7 ms·

Born to run? Endurance running may have evolved to help humans chase down prey

34 points by vishnugupta 2y ago

mzimbres 2y ago
I wonder how did they shared the meat with the rest of the group after chasing down the prey for an hour in random directions.
- yetihehe 2y ago
  They could chase it in circles. Prey typically escapes pretty predictably (away from you), so you can chase from side to force some direction. Also if you have group, you can use everyone in group in loose circle.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  It's unclear to me what you're implying, but kills would always need to be returned to the group. For large animals, they would have done some degree of butchering and then returned the meat as manpower allowed. For instance elk, one of the examples they mentioned, can yield 300+ pounds of premium meat. Since our ancestors were probably eating/drinking parts we might discard, you can even substantially bump that figure up. That's going to feed an entire group of people for quite a long time. For directions there's a million tricks to orientate yourself in the wild that they would certainly have been aware of. For a relevant one in contemporary times, the claim that moss only grows on the e.g. north side of trees is mostly true. A more accurate description would be that moss likes to avoid the sun and so tends grows to grow on the side of trees least exposed to the sun, which in the northern hemisphere tends to be the north side. It's going to vary by location/environment/etc but they would have known these things (and countless others) and so the environment itself would have been a living compass. Apparently there's one tribe that doesn't even have a term for left/right/etc but instead uses solely cardinal directions. No idea if this is another bbc style claim or actually true, but it's at least completely viable.
  - dayjaby 2y ago
    The meat feeds the group as long as the fridge stays powered on.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      There are countless means of preserving meat such that it can last months or even years - smoking, salting, freezing (naturally), the million ways of fermenting things - such as through burying, and so on endlessly.
    - Thiez 2y ago
      Humans were quite good at preserving food before the invention of refrigeration, e.g. through drying and smoking for meat.
- Trow839rn 2y ago
  Group can walk to the site. Butchering and preserving something like horse, buffalo or elephant with stone tools, is hard work, and takes a lot of work from everyone. Hunting is just a first step! It was not like today, when "rest of the groups" sits at home all day, and expects everything on silver platter!
somenameforme 2y ago
There also seems to be a somewhat self evident natural+sexual selection here. Imagine you're going after some sort of prey, and fail to catch it immediately. The guys capable of continuing to pursue it, and ultimately succeeding where another might fail, are simply going to have be much more likely to live and procreate. They're also going to be the ones coming back with all sorts of game likely raising prestige, increasing odds of procreating, and so on.
- bandrami 2y ago
  I remember learning about this in grad school 20 years ago (so this isn't exactly a new theory), what I remember is that the modern human "package" has a lot of interlocking parts. There's the sight advantage from the upright posture, along with the ability to use our hands since we aren't running with them (for spears, gourds of water, etc.), a brain powerful enough to engage in 2nd-order thinking ("the gazelle will want to catch back up with his herd", etc.), less sun exposure so better heat endurance, an efficient jogging gait (humans have beaten horses at marathons[1]), and probably most importantly social organization and comms that allow coordinated pack hunting (this may even get to why small irises and white sclera in our eyes were selected for). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon
  - firecall 2y ago
    Seeing the recent Planet of the Apes Movies advertised, I wondered about the reality of Humans vs Smart Apes. Absurb as it is LOL I havent seen all the movies, but from memory they show Apes using their physical advantages vs Humans that have no tech or weapons. But Humans clearly have some physical advantages over other apes.
    - portaouflop 2y ago
      I think most apes would fuck you up in direct 1on1 combat without weapons.
      - 2y ago
tibanne 2y ago
The book is good.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
arketyp 2y ago
There are some accounts of still existing tribes in southern Africa doing this. As the article also suggests, the sprints, as far as I can tell, are intermittent. The hunters occasionally slow down when they need to pay attention to the tracks, and they run when they are certain of the path, not necessarily to catch up with the animal but to keep pushing it when it has taken shelter resting. This process is repeated until the game is just too exhausted to move and becomes an easy prey. They're not running marathons.
- MadnessASAP 2y ago
  Early humans must've been like some sorta unstoppable killing machine, never going particularly fast but never stopping either. Just relentlessly following their target until it was too exhausted to go on and just laid down to die. *Not a anthropologist/archeologist/oldshitologist.
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    Early humans were prey.
    - QuesnayJr 2y ago
      I read somewhere that while homo habilis was frequently prey, that homo erectus already largely wasn't.
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      Once the early humans have half-decent spears, they become extremely-high-risk prey. Because a single deep puncture wound is very likely to kill even the largest predator.
  - jareklupinski 2y ago
    > some sorta unstoppable killing machine, never going particularly fast but never stopping either. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/immortal-snail https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/immortal-snail
- 2y ago
wolvesechoes 2y ago
Kinda sucks they do not mention the McDoughall's book with the same title, which, although far from scientific work, definitely fueled the debate. My own experience is that, indeed, running, especially barefoot (really barefoot, not in overpriced minimalist shoes), among the trees and meadows in the countryside feels... well, natural. For people without much physical activity it can be demanding at the beginning, but after few days it should become a pleasure of some kind. I do not do that to reduce weight, for I am far from overweight, and I do not do that to participate in any sport events, for I do not care about them. It just feels good, to run and be out there in nature. So yeah, my anecdotal evidence really ensures me that there is some truth in the statement that humans are somewhat "born to run". We do not need to hunt in this way anymore, as bows and other ranged weapons changed the rules, yet evolutionary baggage is hard to left behind.
- djtango 2y ago
  I have always been fascinated by bare foot running. I think in a city I have less interest because all it takes is one tiny shard of glass to get a nasty infection but how do you handle stuff like pebbles etc?
  - maximus_prime 2y ago
    Guessing over time your feet develop thicker skin so you don't feel the pain.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - wolvesechoes 2y ago
    > but how do you handle stuff like pebbles etc? Usually put a grimace on my face in a short moment of pain ;d. I try to take a route that doesn't have plants with thorns or lot of stones and pebbles. In my area that is not difficult. When it is not possible, or I have some wound on my foot, I wear very thin, flat sandals (could be called "minimalist", but cost like 1/3 of the price of sandals really marketed as such). And I need to look out for vipers, but so far they tend to escape when I approach, and, to be honest, normal running shoes wouldn't help me if I would step on them. In the city I would definitely be more cautious. When I lived in a town, there was a forest around 20 km away, and I preferred to take a car ride there instead of running though streets. Took more time and planning, and maybe I couldn't run as often as I would like to, but it was much better experience. As for wounds, at least here in the countryside, so far I didn't catch anything serious. Few splinters or thorns. Nothing that would require seeing a doctor. Definitely it is wise to begin slowly, run much shorter distances, maybe even slower than you are able to. In time your feet become stronger and more resistant. You also notice that you become more aware of the ground and what lies there. This makes it easier to spot and avoid things that could be unpleasant.
mro_name 2y ago
really! Drinking may have evolved to help humans quench thirst.
jumploops 2y ago
> Others remain skeptical that occasional behaviors by traditional societies offer a reliable guide to what human ancestors might have done millions of years ago. I think the biology wins here. We're bipedal, lack tails (use arms instead!), sweat easily (without fur), and can outlast any land creature on earth at distance [0]. Evolution seems to point to endurance hunting as a stepping stone, even if our more recent ancestors we're smarter than that[1]. [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052 [1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417153739.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417153739.h...
- DC-3 2y ago
  A previous discussion on HN regarding whether Humans are really the best distance runners in the world [1]. TL;DR we're pretty good, but probably beaten by some animals, including Kangaroos and Sled Dogs. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4460027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4460027
  - bhaak 2y ago
    It's fortunate for us that kangaroos and sled dogs don't hunt us. We didn't need to be the best distance runners. It was enough to be the best distance running hunter of the local area.
- gregwebs 2y ago
  We’re not good runners. We’re good heat dissipaters. Sled dogs in the cold are much better. Both of those citations don’t match the statements being made.
  - jumploops 2y ago
    Thankfully we don’t need to run constantly to endurance hunt; walking is sufficient much of the time.
gadders 2y ago
I mean, maybe on the plains of Africa, but would expect that wasn't much use with woolly mammoths or in jungles/forests.
carrolldunham 2y ago
Why did endurance cycling evolve? Oh, right, like endurance running, it didn't. I'm a human and I can't run far - unless I decided to train myself in that and then I can. Just as I could train myself to break dance. Did break dancing evolve? The book that created this 'theory' about running is nothing but running 'propaganda'. A meme pushed into the world by exercise addicted people who wanted a post-hoc 'naturalization' for their lifestyle.
- wolvesechoes 2y ago
  Endurance cycling requires pretty advanced equipment. To run you just need your legs. Much less training is needed to go from basement dweller to someone that can run, let's say, 5 km under 30 mins, than it is required to do even basic breakdance moves. So the suggested symmetry crumbles down, as there is none.
raymond_goo 2y ago
We have known this for more than 14 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
gregwebs 2y ago
Towards the end of the article there’s a better overall view. This study shows persistence hunting was a widespread technique but used very infrequently: Cara Wall-Scheffler, a biological anthropologist at Seattle Pacific University, applauded the new paper for adding a wealth of new examples. But she notes the study’s own findings confirm that persistence hunting was rare and that other methods were more common in the historical record. She doubts the technique was a powerful force in human evolution. “Selection acting every single day, everywhere, is more powerful, and persistence running is definitely not an everyday occurrence,” she says. “This paper actually doubles down with how unusual [it] is.” In the ethnographic book The Old Way the author states persistence hunting was used at one time of year when the ground was softer to hunt one type of animal that over heated more easily.
Arch-TK 2y ago
I could have sworn this was well known for a very long time?
- vishnugupta 2y ago
  Indeed, that humans hunted through long distance pursuits has been known for a while. The research paper on which the article is based on is about gathering evidence to support that endurance hunting was/is an efficient way to hunt. Title: "Ethnography and ethnohistory support the efficiency of hunting through endurance running in humans" Abstract: Humans have two features rare in mammals: our locomotor muscles are dominated by fatigue-resistant fibres and we effectively dissipate through sweating the metabolic heat generated through prolonged, elevated activity. A promising evolutionary explanation of these features is the endurance pursuit (EP) hypothesis, which argues that both traits evolved to facilitate running down game by persistence. However, this hypothesis has faced two challenges: running is energetically costly and accounts of EPs among late twentieth century foragers are rare. While both observations appear to suggest that EPs would be ineffective, we use foraging theory to demonstrate that EPs can be quite efficient. We likewise analyse an ethnohistoric and ethnographic database of nearly 400 EP cases representing 272 globally distributed locations. We provide estimates for return rates of EPs and argue that these are comparable to other pre-modern hunting methods in specified contexts. EP hunting as a method of food procurement would have probably been available and attractive to Plio/Pleistocene hominins.
baerrie 2y ago
Couldn’t the evolution have occurred as: begin to stand which helps spot threats, gather, fish, etc -> run to avoid predators (efficiency of two legs begins to have large gains here) -> get good enough to have surplus time, safety, resources to create new tech like spears -> run to hunt everything
- Thiez 2y ago
  The world already has quite enough evolutionary "just so" stories. Our ancestors lived in trees, which presumably is safe from most predators, and standing upright isn't much of an advantage. Gathering would have been off the ground (no advantage to standing) or from bushes / trees (where climbing is better than standing). Most African predators (such as the many big cats, but also some crocodiles) easily outrun humans, we are in no way evolved to outrun them. They will sneak up and then do a short sprint. Remember we're not running a marathon against them - we're playing tag and when they tag you, you lose. We're almost certainly not evolved to run to avoid predators.
  - baerrie 2y ago
    Makes sense
igitur 2y ago
I run ultramarathons and whether true or not, we sometimes joke about this. We'd say that the typical Springbok would fall down from exhaustion after 30 km and that's why we runners hit that metaphorical wall after 31 km; we evolved because we needed to outrun the gazelle by only a bit. From there on, it's a tough grind to complete the race. Very tongue-in-cheek, but too good of a story not to tell.

34 points by vishnugupta 2y ago

I wonder how did they shared the meat with the rest of the group after chasing down the prey for an hour in random directions.

yetihehe 2y ago
They could chase it in circles. Prey typically escapes pretty predictably (away from you), so you can chase from side to force some direction. Also if you have group, you can use everyone in group in loose circle.
somenameforme 2y ago
It's unclear to me what you're implying, but kills would always need to be returned to the group. For large animals, they would have done some degree of butchering and then returned the meat as manpower allowed. For instance elk, one of the examples they mentioned, can yield 300+ pounds of premium meat. Since our ancestors were probably eating/drinking parts we might discard, you can even substantially bump that figure up. That's going to feed an entire group of people for quite a long time. For directions there's a million tricks to orientate yourself in the wild that they would certainly have been aware of. For a relevant one in contemporary times, the claim that moss only grows on the e.g. north side of trees is mostly true. A more accurate description would be that moss likes to avoid the sun and so tends grows to grow on the side of trees least exposed to the sun, which in the northern hemisphere tends to be the north side. It's going to vary by location/environment/etc but they would have known these things (and countless others) and so the environment itself would have been a living compass. Apparently there's one tribe that doesn't even have a term for left/right/etc but instead uses solely cardinal directions. No idea if this is another bbc style claim or actually true, but it's at least completely viable.
- dayjaby 2y ago
  The meat feeds the group as long as the fridge stays powered on.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    There are countless means of preserving meat such that it can last months or even years - smoking, salting, freezing (naturally), the million ways of fermenting things - such as through burying, and so on endlessly.
  - Thiez 2y ago
    Humans were quite good at preserving food before the invention of refrigeration, e.g. through drying and smoking for meat.
Trow839rn 2y ago
Group can walk to the site. Butchering and preserving something like horse, buffalo or elephant with stone tools, is hard work, and takes a lot of work from everyone. Hunting is just a first step! It was not like today, when "rest of the groups" sits at home all day, and expects everything on silver platter!

somenameforme 2y ago

There also seems to be a somewhat self evident natural+sexual selection here. Imagine you're going after some sort of prey, and fail to catch it immediately. The guys capable of continuing to pursue it, and ultimately succeeding where another might fail, are simply going to have be much more likely to live and procreate. They're also going to be the ones coming back with all sorts of game likely raising prestige, increasing odds of procreating, and so on.

bandrami 2y ago
I remember learning about this in grad school 20 years ago (so this isn't exactly a new theory), what I remember is that the modern human "package" has a lot of interlocking parts. There's the sight advantage from the upright posture, along with the ability to use our hands since we aren't running with them (for spears, gourds of water, etc.), a brain powerful enough to engage in 2nd-order thinking ("the gazelle will want to catch back up with his herd", etc.), less sun exposure so better heat endurance, an efficient jogging gait (humans have beaten horses at marathons[1]), and probably most importantly social organization and comms that allow coordinated pack hunting (this may even get to why small irises and white sclera in our eyes were selected for). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon
- firecall 2y ago
  Seeing the recent Planet of the Apes Movies advertised, I wondered about the reality of Humans vs Smart Apes. Absurb as it is LOL I havent seen all the movies, but from memory they show Apes using their physical advantages vs Humans that have no tech or weapons. But Humans clearly have some physical advantages over other apes.
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    I think most apes would fuck you up in direct 1on1 combat without weapons.
    - 2y ago

tibanne 2y ago

The book is good.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

arketyp 2y ago

There are some accounts of still existing tribes in southern Africa doing this. As the article also suggests, the sprints, as far as I can tell, are intermittent. The hunters occasionally slow down when they need to pay attention to the tracks, and they run when they are certain of the path, not necessarily to catch up with the animal but to keep pushing it when it has taken shelter resting. This process is repeated until the game is just too exhausted to move and becomes an easy prey. They're not running marathons.

MadnessASAP 2y ago
Early humans must've been like some sorta unstoppable killing machine, never going particularly fast but never stopping either. Just relentlessly following their target until it was too exhausted to go on and just laid down to die. *Not a anthropologist/archeologist/oldshitologist.
- portaouflop 2y ago
  Early humans were prey.
  - QuesnayJr 2y ago
    I read somewhere that while homo habilis was frequently prey, that homo erectus already largely wasn't.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    Once the early humans have half-decent spears, they become extremely-high-risk prey. Because a single deep puncture wound is very likely to kill even the largest predator.
- jareklupinski 2y ago
  > some sorta unstoppable killing machine, never going particularly fast but never stopping either. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/immortal-snail https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/immortal-snail
2y ago

wolvesechoes 2y ago

Kinda sucks they do not mention the McDoughall's book with the same title, which, although far from scientific work, definitely fueled the debate. My own experience is that, indeed, running, especially barefoot (really barefoot, not in overpriced minimalist shoes), among the trees and meadows in the countryside feels... well, natural. For people without much physical activity it can be demanding at the beginning, but after few days it should become a pleasure of some kind. I do not do that to reduce weight, for I am far from overweight, and I do not do that to participate in any sport events, for I do not care about them. It just feels good, to run and be out there in nature. So yeah, my anecdotal evidence really ensures me that there is some truth in the statement that humans are somewhat "born to run". We do not need to hunt in this way anymore, as bows and other ranged weapons changed the rules, yet evolutionary baggage is hard to left behind.

djtango 2y ago
I have always been fascinated by bare foot running. I think in a city I have less interest because all it takes is one tiny shard of glass to get a nasty infection but how do you handle stuff like pebbles etc?
- maximus_prime 2y ago
  Guessing over time your feet develop thicker skin so you don't feel the pain.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- wolvesechoes 2y ago
  > but how do you handle stuff like pebbles etc? Usually put a grimace on my face in a short moment of pain ;d. I try to take a route that doesn't have plants with thorns or lot of stones and pebbles. In my area that is not difficult. When it is not possible, or I have some wound on my foot, I wear very thin, flat sandals (could be called "minimalist", but cost like 1/3 of the price of sandals really marketed as such). And I need to look out for vipers, but so far they tend to escape when I approach, and, to be honest, normal running shoes wouldn't help me if I would step on them. In the city I would definitely be more cautious. When I lived in a town, there was a forest around 20 km away, and I preferred to take a car ride there instead of running though streets. Took more time and planning, and maybe I couldn't run as often as I would like to, but it was much better experience. As for wounds, at least here in the countryside, so far I didn't catch anything serious. Few splinters or thorns. Nothing that would require seeing a doctor. Definitely it is wise to begin slowly, run much shorter distances, maybe even slower than you are able to. In time your feet become stronger and more resistant. You also notice that you become more aware of the ground and what lies there. This makes it easier to spot and avoid things that could be unpleasant.

mro_name 2y ago

really! Drinking may have evolved to help humans quench thirst.

jumploops 2y ago

> Others remain skeptical that occasional behaviors by traditional societies offer a reliable guide to what human ancestors might have done millions of years ago. I think the biology wins here. We're bipedal, lack tails (use arms instead!), sweat easily (without fur), and can outlast any land creature on earth at distance [0]. Evolution seems to point to endurance hunting as a stepping stone, even if our more recent ancestors we're smarter than that[1]. [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052 [1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417153739.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417153739.h...

DC-3 2y ago
A previous discussion on HN regarding whether Humans are really the best distance runners in the world [1]. TL;DR we're pretty good, but probably beaten by some animals, including Kangaroos and Sled Dogs. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4460027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4460027
- bhaak 2y ago
  It's fortunate for us that kangaroos and sled dogs don't hunt us. We didn't need to be the best distance runners. It was enough to be the best distance running hunter of the local area.
gregwebs 2y ago
We’re not good runners. We’re good heat dissipaters. Sled dogs in the cold are much better. Both of those citations don’t match the statements being made.
- jumploops 2y ago
  Thankfully we don’t need to run constantly to endurance hunt; walking is sufficient much of the time.

gadders 2y ago

I mean, maybe on the plains of Africa, but would expect that wasn't much use with woolly mammoths or in jungles/forests.

carrolldunham 2y ago

Why did endurance cycling evolve? Oh, right, like endurance running, it didn't. I'm a human and I can't run far - unless I decided to train myself in that and then I can. Just as I could train myself to break dance. Did break dancing evolve? The book that created this 'theory' about running is nothing but running 'propaganda'. A meme pushed into the world by exercise addicted people who wanted a post-hoc 'naturalization' for their lifestyle.

wolvesechoes 2y ago
Endurance cycling requires pretty advanced equipment. To run you just need your legs. Much less training is needed to go from basement dweller to someone that can run, let's say, 5 km under 30 mins, than it is required to do even basic breakdance moves. So the suggested symmetry crumbles down, as there is none.

raymond_goo 2y ago

We have known this for more than 14 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

gregwebs 2y ago

Towards the end of the article there’s a better overall view. This study shows persistence hunting was a widespread technique but used very infrequently: Cara Wall-Scheffler, a biological anthropologist at Seattle Pacific University, applauded the new paper for adding a wealth of new examples. But she notes the study’s own findings confirm that persistence hunting was rare and that other methods were more common in the historical record. She doubts the technique was a powerful force in human evolution. “Selection acting every single day, everywhere, is more powerful, and persistence running is definitely not an everyday occurrence,” she says. “This paper actually doubles down with how unusual [it] is.” In the ethnographic book The Old Way the author states persistence hunting was used at one time of year when the ground was softer to hunt one type of animal that over heated more easily.

Arch-TK 2y ago

I could have sworn this was well known for a very long time?

vishnugupta 2y ago
Indeed, that humans hunted through long distance pursuits has been known for a while. The research paper on which the article is based on is about gathering evidence to support that endurance hunting was/is an efficient way to hunt. Title: "Ethnography and ethnohistory support the efficiency of hunting through endurance running in humans" Abstract: Humans have two features rare in mammals: our locomotor muscles are dominated by fatigue-resistant fibres and we effectively dissipate through sweating the metabolic heat generated through prolonged, elevated activity. A promising evolutionary explanation of these features is the endurance pursuit (EP) hypothesis, which argues that both traits evolved to facilitate running down game by persistence. However, this hypothesis has faced two challenges: running is energetically costly and accounts of EPs among late twentieth century foragers are rare. While both observations appear to suggest that EPs would be ineffective, we use foraging theory to demonstrate that EPs can be quite efficient. We likewise analyse an ethnohistoric and ethnographic database of nearly 400 EP cases representing 272 globally distributed locations. We provide estimates for return rates of EPs and argue that these are comparable to other pre-modern hunting methods in specified contexts. EP hunting as a method of food procurement would have probably been available and attractive to Plio/Pleistocene hominins.

baerrie 2y ago

Couldn’t the evolution have occurred as: begin to stand which helps spot threats, gather, fish, etc -> run to avoid predators (efficiency of two legs begins to have large gains here) -> get good enough to have surplus time, safety, resources to create new tech like spears -> run to hunt everything

Thiez 2y ago
The world already has quite enough evolutionary "just so" stories. Our ancestors lived in trees, which presumably is safe from most predators, and standing upright isn't much of an advantage. Gathering would have been off the ground (no advantage to standing) or from bushes / trees (where climbing is better than standing). Most African predators (such as the many big cats, but also some crocodiles) easily outrun humans, we are in no way evolved to outrun them. They will sneak up and then do a short sprint. Remember we're not running a marathon against them - we're playing tag and when they tag you, you lose. We're almost certainly not evolved to run to avoid predators.
- baerrie 2y ago
  Makes sense

igitur 2y ago

I run ultramarathons and whether true or not, we sometimes joke about this. We'd say that the typical Springbok would fall down from exhaustion after 30 km and that's why we runners hit that metaphorical wall after 31 km; we evolved because we needed to outrun the gazelle by only a bit. From there on, it's a tough grind to complete the race. Very tongue-in-cheek, but too good of a story not to tell.