Sorry, you're wrong, and that book is not a particularly accurate reference. Read http://www.sbrunning.org/Reviews/BookWhyWeRun.htm for some sanity on this.
As an example of a better long-distance runner, there was a kangaroo which was observed in the wild, to have travelled 200 miles in 10 hours. Since it probably did not go in a straight line, it likely travelled farther.
That's almost 8x the distance of a marathon, at around 50% faster than the absolute best human marathon time, all done over wild terrain.
Sled dogs in the ididitrod regularly go 15 mph for 6 hours. That's faster than a human does a marathon, for several times the distance, while dragging a heavy object behind them.
We're designed for running long distances, and do very well at it for a primate. But we are very, very far from being champions at it.
But the kangaroo was traveling in an environment that is hotter than humans are OK running in. Camels are another good runner, in camel races they regularly maintain speeds comparable to top notch marathoners for about 2x the distance while running in conditions hot enough that a running human would collapse from heat stroke.
So yes, cooling matters. But if you're trying to squeeze out a niche for running long distances in hot weather, you still are going to have extreme trouble finding a regime where we are best.
If you really want humans to win, you need a combination obstacle course/distance run. There is nothing that runs at our speed for long distances that can also climb. Of course once you go into that niche, we're no longer being judged on our ability to run, are we?
The record time in the ididarod represents dogs running on average at close to that speed, through snow, while towing a load, for about 1100 miles. Of course the dogs were only running for a fraction of that time. They needed breaks to eat, sleep, etc. And they carried all of their food. I guarantee that Karl Metzer could not, even under ideal circumstances, manage to run 1100 miles in anywhere close to comparable time.
Also let's go back to that kangaroo. Researchers happened to notice that one ran about 2x the distance that Karl did in half the time that he did. There is no particular reason to believe that the kangaroo could not have done the same thing the next day.
I don't care how you slice it. There is simply no way that humans are the best long-distance runners on the planet.
It's only relevant how long they can run without a break; not how far or how far they can run in a given time.
You seem to completely miss the point everyone is making about humans being long distance runners; they mean a single run without stopping to rest. The point is the human cooling system that allows man to run continuously without overheating like animals seem to.
> Also let's go back to that kangaroo. Researchers happened to notice that one ran about 2x the distance that Karl did in half the time that he did.
I'll remind you again, Kangaroos don't run. :)
Anyways, you claim the point is that we have a cooling system that lets us keep going. Wonderful. According to http://www.austcamel.com.au/cache/Training%20of%20Camels.htm it is not hard for a well-trained camel to run about 10 miles an hour for about 50 miles without stopping to rest. That would mean that it is running like a human marathoner (not ultramarathoner) long enough to be running all of the way through the heat of the day, in an environment that is uncomfortably hot for people.
Our ability to keep running through heat does not seem to exceed what camels can do.
Now what is the real human upper limit by your current standard? The longest race that I'm aware of anyone running without sleep is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfield_Sydney_to_Melbourne_U.... 544 miles, and the best human time is 5 days, 2 hours, and 28 minutes. That's about 4.44 mph.
I do not know of a recorded case where an animal ran that distance without stopping to rest. Wonderful! We win at something!
HOWEVER there are animals that could start on that starting line, travel on foot, leave the humans behind in the dust, and then the humans would never, ever catch up to the animal. Not at 100 miles. 1000 miles. Or 10,000 miles. Despite the fact that the animal took breaks.
To me that is a meaningful definition of "better long distant runner". And by that definition, we are not the best. (We are very, very good, but not the best.)
I think you're confused about who you're talking to, I said no such thing.
But still the fact that that was said by someone else demonstrates that the definition of "long distance running" that you want to use is not universally accepted by everyone else in this discussion.
While I like your enthusiasm, recall that most species that ever lived are now extinct. What makes you so sure that a few hundred million years' worth of evolution never produced a better endurance athlete that had fitness for a time but subsequently died out as Nature moved the goalposts?
I believe the Ostrich and the Antelope would disagree.
Pronghorn Antelopes, on the other hand, can maintain speeds of 60 mph for miles at a time. "If the Cheetah and pronghorn were running side by side, and if the track was longer than a quarter of a mile, the pronghorn would win it, no contest," Carmi Penny, director of collections at the San Diego zoo says. While cheetahs have flexible spines which allow their legs to spend more time pushing off the ground, antelopes have long thin limbs that allow them to run both fast and economically. These legs, paired with tremendous aerobic capacity, are what allow the antelopes to outrun most predators. When you get to long distances, the antelopes can sustain 30 mph for about an hour.
Read more: Long Distance Running Biomechanics – Marathons in the Animal Kingdom - Popular Mechanics
This is a video of human hunters (Koi San, an African ethnic group that has been pushed to extinction over the last millennia by the Bantu tribes) chasing down a kudu antelope. Antelope are great runners, but they can't cool themselves as efficiently as humans. It's a beautiful video, and the way the hunter reacts after the kill is very moving.
The fact is that humans are the most intelligent species (excluding dolphins and mice) and have used that to their advantage. For example, carrying water and weapons. Since these tribesmen can carry water they can replenish water that the other animal cannot. If the tribemen and the antelope had the same amount of water (none) who would win?
Also, I'm not sure if it is the case in this video (also, my audio is not working so I'm at a loss for anything said during the video), it wasn't clear if they were using a triangle approach where you have two hunters on either side and one in the middle. In that instance the antelope might run back-and-forth over that long distance and not run in a straight line (meaning it ran farther, just not smarter).
Even if we disregard the benefits from a higher intelligence it still only says "humans are great long distance runners in hot/flat terrain when carrying water". For example, try out-jogging a deer this December in the midwestern wilderness, or slap on some tennis and try to wear out a husky when it is twenty-below and 30mph winds.
When I read this for a split second I was thinking "man, how can this guy think dolphins are smarter than humans? And mice? What is he think... oohh, Heheh! Nice.