Jogging/running isn't very natural

mickrock

daithimacgroin wrote: »

is this thread still happening?

Jaysus Mick, get over it, running is not bad for you, never has never will

Nike are bad for you

Well, it had ended until you just brought it up again. Twice.

daithimacgroin

u mean, brought up how dumb u are, how dumb you are.....

It wasn't me!

Anyone else totally baffled by a guy with a personal crusade against running?

Everyone grows old, everyone dies, and everyone's body degrades along the way. Joints get sore and prone to injury, bones get more brittle, teeth wear and fall out. We feel the cold more, we feel more fatigue and lose our capability. This is just life and death. So we're going to suffer long term anyway. Non-runners will die; non-smokers will die; non-drinkers and vegetarians will die. Simple fact is that in the middle, before we all start heading down the grim road, runners are living up to their potential much more than those who don't.

mickrock

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Anyone else totally baffled by a guy with a personal crusade against running?

Haha, I'm not on a personal crusade. What's wrong with a debate on the subject?

Anyway, I'll bow out now.

I'm off for a run.

Sonics2k

mickrock wrote: »

We didn't evolve to run, because we didn't need to run.

Yes, yes we did

Yahew

nobody has taken up the challenge of the paleo fitness guy, who says


Our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn’t regularly ramp their heart rates up for over an hour a day like so many of us do now. Even when the concept of organized hunting came along, it would appear that our hunter-gatherer ancestors relied more on superior tracking ability (using our highly evolved and exceptionally large brains) and walking (using our superior fat-burning systems), rather than on actually “chasing down” their prey. In fact, squandering valuable energy reserves (and increasing carbohydrate [glucose] metabolism by a factor of ten) by running hard for long periods of time was so counterproductive it would have likely hastened your demise (imagine chasing some game animal for a few hours and – oops – not succeeding in killing it. You’ve spent an incredible amount of energy, yet now you have no food to replace that energy. You have suddenly become some other animals prey because you are physically exhausted).


seems reasonable.

kowloon

Reading about Zulu military reform a while back, the distance they had to cover and the time in which they had to do it puts us all to shame. They were encouraged not to use any footwear to harden their feet.

I used to run about a lot as a child, I was the slowest in the group, but I tried. I wonder if children today aren't a bit lazy by comparison.

When you had to wait for a computer game to load you tended to find something else to do and forget about the screen.

Now entertainment is instant, I know the most exercise I get these days is walking to the corner shop.

saa

I don't like when people argue about things being natural or not like natural is good, what we're supposed to do and unnatural is bad and evil and makes baby Jesus cry. (not saying OP is doing this but the word natural is just very problematic)

If you only go for a brisk walk your level of fitness will not develop to its optimum level well maybe it would but it would take a lot of time walking each day compared to the energy you would burn from a good jog or run, but if you are out of shape a variety of exercises are needed, but I have to say sometimes I do think people can go overboard on their fitness and also the whole it damages your joints issue, kind of worries me.

Capt'n Midnight

acidskiffle wrote: »

When your heart is elevated you're using more energy which is good for weight control.
A lot of people are consuming more calories than they would use by simply living, so extra exercise is required.

A half an hour of exercise will elevate your metabolism for a few hours. So you will burn more even calories after exercising

phasers

Yogging's more natural than doritos though, or a big cheeseboorger

Rocket19

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, that's largely a fallacy. While they have much higher childhood mortality rates which skew the stats, plenty of hunter gatherers see their 60's and 70's and tend to have lower incidences of arthritis and far lower incidences of diabetes and obesity. Tooth decay and loss is a much more modern disease. Well since the advent of agriculture. Few "cavemen" have cavities, or would have required braces or removal of wisdom teeth. If a dentist went back in time he or she would need to find a new career.

I completely agree with your point that people didn't evolve principally because of our ability to run long distances. Rather, our early evolution came mainly through our becoming bi-pedal (standing on two legs) and, with that, freeing our hands making them available for tool production/use. Also, standing on two legs made it far easier to spot predators, etc.

You are however, completely wrong about the life expectancy of pre-historic man, at least as far as I know. It isn't a "fallacy". Their life expectancy was approximately 25-30, with 'lucky' members of the groups surviving to their 40s or 50s. Survivng to this older age was pretty rare, so usually the members who lived 'til 40/50 were considered very wise and were coveted. Skeletons that we find of older individuals from the stoneage periods are usually quite high status as the socities had a very strong ritualistic emphasis placed on ancestors (rather than gods) back then. A person living to an older age would have been extremely highly revered and would usually have been of high standing in the group.

You are absolutely right though about the low levels of tooth decay etc. That's because pre-historic man didn't, at this point, have much exposure to the sugary cabohydrates we get through farmed produce. The emergence of agriculture in the neolithic revolution changed this, but whatever.
Still, they did not commonly live to their 60s/70s. They for sure didn't die of the same things we commonly die of (i.e. heart disease, diabetes, etc), but rather, through a "hard life", exposure and common illnesses that we wouldn't now consider a threat in modern society. Degenerative diseases WERE uncommon, but that's because people didn't commonly live to an age where this would be an issue.

Robdude

natural: existing in or formed by nature

Who cares if it is 'natural' or not? Vitamins aren't natural. Going to a doctor is not natural. Getting vaccines are not natural. Cooking food is not natural. Clothing is not natural. Shoes are not natural. Computers are not natural. Surgery is not natural.

Jogging/Running should be evaluated on it's own merits; regardless of whether or not it 'is natural'.

@Yahew - Even if we accept paleo fitness guy's claim - that hunter's didn't elevate their heart-rate for long periods of time; let's evaluate the consequences he enumerates: You’ve spent an incredible amount of energy, yet now you have no food to replace that energy. You have suddenly become some other animals prey because you are physically exhausted

In the world we live in, there is no shortage of available food/energy. In fact, too many of us eat too much, to the point where it is dangerous. For us, wasting energy is good.

In the world we live in, we are on top of the food chain. There is no concern of being eaten on the way home from the gym.

Personally, I don't care if ancient man did X or Y. I only care if it makes sense for me to do X or to do Y. Ancient man wouldn't fly Aer Lingus, but I will. Maybe Ancient man didn't go for a jog - but he also didn't spend 40 hours a week typing at a computer with a virtually unending supply of fatty, sugaring foods. Losing weight was not a concern for ancient man, but it is for modern man.

Yahew

Robdude wrote: »

Personally, I don't care if ancient man did X or Y. I only care if it makes sense for me to do X or to do Y. Ancient man wouldn't fly Aer Lingus, but I will. Maybe Ancient man didn't go for a jog - but he also didn't spend 40 hours a week typing at a computer with a virtually unending supply of fatty, sugaring foods. Losing weight was not a concern for ancient man, but it is for modern man.

Thats a valid argument, nothing we do is natural - except bodily functions - compared to ancient man. However previously people had argued in favour of it being natural due to body design and I was posting this alternative view. Even if not "natural" to ancient man, it might work today. As you say. However the thread is - from the title - about how natural it is, not it's modern usefulness.

Yahew

Rocket19 wrote: »

You are however, completely wrong about the life expectancy of pre-historic man, at least as far as I know. It isn't a "fallacy". Their life expectancy was approximately 25-30, with 'lucky' members of the groups surviving to their 40s or 50s. Survivng to this older age was pretty rare, so usually the members who lived 'til 40/50 were considered very wise and were coveted. Skeletons that we find of older individuals from the stoneage periods are usually quite high status as the socities had a very strong ritualistic emphasis placed on ancestors (rather than gods) back then. A person living to an older age would have been extremely highly revered and would usually have been of high standing in the group.

Native Americans had plenty of elders, most older than 40. Very few made it due to war, but enough made it for ancients to know lifespan. We clearly evolved to live to 70+, because we do.

The old testament says our span is three score and ten (70). With some reaching 80.

Psalms 90

The days of our years are threescore years and ten;
and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years,
yet is their strength labor and sorrow;
for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

What was life expectancy during the Bronze age? About 25-30. People knew that they could live to 70,or 80 though. Just fewer did.

i think life span is the proper figure. Chickens can live up to 12 years, that is their span, the vast majority live 2-3 because we kill them.

What this means is not that 25 year olds were considered old in ancient times but that more people died young. however people did reach 70, or 80.

gsxr1

I gave CPR to a guy that died at 40 from a heart attack. He used to laugh at me and shake his head when I mentioned I worked out.

I would love to say I told you so, but its to late for that.

Im not saying running or working out will save you, but it gives you a better chance of seeing your grand children grow than sitting on your fat hole.

Wibbs

Rocket19 wrote: »

You are however, completely wrong about the life expectancy of pre-historic man, at least as far as I know. It isn't a "fallacy". Their life expectancy was approximately 25-30, with 'lucky' members of the groups surviving to their 40s or 50s.

Not according to studies of hunter gatherer societies today. 60 is pretty common, 70 not unusual. Even Neandertals may have had longer lives than first thought. The "old man of Chapelle" may be well over 60 by some estimates and he survived serious injury, no teeth and an amputation. The problem with ascertaining the average back then is the lack of skeletons from the stone age. There are remarkably few. We certainly have more after agriculture kicks off and what we see there is the farmers are weaker and more diseased than the hunters(an odd one though is that middle stoneage peoples seemed to live longer than later ones. Though again I reckon that's more down to lack of bones to fully map the trends).

Even so as Yaweh pointed out that Gospel speech was aimed at a group of poor subsistence iron age peasants and it clearly didn't sound daft to them. It still holds pretty true to our ears even with the massive advances of the last two millennia. If he had said the span of a life was 6 score they'd have scratched their heads.

Survivng to this older age was pretty rare, so usually the members who lived 'til 40/50 were considered very wise and were coveted. Skeletons that we find of older individuals from the stoneage periods are usually quite high status as the socities had a very strong ritualistic emphasis placed on ancestors (rather than gods) back then.

The skeletons we find from the "stone age" period are a) thin on the ground b) like you say more likely to be high status. However high status is not necessarily good for longevity and select groups of any kind don't always reflect the average. One could even have societies that lauded the young and only the young were ritually buried, while the old were cremated. We simply don't know, so to get some idea until more testable remains show up, we have to look to modern peoples living similar lifestyles. These show high childhood mortality, but for someone reaching 20, their chances of reaching 65 are(barring accidents) pretty much the same as ours. And they reach that age healthier overall, with better teeth, higher bone densities, better insulin responses and much better cardiovascular systems(better hearing too).

Still, they did not commonly live to their 60s/70s. They for sure didn't die of the same things we commonly die of (i.e. heart disease, diabetes, etc), but rather, through a "hard life", exposure and common illnesses that we wouldn't now consider a threat in modern society. Degenerative diseases WERE uncommon, but that's because people didn't commonly live to an age where this would be an issue.

Actually in the case of arthritis our cousins the Neandertals seemed to regularly suffer from it(maybe down to the very high injury levels they sustained in life due to hunting strategy). Very few so far found are free of the disease.

But let's look at the age related angle for a second and another idea floated about that we're getting more of these illnesses because we're living longer. Examples of heart disease and type two diabetes are pretty commonly found in individuals younger than 40 today in modern diets/western peoples. Autopsies of people who died due to accidental death in their early 20's and even earlier can show early stage heart disease. They're almost completely absent in modern hunter gatherers that have been studied. At any age. Rates of other things like depression are marked by their near absence too.

Later time periods show a similar trend. Recall ancient Greece, or Rome or Egypt and outside of their underclasses(who are better of today than in any time period before) there is a long list of famous Greeks, Romans and Egyptians(and Chinese) who we would think of as "old" today.

So IMHO this commonly held idea even mantra that "ah sure they were lucky to see 30 in the past" is quite the fallacy. More people died of injury and illness certainly, but it was not some "Logan's Run" world populated by people under 30. Well unless we're talking about Europe in the middle ages with rolling waves of various plagues, in that time period there is is more of a case for that.

44leto

x

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Try telling a wolf that. They can lope/jog huge distances over a day(IIRC highest on record was one male wolf who covered 60 miles in a 24 hour period) and can hit 40MPH at full gallop and hold said gallop for longer than a cheetah at full gallop.

In a word ultrarunning.

http://www.ultrarunningireland.com/live/about-us/

UltraRunning Ireland is interested in road, track and indoor distances beyond the marathon: 50km, 50 miles, 100km, 100 miles, 24 hours, 48 hours and 6 days. It also has a stake in trail running and monitors ultramarathon stage races, treadmill running, marathons in extreme locations, and mega-marathons (multiple marathon efforts).

Capt'n Midnight

44leto wrote: »

It is natural, it was our advantage over our prey on the African plains. Human have more sweat pours then any other mammal. So we can cool. So we could set off after a prey that can run faster then us and relentlessly chase it down till it collapsed from heat exhaustion.

There are still African native tribes who hunt like that.

And in Oz some people are able to chase down kangaroos ! and IIRC some of the American natives did too (though not necessiarly kangaroos).

John_Rambo

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yes, yes we did

Not really, not us Europeans anyway. Explosive runs after a long track or stalk followed by heavy hauling and butcher work. (old days weight lifting work out). Other exercises would have included wrestling, shelter building, wood breaking, chopping, rock moving, knapping and leather work.

A lot of people now feel that short explosive exercise is better for power, strength and fitness. I believe it and I practice it. I run very short distances and lift vigorously for short times and I try to eat paleo as much as possible. It keeps me in very very good shape, results are evident in weeks.

El_Dangeroso

I think we can sum up everyone's position by the term 'the dose makes the poison'.

Moderate running is fine (<50k per week) and let's face it most people don't do more than that. But there are several small studies (not just the one posted) showing serious runners with heart injury, I think it's true of any serious athlete. Athletes don't live as long as you think they would considering how fit they have to be.

Wibbs

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I think we can sum up everyone's position by the term 'the dose makes the poison'.

Plus one. The major thing about us humans is we're adaptable and we're built like that. We've evolved from more specialised humans along the way. We couldn't hope to keep up in a race with a Homo Erectus and a Neandertal would throw a heavyweight cage fighter around like a child. But we're fast enough and we're strong enough and far more intelligent.

We also have a different talents and are more variable. Neandertals all looked pretty much the same. Erectus similarly. We don't approach them on average, but some of us approach them individually. We have huge muscled guys that can lift hundreds of kilos and other scrawny guys that could run for days. Hell look around you the next time you're in a pub and you'll see guys built like brick shíthouses and other guys built like stripped down racing snakes. Amazing variability considering how closely related we are.

This would also mean that a fitness regime for a scrawny guy(or gal) is gonna be different to a heavily muscled guy(or gal). The heavy guy is going to put much larger stresses on his leg joints. If the runner build long legged guy tries to do a heavy squat with weights in the gym he's likely to himself a mischief. A racehorse is gonna be next to useless puling a tree stump out of the ground and a shire horse... well you're not gonna throw away 50 quid on his nose in the 3:30 at Fairyhouse. One size doesn't fit all.

IMHO if I was going to set up a fitness regime(stop laughing down the back), I'd have some very broad aims, but I would tailor the regime to the individual, but overall aim for balance and not concentrate on one aspect to the exclusion of others. I'd also get it out of the gym. To often we forget the mind in all this. IMHO a sweat of people* running on a treadmill while watching sky news is not the same as running across a field. We're not machines, we need mental input. The "soul" of the endeavour. This is often missing I feel. Those hunter gatherers, from today or our distant past had a purpose involved. IMHO that makes a difference. A big one. When I did a lot of fishing I was actually quite fit. I could walk miles up a river wading up to my oxsters in thigh deep water and barely notice it. I was focused on the trout. I had mates, really "gym fit" mates come along to try it out who would be bollocksed by the effort remarkably quickly.

Further to this aspect was the study** into how much the mind can affect this. They took three groups of people. Measured their basepoint fitness levels. One group would sit on their arse for a month, another would take up a fitness regime and the last would sit on their arse but be taken through visualisation exercises where they imagined they were exercising. The result was the lazy people didn't improve, those taking exercise improved of course. So far so good, but the interesting part was the visualisation group. Their fitness improved and improved noticeably compared to the lazy group.

It can get even more mad and individualistic when it comes to diet. Another thread again. The grain based carbs that can sustain one person in a marathon can have another person doing the liquid sitdown.





*my term for a group of gym bunnies

** have it in print but sadly can't find a link.

El_Dangeroso

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd also get it out of the gym.

Easier said than done in this rainy-wet-cold-assed country!

Seriously anytime I take a long walk in the rain I get the sniffles as a reward.

Wibbs wrote: »

To often we forget the mind in all this. IMHO a sweat of people* running on a treadmill while watching sky news is not the same as running across a field. We're not machines, we need mental input. The "soul" of the endeavour. This is often missing I feel. Those hunter gatherers, from today or our distant past had a purpose involved. IMHO that makes a difference. A big one. When I did a lot of fishing I was actually quite fit. I could walk miles up a river wading up to my oxsters in thigh deep water and barely notice it. I was focused on the trout. I had mates, really "gym fit" mates come along to try it out who would be bollocksed by the effort remarkably quickly.

FYI Erwan LeCorre has spearheaded a type of training called MovNat that proposes exactly that. His workout videos are a thing of beauty, in more ways than one.:p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKGF-ErsJiI

Again, only really handy if you live in a tropical paradise, but elements can be incorporated. Really want to do one of the 7 day workshops in Thailand though!

robinph

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Easier said than done in this rainy-wet-cold-assed country!

I'd suggest dressing appropriately for the conditions is the problem.

Significantly cheaper than gym membership as well.

El_Dangeroso

robinph wrote: »

I'd suggest dressing appropriately for the conditions is the problem.

Significantly cheaper than gym membership as well.

Nah, I go dressed in an almost burka-like fashion and I still get a cold. It's a total balls as I love going for walks outside.

Stupid weather.

AlmightyCushion

Wibbs wrote: »

We also have a different talents and are more variable. Neandertals all looked pretty much the same. Erectus similarly. We don't approach them on average, but some of us approach them individually. We have huge muscled guys that can lift hundreds of kilos and other scrawny guys that could run for days. Hell look around you the next time you're in a pub and you'll see guys built like brick shíthouses and other guys built like stripped down racing snakes. Amazing variability considering how closely related we are.

You know all those pictures you seen of Neanderthals, they were just drawings not actual photographs. That's why they all look the same. Seriously though, the only reason we have the variations you speak of (shít-brickhouse and scrawny runner guy) is because our modern lifestyle allows shít-brickhouse guy to spend all day lifting weights and drinking protein shakes and scrawny runner guy to run all day and strictly monitor his diet. If any other species of the homo genus was able to have a similar lifestyle I imagine they could achieve the same.

Oscars Well.

Jogging and running are forms of excercise. Excersise is the DEVIL!!!