Contrary to the NBR article

Happy New Year everyone!  I was recently directed to an article that says the average woman has "No Business Running" and became very discouraged by it.  Today on CNN, there's a great news report based on a 20 year study of runners.  :o)  Hopefully this will motivate someone else like it motivated me! 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/ 12/31/gupta.run.good.health.cnn

Original Post by nightc1:

WE were not designed for that yet we can survive without gravity... with certain exercises and whatnot added in.

I think the no-gravity side of things is probably the most convincing thing we aren't designed to do.  We were more designed to run than to float around in space.

 I don't think the question was ever 'can the human body do things it isn't designed to do?' People weren't designed to sit in chairs, but they can sit in chairs 24 hours a day and not die.  People weren't designed to float around in space, but they can without dieing.  People weren't designed to run long distances, but they can and oftentimes without injury.

But just because people can do things (sitting in a chair, floating around in space, running marathons) without catastropic results, doesn't mean that they should. I agree that people weren't designed to float around in space, but I have never heard of anyone coming back from space in better shape than when they left.

Biomechanical research reveals a surprising key to the survival of our species: Humans are built to outrun nearly every other animal on the planet over long distances.

by Ingfei Chen

article

snip:

The traits appear to be specifically adapted for running—and for jogging for long distances. So Bramble and Lieberman were not at all surprised that a man won the Man Versus Horse Marathon. It fits their hypothesis. Unlike many mammals, not to mention primates, people are astonishingly successful endurance runners, "and I don't think it's just a fluke," Lieberman says. He and Bramble argue that not only can humans outlast horses, but over long distances and under the right conditions, they can also outrun just about any other animal on the planet—including dogs, wolves, hyenas, and antelope, the other great endurance runners. From our abundant sweat glands to our Achilles tendons, from our big knee joints to our muscular glutei maximi, human bodies are beautifully tuned running machines. "We're loaded top to bottom with all these features, many of which don't have any role in walking," Lieberman says. Our anatomy suggests that running down prey was once a way of life that ensured hominid survival millions of years ago on the African savanna.

  Exactly the same two researchers I found unpersuasive earlier in the thread, with exactly the same argument that still isn't convicing, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 But evolutionary arguments - while fascinating - are besides the point, really; humans clearly can run with a bit of prep work, it's just not as natural for us as walking and takes a bit more practice to do right.

 Try a running class or clinic with the Running Room if you want some surprises - running economy improves drastically once you're taught how to do it right.

 I wouldn't load someone's barbell up with their bodyweight and tell them to squat first off either even if a reasonable training goal is to be able to do a bodyweight squat eventually, and I certainly hope you wouldn't tell a beginning biker to do a Century on his first outing.

 I mean, sanity check - if you've got a beginning biker who've never done appreciable distances before, are you going to tell them to jump on a Century race first thing? Or are you going to tell them they need to work their way up to that?

The few times I've taught lifting I start people off with a broomstick to learn the movements, they don't get to add load until they've mastered the bodyweight version of the majors.

  No matter what we're talking about when it comes to fitness, for the tough stuff you need to work your way up to it and not be an idiot when it comes to load and training parameters increases. And running is tougher on the body than people think.

 That's all - of course you can run if you work your way up to doing it in a sane manner, Couch25K comes to mind alongside Learn to Run. Oh, and drop by the Running Room to have your gait analyzed to see what shoes you need.

Original Post by trhawley:

Biomechanical research reveals a surprising key to the survival of our species: Humans are built to outrun nearly every other animal on the planet over long distances.

I haven't read the article yet, but being able to outrun other animals over long distances doesn't seem like a very useful trait in the survival of the species. If a bear is chasing you it doesn't matter if you can outrun it over 15 miles, if it catches you after 20 meters. And being able to outrun the rabbit you want to eat over the course of a few miles doesn't help you if it gets away from you after 20 meters.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

Biomechanical research reveals a surprising key to the survival of our species: Humans are built to outrun nearly every other animal on the planet over long distances.

I haven't read the article yet, but being able to outrun other animals over long distances doesn't seem like a very useful trait in the survival of the species. If a bear is chasing you it doesn't matter if you can outrun it over 15 miles, if it catches you after 20 meters. And being able to outrun the rabbit you want to eat over the course of a few miles doesn't help you if it gets away from you after 20 meters.

Well played.

migration... scouting... hunting... tribal warfare.... lots of reasons to want to move quickly for a good long while.

most sociobiological evolutionary speculation about how our stone age ancestors spent their days is just that, speculation

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

Biomechanical research reveals a surprising key to the survival of our species: Humans are built to outrun nearly every other animal on the planet over long distances.

I haven't read the article yet, but being able to outrun other animals over long distances doesn't seem like a very useful trait in the survival of the species. If a bear is chasing you it doesn't matter if you can outrun it over 15 miles, if it catches you after 20 meters. And being able to outrun the rabbit you want to eat over the course of a few miles doesn't help you if it gets away from you after 20 meters.

As I understand these things: rabbit no, bison maybe.

Moreover, the rabbit doesn't really get away, only further away. And - actually, the rabit is an apt analog, because the point is the tortise and the hare. Only, in this situation, the tortise keeps at the hare until it can eat it.

Furthermore, as was suggested, it's not only about running down critters. It's the triumph of medocrity. If scavenging, or that vague area of top level scavenging is the point, then high mobility - to move from one kill to another - is very useful, because it means suffering singular losses for net gains - you don't always beat the hyenas, but you beat them on the margins.

Original Post by melkor:

  Exactly the same two researchers I found unpersuasive earlier in the thread, with exactly the same argument that still isn't convicing, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 But evolutionary arguments - while fascinating - are besides the point, really; humans clearly can run with a bit of prep work, it's just not as natural for us as walking and takes a bit more practice to do right.

And, okay, so many directions this thread has gone in. But to pair down to a few...

First, I disagree with you assertion that the adaptations are just as good for walking. Some of them make a lot more sense for running, rather than walking. But I'm willing to concede that.

Second, and I really don't want to play this card, but evolution is, by design, imperfect. A princple of your argument is that there's a better way to do it. This is, most likely, true, but evolution is not a game of absolutes. But I'm willing to concede that was well.

Third, I think in terms of our ancestor's food outlays, and without crunching the numbers, I worry that you are falling into the classic "no primitive could do that" logical flaw that has come up short several times. But, I can concede that, with hesitation.

Fourth, let's assume the argument. If an argument, this is a real argument, not a false one. There does exist a colorable argument that portions of the human body are designed for, or at least compatable with, jogging. Thus, a blanket statement that there are no such adaptations is difficult. A pointing out of the flaws must be limited by the merits. If you use evolutionary antithesis, then evolutionary thesis are the point.

Fifth, is it even necessary to point out how much the respective paradigms matter? I don't want to go there, even if that seems the meat of the occasion, just because that's a discussion that seems, to me, the end all discussion to have.

Sixth, even if you are in the right, the notion of "just common sense" is terribly important. Is there anything in the world of exercise covered by that? Is it that, assuming your accuracy, running's presumed common sense versus the assumption of no common sense that most people enter into other forms of exercise? And, if that is the case, is that not the fault of some entire other set of perception, rather than the thing itself?

Eh, check out Mark Verhagen's critique for a more detailed look at why the Bramble/Lieberman hypothesis is a "just-so story" - the adaptations are also useful for walking, wading, waddling and doing the disco and claiming that running occupies some sort of privilegied position even though the adaptations actually clearly serve to make humans excellent swimmers and pole vaulters is kinda silly.

 Evolution isn't designed at all, and it doesn't have a direction - "designed by evolution" is kinda a misnomer that I ought to know better than to use because it implies design and direction. But humans tend to understand through storytelling and metaphor, so I catch myself saying things that in a strict sense arent true - evolution didn't design anything, it just so happens that the outcome of the process was to design one tough organism that has remarkable survival and adaptability characteristics.

 (It's not that no primitive could do that. But without some sort of settlement and storage facility you can't keep fruits and grains out of season, and if you're on the savannah you aren't getting carbs in your diet outside of the rainy season unless you can eat grass.)

 Anyway - it's an enjoyable discussion, but yes, still sort of besides the point.

 There's the presumption that running is the one form of exercise that you can do instantly with no coaching, no previous training history and no plan for a sane periodization and progression in training load I have a problem with. And I see variations of "For new year's exercise, just pick up your feet and go running!" a lot both on the 'net and in offline sources, so people do and in 3-4 weeks of running more than they should they wind up with injuries and quit exercise altogether.

 Which seems counterproductive from my PoV, when a sane plan would see them finish a 5K in a few months, to pick an example at random.