So if men had always been so good in runnig WHY the world record in marathon back in 1908 was 2h 55 minutes and now with all this crap technology is more than 50 minutes shorter?
@hotsauce0786 It's mentioned in the book, but I just read an article about a 22 mile race where the elites win about half of the time. They're creating a 44 mile course, and expect the humans to win more often for scientific purposes. If you don't understand the science I'd be happy to explain it to you, but I reccomend you just read "Born to Run" I'll PM you the article about the race.
@tripleMmagic So lets talk about science. I've read both way time ago and...lets focus on me! I'll show you some trick common in this kind of "science". The sentence "elites win about half of the time" is true, but its field of validity makes it praticaly useless. Why? That santence has the same validity of "elites win about half of the time in body to body fight versus felin". Do u start realize? Point 1: "horse" is a genus, not a specie, not a race and defenitely not an individual beign
@tripleMmagic Its easy to understand that is very different to say "i can beat my house cat" vs "i can beat a tiger", right? So there horse species beateable and species unbeateable in a specific task. And so what? What does it mean in a barefoot running discussion? Point 2: the 2 population in the test are not trained equally. Humans are elite runners but horses are...we dont know if and how they were trained. This make the studys considerations useless in a real world. Also my house cat
@tripleMmagic probaly cant outrace me on a 10k plus distance but would be very difference if its trained at my same level. In the opposit situation every cat can easily outrace a lazy sedentary man that never exercise in his life. So what? Do you realize that are useless informations?
@tripleMmagic and you forget to state that this "human vs horse race" its raced not on flat and uniform ground but in countryside with also rivers....and you want to explain science to others!!
Well i offer 100k to any hores than can outrace me on a race up my house stairs! So i can say barefoot rocks!
@hotsauce0786 Chill out bro! Do you work for nike or something? The science works for most situations. The ground has nothing to do with it. But if you have something against running barefoot then fine. If cushioned shoes work for you than go ahead and wear them. In my experience, when I ran in minimal shoes I got rid of my injuries. As for the horse thing, there is science behind it. I guarentee that in a 100 mile race on flat ground, the human wins.
In ponit #3 McDougall is distorcing the datas from a serious study with the intenciton to support his statement.
Based on his logic, he should be surprised to see that a 5 yo boy time (27-5= 22) is always worst than a 49 ys man time (27+22=49). As you can see it didnt work in this way, and we can extend this example at every sports. 49 yo soccer player (or random sports) is always better than a 5 yo player. So mr McDougall whats the poin? Why u arbitrary choose 27-19? Cause this is crap
Point number 3 evidence the enormous bias. Answer to the "mistery": in every endurance physical activity such endurance biking or swimming is the same, so running is not the point. I guess im the smarter human on the planet, right McDougall?
Incredibly new perspective about human pre-history...Tarahumara = Win! This fits in completely with all the other content about barefoot running too. (Note: If you're new to the pose method/the idea of barefoot running search YT for the video called "Terra Plana - Learning the Skill of-" for a quick run down about the difference - no personal affiliation or experience with their shoes, just posting for the visual explanation) Haven't tried barefoot personally yet, sticking to feiyues for now :)
Interesting ideas, many with merit. He overlooks human ingenuity & the use of snares & nets for catching game. Another technique used then & now is the herding of game by the entire human group into a natural or man-made corral, or over a cliff. He is also unaware of horses which race 100 miles over the Continental Divide in ~10 hours, carrying riders & gear! Like humans, different kinds of horses are better adapted for various athletic tasks. Run on natural surfaces, breathing clean air!
@Rawbone73 - Good to know! I'll put 'Born to Run' on my reading list. Still, as one who has lived with horses, ridden long distances, and also used to run (with a toe strike gait as it just seemed better to me), I doubt that a horse would be outrun by a human of SIMILAR BODY TYPE and in similar condition, at any distance, especially if the human was similarly burdened as with a rider, saddle, etc. When I get the financing, I'll run the tests. ITMT, humans were not born to sit! (Grin!).
in some tribes in the modern world there are runners who can do routes miles in one day ...but they found that their feet were developed differently than ours
Oh my gosh, my cross country coach needs to see this. We should be running barefooted and for fun, not running to destroy to competition at cross country meets.
@timguyperson You're mistaking the benefits of wearing something on your feet with that of wearing running shoes. The argument being made here is not to run in completely bare feet but rather to run in something that is so thin that it allows your foot to work as nature intended, while providing protection from the elements. Sandals, FiveFingers, whatever.
@timguyperson "In general running shoes prevent a heck of a lot more injuries than they cause, for day to day use." Maybe you need a day-to-day shoe. As runners, many of us have had injured feet for the past 30 years. I need to run on healthy feet for a change. The whole advent of heel-strike running is destroying our feet. After ONE three mile run on my forefeet, the muscles in my lower legs came to life--should have only done a mile or so to start, but the motion felt so much better.
@travlgent1 Similar experience here. Running in shoes convinced me that running is an uphill struggle for a long time. Then I started barefoot runs on the wet sand at the beach ... sprinting feels like flying!
Seeing all people running around with uber-padded sneakers makes me shudder.
I'm confused, by "we have been doing it for 2 million years", does he mean anatomically modern humans? Homo sapiens have not been around for 2 million years.
@Schizopantheist Obviously you don't get the joke faggot. Go ahead and tell my mom, because that would be an incredible waste of time compared to the energy and effort it would to find out who I am, then my mom, then to contact her. Plus, then she would get a fucking laugh about some swiss idiot calling me a loser when I gross more money that you and your parents combined. Suck a dick you retarded shithead.
Like all advice about running this information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. McDougall, when he trained with shoes did so without a trainer and a schedule and most likely trained incorrectly. and when he started running barefoot he got a personal trainer who probably taught him how to train and train well. Running barefoot definitely has its benefits and if you do stride outs barefoot that is really good but running too often and without proper training barefoot can be devastating
@MegaHigster That's interesting, and accoding to wikipedia, you are quite right. However...
"In individual regions, this dating can be considerably refined; in Europe for example, Acheulean methods did not reach the continent until around 400,000 years ago"
That raises the question of what the early humans there were doing until the axes arrived! (to give one example)
Purely to keep fit I started to jog from cold and damaged my foot tendons. It took over a year to mend. Started again ...walk 30... run 10.. walk 30... run 20 and so on until walk 30 run....100. By then I am warmed up and keep on jogging. No more injury. This way the arteries expand slowly so I am never winded. There is no pain and its enjoyable. I am 65 and will run 'til I die.
Just discovered this great book and ideology. not much of a runner (slow and walk are my speeds) but I've been a DANCER for most of my life... Most of the time my feet have been bare or in slippers or salsa shoes that provide no real protection from the concrete floors and sidewalks I jam on. (Of course those spring loaded dance floors are great but not always available!) Now that I've read the book I'm thinking maybe I'm more naturally prepared to run than I ever realized! Thanks Chris McD!
@timguyperson Bullshit. Its proven that if you take your time, about 4-6 months, slowly increasing barefoot runs the skin under your foot will be able to handle even broken glass on the street. Shoes are responsible for most running related injuries.
@tiny guy person The lack of hunting tools is actually evidence for - not against - persistence hunting. If early humans were able to "run an animal to death", hunting tools wouldn't be necessary.
Barefooter here and yes, what McDougall is saying makes sense given my experience barefooting. Maybe this won't be a big thing because no one will profit from people using what they were born with, but that doesn't mean we can't do what's best for us and spread the word.
@timguyperson Shoes hurt people by changing how you land on your foot. Our legs are made for us to land on the balls of our feet. Why couldnt or wouldnt we have hunted. A spear isnt that hard to think of. Its something like this "tie sharp rock to long stick stab animal then eat animal." I think given a few 100,000 years they could think of that even more likely when you think about how they used stone tolls to cut apart animals to eat.
@timguyperson Sweetheart...we're not a library. If you can't look stuff up on the internet than you clearly haven't figured them out yet. The reports, statistics and hey Christopher McDougall's book is out there too filled with information. Not like he was paid by Barefoot Running Inc. when he wrote it either. Go do your own research.
@timguyperson You are egocentric. If you did some research, you would find out why cushioned shoes causes injuries. But you don't care enough to do so; you just want to state your opinion on this Youtube comment section.
i hope no minds the plug....i dont work for them or anything like that!!!! but Feivue trainers are really great shoes fro running. fantastic and cheep as chips!
@jammatoonarmy thought id add, they have a really thin sole, which makes for great flexability and control. really light and breathable too!!! honest, im not sponsored!! :\ if only!! :(
I've recently tried barefoot running and I can say that this is true. My injuries have gone away, my times have improved, and a sense of liberty has made up the new composition of my spirit.
Born to Run has done great things for attacking bullshit running shoes. However, the propagation of endurance hunting theory is a mistake predicated on the belief that humans are innately weak and pathetic. The average man 30,000+ years ago stood 5'10", weighed 170-180 at 8-12% bodyfat, and consumed 50% of calories from meat.
We were a race of pro decathletes, the second largest of the great apes which are a physically imposing group - only leopards tend to prey on extant hominids.
Especially the height, 50% meat diet and, most ridiculously, the very precise 8-12% body fat figure?
Why should I believe your claims, that run against everything I've ever heard?
As opposed to people like Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman and Dennis Bramble, who have academic credentials and have written peer-reviewed papers on the subject, and are the people that McDougall has as his source?
As a matter of fact, everything I just stated was drawn from other peer-reviewed sources. Size and measurements are from "The Excellence of Paleolithic Man" and the 50% number is actually the norm within the academic community. The work of Lieberman and Bramble has been repeatedly attacked, as this is a highly debated issue in the academic community.
@tgtennis "As a matter of fact, everything I just stated was drawn from other peer-reviewed sources."
Creatures like an antelope would run away. Creatures that don't run away, or are slow enough for us to catch up to... They tend to be more dangerous.
Your saying that humans aren't as weak as McDougall is implying, but are you're saying that a human, with weapons no greater than stones, wooden clubs and sharpened sticks, could kill those animals?
Absolutely. It is known that Neanderthals hunted megafauna up close, as evidenced by injuries similar to rodeo riders on all Neanderthal skeletons. Humans shared their diet, build, and were only slightly lesser in physical prowess as regards strength - why assume that we would be incapable of hunting in a similar manner? Furthermore, why are we credited with killing off so many slow-moving but dangerous species (which we 100% were known to hunt) if we could not dispatch them?
In point of fact I should stress that Liberman and Bramble acknowledged that humans were known to have killed dangerous animals up close, but dismiss it without further evidence except to postulate that it would be too dangerous to do so. To acknowledge a repeat event and then to dismiss it seems more than a little puzzling - it was a forgone conclusion of theirs that humans were too weak to engage megafauna in close quarters, yet evidence shows that extant groups did just that
@tgtennis I wouldn't say they dismiss it out of hand. I have heard Lieberman say that persistence hunting would not have been the only way we hunted (indeed here's another: watch?v=pNeNTMmltyc).
However: If a method is dangerous, it would be advantageous to use a different method more often.
Just because it isn't the only method, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be great reasons for adaptation that benefit it, to be selected for.
Indeed, this is the very crux of my issue with the Endurance Hunting hypothesis. The forgone assumption that humans, despite our size and physical potential, our intelligence, the development of killing implements, our demonstrated ability to kill just about anything, are incapable of matching virtually any animal in a physical contest, no matter our implements, no matter the modern examples of humans killing dangerous predators with no more than knives. A lack of self-esteem.
I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes. My interest lies primarily with "modern" man, particularly from 70,000 BC up until the invention of agriculture. Homo Habilis (2.3-1.4 million BC) may well have been suited to persistence hunting, but it surely has less bearing on our physical makeup than the direct natural habits of our genetically identical forbears.
My Habilis comments were directed at the 2 Ma year mark, which slightly precedes Erectus. However, I would be a dick to nitpick that.
We are definitely agreed that evolution leaves a mark - but I am of the opinion that we should prioritize the evidence concerning modern humans pre-agriculture. The further back we go, the more likely that past traits may have less bearing on us. If Erectus utilized EH, while Sapiens engaged them head-on, then I would lean towards the latter...
Regarding the design of fitness programs in the modern world. Now, of course we must seek out why we switched methods (habitat, physiology, tech, etc) but I would take the "Paleo era Sapiens' hunting/gathering methods" as a jumping-off point. I think that is a logical enough choice - begin at the beginning and all that. I'm all for using evidence from earlier species to not only discover that point, but to provide context - yet they should not obscure evidence either.
Might H Habilis have utilized endurance hunting? Certainly possible. Chimps (similar intelligence, social structure, etc) that consume 10% of calories in meat don't use it, but they aren't bipedal.
At any rate, in 1-2 million years between Habilis and Sapiens, there is room for a ton of evolutionary change prior to the birth of Sapiens. I would say that we start with the bigger, stronger, better-armed, smarter version's natural habits rather than adopting the lesser ancestor's.
@tgtennis "there is room for a ton of evolutionary change"
We still retain the relevant features ...and Lieberman talks about Homo Erectus, not Habilis. Homo Habilis might not even have those features, as far as I know, and the idea that Habilis is a direct ancestor of ours (or of Erectus) is debated.
"I would say that we start with the bigger, stronger, better-armed, smarter version's natural habits rather than adopting the lesser ancestor's."
The Habilis comments are directed at the 2 million BC reference, though Erectus is only just shy of that, so I won't nitpick.
They are recommending long-distance running as a preferred method of exercise based on EH theory. I may be biased, but the vast majority of S&C coaches these days are of the "lift weights and sprint" persuasion, as it returns superior results. This does not fit well with EH theory, in terms of long-distance jogging.
Actually, top S&C coaches constantly reference the latest scientific publications - a decent article will often reference five or more peer-reviewed studies. In the end, however, those studies are always ten years behind the information on the job coaches collect. Most S&C coaches view clinical studies as lab guys finally confirming what the entire industry already knows - few are the times when clinical studies really change things.
The reason weights are so important is because humans today are pathetically weak compared to their genetic potential. Practically all male humans are capable of deadlifting 2.5 times bw and lifting more than their bw overhead with only a few years of training. These are considered simple base standards for most athletes to begin specialized lifting - yet very few average people or beginning athletes can do it.
Furthermore, strength is the "base" athletic attribute for work capacity, power (determines speed), and so on. It corrects posture issues, particularly those caused by sitting down for long periods. Most chronic pains/issues are a mixed deficit of strength and mobility.
Given that modern day humans in Europe shared the same diet as Neanderthals, who are well-known to have utilized up-close hunting techniques, I think it very much is an attack on our limits. To dismiss, out of hand, our recognized ability to hunt large animals successfully in a more time-efficient manner needs evidence. Not saying, "No, it's too dangerous, even if they did it successfully in many areas. Let's study the guys who eat almost no meat to find out how to hunt well!"
@tgtennis "Given that modern day humans in Europe shared the same diet as Neanderthals"
Eh... no. Neanderthals are generally considered to be carnivores, though there is some recent research that suggests they may have eaten a bit of vegetables too (at least some of them)
"I think it very much is an attack on our limits."
On what basis?
Neanderthals were stronger, more robust and far worse at running.
The neanderthal diet (50-50 vs carnivore, this was news to me as well) has recently come under debate, but their hunting practices and prey are supposedly the same, according to two articles in Current Anthropology (Feb 2006) and Journal of Archaelogical Science (Sept 2003) respectively. Regardless of the inclusion of veg in Neanderthal diets (I hope they remain classified as carnivores, to show vegetarians) the prey and practices of hunting are considered equitable.
The humans who barely hunt probably do so because they live in deserts with poor hunting prospects, not to mention the open ground makes it more likely that long chases would be required. Homo Habilis may have engaged in endurance hunts, but should we look to the oldest branch and poorest hunter of our genus first? I feel that the applying the valid research from these groups as universal rules without proper qualifiers makes a huge mistake in ignoring "mainstream" modern groups
Well first of all there are mass kills. In a more limited hunting session the simple difference is that you stab the prey without running it to the ground first. Here, spear throwers, track and kill, and the general practice of "surround and stab" has scientific backing. Bramble and Liebermann insist that this is impossible without EH methods, while Olga Soffer, David/Gary Webster, and others have published separate materials showing that many other methods have been used.
@tgtennis "Here, spear throwers, track and kill, and the general practice of "surround and stab" has scientific backing."
In what time period?
Those claims rather sound like ones that would require stone headed spears, at the very least ...thus making them utterly irrelevant to the endurance running hypothesis.
Around 1.7 million years of throwing spears and "surround and stab", where the spears are no more than sharpened sticks?
I think we may be getting at the heart of the issue here. Perhaps the confusion even lies with my knowledge of EH
My major fault with the EH hypothesis does not pertain to pre-Sapiens hominids as I lack knowledge of these groups or the debates around them. I dispute the assertion that modern humans typically used EH as they were too weak/fragile to hunt effectively in other manners. It is my understanding that EH theory asserts that claim; it is only this that I know to dispute
@tgtennis "I dispute the assertion that modern humans typically used EH as they were too weak/fragile to hunt effectively in other manners. It is my understanding that EH theory asserts that claim"
Even if they do, it's with the assumption that you have no weapons beyond a stick (i.e. no spears or bows or anything like that).
Either way, it doesn't really effect the hypothesis.
Only those specific claims, made by those specific people.
(I wonder exactly how the spear vs sharpened stick alters exact hunting methods)
I think we may be able to settle our discussion on common ground - endurance hunting certainly has been used, might well have been used more often prior to Homo Sapiens and their tech advances, and is a viable method of hunting, particularly in open, desert ecologies.
Now, if Lieberman and Bramble state that EH was predominant in hominids prior to homo sapiens, and it saw continued, though notably decreased usage, in modern humans with advanced tools, then I would agree with this. Bramble et all do state that the general lack of EH in extant hunter-gatherer groups is "puzzling" and I do believe that EH hunting makes sense in certain ecologies, so with modifications and qualifiers to the theory (as I understand it) I'd have less/no opposition
What's the caloric intake per hour? I ask because I know that the Ache tribe take in 750 per hour per hunter with their "sprint 'n spear" method. Lord knows how many calories a mass kill takes in an hour. ;-)
I don't think the tracking skill matters in the case of extant HG tribes, as I assume they have preserved the majority of their hunting skills. If it is exhausting, wouldn't that be an argument against the base effectiveness of the method when comparing to other options?
Extant (meaning "existing") hunter gatherers continue to hunt, track, etc and therefore do use and preserve the skills. Libermann and Bramble specifically state that very few extant groups utilize endurance hunting and consider it "puzzling."
I'm curious if you have any evidence showing the differences in mental strain between different forms of hunting. I found steady-state cross-country to not be a particularly mentally demanding athletic discipline.
@tgtennis In normal tracking, you just find tracks of an animal, and quickly put an arrow or spear through it.
Relatively simple.
In EH, you have to keep track of an INDIVIDUAL, the whole time (and separate it from it's herd) ...and at times the tracks disappear, and you have to use empathy and creativity, to put yourself in your preys "shoes", to figure out where it went.
These are skills that most HG groups don't have, never use, and that require more mental activity.
If it is so mentally demanding, then how come Homo Erectus was capable of it, but it is too much of a strain for modern day humans? If it was so effective, then why did it become abandoned by most groups if, as you claim, it returns more calories per hour than other methods? I find it absurd to state that most HG tribes simply couldn't maintain what is supposedly the most basic hunting skill without some kind of evidence.
@tgtennis "but it is too much of a strain for modern day humans?"
It isn't. We can still do it ...but we can use other methods that aren't as strenuous, so we do that, because we want to minimize effort.
"if, as you claim, it returns more calories per hour than other methods?"
Why bother with a method, even if it's the best method, if there is one that requires less work, but is good enough to do the job (i.e. getting enough food)?
Currently, the most supported theory for hunter-gatherers is the optimal gathering strategy, which states that humans will use the method that nets them the greatest nutritional value for their time.
Do you have any actual evidence that simply following one animal for miles and miles is more mentally "demanding" (define that please) than setting up mass kills? Most predators isolate a single member of a herd, including chimps, lions, etc.
I already pointed out that every pack hunter on the planet operates by singling out individuals. Observing the famous persistence hunt video, the hunter clearly only has serious mental exertions when attempting to pick up a lost trail - so finding new trails (what the Ache do the entire day) seems harder, as other hunting documentaries suggest.
The act of LDR is even used to induce trance among certain monks. I myself have used running as a hypnotic induction - not stressful
You specifically referred to the separation phase as mentally difficult yet the majority, at least, of pack hunters are able to perform this, despite having far less brain power than ourselves.
@tgtennis "You specifically referred to the separation phase as mentally difficult yet the majority, at least, of pack hunters are able to perform this"
Do they have to do so often? (in a persistence hunt, you have to do it several times every hunt)
Do they still keep track of the specific individual?
"despite having far less brain power than ourselves."
Nonsense!
They are fellow homo sapiens.
They may not be as educated, but their brain power is the same.
Less brain power refers to wolves, lions, pre-sapiens members of Homo, etc.
And yes, pack hunters may have to make several attempts in a single day at separating members of herds or equivalent, depending on the success of previous hunts.
@tgtennis "And yes, pack hunters may have to make several attempts in a single day at separating members of herds or equivalent, depending on the success of previous hunts."
But why would they care to bother separating the EXACT SAME, member of the herd?
That they do not do - that would, in fact, indicate a slightly greater level of complexity (though not necessarily stress) in the separation phase of an endurance hunt versus standard pack hunting. Of course, I still hold to my assertions that if it was simple enough for Erectus, then why not us?
Explain how picking up a lost trail only takes place in persistence hunts. Any hunter following a trail may lose it, regardless of whether he has walked one mile or jogged 20. Furthermore, hunters who are continually looking for new trails made by new prey will have to pick up more trails, and so engage in the "picking up" activity far more often.
A hunter who finds a trail over a mile long would follow it. In most modern hunter-gatherer tribes this is done at a walking pace.
Ache hunters encounter various prey multiple times throughout the day (common types are encountered every 5 km) and return with multiple kills. If you are only getting one kill per hunt, you probably aren't being very productive - as the !Kung diet suggests.
We eat too much meat nowadays? I thought you were up to date on Paleo dieting - or do you disagree with it? We eat a fraction of the meat our prehistoric forbears did, replacing it (and many vegetables) with grains. I'm sorry, but this came out of left field.
I've experimented with keto, timed carbs, carb cycling, and paleo - not to mention my mass building and general maintenance diets. I haven't entered into a single one of these without reading multiple sources on the subject - and in the case of low carbs I have always looked for peer-reviewed studies backing up the author's claims as well as various anecdotal evidence.
If you look at the ratios of macronutrients present in today's diets, the vast majority of studied paleolithic populations consumed lower carbs and more protein - I haven't been researching the absolute intake carefully.
When most people talk about applied paleo, we generally aren't going the apeshit full-Paleo, which I find to be unrealistic. There was no one diet, but there's a relatively consistent range of pre-agricultural macro ratios - metabolic typing narrows it down
"Scientists seem to be agreeing on" - what are you reading? If you'll forgive me for saying so, the best nutritionists (like proper athletics coaches) are generally APPALLED with the drivel that is spouted about their subject in common forums. If you read up on nutritionists who are 1) independent and unbiased 2) are called upon for their expertise by people who actually care about results (not government) they'll heartily disagree
Most "scientists" sit around telling people to reduce fat and cholesterol intake to improve chol levels - makes sense right? Except that any real expert knows that chol gets metabolized first and doesn't directly jump into your system, and proper fat intake is actually key. John Meadows utilized a diet of high-quality fats to drop his chol levels with absurd speed.
Similarly, the only PROVEN problem with meats is the consumption of burned/processed meat increases cancer risk.
If you look through even protein-starved HG societies like the !Kung, they get more protein than the FDA recommends - which comes out to around 50 grams. Thank you agriculture and healthcare lobbies. Considering that most Paleo HG groups' animal-based calories were in the 25-50% range, this looks ludicrous.
/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml (check out the chart for quick reading)
Agricultural societies, and their grain-based diets, correlate with smaller, weaker, shorter-lived people. Heck, Weston Price, as a dentist, made the connection between grain-based diets with metabolic disease (the West's number one killer) while researching our sudden surge in need for dental work in the last 200 years - same culprit.
The solution, time and again, is to run opposite to most people, who tend to continually increase carbs in the forms of grains and other starches (tubers these days included - except yams) taking out vegetables first and eating shit quality meats and fats.
Even one of the founders of the anti-fat movement turned around and said he was wrong - wrong for years. The man gets paid for results and using the latest information, which sure as hell doesn't say eat less meat.
On the trail finding - it is precisely my point that there is no difference. I was arguing that picking up the trail if it gets lost appears to be the most complex part of !Kung tracking. Since there is no real difference between this task and finding trails of new animals, the Ache hunters are consistently engaged in a more complex level of tracking/hunting. This all comes back to complexity as a part of mental difficulty/activity/strain.
@tgtennis "On the trail finding - it is precisely my point that there is no difference."
...unless you want to tire out the animal, in which case it's VITAL, that you keep to the exact same individual (and not a more rested animal and giving them opportunity to rest in-between, making it hopeless).
For the !Kung, they just need to find a trail.
A persistence hunter has to further determine, if it's the trail of the same animal or not.
Thus making persistence hunting more complex and strenuous.
Sorry, but since you are so big on talking about experts - do you have any expert hunters who will back that up? Show me how it isn't bleeding obvious to an experienced hunter if he picks up the wrong animal's tracks - especially when he's out in a desert with very little game. Once a herd animal is separated from its group, those single tracks should stand out like a sore thumb when comparing them to others - if there are any others at all, which doesn't seem likely.
If you would simply define your notion of "mental difficulty" as I have asked you several times, it would be far easier to answer your question.
A hunter pacing along without pause or sign of notable confusion denotes that the activity is simpler (and therefore less difficult) than one that takes several minutes. Since long-distance running is used as a trance introduction in some areas, I don't see how stress could be a mitigating factor either.
I've gotten runner's high, but I've also experienced "lifter's high" in the same manner, achieving a shallow trance-state that is both pleasant and mildly amnesiac. So unless there is a proper study demonstrating the precise physiological differences in the highs created by different forms of exercise, then I don't buy an explanation that arbitrarily favors one.
@tgtennis "So unless there is a proper study demonstrating the precise physiological differences in the highs created by different forms of exercise, then I don't buy an explanation that arbitrarily favors one."
Okay, sure.
I was just speculating anyway. Pointing out a possibility. (BTW, is "runner's high" perhaps the same as "flow" or "being in the zone"?)
I don't think I remember Lieberman doing anything more than speculating, when talking about runner's high, either.
I equate a runner's high with the flow, zone, or whatever type of altered state we might wish to associate it with. I'm a fan of hypnosis and meditation, so I think there are tons of acceptable names for these states. :-)
I must say that McDougall at least, and quite possibly Lieberman, have made some very certain sounding statements on the subject of the runner's high being a clear indicator. They have tied it in with the whole peace-and-love theory. I dismiss the latter as mumbo-jumbo and the former as blatantly overlooking evidence, however that need not be an attack on endurance hunting theory if these concepts are dropped.
Do you know of any other authors that I might read on the subject?
Who was that one female biologist you brought up? As said, I've found the work of Lieberman and Bramble to make some huge, and apparently erroneous, assumptions and omissions, and McDougall is considerably worse. I'm open to reading another researcher's claims, and seeing if she presents them in a way that either addresses these points, or at least doesn't make such poor attempts to circumvent them.
It is hard to be fair towards a base theory, when so much drivel accompanies it
"Active mental activity" isn't very precise at all. The complexity of a task is one measure. The strength of will (amount of mental stress one must deal with) necessitated to carry out a task is another.
Did he played Imhotep in "The Mummy"?
arhabersham 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
So if men had always been so good in runnig WHY the world record in marathon back in 1908 was 2h 55 minutes and now with all this crap technology is more than 50 minutes shorter?
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
Comment removed
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
Only an idiot can think that if its sunny a human can outrace a horse on a 26 miles run
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
@hotsauce0786 You're right! But in a 100 mile endurance race, the elites win.
tripleMmagic 1 month ago
@tripleMmagic References?
hotsauce0786 1 month ago
@hotsauce0786 It's mentioned in the book, but I just read an article about a 22 mile race where the elites win about half of the time. They're creating a 44 mile course, and expect the humans to win more often for scientific purposes. If you don't understand the science I'd be happy to explain it to you, but I reccomend you just read "Born to Run" I'll PM you the article about the race.
tripleMmagic 1 month ago
@tripleMmagic So lets talk about science. I've read both way time ago and...lets focus on me! I'll show you some trick common in this kind of "science". The sentence "elites win about half of the time" is true, but its field of validity makes it praticaly useless. Why? That santence has the same validity of "elites win about half of the time in body to body fight versus felin". Do u start realize? Point 1: "horse" is a genus, not a specie, not a race and defenitely not an individual beign
hotsauce0786 1 month ago
@tripleMmagic Its easy to understand that is very different to say "i can beat my house cat" vs "i can beat a tiger", right? So there horse species beateable and species unbeateable in a specific task. And so what? What does it mean in a barefoot running discussion? Point 2: the 2 population in the test are not trained equally. Humans are elite runners but horses are...we dont know if and how they were trained. This make the studys considerations useless in a real world. Also my house cat
hotsauce0786 1 month ago
@tripleMmagic probaly cant outrace me on a 10k plus distance but would be very difference if its trained at my same level. In the opposit situation every cat can easily outrace a lazy sedentary man that never exercise in his life. So what? Do you realize that are useless informations?
hotsauce0786 1 month ago
@tripleMmagic and you forget to state that this "human vs horse race" its raced not on flat and uniform ground but in countryside with also rivers....and you want to explain science to others!!
Well i offer 100k to any hores than can outrace me on a race up my house stairs! So i can say barefoot rocks!
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
@hotsauce0786 Chill out bro! Do you work for nike or something? The science works for most situations. The ground has nothing to do with it. But if you have something against running barefoot then fine. If cushioned shoes work for you than go ahead and wear them. In my experience, when I ran in minimal shoes I got rid of my injuries. As for the horse thing, there is science behind it. I guarentee that in a 100 mile race on flat ground, the human wins.
tripleMmagic 1 month ago
@hotsauce0786 Dont talk about science if you are so rigid about references and evidence lol...
thetarget 12 hours ago
"Mistery" #1 solved: Tarahumara dont die for heart disease because theyr average life is so short that not makes HP incidence relevant
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
In ponit #3 McDougall is distorcing the datas from a serious study with the intenciton to support his statement.
Based on his logic, he should be surprised to see that a 5 yo boy time (27-5= 22) is always worst than a 49 ys man time (27+22=49). As you can see it didnt work in this way, and we can extend this example at every sports. 49 yo soccer player (or random sports) is always better than a 5 yo player. So mr McDougall whats the poin? Why u arbitrary choose 27-19? Cause this is crap
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
Comment removed
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
This has been flagged as spam show
Point number 3 evidence the enormous bias. Answer to the "mistery": in every endurance physical activity such endurance biking or swimming is the same, so running is not the point. I guess im the smarter human on the planet, right McDougall?
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
Comment removed
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
ok, what's the average life of these tribu members?
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
Incredibly new perspective about human pre-history...Tarahumara = Win! This fits in completely with all the other content about barefoot running too. (Note: If you're new to the pose method/the idea of barefoot running search YT for the video called "Terra Plana - Learning the Skill of-" for a quick run down about the difference - no personal affiliation or experience with their shoes, just posting for the visual explanation) Haven't tried barefoot personally yet, sticking to feiyues for now :)
ZensportTV 1 month ago
If you start long distance running when you're young you'll enjoy it more and thank your younger self when you get older. (;
Angry6676 1 month ago
@Consistency87 ignorance is bliss....
cg7509 1 month ago 2
Running is harmful end of story...barefoot will lead to many more injuries
mikecazzx 2 months ago
@mikecazzx wrong
thetarget 1 month ago
Comment removed
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
@mikecazzx False!
tripleMmagic 1 month ago
Comment removed
hotsauce0786 1 month ago in playlist Correr Natural
So... I'm supposed to get used to running barefoot in winter too? It's pretty snowy outside right now.
But if we can find a way to get running again, we'd eventually be able to replace cars with this great form of exercise!
CatFlashBlue 2 months ago
Interesting ideas, many with merit. He overlooks human ingenuity & the use of snares & nets for catching game. Another technique used then & now is the herding of game by the entire human group into a natural or man-made corral, or over a cliff. He is also unaware of horses which race 100 miles over the Continental Divide in ~10 hours, carrying riders & gear! Like humans, different kinds of horses are better adapted for various athletic tasks. Run on natural surfaces, breathing clean air!
Jefferdaughter 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
@Jefferdaughter Actually he brings up those subjects in his book born to run. You should read it if you have'nt, it's very interesting.
Rawbone73 2 months ago
@Rawbone73 - Good to know! I'll put 'Born to Run' on my reading list. Still, as one who has lived with horses, ridden long distances, and also used to run (with a toe strike gait as it just seemed better to me), I doubt that a horse would be outrun by a human of SIMILAR BODY TYPE and in similar condition, at any distance, especially if the human was similarly burdened as with a rider, saddle, etc. When I get the financing, I'll run the tests. ITMT, humans were not born to sit! (Grin!).
Jefferdaughter 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your videos are the best on the web
juliacotic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in some tribes in the modern world there are runners who can do routes miles in one day ...but they found that their feet were developed differently than ours
andreeaweed 4 months ago
what about construction? build and create as a form of relief?
ivailoonetwo 4 months ago
Oh my gosh, my cross country coach needs to see this. We should be running barefooted and for fun, not running to destroy to competition at cross country meets.
ActualSubstance 4 months ago
@timguyperson You're mistaking the benefits of wearing something on your feet with that of wearing running shoes. The argument being made here is not to run in completely bare feet but rather to run in something that is so thin that it allows your foot to work as nature intended, while providing protection from the elements. Sandals, FiveFingers, whatever.
casicielo84 5 months ago 2
@Thestralsxxx 'Condensed caloric energy'...Expansion of brain size...dead animals.... Did you hear that part?
To be fair, the Chia seeds eaten by the Tarahumara are quite high in protein for a vegetable.
What's new is that it is linked to a new (pretty small scale id say) movement of barefoot runners. I'm experimenting with it myself.
Schizopantheist 5 months ago
The Tarahumara use peyote! It's entheogens! Entheogens are the key that also unlocked our big brain and language!
Farfromhere001 6 months ago
@timguyperson "In general running shoes prevent a heck of a lot more injuries than they cause, for day to day use." Maybe you need a day-to-day shoe. As runners, many of us have had injured feet for the past 30 years. I need to run on healthy feet for a change. The whole advent of heel-strike running is destroying our feet. After ONE three mile run on my forefeet, the muscles in my lower legs came to life--should have only done a mile or so to start, but the motion felt so much better.
travlgent1 6 months ago
@travlgent1 Similar experience here. Running in shoes convinced me that running is an uphill struggle for a long time. Then I started barefoot runs on the wet sand at the beach ... sprinting feels like flying!
Seeing all people running around with uber-padded sneakers makes me shudder.
andreinla 6 months ago
Great talk. Nothing makes me feel alive like running.
Just brought "Born to Run" book... looking forward to reading. =)
stewartcelani 6 months ago
this makes me feel better that i hate shoes :D stupid gyms should let u run barefeet, or in socks >(
Burning0Lilac 7 months ago
I can picture Chris McDougall chasing down and consuming an impala, but sadly, not myself. I mean that in the most complimentary way Chris!
jahrleriksen 7 months ago
I'm confused, by "we have been doing it for 2 million years", does he mean anatomically modern humans? Homo sapiens have not been around for 2 million years.
TheSlowProgression 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheSlowProgression 8 months ago
Surely running barefoot on tarmac would hurt though! D:
nerdyal 8 months ago
movnat.com is the solution
MrPositronic 8 months ago
SPANISH SUBTITLES PLEASE!! LOOK INTERESTING...
lagalucha17 8 months ago 14
@lagalucha17 try hitting ted.com and selecting your language.
randomaccountname01 8 months ago
THIS IS AMERICA
khepri 6 months ago
@khepri This is the internet. Hello from europe.
Schizopantheist 6 months ago
@Schizopantheist America invented the internet. Welcome to America dickhead
khepri 5 months ago
@khepri This is the world wide web, invented by CERN (Switzerland), Tim Berners-Lee (UK).
Welcome to the world, impolite fellow.
Schizopantheist 5 months ago
@Schizopantheist Tell Al Gore that, bitch.
khepri 5 months ago
@khepri No i'll tell your mom, loser.
Schizopantheist 5 months ago
@Schizopantheist Obviously you don't get the joke faggot. Go ahead and tell my mom, because that would be an incredible waste of time compared to the energy and effort it would to find out who I am, then my mom, then to contact her. Plus, then she would get a fucking laugh about some swiss idiot calling me a loser when I gross more money that you and your parents combined. Suck a dick you retarded shithead.
khepri 5 months ago
Like all advice about running this information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. McDougall, when he trained with shoes did so without a trainer and a schedule and most likely trained incorrectly. and when he started running barefoot he got a personal trainer who probably taught him how to train and train well. Running barefoot definitely has its benefits and if you do stride outs barefoot that is really good but running too often and without proper training barefoot can be devastating
aloug007 8 months ago 2
i don't run, not because of injury but b/c it's hard =(. Does that make me lazy?
violet101 8 months ago
if you guy, please look up Stu Mittleman. He broke every long distance marathon record ever recorded!
calico992 9 months ago
his time line about the advent of edged weapons is wrong. They have dated Achulean hand axes back to 1.6 million b.p. I'm just saying..
MegaHigster 9 months ago
@MegaHigster That's interesting, and accoding to wikipedia, you are quite right. However...
"In individual regions, this dating can be considerably refined; in Europe for example, Acheulean methods did not reach the continent until around 400,000 years ago"
That raises the question of what the early humans there were doing until the axes arrived! (to give one example)
Schizopantheist 5 months ago
Purely to keep fit I started to jog from cold and damaged my foot tendons. It took over a year to mend. Started again ...walk 30... run 10.. walk 30... run 20 and so on until walk 30 run....100. By then I am warmed up and keep on jogging. No more injury. This way the arteries expand slowly so I am never winded. There is no pain and its enjoyable. I am 65 and will run 'til I die.
burmanhands 9 months ago
My running injuries went away when I bought a pair of Puma Yugorun shoes.
123gwf 9 months ago
@123gwf nice advertisement...
psykoman2004 9 months ago
@timguyperson Google...
jonnybravo8 9 months ago
Just discovered this great book and ideology. not much of a runner (slow and walk are my speeds) but I've been a DANCER for most of my life... Most of the time my feet have been bare or in slippers or salsa shoes that provide no real protection from the concrete floors and sidewalks I jam on. (Of course those spring loaded dance floors are great but not always available!) Now that I've read the book I'm thinking maybe I'm more naturally prepared to run than I ever realized! Thanks Chris McD!
southerntigress 9 months ago 5
Comment removed
southerntigress 9 months ago
@timguyperson Bullshit. Its proven that if you take your time, about 4-6 months, slowly increasing barefoot runs the skin under your foot will be able to handle even broken glass on the street. Shoes are responsible for most running related injuries.
jonnybravo8 9 months ago 2
@tiny guy person The lack of hunting tools is actually evidence for - not against - persistence hunting. If early humans were able to "run an animal to death", hunting tools wouldn't be necessary.
cygone 10 months ago
Barefooter here and yes, what McDougall is saying makes sense given my experience barefooting. Maybe this won't be a big thing because no one will profit from people using what they were born with, but that doesn't mean we can't do what's best for us and spread the word.
Duskmelt 10 months ago
@timguyperson Shoes hurt people by changing how you land on your foot. Our legs are made for us to land on the balls of our feet. Why couldnt or wouldnt we have hunted. A spear isnt that hard to think of. Its something like this "tie sharp rock to long stick stab animal then eat animal." I think given a few 100,000 years they could think of that even more likely when you think about how they used stone tolls to cut apart animals to eat.
kokofan50 10 months ago
@timguyperson Sweetheart...we're not a library. If you can't look stuff up on the internet than you clearly haven't figured them out yet. The reports, statistics and hey Christopher McDougall's book is out there too filled with information. Not like he was paid by Barefoot Running Inc. when he wrote it either. Go do your own research.
LiquidYogi 10 months ago
@timguyperson You are egocentric. If you did some research, you would find out why cushioned shoes causes injuries. But you don't care enough to do so; you just want to state your opinion on this Youtube comment section.
nengsly 10 months ago
i hope no minds the plug....i dont work for them or anything like that!!!! but Feivue trainers are really great shoes fro running. fantastic and cheep as chips!
jammatoonarmy 10 months ago
@jammatoonarmy thought id add, they have a really thin sole, which makes for great flexability and control. really light and breathable too!!! honest, im not sponsored!! :\ if only!! :(
jammatoonarmy 10 months ago
I'm assuming we aren't supposed to run barefoot on pavement, because that would surely wreck your knees. Dirt and grass seem plausible enough though.
RobertWeekes 11 months ago
I've recently tried barefoot running and I can say that this is true. My injuries have gone away, my times have improved, and a sense of liberty has made up the new composition of my spirit.
vichuit 11 months ago
very informative ... thank you !
boomqwer 11 months ago
or they didnt eat animals?
laker42594 11 months ago
wooden tools, women have an extra layer of fat, barefoot running is more healthy by far for long term and long distance running
enikhanjohorns 11 months ago
Born to Run has done great things for attacking bullshit running shoes. However, the propagation of endurance hunting theory is a mistake predicated on the belief that humans are innately weak and pathetic. The average man 30,000+ years ago stood 5'10", weighed 170-180 at 8-12% bodyfat, and consumed 50% of calories from meat.
We were a race of pro decathletes, the second largest of the great apes which are a physically imposing group - only leopards tend to prey on extant hominids.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis ...
Do you have any basis for you claims?
Especially the height, 50% meat diet and, most ridiculously, the very precise 8-12% body fat figure?
Why should I believe your claims, that run against everything I've ever heard?
As opposed to people like Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman and Dennis Bramble, who have academic credentials and have written peer-reviewed papers on the subject, and are the people that McDougall has as his source?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
As a matter of fact, everything I just stated was drawn from other peer-reviewed sources. Size and measurements are from "The Excellence of Paleolithic Man" and the 50% number is actually the norm within the academic community. The work of Lieberman and Bramble has been repeatedly attacked, as this is a highly debated issue in the academic community.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "As a matter of fact, everything I just stated was drawn from other peer-reviewed sources."
Creatures like an antelope would run away. Creatures that don't run away, or are slow enough for us to catch up to... They tend to be more dangerous.
Your saying that humans aren't as weak as McDougall is implying, but are you're saying that a human, with weapons no greater than stones, wooden clubs and sharpened sticks, could kill those animals?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Absolutely. It is known that Neanderthals hunted megafauna up close, as evidenced by injuries similar to rodeo riders on all Neanderthal skeletons. Humans shared their diet, build, and were only slightly lesser in physical prowess as regards strength - why assume that we would be incapable of hunting in a similar manner? Furthermore, why are we credited with killing off so many slow-moving but dangerous species (which we 100% were known to hunt) if we could not dispatch them?
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis When?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
In point of fact I should stress that Liberman and Bramble acknowledged that humans were known to have killed dangerous animals up close, but dismiss it without further evidence except to postulate that it would be too dangerous to do so. To acknowledge a repeat event and then to dismiss it seems more than a little puzzling - it was a forgone conclusion of theirs that humans were too weak to engage megafauna in close quarters, yet evidence shows that extant groups did just that
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis I wouldn't say they dismiss it out of hand. I have heard Lieberman say that persistence hunting would not have been the only way we hunted (indeed here's another: watch?v=pNeNTMmltyc).
However: If a method is dangerous, it would be advantageous to use a different method more often.
Just because it isn't the only method, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be great reasons for adaptation that benefit it, to be selected for.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Indeed, this is the very crux of my issue with the Endurance Hunting hypothesis. The forgone assumption that humans, despite our size and physical potential, our intelligence, the development of killing implements, our demonstrated ability to kill just about anything, are incapable of matching virtually any animal in a physical contest, no matter our implements, no matter the modern examples of humans killing dangerous predators with no more than knives. A lack of self-esteem.
tgtennis 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgtennis "are incapable of matching virtually any animal in a physical contest"
A persistence hunt isn't a physical contest?
"the development of killing implements"
We hardly had any worth mention, 2 million years ago.
"no matter the modern examples of humans killing dangerous predators with no more than knives."
At great risk to their lives.
In a persistence hunt, success and safety is pretty much certain.
"A lack of self-esteem."
Not really. Just knowing your limits.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes. My interest lies primarily with "modern" man, particularly from 70,000 BC up until the invention of agriculture. Homo Habilis (2.3-1.4 million BC) may well have been suited to persistence hunting, but it surely has less bearing on our physical makeup than the direct natural habits of our genetically identical forbears.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "My interest lies primarily with "modern" man, particularly from 70,000 BC up until the invention of agriculture."
Ah, but surely 1.7+ million years of evolution has had a great mark on us?
...and we still retain the ability to persistence hunt, as well as the anatomical, running specific, features we had then.
Besides, you did actually make claims about the time period that Lieberman talks about.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
My Habilis comments were directed at the 2 Ma year mark, which slightly precedes Erectus. However, I would be a dick to nitpick that.
We are definitely agreed that evolution leaves a mark - but I am of the opinion that we should prioritize the evidence concerning modern humans pre-agriculture. The further back we go, the more likely that past traits may have less bearing on us. If Erectus utilized EH, while Sapiens engaged them head-on, then I would lean towards the latter...
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "If Erectus utilized EH, while Sapiens engaged them head-on, then I would lean towards the latter..."
Sure, but that would not be an argument against the validity of the endurance running hypothesis.
It would just be an argument about what form(s) of exercise are best for modern humans.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
(cont)
Regarding the design of fitness programs in the modern world. Now, of course we must seek out why we switched methods (habitat, physiology, tech, etc) but I would take the "Paleo era Sapiens' hunting/gathering methods" as a jumping-off point. I think that is a logical enough choice - begin at the beginning and all that. I'm all for using evidence from earlier species to not only discover that point, but to provide context - yet they should not obscure evidence either.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "Regarding the design of fitness programs in the modern world./.../"
Sure.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Might H Habilis have utilized endurance hunting? Certainly possible. Chimps (similar intelligence, social structure, etc) that consume 10% of calories in meat don't use it, but they aren't bipedal.
At any rate, in 1-2 million years between Habilis and Sapiens, there is room for a ton of evolutionary change prior to the birth of Sapiens. I would say that we start with the bigger, stronger, better-armed, smarter version's natural habits rather than adopting the lesser ancestor's.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "there is room for a ton of evolutionary change"
We still retain the relevant features ...and Lieberman talks about Homo Erectus, not Habilis. Homo Habilis might not even have those features, as far as I know, and the idea that Habilis is a direct ancestor of ours (or of Erectus) is debated.
"I would say that we start with the bigger, stronger, better-armed, smarter version's natural habits rather than adopting the lesser ancestor's."
No ones saying we should persistence hunt.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
The Habilis comments are directed at the 2 million BC reference, though Erectus is only just shy of that, so I won't nitpick.
They are recommending long-distance running as a preferred method of exercise based on EH theory. I may be biased, but the vast majority of S&C coaches these days are of the "lift weights and sprint" persuasion, as it returns superior results. This does not fit well with EH theory, in terms of long-distance jogging.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "but the vast majority of S&C coaches these days are of the "lift weights and sprint" persuasion"
Coaches have been known to be wrong about such things. They're not exactly doing controlled trials.
Also, the long distance running they are encouraging, is more of a run/walk thing, rather than a run at a consistent pace, which they discourage.
Also, while I understand the sprinting bit (and the video I mentioned, has a coach listing the benefits of it)... lifting weights?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Actually, top S&C coaches constantly reference the latest scientific publications - a decent article will often reference five or more peer-reviewed studies. In the end, however, those studies are always ten years behind the information on the job coaches collect. Most S&C coaches view clinical studies as lab guys finally confirming what the entire industry already knows - few are the times when clinical studies really change things.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
The reason weights are so important is because humans today are pathetically weak compared to their genetic potential. Practically all male humans are capable of deadlifting 2.5 times bw and lifting more than their bw overhead with only a few years of training. These are considered simple base standards for most athletes to begin specialized lifting - yet very few average people or beginning athletes can do it.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Furthermore, strength is the "base" athletic attribute for work capacity, power (determines speed), and so on. It corrects posture issues, particularly those caused by sitting down for long periods. Most chronic pains/issues are a mixed deficit of strength and mobility.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Given that modern day humans in Europe shared the same diet as Neanderthals, who are well-known to have utilized up-close hunting techniques, I think it very much is an attack on our limits. To dismiss, out of hand, our recognized ability to hunt large animals successfully in a more time-efficient manner needs evidence. Not saying, "No, it's too dangerous, even if they did it successfully in many areas. Let's study the guys who eat almost no meat to find out how to hunt well!"
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "Given that modern day humans in Europe shared the same diet as Neanderthals"
Eh... no. Neanderthals are generally considered to be carnivores, though there is some recent research that suggests they may have eaten a bit of vegetables too (at least some of them)
"I think it very much is an attack on our limits."
On what basis?
Neanderthals were stronger, more robust and far worse at running.
They were better fighters, we better runners.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
The neanderthal diet (50-50 vs carnivore, this was news to me as well) has recently come under debate, but their hunting practices and prey are supposedly the same, according to two articles in Current Anthropology (Feb 2006) and Journal of Archaelogical Science (Sept 2003) respectively. Regardless of the inclusion of veg in Neanderthal diets (I hope they remain classified as carnivores, to show vegetarians) the prey and practices of hunting are considered equitable.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "(I hope they remain classified as carnivores, to show vegetarians)"
:)
"the prey and practices of hunting are considered equitable."
Even if it's true that they hunted, much the same way as Homo Sapiens...
They had far more advanced tools, than we had 2 million years ago.
Neanderthals are only about 600,000 years old (older than the spear, but then, it's thought that they were largely scavenges before that).
Thus, irrelevant to the discussion of the endurance running hypothesis.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
The humans who barely hunt probably do so because they live in deserts with poor hunting prospects, not to mention the open ground makes it more likely that long chases would be required. Homo Habilis may have engaged in endurance hunts, but should we look to the oldest branch and poorest hunter of our genus first? I feel that the applying the valid research from these groups as universal rules without proper qualifiers makes a huge mistake in ignoring "mainstream" modern groups
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "but should we look to the oldest branch and poorest hunter of our genus first?"
Lieberman states that the features first appears in about 2 million BCE, but they are still present in us now.
The endurance running hypothesis is to explain WHY it happened BACK THEN, and to do that you do have to look at the oldest branch.
How else could you possibly do it?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@tgtennis "makes a huge mistake in ignoring "mainstream" modern groups"
What other ideas are there, in the scientific community?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Well first of all there are mass kills. In a more limited hunting session the simple difference is that you stab the prey without running it to the ground first. Here, spear throwers, track and kill, and the general practice of "surround and stab" has scientific backing. Bramble and Liebermann insist that this is impossible without EH methods, while Olga Soffer, David/Gary Webster, and others have published separate materials showing that many other methods have been used.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "Here, spear throwers, track and kill, and the general practice of "surround and stab" has scientific backing."
In what time period?
Those claims rather sound like ones that would require stone headed spears, at the very least ...thus making them utterly irrelevant to the endurance running hypothesis.
Around 1.7 million years of throwing spears and "surround and stab", where the spears are no more than sharpened sticks?
I don't think so.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
I think we may be getting at the heart of the issue here. Perhaps the confusion even lies with my knowledge of EH
My major fault with the EH hypothesis does not pertain to pre-Sapiens hominids as I lack knowledge of these groups or the debates around them. I dispute the assertion that modern humans typically used EH as they were too weak/fragile to hunt effectively in other manners. It is my understanding that EH theory asserts that claim; it is only this that I know to dispute
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "I dispute the assertion that modern humans typically used EH as they were too weak/fragile to hunt effectively in other manners. It is my understanding that EH theory asserts that claim"
Even if they do, it's with the assumption that you have no weapons beyond a stick (i.e. no spears or bows or anything like that).
Either way, it doesn't really effect the hypothesis.
Only those specific claims, made by those specific people.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
(I wonder exactly how the spear vs sharpened stick alters exact hunting methods)
I think we may be able to settle our discussion on common ground - endurance hunting certainly has been used, might well have been used more often prior to Homo Sapiens and their tech advances, and is a viable method of hunting, particularly in open, desert ecologies.
tgtennis 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgtennis "(I wonder exactly how the spear vs sharpened stick alters exact hunting methods)"
A sharpened stick is clearly rather lacking, in the ability to penetrate (especially when thrown), in comparison to a spear.
"might well have been used more often prior to Homo Sapiens and their tech advances"
...thus making the endurance running hypothesis plausible.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Now, if Lieberman and Bramble state that EH was predominant in hominids prior to homo sapiens, and it saw continued, though notably decreased usage, in modern humans with advanced tools, then I would agree with this. Bramble et all do state that the general lack of EH in extant hunter-gatherer groups is "puzzling" and I do believe that EH hunting makes sense in certain ecologies, so with modifications and qualifiers to the theory (as I understand it) I'd have less/no opposition
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "and it saw continued, though notably decreased usage, in modern humans with advanced tools, then I would agree with this."
In the video I mentioned, Lieberman stated that persistence hunting decreased significantly after the bow.
It is, BTW, more effective in terms of average amount of meat per time.
It is far more exhausting and is more dependent on tracking skill, however, so I'm personally not surprised it's so rare nowadays.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
What's the caloric intake per hour? I ask because I know that the Ache tribe take in 750 per hour per hunter with their "sprint 'n spear" method. Lord knows how many calories a mass kill takes in an hour. ;-)
I don't think the tracking skill matters in the case of extant HG tribes, as I assume they have preserved the majority of their hunting skills. If it is exhausting, wouldn't that be an argument against the base effectiveness of the method when comparing to other options?
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "I don't think the tracking skill matters in the case of extant HG tribes"
You have to train it, before you can preserve it and most importantly you have to USE it!
Also, while it's not _physically_ exhausting, it requires active mental activity.
Our natural instinct is to avoid physical AND mental strain. Our brains will do things on "autopilot", if it can.
...and persistence hunting requires keeping track of a specific individual, as well as the use of creativity and empathy, so...
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Extant (meaning "existing") hunter gatherers continue to hunt, track, etc and therefore do use and preserve the skills. Libermann and Bramble specifically state that very few extant groups utilize endurance hunting and consider it "puzzling."
I'm curious if you have any evidence showing the differences in mental strain between different forms of hunting. I found steady-state cross-country to not be a particularly mentally demanding athletic discipline.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis In normal tracking, you just find tracks of an animal, and quickly put an arrow or spear through it.
Relatively simple.
In EH, you have to keep track of an INDIVIDUAL, the whole time (and separate it from it's herd) ...and at times the tracks disappear, and you have to use empathy and creativity, to put yourself in your preys "shoes", to figure out where it went.
These are skills that most HG groups don't have, never use, and that require more mental activity.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
If it is so mentally demanding, then how come Homo Erectus was capable of it, but it is too much of a strain for modern day humans? If it was so effective, then why did it become abandoned by most groups if, as you claim, it returns more calories per hour than other methods? I find it absurd to state that most HG tribes simply couldn't maintain what is supposedly the most basic hunting skill without some kind of evidence.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "but it is too much of a strain for modern day humans?"
It isn't. We can still do it ...but we can use other methods that aren't as strenuous, so we do that, because we want to minimize effort.
"if, as you claim, it returns more calories per hour than other methods?"
Why bother with a method, even if it's the best method, if there is one that requires less work, but is good enough to do the job (i.e. getting enough food)?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Currently, the most supported theory for hunter-gatherers is the optimal gathering strategy, which states that humans will use the method that nets them the greatest nutritional value for their time.
Do you have any actual evidence that simply following one animal for miles and miles is more mentally "demanding" (define that please) than setting up mass kills? Most predators isolate a single member of a herd, including chimps, lions, etc.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "Do you have any actual evidence that simply following one animal for miles and miles is more mentally "demanding" (define that please)"
Simply following one animal?
Did you seriously just say that?
Haven't you read anything I've said?
Please explain why I should explain any further, if you have, quite clearly, not bothered reading anything I said on the issue so far?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
I already pointed out that every pack hunter on the planet operates by singling out individuals. Observing the famous persistence hunt video, the hunter clearly only has serious mental exertions when attempting to pick up a lost trail - so finding new trails (what the Ache do the entire day) seems harder, as other hunting documentaries suggest.
The act of LDR is even used to induce trance among certain monks. I myself have used running as a hypnotic induction - not stressful
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "I already pointed out that every pack hunter on the planet operates by singling out individuals."
Not entirely true, historically, but... So?
They spot the individual, they kill it.
They don't have to keep track of it for long and e.g. note which individual a bit of faeces is from.
"the hunter clearly only has serious mental exertions when attempting to pick up a lost trail"
Which is only common in persistence hunting.
"so finding new trails /.../ seems harder"
How so?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
You specifically referred to the separation phase as mentally difficult yet the majority, at least, of pack hunters are able to perform this, despite having far less brain power than ourselves.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "You specifically referred to the separation phase as mentally difficult yet the majority, at least, of pack hunters are able to perform this"
Do they have to do so often? (in a persistence hunt, you have to do it several times every hunt)
Do they still keep track of the specific individual?
"despite having far less brain power than ourselves."
Nonsense!
They are fellow homo sapiens.
They may not be as educated, but their brain power is the same.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Less brain power refers to wolves, lions, pre-sapiens members of Homo, etc.
And yes, pack hunters may have to make several attempts in a single day at separating members of herds or equivalent, depending on the success of previous hunts.
tgtennis 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgtennis "And yes, pack hunters may have to make several attempts in a single day at separating members of herds or equivalent, depending on the success of previous hunts."
But why would they care to bother separating the EXACT SAME, member of the herd?
What benefit would merit that extra effort?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
That they do not do - that would, in fact, indicate a slightly greater level of complexity (though not necessarily stress) in the separation phase of an endurance hunt versus standard pack hunting. Of course, I still hold to my assertions that if it was simple enough for Erectus, then why not us?
tgtennis 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgtennis "That they do not do - that would, in fact, indicate a slightly greater level of complexity"
...thus indicating that it is an element that is absent in regular hunting.
The ability to track an individual.
Even if it doesn't require extra stress, it does require an additional skill.
One or two generations of not teaching it, and it's forgotten and lost.
"if it was simple enough for Erectus, then why not us?"
It IS simple enough for us ...but if we find a _simpler_ way...
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Explain how picking up a lost trail only takes place in persistence hunts. Any hunter following a trail may lose it, regardless of whether he has walked one mile or jogged 20. Furthermore, hunters who are continually looking for new trails made by new prey will have to pick up more trails, and so engage in the "picking up" activity far more often.
tgtennis 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgtennis "Any hunter following a trail may lose it, regardless of whether he has walked one mile or jogged 20."
Why would he have walked a mile?
"Furthermore, hunters who are continually looking for new trails made by new prey will have to pick up more trails"
Why would they look for new trails, if they've already caught an animal?
If it's because they've lost their trail... what difference does it make, if the trail they find is the old one or a new one?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
"Why would he have walked a mile?"
A hunter who finds a trail over a mile long would follow it. In most modern hunter-gatherer tribes this is done at a walking pace.
Ache hunters encounter various prey multiple times throughout the day (common types are encountered every 5 km) and return with multiple kills. If you are only getting one kill per hunt, you probably aren't being very productive - as the !Kung diet suggests.
tgtennis 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgtennis "A hunter who finds a trail over a mile long would follow it."
That's before encountering the animal, I assume?
"Ache hunters encounter various prey multiple times throughout the day (common types are encountered every 5 km) and return with multiple kills."
We don't need that much meat. We eat too much of it nowadays.
But you missed my main question:
What difference does it make, if the trail they find is the old one or a new one?
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
We eat too much meat nowadays? I thought you were up to date on Paleo dieting - or do you disagree with it? We eat a fraction of the meat our prehistoric forbears did, replacing it (and many vegetables) with grains. I'm sorry, but this came out of left field.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "We eat too much meat nowadays?"
That's what all the, qualified, scientists seem to be agreeing on, yes.
"I thought you were up to date on Paleo dieting"
1. What we ate, isn't _necessarily_ what we _should_ eat.
2. Are you? ...or are you just listening to paleo-diet-guys?
Paleo=Less grain and more vegetables and tubers (and nuts and berries), sure, but:
While most modern GHs eat more meat, many don't ...and none are representative of the paleo era, due to technological differences.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
I've experimented with keto, timed carbs, carb cycling, and paleo - not to mention my mass building and general maintenance diets. I haven't entered into a single one of these without reading multiple sources on the subject - and in the case of low carbs I have always looked for peer-reviewed studies backing up the author's claims as well as various anecdotal evidence.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
If you look at the ratios of macronutrients present in today's diets, the vast majority of studied paleolithic populations consumed lower carbs and more protein - I haven't been researching the absolute intake carefully.
When most people talk about applied paleo, we generally aren't going the apeshit full-Paleo, which I find to be unrealistic. There was no one diet, but there's a relatively consistent range of pre-agricultural macro ratios - metabolic typing narrows it down
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
"Scientists seem to be agreeing on" - what are you reading? If you'll forgive me for saying so, the best nutritionists (like proper athletics coaches) are generally APPALLED with the drivel that is spouted about their subject in common forums. If you read up on nutritionists who are 1) independent and unbiased 2) are called upon for their expertise by people who actually care about results (not government) they'll heartily disagree
The Weston Price foundation is a good start
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Most "scientists" sit around telling people to reduce fat and cholesterol intake to improve chol levels - makes sense right? Except that any real expert knows that chol gets metabolized first and doesn't directly jump into your system, and proper fat intake is actually key. John Meadows utilized a diet of high-quality fats to drop his chol levels with absurd speed.
Similarly, the only PROVEN problem with meats is the consumption of burned/processed meat increases cancer risk.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
If you look through even protein-starved HG societies like the !Kung, they get more protein than the FDA recommends - which comes out to around 50 grams. Thank you agriculture and healthcare lobbies. Considering that most Paleo HG groups' animal-based calories were in the 25-50% range, this looks ludicrous.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
As to what we SHOULD eat:
/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml (check out the chart for quick reading)
Agricultural societies, and their grain-based diets, correlate with smaller, weaker, shorter-lived people. Heck, Weston Price, as a dentist, made the connection between grain-based diets with metabolic disease (the West's number one killer) while researching our sudden surge in need for dental work in the last 200 years - same culprit.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
The solution, time and again, is to run opposite to most people, who tend to continually increase carbs in the forms of grains and other starches (tubers these days included - except yams) taking out vegetables first and eating shit quality meats and fats.
Even one of the founders of the anti-fat movement turned around and said he was wrong - wrong for years. The man gets paid for results and using the latest information, which sure as hell doesn't say eat less meat.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
On the trail finding - it is precisely my point that there is no difference. I was arguing that picking up the trail if it gets lost appears to be the most complex part of !Kung tracking. Since there is no real difference between this task and finding trails of new animals, the Ache hunters are consistently engaged in a more complex level of tracking/hunting. This all comes back to complexity as a part of mental difficulty/activity/strain.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "On the trail finding - it is precisely my point that there is no difference."
...unless you want to tire out the animal, in which case it's VITAL, that you keep to the exact same individual (and not a more rested animal and giving them opportunity to rest in-between, making it hopeless).
For the !Kung, they just need to find a trail.
A persistence hunter has to further determine, if it's the trail of the same animal or not.
Thus making persistence hunting more complex and strenuous.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Sorry, but since you are so big on talking about experts - do you have any expert hunters who will back that up? Show me how it isn't bleeding obvious to an experienced hunter if he picks up the wrong animal's tracks - especially when he's out in a desert with very little game. Once a herd animal is separated from its group, those single tracks should stand out like a sore thumb when comparing them to others - if there are any others at all, which doesn't seem likely.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
"How so?"
If you would simply define your notion of "mental difficulty" as I have asked you several times, it would be far easier to answer your question.
A hunter pacing along without pause or sign of notable confusion denotes that the activity is simpler (and therefore less difficult) than one that takes several minutes. Since long-distance running is used as a trance introduction in some areas, I don't see how stress could be a mitigating factor either.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "define your notion of "mental difficulty""
"Active mental activity", should be simple and accurate enough.
"Since long-distance running is used as a trance introduction in some areas, I don't see how stress could be a mitigating factor either."
Hm... so the "runners high" may be an evolutionary adaptation, to make persistence hunting easier.
Though persistence hunting (either due to the tracking, runners high or both) can make you forget about your own body, if your not careful...
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
I've gotten runner's high, but I've also experienced "lifter's high" in the same manner, achieving a shallow trance-state that is both pleasant and mildly amnesiac. So unless there is a proper study demonstrating the precise physiological differences in the highs created by different forms of exercise, then I don't buy an explanation that arbitrarily favors one.
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "So unless there is a proper study demonstrating the precise physiological differences in the highs created by different forms of exercise, then I don't buy an explanation that arbitrarily favors one."
Okay, sure.
I was just speculating anyway. Pointing out a possibility. (BTW, is "runner's high" perhaps the same as "flow" or "being in the zone"?)
I don't think I remember Lieberman doing anything more than speculating, when talking about runner's high, either.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
I equate a runner's high with the flow, zone, or whatever type of altered state we might wish to associate it with. I'm a fan of hypnosis and meditation, so I think there are tons of acceptable names for these states. :-)
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
I must say that McDougall at least, and quite possibly Lieberman, have made some very certain sounding statements on the subject of the runner's high being a clear indicator. They have tied it in with the whole peace-and-love theory. I dismiss the latter as mumbo-jumbo and the former as blatantly overlooking evidence, however that need not be an attack on endurance hunting theory if these concepts are dropped.
Do you know of any other authors that I might read on the subject?
tgtennis 11 months ago
@tgtennis "have made some very certain sounding statements on the subject of the runner's high being a clear indicator."
Well... I'd still think that Lieberman recognizes it as a possibility and not a certainty, though I can see where your coming from.
McDougall, on the other hand... Yeah, a bit too certain.
"Do you know of any other authors that I might read on the subject?"
Aside from those already mentioned? Not really.
ZarlanTheGreen 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
Who was that one female biologist you brought up? As said, I've found the work of Lieberman and Bramble to make some huge, and apparently erroneous, assumptions and omissions, and McDougall is considerably worse. I'm open to reading another researcher's claims, and seeing if she presents them in a way that either addresses these points, or at least doesn't make such poor attempts to circumvent them.
It is hard to be fair towards a base theory, when so much drivel accompanies it
tgtennis 11 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
"Active mental activity" isn't very precise at all. The complexity of a task is one measure. The strength of will (amount of mental stress one must deal with) necessitated to carry out a task is another.
tgtennis 11 months ago