive system is probably much more in line with what your grandparents ate than what people thousands of years ago ate.
really? so soon trans fats and HFCS will be a healthy efficient fuel for the body?
No, silly. What he’s saying is, cavemen didn’t have certain tools to accomplish basic tasks. Today, we have the luxury of digital levels and other measuring devices to help with the arduous task of hanging a mirror.
[/quote]
Gee, what I took home from it was that less padded shoes, like the vibram 5 fingers or chuck taylors were way better than overpadded jogging shoes are for the purpose of determining true body fat levels.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
1000rippedbuff wrote:
This is kind of stupid, there are multiple basic human movements. To be able to do them is to be human. The muscles are designed to do them. Sure a person should be able to run, but a person isn’t built run specifically. The glutes are a prime mover in the squat which is actually much more fundamental to human movement than running. Plus people aren’t really designed to run long distances… walk long, sprint short, move and pick up things…
We were designed intelligent for a reason: to not have to run great distances to catch prey but to out smart it and corner it. The author of the article, however, never does mention that.[/quote]
And how the fuck do you think prehistoric man cornered said prey?
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Several generations ( ~ 90 years) is enough to weed out the weak (based on the demands of an environment or of lifestyle); we don’t need to look back 10,000 years to find things that may have some relevance to our current lifestyles.
.[/quote]
I must have forgotten that natural selection happens to the same degree on modern humans as it did all those tens of thousands of years ago. Since the dawn of agriculture the only real selection pressure on humans is immunity.
Right now humans are a genetic tumbleweed
I’ve never even seen a marathon runner with a smile on their face. To me they all look anorexic with bony glutes. Long distance running can’t be healthy, it causes heart arrhythmias, joint problems, mineral imbalances, hip problems, etc…
Humans were meant for walking(yep long distance and very long distance), sprinting and squatting. Just to be facetious but factual, one could say that early humans would squat into their caves and stood their ground against an enemy!.. Yep, they didn’t run far away, they fought. Your glutes are by design, explicitly used in sprinting, squatting, and squatting down to sit on the cave floor too!..
[quote]bigquig wrote:
It’s all really interesting. The Times, and maybe a few others, have been doing a series focusing on that human ability, I think with the Terahumara Tribe. I’ve done some barefoot running, and might get a pair of Vibrams. Also, last weekend, I did a 12 hour run around a 1 mile loop, and managed 55.2 miles and 8th place with only a week of training (and weighing 200 at 5’10"). So I do think most humans are capable of running very long, very slow, but it’s not pleasant, and it sure as hell doesn’t have any correlation to how most people live their lives. My $.02: We’re built for it, but that build is assuming a lifestyle that supports that amount of running and provides a base for it. [/quote]
Not extremely relevant to the thread, but how much weight did you lose from that 55.2 mile run? Also, do you know if sprinting in Vibrams is bad for your feet, like in HIIT?
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I love that people assume we should do EVERYTHING as our “ancestors” (read: cavemen) did. Didn’t Poliquin say some stupid shit like the reason why men enjoy flipping channels is because it mimics the flickering of a fire in a dark cave? Kiss my ass. The only reason a statement like that would have “legs” and linger for any amount of time is because it SOUNDS cool.[/quote]
I agree that the statement sounds off (How about just for the novelty of it Charles? That’s scientificish too), but that shouldn’t distract from the wisdom of living a life that reflects where we came from historically.
Even my previous statement is a gross generalization; each person has a unique heritage, racial background and biochemical individuality (which is just as unique as a fingerprint). In other words, each person should try to align their diet with their own, unique ancestral diet.
[quote]
Several generations ( ~ 90 years) is enough to weed out the weak (based on the demands of an environment or of lifestyle)[/quote]
Yet this flies in the face of reality. Our grandparents were generally smarter, harder, healthier people than we are and were…and theirs were…and so on.
All degenerative diseases rose exponentially during the previous 90 years, while life expectancies (in reality) made very insignificant gains.
Obesity and overweight rates are embarrassing. The majority of us on this website know just how low the standards have been set for what is now considered overweight, so this makes their 65 to 70% number suspect…IMO anyway.
General strength levels and expectancies are insanely low as can be witnessed in regulations which limit individual lifting in the workplace to 51 pounds (NIOSH). Another issue we T-Men and Women know a little something about. 
Half of everybody living here will develop cancer. Sure ‘treatment’ has improved, but anyone who’s gone through chemo, or has nursed someone through it, can attest to the fact that sometimes death may be the better solution.
Autoimmune disease rates are increasing, autism rates have exploded, dementia-type diseases are accelerating, dental carry rates are basically at 100% and so on and so on and so on.
As far as education…well, you’ve read enough of the posts on here to realize, at the very least, correct spelling isn’t exactly a foregone conclusion…lol. Without getting into too much detail regarding the degenerative state of ‘schooling:’ in the 1800’s the equivalent of 5th and 6th graders were required (and capable) to read The Federalist Papers, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. Now…go look for yourself what 5th and 6th graders read (yes, yes…not ALL kids could do this, but I’m referring to generalities here lol).
Believe me when I say that 90 years ago, things were most definitely not perfect, nor were they great, good or even golden (as so many oldies wish us to think). However, to think that we are better off now by straying from synergistic, sustainable(ish), land-based, local, personal diets and lifestyles is, in my opinion impossible to justify in both the long as well as short term.
Note: Obviously I’m not saying that 90 years ago, civilization humans lived in hunter/gatherer ways. In fact, one could make the argument that, in some ways, we live a more sustainable life than we did 90 years ago…then again, there are six plastic dumps in the ocean, one the size of fucking Africa…lol.
[quote]
Example: You do NOT need to eat like cavemen. Your digestive system is probably much more in line with what your grandparents ate than what people thousands of years ago ate.[/quote]
But can’t you see the flaw in logic in this argument? Your grandparents (and more accurately, your great-grandparents) did not develop on the same diet as our generations have (and do), precisely because they used the wisdom that was handed down traditionally (and culturally) before mass media and corporatism homogenized all cultures into this one: the consumer culture (really, just a giant group of people who value production over life).
This isn’t even mentioning the ‘other’ cultures that the dominating culture didn’t know what to do with…they’re all dead now, so we really can’t ask them how their grandparents ate.
Please don’t take any of this personally, this is just an opinion from one really bored dude.
Why would they have to be long distance runners? Lots of ancient people rode horses. See Parthians, Scythians, Turks, Huns, Mongols, ect.
[quote]EG wrote:
Endurance runners, they have great glute development[/quote]
lol
[quote]NIguy wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
1000rippedbuff wrote:
This is kind of stupid, there are multiple basic human movements. To be able to do them is to be human. The muscles are designed to do them. Sure a person should be able to run, but a person isn’t built run specifically. The glutes are a prime mover in the squat which is actually much more fundamental to human movement than running. Plus people aren’t really designed to run long distances… walk long, sprint short, move and pick up things…
We were designed intelligent for a reason: to not have to run great distances to catch prey but to out smart it and corner it. The author of the article, however, never does mention that.
And how the fuck do you think prehistoric man cornered said prey?
[/quote]
Hunting together in groups. Yes, endurance was needed, but what I was saying that humans began hunting smarter because it was easier for them and it allowed them to catch more prey.
On the issue of glute use in distance running. I run cross country in college. I’m not one of those people that love running, I think lifting is FAR superior. BUT, all the girls on my team and that I see at races have NICE booties. So distance running in my experience definitely helps glute development.
[quote]-SuperMan- wrote:
I’ve never even seen a marathon runner with a smile on their face. To me they all look anorexic with bony glutes. Long distance running can’t be healthy, it causes heart arrhythmias, joint problems, mineral imbalances, hip problems, etc…
[/quote]
The same probably applies to powerlifting and especially olympic lifting. It’s not that healthy, just what you do.
Being strong and bulky feels great in a different way because it can be instantly demonstrated unlike the ability to last a marathon.
[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
On the issue of glute use in distance running. I run cross country in college. I’m not one of those people that love running, I think lifting is FAR superior. BUT, all the girls on my team and that I see at races have NICE booties. So distance running in my experience definitely helps glute development. [/quote]
I’ve noticed that basketball players are tall. So basketball playing in my experience definitely helps height development.
(Same logic.)
Other considerations are:
- Fatassed women are unlikely to be on the college cross-country team.
- Those with better genetics for an athletically capable physique are more likely to be an a college sports team than those with bad genetics.
- It could be the case that human instinctual aesthetic preference correlates with shapes and physiques that are capable instead of pitiful.
- Women that are physically capable are more likely to be on the college cross-country team than those that are physically pitiful.
What you would need to support your theory would be a track record of women with poor quality, unattractive asses – for reasons beyond simply being grossly overfat – taking up distance running and winding up with great asses.
I doubt that that happens. My observation is that the gifted look great no matter what they do or don’t do (provided fat remains reasonable), though training can add even more; and those of poor quality in this area even with the most excellent training never attain or come remotely close in attractiveness to what others have with no effort. In other words, genetics are by far the predominant factor here.
Now, while surely there is some significant selectivity weeding out many from college long distance running, I would bet you that there is much more such glute selectivity with sprinting, as well as better training effect. That is to say, I’ll bet you that the women sprinters collectively have better asses than the long distance runners.
what i dont understand (and someone touched on this lightly earlier in this thread) is how our “ancestors” managed to replace electrolytes lost in chasing animals over long distances. im not exactly sure how long deer or gazelles can run but i would imagine itd be a fair distance. how then did these persistence hunters replace their electrolytes?
[quote]SpankMeElmo wrote:
what i dont understand (and someone touched on this lightly earlier in this thread) is how our “ancestors” managed to replace electrolytes lost in chasing animals over long distances. im not exactly sure how long deer or gazelles can run but i would imagine itd be a fair distance. how then did these persistence hunters replace their electrolytes?[/quote]
Salt was once considered highly valuable.
It would be interesting to know if, where long distance running may have been at all frequent for anybody in the distant past, this was confined to areas not so extremely far from the ocean as to make salt rather scarce.
Of course, I’ve never believed that the majority of mankind at any time in its history engaged in daily long distance running, and have never seen substantial evidence of it.
I have noted that those that are fans of distance running often seem to feel a need to extoll their practice to others and to claim that it was what humans were really made to do and so forth: for some reason (maybe because there is nothing about it causing a feeling of defensiveness) those who favor sprinting don’t show such a need, and ordinarily only ever discuss the matter in response to those extolling, out of nowhere, distance running as supposedly superior or more natural, and then at nowhere near the length that they do, or degree of interest.