-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Are we born to run?
- Thread starter lrkun
- Start date
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
I refuse to wear shoes during anything other than Navy-mandated PT and Parkour. If I'm doing long-distance running - I'm barefoot.
I'm from Alabama, so the idea of shoes as mandated wear alienates me terribly.
I'm from Alabama, so the idea of shoes as mandated wear alienates me terribly.
Duvelthehobbit666
New Member
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Duvelthehobbit666 said:
Fuck you too, Google.
*This Video is unavailable in your country*
ImprobableJoe
New Member
I'm medically required to wear shoes pretty much every waking moment. A little too much running in general, and especially with heavy packs on my back.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
lrkun said:
Well, not before we had tools. There is evidence that our ancestors were using tools for almost 3 million years now. However, you are correct, our ancestors were obtaining caloricly dense food without what we would consider hunting tools.
David Pilbeam has popularized the endurance-hunting hypothesis. However, there are two major problems with this hypothesis. The first being, that one needs a special type of environment in order to endurance hunt (i.e. hot and dry). However, Homo erectus fossils have been found from areas that were hot and dry to tropical, wet areas. This means H. erectus could not have been endurance hunting in the tropical environments. In fact, H. erectus survived longer in Asia, the tropical areas, longer than they did in Africa, the hot, dry area. Furthermore, we find H. erectus in what would have been tropical areas almost as soon as we see them appear in Africa.
Christopher Mcdougall claims that our brains exploded in size 2 million years ago. This is true in absolute value, however, if you look at the encephalization quotient (EQ), which is a far better measurement of the brains size, H. erectus (EQ = 3.3) is not that much larger than the earlier Australopiths (A. africanus' EQ = 2.6) or even modern chimps (EQ = 2.0). Modern humans have an EQ of 5.8.
This leads to the second problem, A. habilis shows brain growth that falls in-between the earlier Australopiths and H. erectus, however, A. habilis seems to have a more ape-like upper body (i.e. they have longer arms, which were probably used for climbing). The Dmanisi specimens throw more doubt on the endurance-hunting hypothesis because they show that the genus Homo might not have evolved in sub-Saharan Africa like previously thought.
In my opinion, a better explanation for the "explosion" of our ancestor's brain size, and body size for that matter, would be due to scavenging meat and small game hunting. Our body being able to run large distances would be an exaptation for certain environments, which came about from our adaptation for more effective bipedal walking.
Anachronous Rex
New Member
Actually this is how some African bushmen still hunt, though to the best of my knowledge it's only one hunter who does it. I'm not sure where he's getting this, 'the whole tribe runs along with them' thing.lrkun said:
Anyway, I've heard it theorized that this is the explanation for our preference of large horns on our prey animals. Hunters who use this technique target the males with the largest horns precisely because they become exhausted more easily - eventually the lack the energy to hold up all that extra weight on their neck, and they collapse.
WarK
Active Member
This whole barefoot running is intriguing to me.
Although I see some problems with it, I run in a forest where there are many stones, some sharp, and an occasional viper
Could you achieve same technique in shoes? I know it sounds silly but it seems to me all the benefits (assuming there are any) of running barefooted come from different technique ie. landing less on heel or something, I don't know. I'm probably terrible at running
The idea from that talk seems a bit too romantic, running being the perfect medicine for everything and such, seem like wishful thinkings. At least you can't accuse him of being paid by footwear companies
Running is great though
Although I see some problems with it, I run in a forest where there are many stones, some sharp, and an occasional viper
Could you achieve same technique in shoes? I know it sounds silly but it seems to me all the benefits (assuming there are any) of running barefooted come from different technique ie. landing less on heel or something, I don't know. I'm probably terrible at running
The idea from that talk seems a bit too romantic, running being the perfect medicine for everything and such, seem like wishful thinkings. At least you can't accuse him of being paid by footwear companies
Running is great though
WarK said:This whole barefoot running is intriguing to me.
Although I see some problems with it, I run in a forest where there are many stones, some sharp, and an occasional viper
Could you achieve same technique in shoes? I know it sounds silly but it seems to me all the benefits (assuming there are any) of running barefooted come from different technique ie. landing less on heel or something, I don't know. I'm probably terrible at running
The idea from that talk seems a bit too romantic, running being the perfect medicine for everything and such, seem like wishful thinkings. At least you can't accuse him of being paid by footwear companies
Running is great though
Well, as a runner, I still run with shoes. I don't wish to step on nasties, but may be, if we run in the proper terrain, like the beach for example, I suppose running barefoot then won't be painful. Hehe.
The proper technique in barefoot running is toe heel.
Anachronous Rex
New Member
I think perhaps I should also point out that - when we look at all other mammals who have a brain-body ratio similar to ours - we discover that none of these creatures have a preferred hunting (or otherwise food-gathering) style. The lifestyles of dolphins, orca, chimpanzees, and so on are all highly variable, and dependent largely on the preferences of the local society.
This idea then that humans should have one particular way of living off the land is sort of an odd inference. Like I said, I know there are Bushmen in Africa who hunt in a way similar to this (and apparently some American Indians as well), but it seems equally obvious that there are quite a few fairly primitive peoples who clearly use other techniques. A large part of this is probably due to environmental circumstance, but some may come down to simple preference.
We may also want to acknowledge that the bulk of humanity may have changed somewhat since our origin. As an example of what I mean, I'm not sure if your average Scandinavian could live this way, even if they really wanted to.
This idea then that humans should have one particular way of living off the land is sort of an odd inference. Like I said, I know there are Bushmen in Africa who hunt in a way similar to this (and apparently some American Indians as well), but it seems equally obvious that there are quite a few fairly primitive peoples who clearly use other techniques. A large part of this is probably due to environmental circumstance, but some may come down to simple preference.
We may also want to acknowledge that the bulk of humanity may have changed somewhat since our origin. As an example of what I mean, I'm not sure if your average Scandinavian could live this way, even if they really wanted to.
I'm not convinced by this 'running to death' idea.
If we'd been hunting by chasing our prey to death for a million or so years, there would be a massive selection pressure for that prey to become better at running at long distances. Yet I don't think we have this.
If we'd been hunting by chasing our prey to death for a million or so years, there would be a massive selection pressure for that prey to become better at running at long distances. Yet I don't think we have this.
Anachronous Rex
New Member
Two things:MRaverz said:
1) Bipeds are simply more efficient distance-runners than most quadrupeds.
2) It's possible that the selection pressures generated by human predation were lesser than those generated by other factors. For instance, as distance running usually comes at the expense of sprinting, the mere existence of lions might counteract our influence. Or, as hunters who use this method typically target males with big horns, it might be that the reproductive advantage of having big horns outweighs the increased risk of human predation.
Memeticemetic
New Member
MRaverz said:
But keep in mind, assuming we'd primarily be going after ungulates with large horns, that the animals with the largest and most burdensome racks come by them with age. Which means they've already had most of a lifetime of, presumably, successful breeding.