7 ms·

There is a theory that distance running is intimately related to humans evolution and their brain development. The human foot is beautifully engineered to be us

by brahmwg 11y ago

There is a theory that distance running is intimately related to humans evolution and their brain development. The human foot is beautifully engineered to be used for long distance running, to help absorb the impact and transfer the force into our Achilles and larger glute muscles. The fact that we have feet designed to run for a long time, have the nifty ability to sweat (unlike our prey at the time who needs to stop and pant to cool off), and are social creatures leads some to believe that we were persistent hunters, akin to a pack of wild dogs; ideally chasing down our prey as a group during the hottest part of the day when the animal would have most difficulty cooling off. Some believe the introduction of animal protein into our diet also helped trigger brain growth. So some combination of sociability, persistent running, and animal protein helped accelerate human brain growth back in the day. Recommend reading Born to Run or watching the Ted talk by the author for those interested.[1] [1]https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_mcdougall_are_we_born_to_run?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_mcdougall_are_we_born_...

dschiptsov 11y ago
High altitude trekking in mountains is even better than long distance running, at least in terms of breathing and sweating.) The crucial difference is in variety of breathing patterns on a trail - it changes with a terrain, in contrast to steady breath while running on a flat surface. I do both - moderate distance running (10-15km) and up to 6000m trekking as a guide. http://karma-engineering.com/ http://karma-engineering.com/
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  actually high altitude might be damaging the brain quite a bit, albeit 6000m is not really that bad (but it depends on person)
  - dschiptsov 11y ago
    Nepal's most popular trekking trails, which are below 5600m, are passable even for grandmas.
  - leroy_masochist 11y ago
    Above 6,000 meters (that's nearly 20,000 feet) you're mountaineering, not trekking. "High altitude" depending on whom you ask is generally taken to mean anything over 2,000-3,000 meters.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      there is no clear definition, but for most mountaineering starts when you need technical equipment (crampons, ice axe etc). I do hikes in alps in non-winter almost every weekend in 2000m-3000m band and its pure hiking. There are peaks higher than 6000m where you will not need this (ie in andes, tibet), and there are much lower peaks where you can't do anything without it. One example I did - you can do Kilimanjaro without touching any snow or ice, via standard route, and that's 5895m high.
      - sandworm101 11y ago
        I've always gone with the concept that mountaineering starts where a rope is needed to prevent serious injury in case of a fall. Altitude or even protection is outside of the equation. A sidewalk, if beside a 100-foot drop, counts as mountaineering because the rope is needed.
VeejayRampay 11y ago
Even better, The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease by Pr Daniel Lieberman of Harvard. An invaluable resource.
ahelwer 11y ago
> beautifully engineered > designed Evolution does not work this way. It does not engineer or design. If you are an atheist you cannot coherently say there is a design for anything in the human body. I think the language used here is important, especially when used as the basis for an argument of what activities or exercises we ought to do.
- losingthefight 11y ago
  Unless he isn't an atheist? Plenty of theists can hold to evolutionary views or intelligent design. Further, the language choice could be colloquial in which case he wasn't trying to make a theological statement; rather, op used common phrases to convey the relevant thought. not sure we need to push a worldview here...
  - ahelwer 11y ago
    I didn't assume they were an atheist. The language choice was used to confer normative value to long-distance running. This isn't pushing a worldview, it's pointing out that the basis for this argument for long-distance running is something which is not coherent with many readers' beliefs.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      Would "adapted" be a better word in your opinion?
      - awl130 11y ago
        evolved
- Terr_ 11y ago
  And a body of water does not "want" to flow to a local minima, but personification is a damn useful rhetorical device anyway.
  - 11y ago
akuma73 11y ago
That is interesting, but the rats in this study don't have as well engineered feet as humans and don't sweat either.
spectrum 11y ago
"In this compelling clip, we see a tribesman runner pursue his prey through the most harsh conditions in a gruelling eight hour chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
kazinator 11y ago
> The human foot is beautifully engineered to be used for long distance running, to help absorb the impact and transfer the force into our Achilles and larger glute muscles. The foot is terribly engineered and suffers from injuries. Human bones are frail; you have only 25% of the bone density of a gorilla or chimp. Hence the stress fractures. The big, protruding heel of the human foot is completely counterproductive for running. It helps us stand on two legs and walk. Humans have to consciously learn a proper technique for running to avoid misusing the heel. Doing "what comes naturally" is just horrible. By contrast, an animal doesn't have to study running technique. A cheetah doesn't have to think "Gee, I'm doing this wrong according to some pages I Googled; I should change my form so that my center of gravity is rather such and such, and my footstrike is altered in such and such a way." We can't even stand up when we are born and have to learn how to walk, which usually takes place more than a whopping year after birth. The sheer thickness of the meat and fat on the lower leg of a human tells you that we have evolved away from running. Running requires a stick-like lower appendage, with all the muscle higher up.
- et1337 11y ago
  As a minimalist runner, this comment seems all wrong to me. If we grew up barefoot or wearing huaraches, we wouldn't have to "learn" how to forefoot strike. Thick-soled shoes mess up our running instincts. > Running requires a stick-like lower appendage, with all the muscle higher up. It's different with bipeds, yeah? Lots of shock-absorbing magic has to happen in the lower leg.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    Ostriches are bipeds, too.
    - ZeroFries 11y ago
      They're also much lighter.
      - kazinator 11y ago
shas3 11y ago
There's a bit of naturalist fallacy there. Evolution optimizes for rates of success far below what we desire for comfortable living today. For instance, if 70% of humans were made for hunting and long distance running, that is an evolutionary success- we wouldn't go extinct and the trait, when inheritable may be selected for. But in modern life, if 1000 people take up long distance running, we cannot tolerate 300 suffering from debilitating injuries. Let's start with pre-running apes, assume ability to run results in k% rate of survival over inability to run and assuming these features are heritable, after N generations humans should all be organisms perfected for running. Both k and N should be high for all humans to be perfectly suited for running barefoot today without risk of injury. It will be nice to hear an expert on human evolution chime in here. The question also remains, can we extrapolate something that gave us evolutionary advantage to help us individually.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
I mostly agree with this theory. But I would argue that this model applies to humans before we migrated out of Africa. Certain human races have dramatically higher athletic performance while others have lower performance. Take the Olympic performance in track and field between Jamaicans and the Chinese. You will note that despite a targeted program designed to win as many gold medals as possible China did incredibly poorly in track. I would argue that this is evidence for the fact that while the human foot may be vestige designed for long distance running, other factors such as cardiovascular endurance and physical strength have already begun evolving away from this design. The change is so recent that I believe the degree of this divergence depends on your race.

by brahmwg 11y ago

dschiptsov 11y ago

High altitude trekking in mountains is even better than long distance running, at least in terms of breathing and sweating.) The crucial difference is in variety of breathing patterns on a trail - it changes with a terrain, in contrast to steady breath while running on a flat surface. I do both - moderate distance running (10-15km) and up to 6000m trekking as a guide. http://karma-engineering.com/ http://karma-engineering.com/

saiya-jin 11y ago
actually high altitude might be damaging the brain quite a bit, albeit 6000m is not really that bad (but it depends on person)
- dschiptsov 11y ago
  Nepal's most popular trekking trails, which are below 5600m, are passable even for grandmas.
- leroy_masochist 11y ago
  Above 6,000 meters (that's nearly 20,000 feet) you're mountaineering, not trekking. "High altitude" depending on whom you ask is generally taken to mean anything over 2,000-3,000 meters.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    there is no clear definition, but for most mountaineering starts when you need technical equipment (crampons, ice axe etc). I do hikes in alps in non-winter almost every weekend in 2000m-3000m band and its pure hiking. There are peaks higher than 6000m where you will not need this (ie in andes, tibet), and there are much lower peaks where you can't do anything without it. One example I did - you can do Kilimanjaro without touching any snow or ice, via standard route, and that's 5895m high.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      I've always gone with the concept that mountaineering starts where a rope is needed to prevent serious injury in case of a fall. Altitude or even protection is outside of the equation. A sidewalk, if beside a 100-foot drop, counts as mountaineering because the rope is needed.

VeejayRampay 11y ago

Even better, The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease by Pr Daniel Lieberman of Harvard. An invaluable resource.

ahelwer 11y ago

> beautifully engineered > designed Evolution does not work this way. It does not engineer or design. If you are an atheist you cannot coherently say there is a design for anything in the human body. I think the language used here is important, especially when used as the basis for an argument of what activities or exercises we ought to do.

losingthefight 11y ago
Unless he isn't an atheist? Plenty of theists can hold to evolutionary views or intelligent design. Further, the language choice could be colloquial in which case he wasn't trying to make a theological statement; rather, op used common phrases to convey the relevant thought. not sure we need to push a worldview here...
- ahelwer 11y ago
  I didn't assume they were an atheist. The language choice was used to confer normative value to long-distance running. This isn't pushing a worldview, it's pointing out that the basis for this argument for long-distance running is something which is not coherent with many readers' beliefs.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    Would "adapted" be a better word in your opinion?
    - awl130 11y ago
      evolved
Terr_ 11y ago
And a body of water does not "want" to flow to a local minima, but personification is a damn useful rhetorical device anyway.
- 11y ago

akuma73 11y ago

That is interesting, but the rats in this study don't have as well engineered feet as humans and don't sweat either.

spectrum 11y ago

"In this compelling clip, we see a tribesman runner pursue his prey through the most harsh conditions in a gruelling eight hour chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

kazinator 11y ago

> The human foot is beautifully engineered to be used for long distance running, to help absorb the impact and transfer the force into our Achilles and larger glute muscles. The foot is terribly engineered and suffers from injuries. Human bones are frail; you have only 25% of the bone density of a gorilla or chimp. Hence the stress fractures. The big, protruding heel of the human foot is completely counterproductive for running. It helps us stand on two legs and walk. Humans have to consciously learn a proper technique for running to avoid misusing the heel. Doing "what comes naturally" is just horrible. By contrast, an animal doesn't have to study running technique. A cheetah doesn't have to think "Gee, I'm doing this wrong according to some pages I Googled; I should change my form so that my center of gravity is rather such and such, and my footstrike is altered in such and such a way." We can't even stand up when we are born and have to learn how to walk, which usually takes place more than a whopping year after birth. The sheer thickness of the meat and fat on the lower leg of a human tells you that we have evolved away from running. Running requires a stick-like lower appendage, with all the muscle higher up.

et1337 11y ago
As a minimalist runner, this comment seems all wrong to me. If we grew up barefoot or wearing huaraches, we wouldn't have to "learn" how to forefoot strike. Thick-soled shoes mess up our running instincts. > Running requires a stick-like lower appendage, with all the muscle higher up. It's different with bipeds, yeah? Lots of shock-absorbing magic has to happen in the lower leg.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Ostriches are bipeds, too.
  - ZeroFries 11y ago
    They're also much lighter.
    - kazinator 11y ago

shas3 11y ago

There's a bit of naturalist fallacy there. Evolution optimizes for rates of success far below what we desire for comfortable living today. For instance, if 70% of humans were made for hunting and long distance running, that is an evolutionary success- we wouldn't go extinct and the trait, when inheritable may be selected for. But in modern life, if 1000 people take up long distance running, we cannot tolerate 300 suffering from debilitating injuries. Let's start with pre-running apes, assume ability to run results in k% rate of survival over inability to run and assuming these features are heritable, after N generations humans should all be organisms perfected for running. Both k and N should be high for all humans to be perfectly suited for running barefoot today without risk of injury. It will be nice to hear an expert on human evolution chime in here. The question also remains, can we extrapolate something that gave us evolutionary advantage to help us individually.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

I mostly agree with this theory. But I would argue that this model applies to humans before we migrated out of Africa. Certain human races have dramatically higher athletic performance while others have lower performance. Take the Olympic performance in track and field between Jamaicans and the Chinese. You will note that despite a targeted program designed to win as many gold medals as possible China did incredibly poorly in track. I would argue that this is evidence for the fact that while the human foot may be vestige designed for long distance running, other factors such as cardiovascular endurance and physical strength have already begun evolving away from this design. The change is so recent that I believe the degree of this divergence depends on your race.