The Human Spark | Running = Big Brains? | PBS

[Gebruikersnaamz0r]

mind=blown

[Floydzkrieg]

It sounds odd, but I've always felt more human when I go running. Something primal and right about it. This goes a ways to explaining that for me.

[fantasticshokh]

There are African hunter-gatherer tribes that still use that technique.

[bmxphenom50]

Heel strick

[bodies42099]

this is straight from Born to Run. Like this is 100% all Chris McDougall's work. Anyone who read it will agree.

[SvendsenAtheist]

Maybe thats why we have big brains? because our ants esters ran alot back in the days?

[Imprezziveness]

Very Interesting. I read this in a magazine. The fact that we're bipedal means less surface area for the sun to bead down on.

[safenders]

um what about sled dogs??

[kshackleton]

@safenders

The environment is important. We evolved this ability in tropical Africa. We are at best advantage in the heat of the day. A marathon runner will beat sled dogs every time if they run in tropical heat, in the middle of the day. The dogs will simply go into heat exhaustion very quickly under those circumstances.

[frankystein12]

Professor Lieberman makes an interesting point in stating that humans' enormous brain capacity is the result of being excellent long distance pursuers. However, I fail to see how being able to track down preys over long distance led to the further development of the brain. On a different note, this seems like a very promising program, thus I will make sure to check it out (probably over spring break).

[frankystein12]

Professor Lieberman makes an interesting point in stating that humans' enormous brain capacity is the result of being excellent long distance pursuers. However, I fail to see how being able to track down preys over long distance led to the further development of the brain. On a different note, this seems like a very promising program, thus I will make sure to check it out (probably over spring break).

[Chemicalkinetics]

@frankystein12 Lieberman did not spell out the details. Running long distance alone does not develop brains. Our ancestors shifting to hunting and eating meat develop brains. Hunting is a complex task, so that pushes for brain development. An average carnivore like a wolf is more intelligent than an average herbivore like a deer. Eating meat also nutrients to develop larger brains.

Long distance running allows our ancestors to hunt and to eat meat which then develop the brains.

[MasterThief1324]

Evidence reinforcing this theory exist in the African bushman's lifestyle, today.

It seems absurd but they could run 3 hours at a time to tire out their meal. The prey collapsed of exhaustion and it's an easy kill from there.

This is a great theory on how our primitive ancestors catched their prey. But there's little to link, so i've observed, between brain development and running. Running circulates blood flow to the brain, enriching it with nutrients. They could find trends there.

[Bluzer86]

cool

[LiquidYogi]

You guys should read "Born To Run" great book, talks about a ton of this stuff.

[aswolf]

what a great idea!!

[GBart]

Uhh, horses would be an exception.

Also, I thought it was the MYH16 myosin gene that allowed our brains to grow, since we no longer developed that ridge along the top of our skulls.

[crock703]

What kind of horses were around then? (how efficient was their locomotion) Maybe they evolved to sweat and travel long distances at low intensity because predator upright apes were the selective pressure that killed off their less efficient buddies. Unlike deer, they had the anatomy/skeletal structure to adapt.

[GBart]

"no other creature can do this"

Horses.

[grantsinmypants2]

He isnt taking into consideration the fact that less intelligent animals are less efficient at locating food, selecting among food choices, and storage. They're required to move, at low intensity, for much more of their waking hours than we are. They eat alot of small meals, we eat one or two large meals

Just because a human can move at low intensity for long periods doesnt mean that it had any survival/evolutionary value. It's just a non-essential thing we share w/ animals for whom it is

[Raherin]

We eat one or two large meals now...did we way back then? I really don't know that answer, but it would be interesting to know.

But it might. It's a good thing to explore. It would be very interesting to learn how we evolved into what we are.

It's much easier to disprove something that we are still learning about.

[categoryerror7]

But he is specifically saying that it isn't 'low intensity' relative to other animals. What is low intensity to us would require other animals to pant, and thus drive them into exhaustion.

There is definitely evolutionary value in that, and it seems more compelling since it doesn't require large brains and technology.

[grantsinmypants2]

I know. I didn't have enough room in my comment to make the thrust of my point, and for some reason my comment didn't show up after I clicked 'post', so I thought it wasn't working and I gave up.

I was going to ad that while yes, we can run longer than other animals, their contant movement (walking) ads up to the same amount of energy expended as ours.

What I'm saying is that a few hard sprints, followed by hours of rest, are the same as constantly roaming. The running thing is irrelevant

[benkettle]

i suppose that is why you're the harvard professor and he isn't.

[grantsinmypants2]

Take a basic course in logic. Hopefully you'll run across the appeal to authority fallacy and then send me an apology.

[crock703]

As they started catching bigger game they got the protein to grow their brains and increase their intelligence, overtime increasing their ability to select among food choices. The ones who got distracted by lizards starved, or didn't continue evolving into humans, while the smarter ones kept realizing it was better to chase the deer all day than eat lizard. Think about the child study where ability to hold-off gratification in return for double the reward correlated to higher IQ/successfulness.

[grantsinmypants2]

That's circular reasoning. We got more intelligent because we were able to catch our prey through cardiovascular attrition, and thus access to that better quality meat (ie: deer, not lizards) is what made us smart enough to be able to focus (ie: catch our prey through attriton).

[djacobox372]

That's not what he said, it didn't take a big brain to figure out that if you chase an animal until it's exhausted you can eat it. What the big brain did was allow us the ability to create tools that further increased our hunting prowess.

[grantsinmypants2]

It is what he said. It's not what you're saying, but it is what he said. He said that it takes a certain level of intelligence to be able to go after the better meat and to forego the readily available stuff.

I agree. That's why I don't think that it's running which made us have access to better meat. We could have roamed around all day, constantly eating, like animals do and survived just as well. Our brains wouldn't have grown, but ohwell.

[nononsesne]

Grant - I think the answer is that a change in the environment such as drought forced early humans to chase animals for food, creating a selection pressure towards better runners.

[crock703]

got lost in the comments not matching up.

I wasn't using circular logic, as much as suggesting that a combination of the two -- superior cardio/muscular/skeletal physiology combined with the ability to focus on a desired object/delay ratification -- allowed some apes to grow bigger brains and have free time to develop 'culture.' It built upon itself. Whereas others just stayed on a path of chasing lizards constantly.

[capnquack]

Breaking the circular reasoning: Lack of other sources of wholesome food. When you're on the high savannah, you have minimal green food - so meat is the only way. Look at how a Baboon catches its prey - sprinting a short distance, eating anything it can catch. If early humans were hindered by not having large sources of prey, the need for food may have caused long periods of focus, as needed for attrition hunting, smart or not, if you're hungry you will follow that meal.

[crock703]

I just see a bunch of upright apes hanging around a watering hole, waiting for an exhausted dehydrated to show up. It gets there, and now its got these loud apes making it have to run more, it gets close and maybe they throw rocks at it. After it drops from exhaustion they kill it and fight over the take. That's a big meal, leaving you time to sleep.

That's non-intentional teamwork, but the beginning of codependence & planning. Throwing rocks is tool use.

Works w/ the aquatic ape theory too.

[crock703]

As the upright apes got more protein, their brains grew and they could delay gratification better, giving them bigger meals and the calories and smarts to chase prey further and further from the watering hole, until they were untied to the water mentally & physically evolved enough to successfully demonstrate real nomadic tendencies, like stalking a herd for months a a time and wandering until they found something to chase.

[UneekDiva]

So easy a caveman can do it ;)

[HumanMan1234]

@UneekDiva

Funny!

[TheObnubilators]

yeah that was awesome, man I gotta start running more often

[johncrwarner]

Interesting idea - seems better than the aquatic ape hypothesis - but this theory does need to be tested.

[crock703]

They could both be true. "We" hopped in and out of trees and rivers to catch food and scurry away. We were compelled to walk upright, went hairless and developed the ability to hold our breathe after adapting to water, which worked out well when we needed to sweat and control breathing for running and speaking (communicating during hunt). Better breathing and sweating meant we could leave the riverbank more, eventually outpacing more meaty prey that helped our brains grow.

[admelfo]

i love tv

[mipoi]

That explains a lot!

[riceflan7]

so interesting! Thank you.

[Jobediah]

I <3 Dan Lieberman

[sarahwatts08]

Me Too! <3

[perrin6]

What does I < 3 mean? I less than 3???

[hobbes71002]

I'm not sure what context it's in, but generally online <3 is accepted as a heart symbol. So for example "I <3 cheese" means "I love cheese."

[ChristopherTupper]

@perrin6 turn your head sideway's, lol, than think of symbols not of the individual letters

[xkamuelax]

@perrin6 I less than Four You... baby. <4

[ifxman]

Looks like another great show from PBS!

[ShaneWoodbury]

I love Alan Alda.