o.O wrote:
The only facts that remain are, barefoot runners get slower when they move over to shoes
Tell that to Abebe Bikila
o.O wrote:
The only facts that remain are, barefoot runners get slower when they move over to shoes
Tell that to Abebe Bikila
conficius wrote:
Probably not everyday.
How far? About 4-6 hours, some say around a marathon distance. That demands a certain level of endurance.
Are you some kind of idiot, or are you just so desperate to join in a conversation that you'll say anything?
Let's look at some of the problems with your claims:
What sort of animal is going to run for 4- 6 hours? Logically, as a hunter whose methodology consists of exhausting his prey, you are going to pick on the very old, the very young and the sick or injured, and none of those targets (of any species) are going to run around for 4 - 6 hours.
Having exhausted your animal, how are you going to kill it? Humans didn't evolve with the weapons to kill a cornered animal. That's why you pick on the nearly-dead or dead, and you don't need to chase them.
Logistically, how are you going to refuel while chasing this animal for 4 - 6 hours? If you start on that sort of expedition, you'd better be sure the outcome is reasonably in your favor before you start. Are you SURE you are going to cross streams to take on water, etc.? If you're forced to quit halfway through then you've burned over 1,000 kilocalories without putting yourself into a position to replace them.
Think of this mythical chase as a multiday gamble - you have on board a finite amount of hydration and energy, is chasing a potential meal for 4 - 6 hours going to completely exhaust those reserves, so that if you fail you can start over again tomorrow?
Talking of energy, say you do decide to chase down a deer, it takes you 4- 6 hours, and you sit down to refuel - the average (modern) human stomach can hold around 900 grams. Venison contains ~1580 kilocalories per kilogram. Running 26 miles (your figure) burns 2227 kilocalories (Weight 140: ~85 kilocalories per mile at ~ 14 minute pace). So you can't refuel in one meal, therefore you'd have to defend your kill (you still haven't explained HOW you killed it - even an exhausted animal isn't going to let you break its neck without a fight - and that fight will burn more calories) against any other predators who have been sitting back letting you do the hard work, and you've now got to transport the carcass back to your family (and find them as well - no easy task in itself if you've just run 26 miles away from them).
In short, anyone who thinks a prehistoric hunter ran 26 miles to catch his prey simply doesn't know what they are talking about, and you shouldn't be spreading that sort of crap around.
To Mr Knob above:
"It's a really polarized debate - there are what you might call the barefoot evangelicals on one side and the aggressive anti-barefoots on the other," says Ross Tucker, an expert in exercise physiology at South Africa's University of Cape Town and a middle- and long-distance running coach.
Hyperbole. It's not a poloarized debate, because many people don't have extreme views on the subject.
dafastestogre wrote:
touch my 72 flat half marathon in any circumstance and we'll talk...until then...i can't hear you
then beating me barefoot should be no problem for you, right, Mr. Elite Guy?
Worth a look? wrote:
To Mr Knob above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
Didn't you notice that the runner was wearing shoes!?!
Being serious, there is a big difference between EVOLVING to run 26.2 miles barefoot, and being ACCUSTOMED to running 26.2 miles barefoot (although I'd be willing to have a big bet that neither that kudu nor the hunters went 26.2 miles in that video).
You'll notice two things that suggest we haven't been hunting animals in that way for any evolutionary significant period of time: (1) it was a group hunt, and (2) they had weapons (believe me, you aren't going to go up to a big bull kudu, even an exhausted one - they weigh about 600 pounds and they've got >40-inch horns).
+1
I didn't miss anything."Their" point: running barefoot is impractical because we're all running on asphalt all the time.My point: running off-road is harder on the feet than running the same distance on pavement.We live in an environment that is "better" for running (easier to run in) than our hypothetical running ancestors did.If you're concerned about sharp things, wearing a thin pair of shoes/sandals will eliminate most of the risk of getting cuts.
wowza. wrote:
otg wrote:To all you people who keep saying "but it's not concrete & asphalt": have you ever actually run barefoot, or in really minimalist shoes?
Asphalt and concrete are actually some of the EASIEST surfaces to run on barefoot. No, it's not a manicured golf course, but it's smooth and safe without much to trip on, hazards like glass, nails and thorns are relatively easy to see and it allows you to get a good, consistent foot strike.
Running on rocky, rooty trails, or across fields of tall grass with sticks, thorns, holes etc, isn't the walk in the park that you seem to think it is. And something tells me that the savannah or woods that our ancestors ran on was probably a lot tougher on the feet than the local sidewalk/bike path (discounting broken beer bottles and crack pipes, anyhow).
In any event, most of the sharp-object problems are solved by wearing a minimalist pair of shoes. Just like many of our ancestors did, to protect their feet from the pointy rocks.
what you seemed to have missed is that this evolution argument that people are using to justify this stupidity is tossed out the window due to the new environment we live in.