43 ms·
Source for this? Middle-aged runners look like they're in great shape. Evidence suggests long-distance running, if done correctly, has no adverse effects on the
by OldFatCactus 7y ago
Source for this? Middle-aged runners look like they're in great shape. Evidence suggests long-distance running, if done correctly, has no adverse effects on the body. We've literally evolved for it
- scarface74 7y agoDefinitely not an anti-exercise site: https://www.active.com/health/articles/why-too-much-running-is-bad-for-your-health https://www.active.com/health/articles/why-too-much-running-... Not to mention shin splints, torn Achilles, etc. Of course there are diminishing returns if you are running for the purpose of living a longer, healthier life. As far what we “evolved for”. There is no evolutionary benefit of living past the age where you can pass on your genes and endure the next generation can do the same. There is no evolutionary pressure for a people to live pass that age. Evolution would never favor a trait that would allow a population to live be 100 instead of 60.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago> Evolution would never favor a trait that would allow a population to live be 100 instead of 60. It would. Grandparents care for grand children. In fact, they seem to have an uncanny ability to inculcate them with the desire for having more children, of their own. Hmmmm ;)
- scarface74 7y agoI am not saying “old people are useless”. I’m saying that there wouldn’t be evolutionary pressure to allow people to survive pass 60. It’s believed that we evolved to have stamina for long distance running to tire out our prey. The elders wouldn’t be the hunters.
- nothrabannosir 7y agoPoint being: Caring for grandchildren makes them more likely to survive and pass on your genes. Asking them every Christmas dinner when they’re gonna give you great grandchildren, too, apparently.
- scarface74 7y agoIn the hunter gatherer society where our stamina would mean we eat. They would have the female stay with the children....
- ksdale 7y agoPassing on useful knowledge, for example, concerning rare but catastrophic events could be an evolutionary reason for people to live far past child bearing age.
- scarface74 7y agoWould you need to pass that knowledge on for two generations instead of one?
- ksdale 7y agoI read recently about an Aboriginal tribe in Australia that managed to weather a once in 50 years level drought because there was one man in the tribe who was old enough to remember where they got water the last time there was a drought that bad. Naturally, knowledge transfer won’t be complete or perfect, so it seems plausible that there’s an evolutionary benefit to much younger generations to having some really, really old people around. I mean, I’m not trying to argue for exactly what happens, mostly just contesting the idea that there’s no evolutionary reason for people to live way past child-rearing.
- sn9 7y agoEvolution is more complicated than you realize. Kin selection is the term you need to read up on for our current explanation on why we live so far beyond reproductive age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
- Someone 7y ago”Middle-aged runners look like they're in great shape” That’s not a valid argument. It could be survivor bias, with those still running (and not dead, bound to a wheelchair at 30, etc) looking great. Even if, taking that into account, runners look better than non-runners, there, a priori, is no guarantee they wouldn’t have looked even better without it.