NY Times: 'Human Body Is Built for Distance'

Off Topic
61

[quote]Alffi wrote:
-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…

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]

Yes, very true, but I was making a point that the body wasn’t designed for long distance running, contrary to what the researcher was attempting to prove. For instance, long distance walking doesn’t cause these problems. In fact, it will improve all apsects of the body.

62

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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?

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.
[/quote]

What you would need to support your theory would be a track record of fans of distance running who feel a need to extoll their practice to others and to claim that it was what humans were really meant to do and so forth.

Other considerations are:

  1. Distance runners who do not feel this need are less likely to be vocal on this subject.
  2. It could be that you are making assumptions on what you have heard from this more vocal component of the long distance running community.
63

[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]

Yes and lifters are always smiling while they’re putting in actual effort to set a new PR in a press/squat etc.

64

[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
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?

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.

What you would need to support your theory would be a track record of fans of distance running who feel a need to extoll their practice to others and to claim that it was what humans were really meant to do and so forth.

Other considerations are:

  1. Distance runners who do not feel this need are less likely to be vocal on this subject.
  2. It could be that you are making assumptions on what you have heard from this more vocal component of the long distance running community.[/quote]

He said often; therefore, he allowed for exceptions. You, in your other post, did not, so your attempt to use Bill’s logic against him has failed.

65

[quote]ZealotAssasin wrote:
-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…

Yes and lifters are always smiling while they’re putting in actual effort to set a new PR in a press/squat etc.
[/quote]

Let’s compare apples to apples. The researcher is claming the human body is designed for long distance running. I’m making a point that it couldn’t be if it causes so many negative effects, as long distance walking doesn’t cause these issues, but actually improves the entire body. Don’t forget, many of the supplements that we consume today were not around back then, it’s not like you could just replace all your electrolytes with a Gatorade or supplement mix, and rehydrate from a water bottle at will.

66

[quote]ukrainian wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
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?

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.

What you would need to support your theory would be a track record of fans of distance running who feel a need to extoll their practice to others and to claim that it was what humans were really meant to do and so forth.

Other considerations are:

  1. Distance runners who do not feel this need are less likely to be vocal on this subject.
  2. It could be that you are making assumptions on what you have heard from this more vocal component of the long distance running community.

He said often; therefore, he allowed for exceptions. You, in your other post, did not, so your attempt to use Bill’s logic against him has failed.[/quote]

Actually, I said “…all the girls on my team and that I see at races…” this is not a sweeping generalization of everybody because it is merely an assessment of my own observations, which in my ongoing experience, remains to be 100% true. So your attempt to stick up for your pal has failed.

67

No, you claimed that distance running “definitely helps glute development” based on your correlative observation.

68

Distance running does not create great glute development. Never has, never will. Yes I will make that blanket statement. Most distance runners are downright emaciated and have virtually no muscle mass on their entire bodies.

On the subject of hydration, it has been noted that some Indian tribes have eaten Chia seeds, known for their ability to retain water and slow the digestion of carbohydrates due to their soluble fiber content. I am bringing this up, because there was a time when Gatorade and all those sugary drinks didn’t exist.

69

[quote]ZealotAssasin wrote:
-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…

Yes and lifters are always smiling while they’re putting in actual effort to set a new PR in a press/squat etc.
[/quote]

If I’m given a choice of looking supremely pissed off for about 15 seconds (Bench + Squat + DL),
or spending 3 hours looking like my puppy died (marathon), I’ll take powerlifting.

70

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Distance running does not create great glute development. Never has, never will. Yes I will make that blanket statement. Most distance runners are downright emaciated and have virtually no muscle mass on their entire bodies.

On the subject of hydration, it has been noted that some Indian tribes have eaten Chia seeds, known for their ability to retain water and slow the digestion of carbohydrates due to their soluble fiber content. I am bringing this up, because there was a time when Gatorade and all those sugary drinks didn’t exist.

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/chia.html[/quote]

this is more along the answer i was looking for… not “salt was valuable.” salt wasnt valuable until it could be mined or processed from brine. thats a relatively recent technological advancement, compared to when hunter-gatherer societies existed in prominence. i would imagine that seeds would function something like creatine and just suck water out of you though. and since you retain water, that would be counter-productive, as the article says it’s our cooling system (sweating) that allows humans to outrun animals.

“persistence hunting” doesn’t make sense to me. let’s say that we know for 100% sure that’s how they did it back in the day. would women then be more attracted to the more slow-twitch dominant men because they would have a better chance at catching food? i thought the hormonal response or whatever made women attracted to bigger men, hence why we all train like we do.

71

[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
ZealotAssasin wrote:
-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…

Yes and lifters are always smiling while they’re putting in actual effort to set a new PR in a press/squat etc.

If I’m given a choice of looking supremely pissed off for about 15 seconds (Bench + Squat + DL),
or spending 3 hours looking like my puppy died (marathon), I’ll take powerlifting.[/quote]

Hmm if a runner actually TRAINED for a marathon and RAN a solid race, they’d spend prob about 5-10 min looking like shit. Go look at elite runners, the best have a smile on their face as they cross the line in first place. But that’s besides the point really, we (lifters and runners) don’t train so that other people go say: “HEY THAT GUY LOOKS LIKE HE’S HAVING A GREAT TIME”, it’s to improve our body and self along with setting new limits/PR’s.

72

Nywho?

73

Ny times who?

74

...nurgh...: Super Runs (Not Safe While Eating)
Why didn’t the NYT source data from here for their story?

What does Jim do for fun?
Well, he runs a whole lot.

75

[quote]Amonero wrote:
The human body is built according to the demands of its enviroment.[/quote]

THIS.

76

[quote]spurlock wrote:

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.

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.
[/quote]
Could’ve sworn we’re actually much bigger, therefore harder, and healthier people now, than our grandparents were due to a better diet. I’m no scientist though.

I call b/s on half of everybody here developing cancer, if you truely believe this, you clearly need to stop reading the newspaper.

77

[quote]TheCoolestLuke wrote:
Could’ve sworn we’re actually much bigger, therefore harder, and healthier people now, than our grandparents were due to a better diet. I’m no scientist though.[/quote]

So, you equate bigger to harder and healthier…sure we, as a group are taller, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything in and of itself.

As far as healthier and the diet, I believe I addressed this adequately enough in my previous post (Eg. the giant increases in degenerative diseases, changes in foundational diets over the last century, etc.).

First of all, I’m talking about the U.S. and not England. Second, simply because you haven’t seen information (hence, ignorance in the non-pejorative sense) doesn’t mean your opinion is reality. Third, it’s statistically speaking, which I probably could have included in the first place, so you can suggest that I was a little misleading (and possibly too general, since I didn’t specify cancer(s) and instead, used cancer as if it were only one disease). Finally, if you think hard enough, it won’t be too hard to come up with a giant list of people close to yourself who have had, have or have died of the various cancers.

Additionally, to insinuate that I read the newspaper proves that you know nothing about me. And to assume that I simply picked up the paper one day and read some article from a ‘journalist’(ha) who took all of five minutes to research the damn thing is laughable. Don’t make the mistake too many do in making an argument personal, it leads to nowhere but mudslinging.

78

[quote]spurlock wrote:
TheCoolestLuke wrote:
Could’ve sworn we’re actually much bigger, therefore harder, and healthier people now, than our grandparents were due to a better diet. I’m no scientist though.

So, you equate bigger to harder and healthier…sure we, as a group are taller, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything in and of itself.

As far as healthier and the diet, I believe I addressed this adequately enough in my previous post (Eg. the giant increases in degenerative diseases, changes in foundational diets over the last century, etc.).

I call b/s on half of everybody here developing cancer, if you truely believe this, you clearly need to stop reading the newspaper.

First of all, I’m talking about the U.S. and not England. Second, simply because you haven’t seen information (hence, ignorance in the non-pejorative sense) doesn’t mean your opinion is reality. Third, it’s statistically speaking, which I probably could have included in the first place, so you can suggest that I was a little misleading (and possibly too general, since I didn’t specify cancer(s) and instead, used cancer as if it were only one disease). Finally, if you think hard enough, it won’t be too hard to come up with a giant list of people close to yourself who have had, have or have died of the various cancers.

Additionally, to insinuate that I read the newspaper proves that you know nothing about me. And to assume that I simply picked up the paper one day and read some article from a ‘journalist’(ha) who took all of five minutes to research the damn thing is laughable. Don’t make the mistake too many do in making an argument personal, it leads to nowhere but mudslinging.

[/quote]

I don’t really want to be part of your idiotic argument, but I have to say this: Are you taking advances into healthcare into consideration? There are a lot of sick, unhealthy people alive today who wouldn’t be alive in times previous. And secondly society is on average older than it has ever been. More and more people are living to old age and surviving well beyond their natural years to develop more severe diseases that will kill them.

79

[quote]Bunyip wrote:
I don’t really want to be part of your idiotic argument,[/quote]

Then don’t be. Nobody is forcing you to type your reply.

Why? Who’s forcing you? I thought you said you didn’t want to be part (sic) of our idiotic argument.