Discuss.

1/14/2013 2:52:22 PM

completing a half-marathon, or even a marathon, is not something you are allowed to brag about or put a sticker on your car for if you walked it all and had a terrible time.

you're not fooling anyone ms. double chin, we all know you walked that shit.

1/14/2013 2:53:49 PM

i mean, if the body can handle a marathon without shutting down or any specific permanent damage, it's "built" for it just as it's "built" for anything else...in that it can be conditioned to survive

i, for one, think that some of my backpacking trips have been just as strenuous, but in a different way...but i don't slap stickers on my car (though i would/will if/when i finish the AT)

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 2:59:38 PM

or is it

1/14/2013 3:02:19 PM

A buddy of mine that frequently runs marathons claims that someone dies at pretty much every one he attends. Take that FWIW

1/14/2013 3:06:07 PM

Like in a shooting or what?

1/14/2013 3:07:38 PM

I took it to mean heart attacks but who knows? Maybe there have been tornadoes, explosions, and fatal food poisonings.

1/14/2013 3:08:46 PM

marathon deaths are rare, do you understand how many marathons there are?

1/14/2013 3:08:59 PM

I need motivation to run this damn race. Charles, follow behind me, and if I drop below a 14 minute mile pace, shoot me in the back of the head.

1/14/2013 3:09:46 PM

I think marathons would be a lot more fun to watch if you made it clear that the last person to cross the finish line will be executed.

1/14/2013 3:10:13 PM

^that would be good on the back of a race shirt.

my last race I ran behind "I might be slow but I'm still faster than you!" for like 4 miles until they turned to go the marathon route and I finished the half

1/14/2013 3:27:54 PM

1/14/2013 3:31:27 PM

lol I'm guessing that's the pic where the guy had some "GI issues" mid race

1/14/2013 3:38:21 PM

I understand. I'll often have to go dookie during marathon drinking.

1/14/2013 3:40:08 PM

I'll wait before the other readers of "Born to Run" show up before I put in my two cents. No use arguing with the internet.

1/14/2013 3:40:36 PM

i agree.

1/14/2013 4:05:18 PM

Finished my first one yesterday

1/14/2013 4:08:57 PM

what day did you start it?

1/14/2013 4:10:46 PM

Ha ha very funny.

1/14/2013 4:23:39 PM

Congrats on your marathon, LooNack

1/14/2013 4:24:46 PM

I think we are meant for marathons. Way back in the day, we used to hunt by just chasing other animals for hours until they were completely exhausted. I believe we're one of the top animals when it comes to endurance.

But, given that we live past 30 years old now, it's probably a good idea to take it easy on our joints and whatnot.

1/14/2013 4:31:10 PM

All this time I thought we caught animals by using tools & instruments like spears

1/14/2013 4:35:06 PM

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I don't know much about this topic, but I'm not making it up:

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

1/14/2013 4:46:04 PM

There has been some debunking on that ^, but if you really think about it from an energy economy standpoint, there's no way they did this on the reg.

It simply wastes too much energy to run down prey like that, than you get from the nutrition it provides.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ;]

1/14/2013 4:48:12 PM

1/14/2013 4:51:27 PM

You be the judge. Instinctively, what body type is more attractive? What looks more vibrant, energetic, and robust?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2013 4:56:13 PM

If we were made to be sprinters, then why do we suck at it compared to other close species?

The human body was wired for fine-motion control, whereas other primates are generally stronger but less accurate. This is important if you're trying to get better at killing animals with rocks or sticks.

To the question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#Glycogen_and_.22the_wall.22

Quote :

"Runners can store about 8 MJ or 2,000 kcal worth of glycogen in their bodies, enough for about 30 km/18–20 miles of running. Many runners report that running becomes noticeably more difficult at that point. When glycogen runs low, the body must then obtain energy by burning stored fat, which does not burn as readily. When this happens, the runner will experience dramatic fatigue and is said to "hit the wall"."

So no, humans were not designed to run 26 miles between eating. They were designed to run 18-20 miles.

1/14/2013 5:03:10 PM

Quote :

"If we were made to be sprinters, then why do we suck at it compared to other close species?"

I'm not making the claim that we were made to be sprinters. We weren't "made" or "designed" to be anything. The capabilities we have, which were made available either through mutation or purposeful, deliberate selection, have all come together in a way that allowed for reproduction.

There were almost certainly situations in human history where 1) Endurance was more important than speed/strength and 2) Speed/strength was more important than endurance. What's truly important is how intellect and physical capabilities came together to ensure survival. Survival wasn't simply us racing against other animals and whoever reached the finish line first won. It was a matter of which species could consistently obtain food.

Obviously, the importance of various traits varies depended on the situation, but generally speaking, speed, strength, and skill are much more important than endurance in the majority of survival situations, whether it's beating other humans or killing other species.

I am making the claim that we are naturally more attracted to the traits/attributes that are optimal for survival. I don't think that's a particularly controversial thing to say. Muscular physiques, for instance, are more attractive than non-muscular physiques. We're not talking bodybuilder, Jay Cutler physiques, but visible muscle development, which demonstrates strength and vitality.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2013 5:09:53 PM

Ironman is pretty insane.

1/14/2013 5:40:04 PM

I plan on doing an Iron Man before I turn 30.

1/14/2013 5:43:11 PM

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 5:49 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

1/14/2013 5:48:09 PM

Humans literally evolved to be endurance hunters (stalking an animal until it is too exhaused to keep running), and possibly excepting some dogs we are the best in the world at it.

So I'm gonna have to disagree with your thesis.

1/14/2013 5:50:15 PM

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/did-humans-evolve-to-be-long-distance-runners/#axzz2HzfqwN2z

Quote :

"Thanks to the several readers who have pointed out this recent article in SEED Magazine which once again dredges up the tired argument that humans evolved to be long-distance runners. Most of you know by now that I totally disagree with that theory. I say humans evolved to be excellent slow movers (walk, jog, migrate, forage, crawl, scramble, etc) burning mostly fat. We also developed into pretty decent short sprinters, but we did NOT evolve to run long distances. Sure, early humans were all-around fit enough and capable of the occasional long easy jaunt after an animal, but to think that natural selection redesigned our simian shapes to run the Boston Marathon is, in my opinion, ludicrous. We’ve hashed this out a bunch in the past when a Men’s Health magazine article a few years ago quoted Dr. Daniel Lieberman, a leading proponent of the “ER” (endurance running) hypothesis as suggesting that early humans would run an animal to death by chasing it for for 5 or 10 miles until it died of heat stroke. They call it persistence hunting. I find the idea – that this behavior led to some specialized human evolution as distance runners – to be preposterous on several levels. First, much of the fossil record suggests early humans were scavengers and lived pretty well off road kill until they started employing weapons a few hundred thousand years ago. No real need to run long distances when you can walk, hide, climb, sprint and crawl to scavenge. Secondly, it’s one thing to track and stalk an animal (using your superior intelligence) with walking, occasional jogging and a few sprints here and there. That’s a primarily fat-burning pursuit and it’s probably how our ancestors actually hunted. But once you have to shift into glucose/glycogen mode to run aggressively for long distances, it’s a whole different ballgame and you encounter a big problem. Run out of glycogen chasing a beast too long in the heat and you become exhausted yourself. If you are lucky enough to bag the beast, at least you get to eat now (albeit mostly protein and fats which won’t completely restore your glycogen reserves). But fail in your mission and your sorry, fatigued, glycogen-depleted butt is now vulnerable to becoming some other beast’s dinner. ER makes no sense to me from an evolutionary perspective. So now comes Lieberman again in this latest study in The Journal of Experimental Biology (abstract) that compared the mechanical forces in the feet and the metabolic costs of generating these forces to arrive at the following conclusion: “The increased mechanical cost associated with long toes in running suggests that modern human forefoot proportions might have been selected for in the context of the evolution of endurance running.” He basically argues that humans evolved to have shorter toes than our simian relatives because longer-toed relatives were selected out. That same theory would therefore imply that longer-toed ancestors died off at a greater rate as a result of needing an average of a tiny bit more fuel to run after prey for long distances? Hmmm. I’m not buying it and I’m surprised that the JEB bought it. Since the study concluded that there is no difference in cost between long toes and short toes when walking, I could even use that data to shore up my theory that we evolved to be efficient walkers who could sprint when required and who were fit enough to run after the occasional mastodon if it made sense. And then there’s this: If men did most of the hunting, how is it that women are better suited to ultra running than men (compared to shorter running events) and a modern female like Ann Trason can beat most men today straight up in every ultra running event she enters? (Granted, she could be an outlier.) Of course, the ER proponents typically cite the Tarahumara as current examples of the human genetic propensity to run long distances. This tribe of indigenous Mexican people are known for their prowess in running great distances (often 50-80 miles in a day) and for their participation in occasional persistence hunting, where they literally chase down deer until it is so exhausted they can walk up to it and kill it. But other scientists suggest that the Tarahumara’s endurance is based more on a cultural adaptation (no cars, no phones, no mail service), training, diet and conditioning than it is on heredity. Some 80% of their diet is complex carbs from grains and beans. That goes back to my primary argument as to why we did NOT evolve to be distance runners. Until we had a ready source of reliable high-carb fuel, made available through agriculture, any sort of regular distance running (chronic cardio) was a natural selection killer. Eating grains every day at every meal certainly replenishes the glycogen stores, so you can go out and do it again tomorrow. But why? Most anthropologists would agree we didn’t evolve to swim. We learned how to make our way through water without drowning and we do it pretty effectively for a land mammal. That doesn’t make it natural or adaptive. Similarly, I say we learned to run marathons when we had the luxury of unlimited carbohydrates. That doesn’t make it adaptive or natural. One final point I’ll address is the claim that the large size of the human gluteus maximus is further evidence in favor of the ER theory. I would argue that the move to bipedalism makes the default resting position the squat (as I touched on in this video) and that the range of motion and strength required for this position necessitates strong and well-developed gluteus maximus and hamstring muscles. Look no further than your local gym to see how people train these muscles – squats, lunges, deadlifts etc."

1/14/2013 6:02:18 PM

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM. Reason : (aka, the human body is more capable than many will ever realize)]

1/14/2013 6:08:08 PM

like snowflakes, every human body is different to a degree


so, while some bodies may be perfectly fine for marathons, others are not built for it.


that said


i play real sports. not trying to be the best at exercising.

1/14/2013 6:19:27 PM

AHAHA, I forgot that quote.

1/14/2013 6:33:32 PM

i think the human body was def meant for marathons

however, the human body wasnt meant to live long enough for it matter that your knees, hips and feet eventually give out.

1/14/2013 7:14:00 PM

Quote :

"The human body isnt meant for Marathons"

But it is meant to run 2.5 miles, eat a dozen doughnuts, then run 2.5 miles back, right?

1/14/2013 7:22:37 PM

What about marathon sex?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 7:30 PM. Reason : V What about fucking for 26.2 miles?]

1/14/2013 7:24:09 PM

I don't even want to drive 26.2 miles. The fuck would I want to run it??

1/14/2013 7:24:24 PM

^

1/14/2013 7:24:34 PM

@destroyer

So evolving for it is debatable, there still remains the fact that we are really good at it, better than almost any other animal.

1/14/2013 7:34:29 PM

^^^^ depends on how fast I'm driving and how long it takes me to get mine.

1/14/2013 7:38:17 PM

Quote :

"@destroyer So evolving for it is debatable, there still remains the fact that we are really good at it, better than almost any other animal."

I don't know enough about other animals to comment. As far as I know, humans are the only species that train to run arbitrary distances for the purpose of social validation or personal satisfaction.

1/14/2013 8:45:57 PM

Quote :

"the sole purpose of social validation or personal satisfaction."

1/14/2013 9:33:25 PM

I'm throwing this link out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9308812/Marathon-running-can-scar-the-heart-researchers-warn..html

It says it only happens to one in ten people, but with or without the scarring I personally don't think marathons are good for anyone's body.

1/14/2013 9:33:30 PM

Quote :

"As far as I know, humans are the only species that train to run arbitrary distances for the purpose of social validation or personal satisfaction."

Horses do too. Only it's for our satisfaction, not theirs.

1/15/2013 12:26:55 AM

Quote :

"I think marathons would be a lot more fun to watch if you made it clear that the last person to cross the finish line will be executed."

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 12:48 AM. Reason : or all but first place? ]

1/15/2013 12:44:38 AM

Quote :

"We're not talking bodybuilder, Jay Cutler physiques,"

Are these suppose to be similar?? Because they're not.

1/15/2013 7:39:17 AM

setemup

1/15/2013 7:43:06 AM