In this topic I would like to address the claim made by coach Poliquin about the human animal being geared more towards Anaerobic activity than Aerobic activity. In his own words:
“We’re made to throw a rock at the rabbit, not to chase it.”
This came as quite a shock to me. Throughout my life I was always told that we were Aerobic animals, and I just took it for granted. This seemed reasonable. People had the natural ability to walk long distances.
Whenever I read or saw things regarding African tribes, which to me seemed the closest to man’s origin in culture and behaviour, they were always these skinny people that looked very Aerobic and could run long distances.
Yesterday I caught the last part of a TV show about the human skin. They explained how the skin evolved a unique and efficient cooling system, one that’s better than most other animals’, in order to deal with the human need to run down animals 'till they fell down dead fro exhaustion.
They also linked the large Gluteus Maximus humans have to this need for running long distances.
I’ve tried to find the personal email address of coach Poliquin in order to ask him about the issue, but failed to do so. I would love to hear your opinion about the matter.
The human animal is opportunistic rather than very specialised. We are quite capable of both.
Some parts of Africa are populated by people groups which are genetically gifted at distance running, presumably because of generations of the style of hunting which you mentioned.
However, some of the fastest sprinters have been of African decent Different area and people group.
It is just as necissary to have an effective means of cooling yourself during and after intense exercise.
Strong glutes are important for sprinting too.
We are one of the most adaptable mammals in the world, I think Poliquin’s statement was over the top to make a point (he seems to do that a lot).
Hehe, I use this kind of reasoning when I encounter some narrow-minded cardio-machine-humper who claims that running for distance is the only acceptable way to get in top shape.
I always ask them who will have the most chance for survival when you put a sprinter and a long distance runner before a lion,tiger,cheetah or whatever.
(Answer:The one who will get away the quickest, which usually is the sprinter).
My idea is that long ago people might have tried to run very fast to catch prey, or walk and jog a little over long distances to run it to ground, but they wouldn’t mix the two like marathoners do ( 5:00 minute miles for 26 miles)
If you watch discovery, a guy did just that. He chased it for over 4 hours, until it collapsed from exhaustion, then he just walked up to it killed it with his spear.
Humans would walk/jog long distances, then have to engage in either a fight or hunt. They had to have maximum aerobic capacity and yet enough anaerobic capacity to battle or kill an animal. That’s why most humans are not mesomorphic or ectomorphic, but a combination of the two. Individuals who are mostly one or the other are freaks.
If human beings were primarily anaerobic, we would all look like belgian blues without even touching a weight – and be clean out-of-breath trying to walk up a flight of stairs.
Aerobic.
That’s why getting hyoooge takes so much time and effort.
[quote]Flow wrote:
Why can’t people accept that the truth is somewhere in the middle?
Does everything have to have a perfect 100% set answer?[/quote]
Exactly.
We have energy systems that allow for both anaerobic and aerobic methods of using fuel. Just like we have a digestive system that can process both plant and meat based foods.
We are a mixture of both. And some tribes are geared more to one than the other.
Humans can outrun many animals. A human with hands free carrying water can run down four legged animals. Sure it takes days and goes on for miles but there are people today who hunt like that in Ethiopia and it just shows our superiority to animals in that regard. Two legged = more efficient. Hands free = can carry water. And we sweat well. animals get tired, hot, dry and drop in the end. THEN we throw a rock at them.
I don’t agree with Poliquin on this one.
We are mostly aerobic animal. On short distance humans can’t outrun most of their preys. Impossible. Even the faster dude is still so ridiculusly slow comparing to a deer, wild pig, wolf…But on long distance we can chase preys day after day until they collapse from exhaustion.
The hunter-gatherers without horse walk and run for days tracking down preys.
We can also outsmart our preys (ambush, trap, snare…),in this case being mostly aerobic or anaerobic doesn’t really matter, what is important is your ability to manufacture efficient hunting devices and your skill using them. I bet on any day I can outbench and on short distance outrun your typical Masai, bushman or pygmee hunter but I know for sure I’m not a better hunter!
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
A man can out run an Antelope.
If you watch discovery, a guy did just that. He chased it for over 4 hours, until it collapsed from exhaustion, then he just walked up to it killed it with his spear.
[quote]Nards wrote:
My idea is that long ago people might have tried to run very fast to catch prey, or walk and jog a little over long distances to run it to ground, but they wouldn’t mix the two like marathoners do ( 5:00 minute miles for 26 miles)[/quote]
best post so far, but to be honest we are pretty crap at both compared to animals that specialize in one or the other. what gives us the advantage is we are SMARTER.we use technology to give us the advantage, be it throwing a rock, using a club, throwing a spear or developing bow/gun.
The next argument will be whether humans are posterior chain animals or anterior chain. After that the enlightened discussion will move to whether the species is air-breathing or water-drinking.
[quote]the.israeli wrote:
In this topic I would like to address the claim made by coach Poliquin about the human animal being geared more towards Anaerobic activity than Aerobic activity. In his own words:
“We’re made to throw a rock at the rabbit, not to chase it.”
This came as quite a shock to me. Throughout my life I was always told that we were Aerobic animals, and I just took it for granted. This seemed reasonable. People had the natural ability to walk long distances.
Whenever I read or saw things regarding African tribes, which to me seemed the closest to man’s origin in culture and behaviour, they were always these skinny people that looked very Aerobic and could run long distances.
Yesterday I caught the last part of a TV show about the human skin. They explained how the skin evolved a unique and efficient cooling system, one that’s better than most other animals’, in order to deal with the human need to run down animals 'till they fell down dead fro exhaustion.
They also linked the large Gluteus Maximus humans have to this need for running long distances.
I’ve tried to find the personal email address of coach Poliquin in order to ask him about the issue, but failed to do so. I would love to hear your opinion about the matter.
[/quote]
well we are built for both the activities surely. an even better pointer to make a judgment would be the muscle fiber make up of the average human being.
and regarding the aerobic look of the African tribes, i feel that look can perhaps more justifiably be related to the overly scanty malnutrition they were subjected to .