Humans hot, sweaty, natural-born runners | Hacker News Reader

Humans hot, sweaty, natural-born runners

physorg.com

143 points6ren88 comments

Almost the first sentence in the article set a bad tone:

Even nature’s best animal distance runners — such as horses and dogs — will run similar distances only if forced to do so

This sentence is meaningless. When does a dog do anything uncomfortable without coercion? It's not like a dog will voluntarily, say, go without food because it needs to lose weight. Similarly, humans don't spontaneously run marathons. There is a huge psychological build-up required, of which this article is a part. It's notable that most Kenyan marathon champions don't continue running once they retire. They get plenty of physical activity on the farm and don't have the Western obsession with endurance sports.

----

This article does not exist in a vacuum. There is a whole barefoot running / endurance running movement that is taking over conventional sports shoes at the moment. The general premise is:

- humans evolved to run without shoes, so you should (or better, with expensive shoes with minimal heals)

- humans evolved to run long distances, so you should

I don't disagree with the statements, but I think it's oversimplified. I say this as someone who wears Vivo Barefoot shoes. In particular, persistence hunting (the form of hunting that relied on long distance running) was not widely used outside of some specific niches (really hot places, for instance) and a lot of humans have adapted away from endurance activities (which is obvious is look at a Kenyan marathon runner next to a Scandinavian strong-man competitor).

> When does a dog do anything uncomfortable without coercion?

I think it means a dog won't run a long distance for a positive reason, only for a negative one. I.e. it won't run far to get food, but it will to avoid pain.

But a human will run far to get food which no other animal will do.

Um... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_hunting

Um yourself.

That page doesn't exactly scream "reliable", and doing both a regular google search and a google scholar search of "Cursorial hunting" doesn't come up with a lot.

At best that term talks about animals that chase prey over distance rather than try for quick attacks, but that's not in the same category as endurance hunting which can last an entire day.

It's all endurance hunting; it's a question of how quickly the prey is exhausted, not how long the chase goes on. See the difference between spotted hyenas (endurance) and lions (ambush). http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/content/animals/animals/mamm..., as well as plenty of other references.

Id say that running without shoes is only a good idea if you plan to die quite young, and therefore wont be needing your feet, ankles and knees in old age.

Nobody advocates running barefoot on asphalt. And yes, running can wear out your joints, but even if you wear running shoes.

"Nobody advocates running barefoot on asphalt."

Here's a Harvard professor who advocates running barefoot on asphalt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Same Prof that is covered in the OP's article.

They will certainly wear out faster without shoes, no matter what you're running on.

Evolution is somewhat limited in what it can do. It must build upon things that are already there, over very long periods of time through subtle genetic mutations. Just because evolution didn't grace us with air cushioned soles and decent bridge and ankle support doesn't mean it's no good for us. Evolution had a lot less to play with and did the best it could. Humans made it better.

I do find it odd that some people like to look back at the way humans did stuff in the past and somehow arrive at the conclusion that it's better for us. They invariably neglect to take into account the pitifully short lifespans our ancestors had. We also lived in caves, but I don't see many people eager to do that these days.

And then there's stuff like the Palaeolithic diet which is absolute nonsense that ranks up there with Hal-Al and Kosher butchering.

That became a rant... I had no idea it bothered me so much.

This at least has some evidence. The guy pushing barefoot running has done some a study showing you put less stress on your joints when running barefoot then with shoes. I believe it had something to do with running with a better stride then when in padded shoes because your feet now have more feedback information. Just found his website here: http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

My understanding of the mechanics are simple: when you heel-strike, your heel hits the pavement hard, and the shock is absorbed by your knee. When you toe-strike, your ankle can act as a spring and absorb the impact over a greater period of time, meaning your joints experience less force. I think it's the toe-strike versus heel-strike is what's important. Running shoes just encourage heel-striking.

Actually, there have been studies that show that the more expensive your running shoe, the more likely you are to get injured.

People think they need running shoes because they run incorrectly. You are not supposed to land on your heel. This is something you can only do with super padded running shoes.

> They will certainly wear out faster without shoes, no matter what you're running on.

Why should your body `wear out' from activity? Are humans some kind of clumsy machine that wears out from friction?

Well, yeah. Our joints are mechanical.

(Note that I am agreeing with the notion that our bodies wear out, as do all machines. I am not endorsing the parent post's claims about shoes being better for running.)

Yet our bodies have excellent self-repairing facilities (as always, supported by appropriate diet, sleep, yada yada).

Sure, but not enough to keep our joints healthy indefinitely.

Parts of our bodies have excellent self-repairing facilities. Parts. Your liver won't repair itself if you damage it enough. You have one set of lungs, so if you smoke enough they most likely aren't growing back. And most critically for this discussion, ligaments and cartilage will not heal once damaged. They are optimized to be as tough as possible, at the expense of not healing at all once damaged.

As the recipient of 2 knee surgeries, and possibly an upcoming 3rd, believe me when I say that I would like nothing more than to have my knees "self-repair". But it just isn't going to happen naturally. You get one set of cartilage and ligaments, and once they are gone, they're gone.

Thank you... This seems like one of those basic things we should learn in elementary school -- the healing rates of various parts of our body. We should know what needs the most protection/care. I still do not know that information, and it seems that somebody has to be damaged in order for others to learn about it. Mentally putting "ligaments and knee cartilage" on my list of things to be careful about. I didn't know there was no regeneration there. :(

This may be purely anecdotal, but as a runner I was injured for 5 months (Sep - Feb) with illiotibial band syndrome. I was running in traditional running shoes. I'd had no problems in the few years up until that point.

I've been re-habilitating myself by stretching & foam rollering, but also by adopting barefoot running, paying strict attention to my running form. I use Vibram five fingers for the most part, but I've also some of my runs totally barefoot. Aside from one little incident with a small bit of glass, running on asphalt felt fine, almost as nice as sand.

I'm not saying that barefoot running alone cured my ITBS, I'm sure it has something to do with the stretching and rolling, but it is contibuting to injury free running.

It also feels amazing.

They will certainly wear out faster without shoes, no matter what you're running on.

Is that a conclusion based on evidence, or a belief based on intuition? I have seen studies that support "barefoot" running (where the feet may not actually be barefoot, but have hard, protective coverings) based on less accumulated injuries, and based on bio-mechanical arguments on force dissipation.

With no evidence, you're taking it as a given that shoes are protective of joints. Shoes are protective of skin. That's what they were created for. They stop you from cutting your foot on sharp stones.

There is mounting evidence that typical running shoes are bad for joints, because they encourage heel striking. Evolution is indeed limited, but it did a pretty good job of producing a structure that absorbs the impact from running. Modern running shoes short-circuit that structure by making it possible to heel strike, putting that impact through the knees and ankles instead of letting muscle and connective tissue absorb it. The think heels of typical running shoes make heel striking almost a necessity, because it's so awkward to forefoot strike while wearing them.

You're taking a lot of correlation and trying to prove causation, much like the people you criticize.

"They invariably neglect to take into account the pitifully short lifespans our ancestors had."

Of course their lives were short. They had no healthcare, medicine, or sanitation. A band-aid and some antibiotic could have been the difference between life and death for some people. A daily, clean shower, clean water, and living quarters (mostly) free from predators. We take simple things like these for granted.

The major point from all of these books and articles is that humans do have superb shock-absorbers for legs and don't need air-cushioned soles. Modern shoes have taught people from a very young age to run a certain, un-natural way and this has been proven with more than just speculation.

The main problem with your argument is that it applies just as much to old ways of making shoes with lots of heel support as it does to running without any shoes at all.

No, running doesn't ruin your knees. Rather than rewrite the wheel RW Daily does a fine job including links to research. http://rwdaily.runnersworld.com/2012/02/no-running-does-not-...

I'm not an expert by any means, but I've scanned the literature using what tools I have, and the impression I get is this: (sorry, I don't have all my references handy)

* Running (with shoes) is not a predictor of osteoarthritis (see http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/6/342.full). Elite athletes (running vastly more than typical recreational runners) do exhibit more signs visible in X-Rays, but do not report symptoms at a higher rate than any other group.

* Reliable predictors of acute injury are "too much, too soon", history of past injury, and, oddly, old shoes. (See http://www.time-to-run.com/footwear/mechanisms.htm). Matching the type of shoe to type of gait (as running shoes stores often attempt to do) has never been shown to reduce injury rate.

* It is possible to run with shoes and without injury. (I did it for 10 years; my old coach for 30+).

* It is possible to run barefoot on concrete and asphalt without injury. (I've done it for 5 years; others have for longer).

Those last two anecdotes don't speak to long-term injury, but I'm not terribly worried for two reasons: The first is the lack of correlation between running in shoes and osteoarthritis. The second is that the foot-achilles-knee is a spring-like appendage with vastly more play than 1/2 inch of EVA foam. Anecdotally again, I feel no pounding when running barefoot on concrete.

Is it safer/healthier to run on grass than concrete? I like to run laps on a soccer field near my apartment rather than on city sidewalks so I don't have to deal with traffic. But I seem to be the exception in my neighborhood. I see tons of people running down the streets, but nobody running on grass. I assumed that a softer running surface would create less impact on my joints and prevent injury and reduce wear and tear on my body. But I could be wrong. Just curious.

Probably depends on how you run. If you're a forefoot striker, running on asphalt is probably better than running on grass, because the vast majority of the impact will be absorbed by the calf/foot muscles. The danger from stepping in a hole or tripping over an object hidden in the grass probably outweighs the minimal increase in impact from running on concrete (not that either of these should actually be a significant danger).

On the other hand, if you're a heel striker, the reduction in impact might be worth it. Stomping on concrete with your heels sends a lot of force through your ankles and knees.

Completely depends on how you run. The trend I see is that everyone thinks running on hard surfaces incurs more impact, but that isn't necessarily the case.

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFo...

Dredged that out of my memory from a couple years ago.

Heel strike - Effective mass is approximately the foot plus the lower leg, which equals 6.8% of total body mass.

Forefoot strike - Effective mass is the forefoot and some portion of the rearfoot and leg, which equals 1.7% of total body mass.

"We have found that even on hard surfaces (a steel force plate) runners who forefoot strike have impact forces that are 7 times lower than shod runners who heel strike. Rates of loading are equal to or less than rates of loading for shod runners."

"In particular, persistence hunting (the form of hunting that relied on long distance running)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

Here it is in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

I've been compiling a list of these things which "set us apart" from most other mammals: the "ones I'm more sure about" column contains: we can form complex vocal patterns, we walk upright, we don't tiptoe everywhere, we're essentially naked, we have large brains, we bleed when we menstruate, our causal intuitions have come detached from their immediate objects. (There's also a "less sure about" column which contains things like "we sing for the hell of it" and "our hearts are distinctly on the left.")

The tiptoeing one comes from when I was trying to discuss evolution with some intelligent design enthusiasts in the US (shudder). So the point they were making was, you can't possibly say that we look similar to dogs. And with my laptop I started pulling up skeletal diagrams of us and dogs, and showing that pretty much the entire logical structure of dogs' skeletons is identical to that of humans' skeletons, from shoulderblades to legs, if you think of them as standing on their tiptoes. It also points out a clear parallel between our arms, which have the same logical structure as our legs, and common ancestry suggests an elegant solution -- once, there was no difference between arms and legs, so of course they had the same structure -- natural selection just stole the recipe for one leg and used it four times.

Anyway, it's very interesting to see that these observations about our nudity and non-tiptoe bipedal walk come from such a simple, easily-expressible underlying story. Thanks.

A number of people lead normal lives with hearts on the right sides of their bodies - there is dextrocardia (just the heart reversed) and situs inversus with dextrocardia (most internal organs reversed). Pretty neat.

To make the picture complete there is also situs inverses incompletus, which means that everything but the heart is mirrored.

There's an amazing talk given by Robert Sapolsky (Stanford Neurologist), discussing similar concepts. The talk has more to do with different behaviors that emerge between species and how the brain plays a role in that; rather than simply physical characteristics such as bleeding or movement.

I'd highly reccomend watching it if at all interested

http://youtu.be/YWZAL64E0DI

Wait, 'we bleed when we menstruate'. Other animals don't?

I'm surprised that this is even a question -- when's the last time you knew a cat or dog owner who was like, "yeah it's that time of the month for her, she's bleeding all over the house." But yes, for those of us who didn't grow up on farms, most animals reabsorb their menses and do not bleed externally. It might be one reason why pastoral farmers[1] thought that women were "unclean", and I'd be interested to know whether goddess-worship comes from more agrarian than pastoral societies.

[1] The example I'm thinking of here is actually just the Torah. The Cain and Abel story clearly establishes that the authors are pastoral farmers who distrust those sneaky evil agriculturalists; and they also have an extensive code of cleanliness which includes a woman as unclean during menstruation.

My dog (miniature schnauzer) bleeds quite a bit during her period. Apparently, it's not that uncommon.

To be precise, dogs (and practically all mammals except humans) don't have a "period" or a menstrual cycle. They have an estrous cycle instead.

Interesting, and useful to know!

This is different from menstruation, it occurs when the animal is ‘in heat’ during mid-cycle (at the time of ovulation) and the blood comes from the vaginal walls, not the uterus.

My dog also used to bleed, I figured most people don't complain because they spay their dogs

You might be interested in “The Alphabet vs. The Goddess”[1], which argues (dully, but persuasively) that literacy was the cause of the downfall of goddess worship. It doesn’t go much into the religious differences between pastoralists and agriculturalists, though, and I’d be interested to read more on that. Ishmael[2] and other books by Daniel Quinn changed the way I think about culture, and I guess I’ve been looking for the “next thing”. Anyone?

[1] http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com/ [2] http://www.ishmael.com

Looked up author. Discovered he is a doctor of laparoscopy, which has bugger-all to do with psychology or neurology. That he's an idiot was apparent as soon as I read his thesis which relies heavily on oversimplified, stereotypical, pop-psy brain lateralization memes straight out of books you might find in that feminist bookstore from the Portlandia skit.

It’s been years since I read it, and looking at it now, I see that it wouldn’t stand up to another reading. I do think writing was indeed as socially influential as he claims, and that patriarchal religion could be one of its social effects. But the bit about “rewiring the brain” is obvious crap.

"we bleed when we menstruate" sounded way too weird. Maybe it still is valid if you set the emphasis on 'set apart from _most_' but it's nothing humans are unique in - according to a couple simple search terms.

(See 1 - if Wikipedia is to believe what we consider normal menstruation _is_ common mostly for humans and our close relatives in the animal kingdom, but also happens in simians and .. erm.. bats?)

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation_%28mammal%29

2: https://myperiodblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/do-other-anima...

"Most" is indeed key. For example, as far as "complex vocal patterns" go, there are birds which can learn to duplicate human speech and therefore have the vocal capacity of humans. Or, as far as bipedalism goes, you have the kangaroo -- and actually, if I count the animals that I've seen take a few steps on their hind legs, I'd have to also include dogs, a rabbit, a gerbil, and an elephant that was trying to get his mating on. Even our nakedness is shared by other species -- one of them is called the naked mole rat.

Also birds for bipedalism. At the extreme we have ostriches and emus.

BTW: cockatoos also have strikingly manipulative feet, which they use in combination with their beak (though they can't use both feet simultaneously). And a surprisingly high brain/body ratio. Although they lack a prefrontal cortex, birds have separately developed a different structure, called the hyperpallium. There's no necessary barrier for birds evolving sapience independently from our line (any more than for aliens) - and there's no reason that the architecture of our brains must be better/more efficient.

Arguably, if Dr. Irene Pepperberg's work with Alex the African grey parrot is to be believed, bird sapience has already been demonstrated.

It would be better phrased as hidden estrus, which virtually no other animal has.

Can you imagine a world when you always knew if the women around you were menstruating? It would be tough to maintain equal rights in an environment like that - that change alone is a huge one for human culture - much larger than it appears at first.

Just as a weird aside - a female friend worked with a guy who could 100% of the time tell if a woman was menstruating from smelling their breath.

I'm unsure as to how this came up in conversation.

Another change for you is the birthing process for humans is much harder than that of any other animal.

A human female is completely helpless for a much longer time during birth than any other animal - this requires a strong social structure to defend her.

Another change is the enormous amount of time it takes a human to mature. Again, this requires a complex social structure to provide for children for a long time.

Can you sense a pattern here?

I guess you're not familiar with the Kiwi bird, then. I think they qualify as the longest birthing process, with their eggs weighing about 1/4 the weight of the entire bird, and where laying an egg incapacitates the female for months. Of course, as with many birds, kiwis have a strong social structure, mating for life, and with the male participating the birthing process through incubating.

It's almost as if some animals have strong and complex social structures, too. Humans are indeed like other animals.

Can you sense a pattern here?

According to wikipedia it takes 1 month, not months, and the bird is only incapacitated toward the end of it.

The children of a kiwi bird are not fed by the parent in some of the species, and they leave the nest within a few days to a month, despite the bird living possibly 30 years.

No social relationships with other kiwis is required - only with the mate.

So your example falls totally flat.

Obviously some animals have one or another trait that compares to a human, but none have all of them - none even come close. Humans are not anything like other animals.

Not sure what pattern you want me to see - you need more than one example to make a pattern.

"we don't tiptoe everywhere"

Strangely enough it's actually something we share in common with bears, along with being omnivores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantigrade

"We build computer networks and use them to argue about what sets us apart from other mammals".

Both of those are covered under "our causal intuitions have come detached from their immediate objects." ;-)

"Persistence hunting" is a fantastic sales approach for startups (once of course you are good at qualifying and aiming the right prey for you). Because in startups: we have no big weapons (exotic seminar to invite prospects, big cars or offices to impress...), we are naked!

But if you are determined enough and get you and your team ready for a tough decisive journey, I guarantee, somebody, something, will get tired before you do, and you will win. Think if you are in a competitive sale. Your "incumbent" competitor thinks they closed it, they "arrived", because they nuked your pricing, your reputation, or they sent their big gun CEO in, and they are already celebrating the end of negotiations, but you keep on making the extra-mile (it really hurts (I do know that) to bite the bullet but keep at it). I have many instances to prove it worked for me (my 1st jobs) or the cos I worked for (Edit with specifics: Vivisimo US based startup, 3 Employees at that time in Europe won Enterprise deals against Autonomy (based in the UK) for Airbus, Organon (now Merck), against the French based Exalead for Danone; we did it again for WorldWide famous consultancy firm).

For our current startup (rejected by YC this nov11, huge blow, but we kept at it) we only got our 1st paying client last week. While we started running over 1.5 years ago... But hopefully will be profitable ramen before end of August... if I just apply what I have just been telling you of course... AirBnB story is huge inspiration for us - AutoMotivational post for the new starting week

There is an annual 22 mile race held in Llanwrtyd Wells in Wales called Man vs Horse. I was surprised when I first heard about it that there was even any chance a human could win but apparently they have 2 times in recent years. The horses I understand have a check up half way round (11 miles) to make sure they are still safe to race.

Presumably the horse has a human on its back which is a fairly significant encumbrance. "Man vs Horse+Man" might be a better name in that case.

that race would only be fair if it was a manned horse vs a man with a horse on his back.

Video of one of those races here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_otWXz7vU8

Spoiler: the race is won by a relay team of 4 humans. The first solo runner doesn't beat the first horse.

"Even nature’s best animal distance runners — such as horses and dogs — will run similar distances only if forced to do so, and the startling evidence is that humans are better at it, Lieberman said. "

That doesn't seem to be true for sled dogs though, who can easily outrun humans over long distances and are very eager to run.

Then again, they've been bred and trained by humans to do that, and they usually run under conditions where overheating is not a problem.

I was thinking the same thing. My sister used to ride a bike with her dog. It could go 20 miles at a fast clip before getting tired. It was in hot weather with a thick coat of fur. Maybe they were good partners in hunting.

I am a CS graduate and also a Biologist and there so much nonsense in this article that I cannot believe it was published.

"Even nature’s best animal distance runners — such as horses and dogs — will run similar distances only if forced to do so"

Those sentences are meaningless as arguments, we humans run for fun because we CAN spend calories as much as we like OR because we do it for food or we die like African long-range hunters, ask those guys to run 50km for fun. They do it because otherwise they will die hungry, we can be as heat efficient as we like, give us a small brain and we are DEAD.

Today we have an impossible large amount of food and medicine available thanks to human civilization. A horse run for his life when needed and that's it, there is no point in spending calories if everything is OK he will need to work a lot to get them back inside.

How can a person conclude that we are the best long-range runners in the nature with such a comparison ? What about scale ? I bet you that an Ant can run in a day more that any human can bare.

A professional runner does only one single thing with it's energy RUN, he doesn't need to hunt, or run for his life, get injured and heal for himself without medicine aid and they can have the chance to sleep 8 or more hours at night. Try being a gazelle and doing that, you will last 5 seconds in nature, same thing for African long-range hunters they can sleep for 8 hours and rest... try sleeping 15 minute periods and eating and drinking only what you find on the run for all your life and chase a gazelle, good luck with that.

We are good at it, but the best in the planet ? I very much doubt it... most of the animals have evolved millions of years to endure nature in it's full power ( some got lucky and didn't had a very strong evolution force behind them like Lemurs in Madagascar) they are probably better than we are in every single thing besides thinking.

Sounds like you think humans aren't animals that have evolved to endure nature's full power. The article made some dumb statements, but the overall idea is sound. Humans can run prey animals into the ground in the same way that the wild dogs of Africa do.

So much nonsense? Where? I agree the "only if forced to" sentiment feels misplaced, but that sentence is in the third paragraph out of more than 15. Did you actually finish reading it or stop there? He didn't conclude that humans are the best runners cause herp derp dogs don't run that far unless they have to.

> ask those guys to run 50km for fun

The Indian tribe in born to run play a game similar to soccer. The course is about 20 miles long and the game lasts upwards of 48 solid hours, with players joining and leaving as they feel. So yes, they do it for fun. And we are still talking about present day Africa, this is not millions of years ago. The persistence hunters there have weapons, they have bows and arrows, they will not starve if they don't hunt this particular way. It's their way of life.

Most of the animals have evolved millions of years...and, humans didn't? I think there is so much nonsense in your comment that I cant believe it was published :p

As someone who is currently trying to run all 450 miles of the London Underground for charity I think that the greatest challenge of running is mental and not physical. Whilst I take his point we are built better to run long distances - I would love for there to be some analysis on the mental side of running. An animal may not be able to run 26 miles for physical reasons but I firmly believe humans can only run 26 miles if they have cause. If they are inspired. If they are so inspired that giving up is not an option. There is not a hope in hell I could run the distances I am running without being massively inspired by the cause I am running for - that for me is what sets us apart.

Not so sure about having to have a deep compelling cause, the first time Cliff Young fronted up for an endurance race I believe it was because he just wanted to have a go.

My father, now 77, has walked a 1000km track pretty much every year for the past decade now. He doesn't run but he does carry a pack and sets a pretty mean pace. His initial motivation was the death of my mother and the hole it left in his life, now it's just another of his regular activities.

Cliff Young: http://www.elitefeet.com/the-legend-of-cliff-young

According to the article, humans developed these abilities for hunting. I'm pretty sure that having an empty stomach and starving children at home is a really good and inspiring reason.

And the difference between these early humans and animals might have been the much stronger social structure we have. As noted by other people in this thread, consider how pregnancies take 9 months, or the years it takes a newborn to reach maturity. So most probably, early humans that took care of their family better, were most apt to survive.

Obligatory plug for Chris McDougall's great book _Born To Run_:

http://www.chrismcdougall.com/

Fascinating story. One of this book's main characters, Micah True aka Caballo Blanco, died last week on a remote Western wilderness run. Don't know if he had his boots on. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZ-OB7jl7Y...

That is so sad :( I feel like I should say thanks because I probably wouldn't have found out about it any other way.

RIP Caballo Blanco. Chris Mcdougal's tweet gives a fitting tribute to him, from his id @McDougallChris :

"caballo had the only funeral he would have wanted: his friends spent days running in the wilderness in his honor."

His TED talk on the subject: http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_mcdougall_are_we_born_t...

Thanks for sharing! I didn't know he had a TED talk.

If humans did evolve to persistence hunt, to run indefinitely in pursuit of our prey until it gives up and dies, I wonder how that has shaped us relative to a baseline alien civilization. I can imagine one alien telling another, "Don't mess with humans -- they will hunt you down."

I thought it was already well-established that our species has long been king of long distance running.

To me, what's interesting now, is how fast can the human body actually go. Horse, dog and women sprinters all largely topped out in the 70s. Men's 100m is expected to drop a bit more.

Both women and men are expected to continue to break marathon records, but women seem to be doing it at a faster pace.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/08/how-fast-can-a-...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081128082831.ht...

I disagree with the statement made in this paper. Humans are not hot, sweaty, natural-born runners -- we are hot, sweaty, natural-born swimmers. Although the theory is speculative, human evolution taking place in a semi-aquatic rather than plains environment explains our upright posture to stay above the water, our near hairless bodies to make us streamlined while swimming, our webbed fingers and toes, the ability of human babies having the innate ability to swim.

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Superathletes-Greatest-Vintag...

There is a whole book written about this. There are several conversations in the book with this same professor. I would definitely say this book has changed my life.

In more than a few places, I was pretty sure that book was written specifically for me. My dad was in the process of getting knee surgery right when I picked it up. There was a section that detailed a doctor visit the author had, where the doctor told him his only recourse was to have the same surgery my dad was having. Two years later, the author (who didn't have the surgery) is still running barefoot around central park, yes on asphalt and concrete and any other substrate you can imagine. My dad is not. My dad used to come home and run for hours every day after work. Now he doesn't run at all.

Just thought I'd share some points in the book that I love and find relevant to this discussion so far...

Not mentioned in the article but Lieberman talks about it in the book, is the fact that all four-legged animals can only breath one time per stride. A running cheetah operates like a large bellows. When he extends, his diaphragm (which is attached to the pelvis) pulls back and forces the lungs open, forced inhale. When they stride, all their organs literally slosh forward in their horizontal bodies, compressing the diaphragm, forcing an exhale. Humans standing upright allows us to breath whenever we feel like it while running. No other animal can do that.

Also about the Man vs Horse race. Unless the dude sitting on the horses back is a sumo wrestler, it probably doesn't count for much. A horse that is 1200lbs of muscle has a 150lb man sitting on his back. That's equivalent to wearing a 10lb backpack. I'm not saying you wouldn't notice it, but you can't blame the backpack for losing the race. The real reason is that a horse can only outrun a human for 10-15 miles, at which point the horse has to slow down to a maintainable pace, or die. Humans have no such restriction.

And as for running on asphalt - we have the best shock absorbers science has ever seen...they're called knees. Air cushioned soles and arch support, pronation and supination control, torsion bars, built in computer chips to monitor your (incorrect) foot strike and adjust the shoe on the fly are all awesome - if you won't be needing your feet ankles and knees in old age.

I don't recommend many books, but read this one. Even if you don't run, hate running, have never run in your life. You will love your feet when you're done.

"While animals get rid of excess heat by panting, they can’t pant when they gallop"

Why can't animals pant and gallop at the same time?

That was an inspiring story, now days, it's brain agility and endurance that wins the day and feeds the family.

Programming often resembles persistence hunting.

Especially the part where I sit at my desk and eat M&Ms.

"We’re the tortoises of the animal kingdom"

... That might be the deepest thing I've ever read.

Also, here's Attenborough narrating this article http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

Yeah, I'd say the tortoises are the tortoises of the animal kingdom.

"We’re the tortoises of the animal kingdom" such a beautiful and witty analogy, isn't it?

That's what separates us from the animals. Except for the weasel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com