Humans evolved for endurance running

Quoted message said:

Excerpted from:

The First Runner's High: Jogging Separated Humans from Apes
Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
2004 November 17 13:07 EST

A new study suggests the need for endurance made us what we are.

Sounds like ideas ripped from the book _Why We Run_!

Quoted message said:

Carrier, who was not involved in the latest study, showed that
differences in how humans breathe and sweat suited them for endurance.
Further, he found evidence that Navajo Indians and other primitive
cultures were able to run down very swift animals.

IIRC, ideas about the development of sweating to stay cool, and hunting
by out-enduring animals, are covered in that book.

Kaz Kylheku said:

Sounds like ideas ripped from the book _Why We Run_!

IIRC, ideas about the development of sweating to stay cool, and
hunting by out-enduring animals, are covered in that book.

Yes, you RC. It seems to me that almost immediately after finishing
that book some months ago, I started hearing what sound like the same
thoughts and theories attributed more recently to other people.

Of course I've no idea to what degree these things in Heinrich's book
were his original and exclusive thoughts, I only know that his
information was interesting, ideas sounded plausible, and it was pretty
new territory for me.

The other post uses the phrase "a new study". It's easy enough to
imagine scientists being intrigued by Heinrich's thoughts and then
designing studies to bring a little more, whatchacallit, rigor mortis
to his lively ideas.

Great book by someone who seems to be a good scientist, writer and distance
runner. Available for $2 used (plus shipping) at Amazon.

"Why We Run" - by Bernd Heinrich

His other books about trees, birds and nature are also quite good.
--
Les <SlowFoot> Stewart
Beaumont, TX

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Excerpted from:

The First Runner's High: Jogging Separated Humans from Apes
Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
2004 November 17 13:07 EST

A new study suggests the need for endurance made us what we are.
Hunting or scavenging on the African savannah was the genesis of the
Nike empire, the thinking goes. Those who ran well separated themselves
from the pack of apes and became the earliest humans, eating protein
that enlarged their brains.

Running got us out of the trees and made us smarter.

"We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came
at the expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was
instrumental in the origin of the modern human body form," said
University of Utah biologist Dennis Bramble.

The idea is presented in the Nov. 18 issue of the journal Nature.

[...]

So why would evolution have selected for the development of these
features?

Biologist David Carrier, also of the University of Utah, provided a
possible answer in previous research. Before humans had invented the
bow and arrow, Carrier reasons, it would have been advantageous to wear
down prey with an endless pursuit.

[...]

Importantly, the food that early humans could catch by simply
outlasting their prey -- meat -- would have changed everything.

Carrier, who was not involved in the latest study, showed that
differences in how humans breathe and sweat suited them for endurance.
Further, he found evidence that Navajo Indians and other primitive
cultures were able to run down very swift animals.

(!!!)

---------

I didn't even know that that kind of hunting was possible. But in
retrospect, it makes sense. The faster animals like elephants, lions,
tigers, cheetas, etc. may have fast sprint speeds (as well as
herbivores, such as those they would chase after), but nobody ever said
they could run fast for a long time or -- for that matter -- even
outrun a human over a significant stretch.

In fact, I was once surprised by a quote citing for how far a horse
typically goes in a day, stating distances I've easily *outwalked* in a
day, never mind outrun.

An interesting sidebar is that a human can compete against
a horse in ultras. In fact the first regular 100 mile trail race
started out as a horse race in the 1950s. Then some fanatical
humans started competing in the 1970s and beating some of the
horses. This race has forked into the Tevis Cup and Western 100.

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

Theres a joint human and horse race called ride and tie
where two humans and a horse race together. There are
strict rules protecting the health of the horses because
humans can run them sick or to the death if not careful.

Charlie Pendejo said:

Kaz Kylheku said:

Sounds like ideas ripped from the book _Why We Run_!

IIRC, ideas about the development of sweating to stay cool, and
hunting by out-enduring animals, are covered in that book.

Yes, you RC. It seems to me that almost immediately after finishing
that book some months ago, I started hearing what sound like the same
thoughts and theories attributed more recently to other people.

Of course I've no idea to what degree these things in Heinrich's book
were his original and exclusive thoughts, I only know that his
information was interesting, ideas sounded plausible, and it was pretty
new territory for me.

The other post uses the phrase "a new study". It's easy enough to
imagine scientists being intrigued by Heinrich's thoughts and then
designing studies to bring a little more, whatchacallit, rigor mortis
to his lively ideas.

I think they are are friends/collegues. I think Heinrich "referenced"
these guys in his book.

I disagree.
Humans evolved so we can be the next batch of fossil fuels for a truly
superior species of beings that are scheduled to arrive at a later date.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:41:15 -0500, [email hidden] (Miss Anne

Thrope) said:

I disagree.
Humans evolved so we can be the next batch of fossil fuels for a truly
superior species of beings that are scheduled to arrive at a later date.

I'm here, however you people aren't ripe yet, so I'm waiting...

Quoted message said:

So why would evolution have selected for the development of these
features?

Isn't it obvious?

Our ancestors learned how to grasp primitive tools (rocks and
clubs). This may have developed from the ability to grasp tree
limbs while climbing. The ability to grasp, and throw or strike
with, rocks and clubs gives a significant advantage over prey that
don't have that ability.

But rocks and clubs generally don't kill at one blow. To be able to
eat the prey, we have to finish killing it. To finish killing it,
we usually had to strike another blow, or maybe several.

After being hit (by a rock or club), the prey animal generally runs
away. There are two way to catch up with it. The hunter can either:
Run faster than the pry, or; Run farther than the prey. Either
way, the hunter can catch up with the prey, and strike it again.

Two-footed animals cannot run faster than four-footed animals.
(Recall that we gave up the use of two feet to develop the ability
to grasp the tree limbs, rocks, and clubs.)

So, we developed the ability to run farther than the prey.

A hunter that can grasp and use rocks or clubs, and can run farther
than the prey, can strike the prey repeatedly... and eat it.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Further, he found evidence that Navajo Indians and other primitive
cultures were able to run down very swift animals.

These "very swift animals" were commonly deer.

I've read accounts from frontier naturalists who saw this deer hunting
tactic first-hand. A Native runner, armed only with a knife, would
spot a deer and simply run after it. Since the human had tremendous
endurance, the hard part of the hunt wasn't the running but the
tracking. Provided the brave could keep track of the deer, he would
run and run and run until the deer became exhausted from the chase.
The brave would then leap onto the deer and cut its throat.

I've read a bunch of articles and books from naturalists and
evolutionary biologists, each with their own view of how we evolved
from tree-dwelling primates to bipedal humans. The arguments about
which came first - brain, hand, running - seems presumptive to me.
Evolution is not a straight line from worthless to capable. Instead,
it's a messy trial-and-error of "not cutting the mustard" to "good
enough". These adaptive changes are driven by the endless friction of
morphology versus geography. In our case, thousands of calories on the
hoof became preferable to hundreds of calories on the vine. We started
chasing prey. Bipedalism assisted those efforts. Opposable thumbs and
free hands allowed the expert use of sharp tools. And bigger brains
gave our Indian brave the wits to stalk a deer through miles and miles
of dense forest.

It's my belief that we evolved rather quickly into the runners that we
are today. Major phenotypical changes can occur in as few as 18
generations. We likely became bipedal, manual and smart gradually and
concurrently, and rather quickly (in geologic time).

I don't buy the chicken-and-the-egg arguments of brains versus
bipedalism. I think the chicken and the egg were in the same frying
pan of Pleistocene survival.

- TR
- running through the supermarket to capture a pork chop.

Citizen Ted said:

I've read accounts from frontier naturalists who saw this deer hunting
tactic first-hand. A Native runner, armed only with a knife, would
spot a deer and simply run after it. Since the human had tremendous
endurance, the hard part of the hunt wasn't the running but the
tracking. Provided the brave could keep track of the deer, he would
run and run and run until the deer became exhausted from the chase.
The brave would then leap onto the deer and cut its throat.

OMG, what a load of [censored]. I'm a native american buff, and know about
this, and they hunted by surprise, and sneaking up on prey, not by
running it down.

"You know what John Wayne would be doing right now if he was alive?

Scratching at the roof of his coffin, most likely."

Shaved censored said:

OMG, what a load of [censored]. I'm a native american buff, and know about
this, and they hunted by surprise, and sneaking up on prey, not by
running it down.

1. After you eat the stupid deer, if you want to eat more, you have
to find a way to eat the other deer. They do learn. There is a
reason why they make themselves scarce during hunting season.

2. Primitive weapons usually do not kill at one blow. Even if you
can stalk a deer, is usually necessary to follow/track/chase it
until you can strike it a second time.

3. In historic times, native americans used a variety of hunting
methods -- whatever worked, using whatever tools/weapons they could
get. They were not required to use only certain prescribed methods.

Steve