I absolutely think we’re both. And I think it’s a bit ridiculous to try and parse it down like some people have.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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]
But… are humans male or female?
I’d say if you look at the aerobic systems and the anaerobic/glycolytic pathways of potential energy in our bodies we are moderately aerobic at best and do lean towards the anerobic.
Thank gawd we gots brains.
[quote]alit4 wrote:
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)
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.[/quote]
edit: SOME are smarter 
There are actually people that. . . ?
Nevermind.
I’m going to go flail around and scream
If we were made to run we would have four legs.
Even a house cat can hit 35 with relative ease.
the fastest any human has ever run is 26-27, and he was only at that speed for less than a second.
I wish humans were made for sprints and explosiveness! Compared to most anaerobic animals, our abilities are not even close.
Pound for pound we are some of the weakest animals on the planet, even including mostly aerobic creatures…but i guess that does not really determine whether we are mostly aerobic or anaerobic.
I would say aerobic, cause that is the only thing that humans can compete with, with other animals (besides our brains). In fact we do incredibly well at endurance:
But damn it! I want to be as anaerobic as possible!
[quote]Dave_ wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
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.
But… are humans male or female?
[/quote]
These two posts, without doubt, properly concludes CP’s rash statement and the ensuing debate.
Humans don’t outrun anything when hunting. People are ambush hunters. The most we may do to ‘outrun’ an animal is wound it and track it as it slowly dies. Go ahead and try to out run a whitetail deer.
The best runner in the world will never catch it. It also doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it is a terribly inefficient way to procure food on a calore for calorie basis if a person was even capable of doing it.
Those things are myths perpetrated by the marathon running crew. If you look up the effects of that kind of training you’ll see why people aren’t even designed for that kind of extreme training. It literally slowly kills you.
The reality is people are very much generalists when it comes to physical abilities. We have a good ability to walk very long distances, and a good ability for lifting and carrying heavy things.
Compared to animals, we are weak. We are decended from the great apes, very anerobic animals with great strength. It would seem logical that we retain some of that, hence our ability to be primarily anaerobic.
[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]
i think this argument makes a ton of sense, because we are fairly efficient on either end of the spectrum, but are given strong chemical signals to stop if we do something in the middle (ie anaerobic lactic)
^^ aw c’mon…‘fairly efficient’ isn’t too strong of a way to describe humans! What do you want him to say? We’re all slack immobile pussies?
Comparisons to other animals is difficult to make. And humans do seem to be capable of prolific aerobic activity. Like Wolfgang Schwerk who ran 3100 miles in 42 days. 100 mile and 24 hour foot races aren’t entirely uncommon. No other land animal does that but then again no other land animal runs long distances just for funsies.
Strength is also difficult to gauge. Almost all human tests of strength relies on being able to grip something. There’s only a few handful of species which can grip objects like us and none of them that I know of have biomechanics similar enough to perform most of the movements we do.
Sure, a gorilla can rip your arm off but put that gorilla in a squat rack with even its bodyweight on the bar and it’ll probably get folded in half.
[quote]1000rippedbuff wrote:
Humans don’t outrun anything when hunting. People are ambush hunters. The most we may do to ‘outrun’ an animal is wound it and track it as it slowly dies. Go ahead and try to out run a whitetail deer.
The best runner in the world will never catch it. It also doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it is a terribly inefficient way to procure food on a calore for calorie basis if a person was even capable of doing it.
Those things are myths perpetrated by the marathon running crew. If you look up the effects of that kind of training you’ll see why people aren’t even designed for that kind of extreme training. It literally slowly kills you.
The reality is people are very much generalists when it comes to physical abilities. We have a good ability to walk very long distances, and a good ability for lifting and carrying heavy things.
Compared to animals, we are weak. We are decended from the great apes, very anerobic animals with great strength. It would seem logical that we retain some of that, hence our ability to be primarily anaerobic.[/quote]
THE BEST POST
[quote]Westclock wrote:
If we were made to run we would have four legs.
quote]
What about our hands, they help a person to run also. What about being able to carry water, and be able to out last our prey on a long run?
The brain power, to understand that if we carry water, we can run further…
Our brain, hands and legs all help in running… Thats why (as said in a previous post) a man can out-run a deer (or whatever it was).
[quote]Titan_88 wrote:
1000rippedbuff wrote:
Humans don’t outrun anything when hunting. People are ambush hunters. The most we may do to ‘outrun’ an animal is wound it and track it as it slowly dies. Go ahead and try to out run a whitetail deer.
The best runner in the world will never catch it. It also doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it is a terribly inefficient way to procure food on a calore for calorie basis if a person was even capable of doing it.
Those things are myths perpetrated by the marathon running crew. If you look up the effects of that kind of training you’ll see why people aren’t even designed for that kind of extreme training. It literally slowly kills you.
The reality is people are very much generalists when it comes to physical abilities. We have a good ability to walk very long distances, and a good ability for lifting and carrying heavy things.
Compared to animals, we are weak. We are decended from the great apes, very anerobic animals with great strength. It would seem logical that we retain some of that, hence our ability to be primarily anaerobic.
THE BEST POST
[/quote]
You were definitely on the right track here. I’m having a tough time remembering who it was - I think it was Plato’s Good Life philosophy, but a philosopher once asked what the basic goal of our existence was. Since animals are more inclined to use their most valuable assets to ensure longevity and continuity in their lives, he observed and commented on the what each animal is best at.
Humans are far out-classed by a dog’s nose by an exponential amount.
Humans can’t compare with a gazelle, cheetah, or speed animal in terms of quickness.
We can’t keep up with bears, oxen, or hippos in terms of raw, physical strength.
So what does that leave us? The ability to reason and think, of course. Now, in regards to the current argument, there’s no real way to justify one side without partially aiding the other. The human intellect is our greatest asset, and everything else is playing make-up. We’ll resort to whatever we need to to make ends meet, just like any other animal.
Although we may not specifically be aerobic or anaerobic, we’ll do what we have to to catch an animal and eat it - whether it’s sprint after it, track it for three hours, or setting a damn trap for it.
I still think this conversation is rather pointless. It’s just a lot of big opinion-throwing.
[quote]SSC wrote:
…I still think this conversation is rather pointless. It’s just a lot of big opinion-throwing.[/quote]
Best way to settle this is for someone to get Poliquin himself in here and relate to the whole issue in more detail. I think we’re all missing something here - either his statement was somehow misunderstood and he actually meant something else, or he may come here and offer better explanations.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Humans can’t compare with a gazelle, cheetah, or speed animal in terms of quickness.[/quote]
Tell that to Bryan Habana:
OK, he got a head-start, but I’d still say he “compares”!