ARRRGH!

[LA Ute]

You must have been ill or incarcerated last August.

Well, the truth is that although I am an avid exerciser I do not visit this forum much . . . but I don't wnat any of you to take that personally!

Everyone else who was logged into the board surely must have followed our riveting dialogue regarding exercise myths. The evidence would indicate that this is one of those myths. Here is a link to one post in that thread. It was a good thread, but as any true narcissist would do, I only linked the post I spent some time crafting.

I guess my real point is that some of us just aren't made for running, and need low-impact exercises. I still think that lower-impact exercise is better for most people, but that is just an opinion. I have done no research other than read a book on how to do aerobic walking. It's a great alternative for those who should avoid running.

[Pheidippides]

That doesn't mean we can't long-distance running well, our bodies just suffer if we do. Niku's body may be trying to tell him something. (Am I a wet blanket or what???)

Thankfully, my injury is nothing special. It's "just" ITBS, which isn't anything more than an inflamed tendon. Nothing permanent, nothing rest won't heal. That's why I see the doctors (who tell me my joints are just fine). The mental zen I get from long distance running is worth any present or future pain. And I'll be way better off (although not richer) than Joe Montana and Joe Namath, both of whom are limited severely by their former athletic endeavors.

bluegoose, at media day for the marathon, one of the guys there was 72. He was running his hundredth marathon - and he didn't start running until he was 45 or 50 (I think). He'd been a chain smoker up until that point. He was training with a woman who was also 72, and "only" running her 20th or something like that.

[SteelBlue]

I am riding one of the longest injury free streaks of my adult running life. Nary an ache since St. George on Oct. 3 after nearly dropping out from patellar pain in August/Sept. I feel like Solon and Sea Chicken lately and in fact I ran a half marathon every Saturday for 4 weeks in Dec/Jan. I know 3 months of no pain is nothing to write home about, but in the past I've always had some nagging pain somewhere even if just an annoyance. I swear though, since that marathon it's like my body just finally caved and said "fine, ruin me, see if I care".

[woot]

I didn't mean to push the "design" button, and we'll save that discussion for other threads. It's my understanding that if one "reverse engineers" the human body, one finds that it's best suited to the rolling pendular movement of walking, even at higher speeds. It is not suited to the springing and landing motion of running over a long period of time. In evolutionary terms, our bodies are built to be hunter-gatherers: When it comes to running, our bodies are good for short sprints - as in chasing prey (or running away from predators), but for a long journey we are best suited for walking.

That doesn't mean we can't long-distance running well, our bodies just suffer if we do. Niku's body may be trying to tell him something. (Am I a wet blanket or what???)

You might want to check you sources, as the exact opposite is true. Humans suck at sprinting. We're very slow and can't run at full speed for more than a few seconds at a time. Meanwhile, we can we can outrun dogs, horses, antelope, cheetahs, you name it, over long distances.

It is thought that persistence hunting (running a game animal to death over the course of several hours) was an important part of life over the last couple million years of human evolution. That's hard to confirm, but the fact is that it works. Documented cases of persistence hunting, in at least one case by the researcher himself, are not hard to find.

The reasons why our bodies suffer if we run long distances are many and complex, including a couple that I already mentioned above, but that doesn't mean we aren't really good at it or that we aren't supposed to do it.

[happyone]

I guess the main point we have been making is that each person is different and you need to listen to your body. It will tell you if you are over doing it

[SteelBlue]

You might want to check you sources, as the exact opposite is true. Humans suck at sprinting. We're very slow and can't run at full speed for more than a few seconds at a time. Meanwhile, we can we can outrun dogs, horses, antelope, cheetahs, you name it, over long distances.

It is thought that persistence hunting (running a game animal to death over the course of several hours) was an important part of life over the last couple million years of human evolution. That's hard to confirm, but the fact is that it works. Documented cases of persistence hunting, in at least one case by the researcher himself, are not hard to find.

The reasons why our bodies suffer if we run long distances are many and complex, including a couple that I already mentioned above, but that doesn't mean we aren't really good at it or that we aren't supposed to do it.

At what distance do you feel a human would eventually outrun a horse? This was a lunch time argument at work last year and I was taking your position. I had people convinced on every animal but the horse (lots of horse owners at work). They all estimated that a human would have to get up over 100 miles before it would outrun a horse and that very few humans could reach that distance.

[woot]

At what distance do you feel a human would eventually outrun a horse? This was a lunch time argument at work last year and I was taking your position. I had people convinced on every animal but the horse (lots of horse owners at work). They all estimated that a human would have to get up over 100 miles before it would outrun a horse and that very few humans could reach that distance.

I don't know off hand what the distances are like, but it seems that if you just keep them at the low range of their gallop for a couple hours they'll tire out before you. Humans and horses are actually similar in terms of locomotor efficiency; we just have a far better surface area:volume ratio and more efficient heat dissipation mechanism. At the beginning of the race you'd be required to track them, but they soon wear themselves out.

As an aside, in the Count of Monte Christo, the protagonist's fabulous wealth allows him to have fresh horses waiting along the road every few miles in order to get where he's going faster. Horses are certainly very fast, but they wear out pretty quick.

[Pheidippides]

At what distance do you feel a human would eventually outrun a horse? This was a lunch time argument at work last year and I was taking your position. I had people convinced on every animal but the horse (lots of horse owners at work). They all estimated that a human would have to get up over 100 miles before it would outrun a horse and that very few humans could reach that distance.

Caveat: I will submit to cowboy's opinion here, as he's more knowledgeable than I am. When I had and used horses as a kid, it was pretty commonly believed that, while you could walk your horse all day long, if you went off at a canter for more than a couple of miles you were asking for trouble and maybe the death of the horse. I never tried to see if that was true. I do know that I could easily outrun our horses (a quarter horse, an arab, a thoroughbred, and a quarter/morgan/percheron mix) to our favorite camping spot, six miles up into the canyon. They would sweat and pant enough that we'd get worried, and I'd just keep booking along. But they weren't in the greatest of shape sometimes.

[LA Ute]

You might want to check you sources, as the exact opposite is true. Humans suck at sprinting. We're very slow and can't run at full speed for more than a few seconds at a time. Meanwhile, we can we can outrun dogs, horses, antelope, cheetahs, you name it, over long distances.

It is thought that persistence hunting (running a game animal to death over the course of several hours) was an important part of life over the last couple million years of human evolution. That's hard to confirm, but the fact is that it works. Documented cases of persistence hunting, in at least one case by the researcher himself, are not hard to find.

The reasons why our bodies suffer if we run long distances are many and complex, including a couple that I already mentioned above, but that doesn't mean we aren't really good at it or that we aren't supposed to do it.

I'm not saying either thing. I'm talking about typical distance running: One foot in front of the other, mile after mile, hour after hour. Spring-land, spring-land, spring-land, repetitively, for a long time. A structural engineer looking at the human body would not say our bones, muscles, tendons, spines, etc. are best-suited for that type of motion over a long period. The pendular motion of walking is natural and we can do it for a long time with less stress and fatigue than the spring-land motion of running. I am pretty certain that this is well-accepted, but I read about it long ago and am too lazy to hunt for the info again.

I used to be an avid runner and miss it. Aerobic walking (the kind done in Olympic competition, but a lot slower in my case!) is a very nice alternative. I do it 5-6 times a week for at least 45 minutes at an 11:00 pace (pretty fast for walking) and I have not had an inury in 20+ years. The reason that this exercise is so good is that it is inefficient - you keep walking, with a different gait, beyond the point at which you would naturally break into a run. The greater inefficency is where the exercise benefit comes from.

All that said, if I could run without destroying some joints in my body, I would! It's more fun.

I guess the main point we have been making is that each person is different and you need to listen to your body. It will tell you if you are over doing it

[cowboy]

Caveat: I will submit to cowboy's opinion here, as he's more knowledgeable than I am. When I had and used horses as a kid, it was pretty commonly believed that, while you could walk your horse all day long, if you went off at a canter for more than a couple of miles you were asking for trouble and maybe the death of the horse. I never tried to see if that was true. I do know that I could easily outrun our horses (a quarter horse, an arab, a thoroughbred, and a quarter/morgan/percheron mix) to our favorite camping spot, six miles up into the canyon. They would sweat and pant enough that we'd get worried, and I'd just keep booking along. But they weren't in the greatest of shape sometimes.

A horse on a canter will rarely last more than a couple of miles. Pony express stations were spaced every ten miles, because that's the farthest that most horses could travel on a full gallop. A full gallop, though, is somewhere in the 10-15 mph range.

A trot is really the sweet spot on a horse. A horse can travel for hours on a trot, roughly 5-8 miles per hour. My grandfather and his father ran a mail route in the 30's where they transported mail on horses, roughly 50 miles both ways, and changed horses every 10-20 miles. The spare horses still stayed with them though, and continued to follow behind on a trot.

I'd say that a man in marathon shape can outrun a man on one horse after 15 miles our so, but it would take 2-3 times that distance to run down a horse with no rider.

Other animals are much easier to run down. A domestic cow, for example is done after 4 or 5 miles.

[Pheidippides]

A horse on a canter will rarely last more than a couple of miles. Pony express stations were spaced every ten miles, because that's the farthest that most horses could travel on a full gallop. A full gallop, though, is somewhere in the 10-15 mph range.

A trot is really the sweet spot on a horse. A horse can travel for hours on a trot, roughly 5-8 miles per hour. My grandfather and his father ran a mail route in the 30's where they transported mail on horses, roughly 50 miles both ways, and changed horses every 10-20 miles. The spare horses still stayed with them though, and continued to follow behind on a trot.

I'd say that a man in marathon shape can outrun a man on one horse after 15 miles our so, but it would take 2-3 times that distance to run down a horse with no rider.

Other animals are much easier to run down. A domestic cow, for example is done after 4 or 5 miles.

Having run down a domestic cow many, many times, I concur.

BTW, have you ever done long distance riding on a thoroughbred at a trot? I think it would be an awesome sentence for sex offenders. I would not be shocked to find out it was part of the Spanish Inquisition.

[cowboy]

Having run down a domestic cow many, many times, I concur.

BTW, have you ever done long distance riding on a thoroughbred at a trot? I think it would be an awesome sentence for sex offenders. I would not be shocked to find out it was part of the Spanish Inquisition.

I broke thoroughbred race horses in college. Yeah, they're a little rough.

One of the best horses I've ever had was half thoroughbred. On our place, you need a horse that can travel just because of the size of the area we need to cover.

Usually, one of the distinguishing features of a good cowboy is his ability to ride a trot. A good hand will ride a trot all day long and rarely if ever breaks into a lope. This maximizes the distance he can cover on a horse.

[Pheidippides]

I broke thoroughbred race horses in college. Yeah, they're a little rough.

One of the best horses I've ever had was half thoroughbred. On our place, you need a horse that can travel just because of the size of the area we need to cover.

Usually, one of the distinguishing features of a good cowboy is his ability to ride a trot. A good hand will ride a trot all day long and rarely if ever breaks into a lope. This maximizes the distance he can cover on a horse.

Yup. And you get a great leg work-out at the same time.

We had a thoroughbred when I was growing up. Well pedigreed (both his grandsires had apparently won the Kentucky Derby) but an unfortunate accident left him testicle-less, and thus useless for breeding. That's why we were able to get him. Amazing horse - obedient, good tempered, and fast. Loved to run, but if you let him have his head, you needed to hold on for dear life. Wouldn't buck or pitch, mind you, but he made everything else I'd ever ridden seem turtle-slow.

[woot]

I'm not saying either thing. I'm talking about typical distance running: One foot in front of the other, mile after mile, hour after hour. Spring-land, spring-land, spring-land, repetitively, for a long time. A structural engineer looking at the human body would not say our bones, muscles, tendons, spines, etc. are best-suited for that type of motion over a long period. The pendular motion of walking is natural and we can do it for a long time with less stress and fatigue than the spring-land motion of running. I am pretty certain that this is well-accepted, but I read about it long ago and am too lazy to hunt for the info again.

Well we might be talking about two different things here, I guess. It seems silly to take the single best distance running species on the planet and say that they aren't "best suited" for that activity, but at the same time, it is certainly true that we aren't built nearly as well for it as we would be if one of your structural engineers had designed us from scratch.

That's the problem with evolutionary "designs": each step has to be functionally better than what came before, with no opportunity to scrap old ideas and start over. Think of building a 2010 Ferrari from a 1910 Model-T where every single tiny change -- removing a bolt here, pounding out a fender there -- must be a functional improvement.

In our case, walking on two legs is a pretty recent development, so we ended up with a spine and legs that aren't very good at withstanding the pressure placed upon them, and are prone to giving out.

I will again emphasize, however, that the greatest reason that runners are injured so much is because they wear cushioned shoes that destroy their natural gait-control system. If runners would only run barefoot on softer surfaces, they would not be injured nearly as often.

[Solon]

Well we might be talking about two different things here, I guess. It seems silly to take the single best distance running species on the planet and say that they aren't "best suited" for that activity, but at the same time, it is certainly true that we aren't built nearly as well for it as we would be if one of your structural engineers had designed us from scratch.

That's the problem with evolutionary "designs": each step has to be functionally better than what came before, with no opportunity to scrap old ideas and start over. Think of building a 2010 Ferrari from a 1910 Model-T where every single tiny change -- removing a bolt here, pounding out a fender there -- must be a functional improvement.

In our case, walking on two legs is a pretty recent development, so we ended up with a spine and legs that aren't very good at withstanding the pressure placed upon them, and are prone to giving out.

I will again emphasize, however, that the greatest reason that runners are injured so much is because they wear cushioned shoes that destroy their natural gait-control system. If runners would only run barefoot on softer surfaces, they would not be injured nearly as often.

I'm with woot: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/he...well.html?_r=1