I dont believe running long distances is natural, but sprinting is. Prove me wrong

Nope the runner would be stronger from all the meat he gets hunting

Neither is natural or unnatural, but, we get speed mogged by most animals (for reference, Usain bolt is a little slower than an average house cat), on the other hand, we have more endurance than most animals,primitive men hunted game mostly by chasing It untill It just could run no more

> Back on the African plains there was a lot of running to be done.

Attached: 9401059.jpg (465x301, 60K)

antelopes runs the marathon in 45 minutes and that's what you'd hunt in africa.
The entire theory is dog shit because you'd loose track right after the moment the prey runs through a bush. I'd give it a minute at most, but more like 5-10 seconds and an antelope is GONE.
Humans cannot track with their nose.
The theory was invented when nat geo aired a staged hunt with hottentots running around in the bush, supposedly they entered a higher state of mind where they became the hunted animal and thus knew where it was. Total garbage theory.

>primitive men hunted game mostly by chasing It untill It just could run no more
Anyone who wasn't black used spears, bows, and arrows, this is a fucking stupid myth and it needs to die. Literally only the lowest IQ africans do this.

They still had to track the herd which could take days. It's not like food was easy to come by back then.

they didn't just eat antelopes and even when they did they're in herds, as were all the animals that were persistence hunted. You can follow herds on the plains forever so long as you have front facing eyes.

read a book you stupid monkey..

Cope, no one yet proved me wrong, all I've got is some dumbass answers saying we spent 8 hours jogging for meat. How are you supposed to carry a large animal back home that far when you are 10 pounds?

>track the herd which could take days
'tracking' doesn't happen over days because of the necessity of water.

>Humans cannot track with their nose.
>track
hmm if only there was some other evidence a fleeing animal left behind.

Cut it into pieces, dont carry the whole animal because most of it is useless, people didnt hunt large animals alone
dumb fucking cunt

sprinting speed is indeed very useful
the same applies to middle distance (up to a mile) type of endurance
marathon type of endurance is pointless

There are different strategies for survival. Humans are physiologically evolved for long distance running.
youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

And then they come home to a sprinter Chad who set a trap for meat and he steals their wives while they cant do anything about it since they have no muscle

Over about 30 miles humans are faster than anything (except maybe dogs?).

You can train to lift, fight, sprint, AND run distance.

Guy on left has much lower maintenance. Naturally we don't really have the calories to sustain the body on the right

I do agree with this.
>niche malnourished tribe who look disgusting and weak, spends 8 hours jogging like a retard
yep very evolved

You cant really train sprinting and distance, to some degree you can but it would make you be in the middle where you would get mogged by both sprinters and long distance runners due to fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers

humans literally evolved to be persistence hunters and as mentioned ITT we are the most efficient endurance runners on the planet. it is one of the reasons we are DYEL compared to chimps who don't even lift, we are the leanest apes because we became endurance runners. if that's not "natural" for us I don't know what is, although you are just being a retarded philosophylet anyway because the only things that aren't "natural" are supernatural and I don't think you are an angel or chupacabra

The world we live in now is vastly different than the one in which we grow fat sitting in our cubicle. The men in the video live off of the land in a natural way. The OP was about whether running long distances or sprinting was more natural.
based

People are quite capable of both. Its pretty easy to shuffle along at 4-5mph for mile after mile but still have bursts of sprints intermittently.

You become skelly mode only if your diet fails to provide enough to build muscle for the activity you're demanding of it. Long distance runners like the olympian in the OP intentionally prevent themselves from building muscle.
The're coached by teams of autists who calculate the maximum speed over distance and caloric expenditure to try and make them run more efficiently. They don't want to carry a single lb more of muscle than what is needed for them to hobble along for hours at a time.
That physique is literally bare minimum muscle required for running their race and nothing else. Thats it. If they build any more muscle they'll intentionally lose it for the sake of efficiency. Nothing about that is natural.

>only things that aren't "natural" are supernatural and I don't think you are an angel or chupacabra
he is a jew haha

Id say we are able to walk long distances fine without issue, but when you run long distance you are literally killing yourself slowly. If it is natural for us to fucking run long distance why does it turn you into a faggot? Did you not read the thread? Sprinting is healthier in every way

>
wow user im proud of you, you've just learned that something being natural doesnt make it healthy or good.
great dude

Why does sprinting make you healthier and more attractive then jogging then?

I'm just a loser on the internet, but if its not natural how come humans are so fucking good at long distance running? One of our methods of hunting animals was to run for them until the animal would pass out from exhaustion.

Herds also need to drink.

you are being willfully ignorant at this point. running marathons constantly and being an athlete tier distance goy is retarded and indeed bad for you and makes you look bad, although I still admire the dedication. but that is an extreme case, running for a half hour daily is good cardio, I shiggy hope you didn't get baited by some "neo masculinity" shit on the internet that says if you run more than 1 mile you will instantly get gyno and become a homosexual. sprinting is good too, whether it is better or not depends on your goals, you should learn about running before you shitpost

Walking is more efficient. I would say we wouldve walked extreme distances instead of jog it

...

True walking is more efficient, but not when hunting. If dinner is running away you'll be damn sure we would run after it.

thanks for the reckon, we will send your reckons straight from your desk to the research department immediately

Its a 8+ hour chase and everyone is saying we followed the tracks, I know if I was hunting Id walk so id be able to follow the tracks perfectly

>If dinner is running away you'll be damn sure we would run after it.
don't see the point; you'll never be able to catch it since human speed sucks dick, might as well save your energy for the long haul

Nah, persistence hunting is a myth.
How many calories do you think a person would burn if they were running after an animal for 5 miles over rough terrain.
Average person is going to huff and puff alone and burn somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 calories if they're running on flat ground on a treadmill with 0% incline. 5 miles is going to be around 500 calories burned on a perfectly flat surface, no give from sand or wet soil, no needing to adjust footing due to rocks, no elevation changes.
500 calories burned minimum. How many people do you think chased after a single animal, 3,4, 5? 2500 calories minimum expended between 5 people for less than 30 minutes of tracking an animal. Plus they'd have to carry this single animal back to the rest of the tribe. This is a ton of energy being spent, a ton of food that needs to be consumed to counter the activity, and theres still a whole tribe full of people that need to be fed.
What if it was 10 miles? What if it was through brush and rough terrain?

The logistics of feeding a couple dozen people by chasing a single animal to exhaustion are too extreme to have been viable. Like any other hunter we would have ambushed prey and chased them only over a short distance, because extremely high caloric expenditure activity to eat is a horrible survival strategy. We only would have ran long distances to avoid danger, or jogged to follow herds of animals as they hoofed it from place to place.

oh, it's a bait thread

check'd

>persistence hunting is a myth

it is used by a bunch of animals, and there is a tribe in mexico that does it today

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

t-nation.com/training/the-best-damn-cardio-article-period
Human body adapts to whatever you want it to do. Sprinting is healthier because it doesn't put too much stress on your joints. Walking is better because you don't putt too much stress on your joints and don't shake your organs like you would running. Why are sprinters muscular? Because you need big and strong muscle to produce most amount of torque in short time and distance. Beauty of human body is that it can run 24h marathon by using muscle and fat to fuel the movement. It's completely up to you how you want to look like. But if your goal i to be healthy and look like you actually lift, interval cardio and strength training is the way to go.

this

To add, by saying "sprinting doesn't put too much stress on your joints", I meant compared to long distance running. Also you can forget having big muscles and running for extended periods of time, that would definitely blow your knees and hips out.

Dogs can track an animal by scent, and they tend to follow scared prey back to their burrow. Every dog by default will have ambush hunting instincts. They don't just see something on the horizon and sprint right at it. They get in close first. The same with large cats. Even predator birds will spend time circling prety and get in closer before diving in for the kill. This is done because its efficient. Lower energy spent acquiring your food means more surplus calories, means more reserves for times when food is scarce.
Scaring a herd, having it run a short jaunt away, then continually walking after them is hardly the picture of persistence hunting that people present. Bow wielding African tribes can cover large distances to find a herd, but they aren't actually running after the animals for long distances in pursuit.

The idea that humans actually run after prey animals to the point that their hearts give out is patently ridiculous.

Early hunting of big mammals consisted of running for tens of kilometer, there's a book about it, i don't read books though.

Hardly any tribes use it. Why? Well because it wastes a ton of energy and is one of the most retarded ways to hunt

There are lots of books that claim completely bullshit things. Persistence hunting being a thing is an asspulled theory stemming from someone realizing that successful hunters spend a lot of time sedentary. They then decided to make the totally baseless assertion that humans must be different from other predators. There was never any factual basis to it.

Groups of wolves can cover a couple dozen miles per day. They're entirely capable of running long distances, they aren't an animal that can only run in short bursts. Yet they tend to circle around prey and only chase them for short distance before biting them and taking them to the ground. Why? Because it makes more sense.
Human beings hunted the same way, and its not a fucking coincidence that we domesticated wolves to hunt long side us.

Are you using a new, weird definition of "natural" that you're not telling anyone about?

>humans are adapted for extreme thermoregulation that basically no other animal has except horses, who are also distance runners
>Jow Forums: who cares lol that is just a random feature or something, it is a mystery

tip: there is no animal that can outrun us by sheer distance except horses, which is why there are literal fucking man vs. horse races every year. why would we evolve to do this if not to eat, nothing was chasing us for 20 miles

> West Africa had agriculture at the same time as Western Europe kek
Not true. West Africa still doesn't have any agriculture. That's why all these charities are feeding them.

cant tell if retarded or bait

Walking instead of running desu

Protip: There are thousands of animals in the world that are both faster than us and can cover larger distances than us. They can also do it with absurdly higher caloric efficiency. They're called fucking birds. Flight and gliding is far more energy efficient than running.
There used to be dozens more species of megafauna in the world, and mankind was not at the top of the food chain despite our use of tools. There used to be species of birds so goddamn big that they could pick up a human being like an eagle picks up a pet cat or small dog. Completely outside of the scope of hunting there would have been selection pressure for man to escaping megafauna that had us for dinner.
And again, humans and horses are not the only animal that can cover long distances on land. Fucking wolves, you shit eating nigger retard. Wolves can run more than a dozen miles in a day. They can sprint at incredibly high speeds too. Humans and wolves share this commonality.

The ability to run and cover long distances is not an adaptation for chasing down prey, it is an adaption for following herbivore herds as they migrate. Humans and wolves share this. It is not a coincidence that early man made friends with the wolf. they probably realized pretty quick that they were doing the same thing, and tribes of people could benefit from having wolves with them. Selective breeding and the rest is history.

based as fuck

Attached: wolves-fact.png (1170x530, 828K)

The final redpill is that the charities feeding them is the real reason they have no agriculture.

>birds

birds don't run. let's bring the goalposts back. anyway, "more than a dozen miles per day" isn't shit, I run that for fun. wolves must thermoregulate by panting, which means they will run a relatively short distance compared to a human and then have to stop to pant for possibly over an hour because they are temperature-lets who overheat too fast. by that time a human athlete will be miles up the road, it's not even close.

>humans were running away from megafauna

where are the proofs

Yeah that means very little though, why waste so much energy and lacerate your feet by running for an entire day when you can ambush a mammoth in a sprint and throw him off a cliff or in a trap? This is how humans in Eurasia actually hunted big game, especially the Neanderthal. However, we did follow them by feet during their long migrations, and that's why we needed endurance and the capacity to walk or march for long distances. The "outrun" game makes sense when you follow an injured prey that is running from you but will eventually fall exhausted and die, but not a healthy one, it would just not be worth it.

Attached: 1531671236138.jpg (500x699, 121K)

>"I don't think that putting one leg in front of the other is natural"
>What do you mean by 'natural' then?
>"bait"

Bruh what school do you go to

More muscle activation especially in the core to stabilize your movement

The dude on the right only looks like that because of access to unnatural training and dietary habits. The dude on the left only looks like that because of cherry picking - look at what the average Ironman competitor looks like.
Regardless, competing for the sake of competing isn't a natural thing. Physical training for the sake of looking good in clothes isn't a natural process. Physical training at all isn't a natural process - name a single other animal in the world that has to purposely train to be physically capable. Your argument is based around a fallacious assumption to begin with.

What the fuck are you going on about
This basically, don't why why people cant see this

>horses
>a herbivore
>can run fast for long distances
>humans can do this
>therefore this must mean that humans chased down animals until they had a near heart attack and die of exhaustion

This is why your theory falls apart under the most cursory scrutiny. There isn't any evidence for it, and it intentionally omits the entirety of the animal kingdom in comparison.
Bring up birds isn't moving goal posts, retards. Mankind was hunted by large birds at some point in the best. A fast animal that can cover long distances hunted us. The early humans who would have survived were the ones who could avoid or escape being eaten.
The only hunting strategy that isn't mindnumbingly retarded is the one still in use: Following a heard, stalking, and ambush hunting. That is was early man would have done. That is what wolves did. The people who lived with wolves would have hunted with their wolves. They wouldn't have let the wolves catch an animal then decided to pointlessly run for 5 hours like a bunch of retards instead.

Long distance running is how humans hunted.
Humans have more endurance than almost any animal, so we'd literally chase after prey until they were too tired to run away

>What the fuck are you going on about
Jesus christ do you have brain problems? How are you having so much difficulty reading? You're fucking claiming that putting one foot in front of the other for an undefined distance is "unnatural" so I'm trying to fucking figure out what goofy bullshit definition of "natural" you're using to come to such a retarded fucking conclusion. You fucking simpleton.

>The dude on the right only looks like that because of access to unnatural training and dietary habits. The dude on the left only looks like that because of cherry picking - look at what the average Ironman competitor looks like.
Just googled and the average ironman competitor still gets mogged hard by Chad sprinters

>Regardless, competing for the sake of competing isn't a natural thing. Physical training for the sake of looking good in clothes isn't a natural process. Physical training at all isn't a natural process - name a single other animal in the world that has to purposely train to be physically capable. Your argument is based around a fallacious assumption to begin with.

Nope I agree 100% with you that physical training into natural, which is why I agree with sprinting since it is needed in an ambush, and our endurance is needed to follow animals long migrations.

>What's the main difference between humans and any other animal?
was about to say language but you sound like a baboon so it's not that

isnt natural****

And yet there are literally humans and animals all over africa who persistence hunt to this day. I guess they never got the memo, you should inform them sir.

I thought you were retarded since you couldnt read the entire thread which has many points

not the guy youre replying to but lmao literally who? No one uses persistence hunting anymore and if they do theyre tribe is small and hardly fertile

>I am retarded and I've got fucking nothing
Got it, cool.

>there are animals all over that
No, there aren't. There is only misclassification by proponents of a baseless theory.
A dog that can follow its prey by its scent trail and scare it back to a borrow is not persistence hunting.
Even a house cat can scare a rabbit and make the weak thing have a heart attack. This does not mean cats are persistence hunters. It means that rabbits are weak jumpy prey and cats are opportunistic ambush hunters.
>b-but Africans!
There are only a scant few humans who do anything remotely close to what people call persistence hunting. The number one piece of evidence is a NatGeo documentary filled with staged footage.
Covering large distances at a moderate pace to follow a herd is not the same as sprinting after an animal to exhaust it. Using a bow to shoot an animal in a herd you've spooked is not chasing it down until its exhausted.

There are also tiny remote tribes in Africa that follow lions, and steal meat from them. Does this mean every human stole meat from lions? No.

the wiki article in this thread gives some examples: african painted dogs, some bushmen, the rarámuri people, etc. plus more in the sources

Here yea go retard

Maybe you are used to playing with aimbots in cs all day, but in real life you have to get fairly close to have a good shot with a spear, either by sneaking, ir chasing untill the prey can't get away no more

My point still stands

No it doesn't. The retarded wiki page you posted has nothing. There are barely any sources for the few examples it gives, and the examples listed directly contradict the theory in its entirety.

>rarely ever do cardio
>last time I was serious about cardio was when I was boxing
>that was like 6 years ago
>decide to time my mile a few days ago
>hit 7:15
>I’m 6’ 0” 190lbs.

This is decent for somebody who rarely does cardio right?

I asked you define "natural" as you're using it, how daft are you? The next time your mother comes in to wipe your ass and change you, ask her what some of these big complicated words mean. I didn't ask you what your opinion on persistence hunting is, or what the fuck you think about dogs, or how big you think birds used to be.

its alright, I stick to sprinting 100m, 200m, and 400m though, too long distance isnt that good for you as you can see ITT

never trained for a year and I have a 6:00 mile

so what is your point? that living as a tribal is retarded in 2019? well no shit

this whole thread is basically just
>according to my hot take, distance running is bad (because it will kill my GAINS BRO) and persistence hunting don't real

which I am tempted to say is literally just lazy fags looking to cope because running is hard plus they got meme'd by the internet into thinking running is for women and faggots and will make you womanly like the s*y meme, which is equally retarded. the fact is, there are quite a few animals that chase another animal for a while, then the animal rests until they catch up and then it takes off again, and they keep doing this until the prey gets gassed out. they do this for well over 10 miles, that is persistence hunting and what humans have done in the past and some still continue to do. your reckon that it's inefficient doesn't matter to the people and animals who did/do it, apparently they had a pretty good reason to do it. deal with it.

>I don't think you are an angel or chupacabra
Lost it here. 11/10

Natural in this case since we are trying to find out the best running = the way your body is supposed to be used to achieve its top genetic potential

thought this was common sense but I guess not

Im a state level sprinter. If running long distances was natural and healthier id be doing that instead of focusing my time on sprinting.

even if I believed you that means nothing, my dad works at nintendo. this doesn't mean he's a computer scientist.

Well you did say you were tempted to say im a lazy faggot trying to cope

I mean if you're not completely retarded you won't chase it away in a straight line but rather into a direcrion that is favourable to you. Plus with the unique ability called throwing a few guys take an animal down quicker then that

you could be a pretty energetic faggot, I'll need more data to be sure. post your benis.

Attached: invtigstions.jpg (244x207, 9K)

Still takes hours and wastes energy while there are better ways to go about hunting

Imagine not knowing the difference between lose and loose

>Natural in this case since we are trying to find out the best running = the way your body is supposed to be used to achieve its top genetic potential
Are you a child? Is this how you think sentences work? What the fuck, read it out loud. Also, in case you're as stupid as you're making yourself look, you're supposed to define your terms before attempting to argue. Explain what you think "top genetic potential" is supposed to be and why running over a long distance is counter to it.

no u

Attached: 342799656809660417.png (112x112, 5K)