I once read that humans are the fastest land animals on distances longer than about 100 km. I this really true?
Well, if you let them use their cars and/or airplanes, I’m sure they are. Don’t know about running, though. It seems to me that other animals would be faster, even over long distances.
Upon further contemplation (like right after I pushed the submit button), I thought of things like the Pony Express. If humans are faster runners than horses, why didn’t they just have the mail delivered by people?
The relevant section of that (strangely uncopyable) link is:
Note that it does not say that a pronghorn will run for 100 miles. I very much doubt that it would, as it would need to frequently stop to eat all that grass.
Humans on the other hand can kill and smoke a couple of the pronghorn and then walk the 100 miles. So I maintain that, if only because other land animals have to stop all the time for food and because they have no reason to move further than the next good source of food, we win by default. Go human!
Well, with the Pony Express, they were able to change horses. But I bet a trained human could run down a single horse over a distance of a hundred km.
There was an article in Analog science-fiction magazine in 1984 proposing that humans are ‘cursorial’ hunters: we don’t sprint, but we can keep going and going and going far past when most other animals would have to rest… at which point we catch up to them. Boom. Antelope steaks.
The article claimed that our extensive sweating, our upright stance, our big leg muscles, were all adaptations to sustained effort over a long period of time: hours or days, rather than the five-minute sprints and pounces of other animals.
How long a distance? When they’re comparing pronghorns to cheetahs, they might mean 5 or 10 km instead of 100. But I bet a human could catch up to an isolated pronghorn if the pronghorn couldn’t sustain those high speeds for more than a few kilometres, and if he gave it no chance to rest.
I’d sure hate to have to keep up with a coyote or a caribou over that distance as I’ve seen both lope on effortlessly for incredible distances.
Also, we’re probably talking about an effort by your average member of some species as opposed to an extraordinary human.
Ahhh, but neither did the OP ask about 100 miles - he said 100 kilometers (or about 60 miles).
But a small point, this. :rolleyes:
Are you suggesting that a pronghorn could not run, rest, run, rest…, for a longer distance than a human?
Hmmm, actually, I don’t really know either since I’ve never heard of it - I don’t see how anyone could easily test this - chase a pronghorn in an enclosed tunnel or such I guess. (I would figure that your average pronghorn may not want to run 60 miles without substantial motivation, 
)
…and in lieu of Lieu’s statment (couldn’t resist 
) , I agree that some humans have great stamina (the Zulu warriors for example would keep up with British cavalry movements) but I would think even them sorely pressed to keep up with cavalry that is trying to avoid (or chase) them.
Sorry,“Is this …” Couldn’t find the original statement, but here is another one …
This migration might be seen in the light of current insights in the field of “ultrarunning” (running/walking distances further than the marathon) that humans are the fastest land animals on distances longer than about 100 km. The early erectus was even somewhat better a walker and runner than his later descendents, because of his relatively small brain and skull, which allowed for a narrower birth channel and therefore a pelvis that was better suited for walking and running than a wider one. Homo erectus was the ultimate ultrarunner, and therefore good at migration.
Is this really true?
If you made a horse, camel, or a geyhound run along with you and ‘pace them’ so that they don’t get exhausted, I’d bet they’d outrun a human if you then made them sprint the last click.
The problem is, has anyone actually measured the maximum endurance of animals that can go faster than humans by pacing them rather than letting them run at full speed?
Peace.
Yeah, I spotted that after I posted. Still, 100 miles is more than 100km .
Well, I was actually suggesting that what was missing was drive. However, I simply don’t know enough about relative energy consumption and usage times to make a judgement on a straight race (say from a slow but steady flood).
If I had to guess, I’d say that it’s easier for a human to grab a snack on the hoof (so to speak), so it’d be easier for a human to keep up the pace. Remember, we’re not talking about just 100 klicks here, but over distances greater than 100 klicks. Still, I can see the counter argument that says we have to hunt/gather whereas the pronghorn can speed graze as it goes. As I said, I don’t know enough to evaluate that.
Regarding lieu’s point, I’d like to second that. Of course, you have to bear in mind that an average wild human is more like a marathon runner than us, because we’re talking about animals here. So, of course, your average westerner couldn’t beat a pronghorn. Your average rural 3rd worlder couldn’t either, as even if you strip out the excessive old population, it’s still a more sedantry life than a hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
Gone4Subs. I’d say bogus, unless you consider the enegy input and drive elements. I sure wouldn’t want to keep up with a herd of wildebeast or buffalo on migration if they didn’t have to stop to graze. Again, IMO.
The horse is probably the animal we would know most about it’s endurance.
Still, no human could walk 100 miles without stopping for food and rest. Normally, given enough time to rest a human could walk 100 miles in about 4 to 5 days. I’m sure a horse could not run all that distance, but it could probably keep a rapid gate for much longer than ahuman, otherwise we wouldn’t have used them.
Well, the idea wouldn’t be to restrain them from running their full speed, it would be to always catch up with them and allow them as little rest as possible, ideally none.
Let’s say that under ideal conditions, animal X can run at, say, 60 km/h, but only over a distance of 5 km. It can therefore only run for 5 minutes. Let’s also say that animal X needs an hour to completely rest from that.
In half an hour, a human walking at a fast cruising speed of 10 km/h can cross the 5 km to catch up with animal X. The still-tired animal X might only be able to run at 30 km/h for 5 minutes the next time. The human catches up with it in 15 minutes this time. The even-more-tired animal X can run only a shorter distance. The human catches up again, in less time. Eventually the exhausted nnimal X can’t run avay any more, and the human can move in for the kill.
If the human can catch up with an animal in less time than the animal needs to run away and recover fully for another escape, eventually the human will catch the animal.
Unless the human runs into its own limits, of course.
But considering things like marathons, and also considering that I’m talking about fast walking here, not outright running, I suspect that the human’s limits for this kind of low-speed stern chase are quite high.
BTW, the Analog article mentioned that the Plains dwellers in North America used to run down and capture horses regularly.
I’ve always that wolves are the true champions where long-distance travel day after day is concerned. They just keep trotting along, hour after hour. After all, they follow along migrating herds and snack off them for hundreds of miles. Lessee… okay:
From “Walker’s Mammals of the World On Line”, in the article “Caribou (North American term), or Reindeer (European term)” I find:
“Northern populations, however, make extensive spring and fall migrations, sometimes traveling over 1,000 km between the summer range on the tundra and the wintering grounds in timbered areas. The rate of movement during migration is 19-55 km per day (Banfield 1974; Bergerud 1978).”
Okay “55 km per day” isn’t OVER 100k, but if that’s an average for an entire herd for several weeks at a time, that ain’t bad.
Same source, in a article on dog species:
“Canis lupus (gray wolf).”
“The daily distance covered ranges from a few to 200 km (Mech 1970).”
200 km in one day??? I don’t think too many humans will be running down wolves.
Darned. I was all set to say a word for my wolf relatives and StarvingButStrong beat me to the punch. Yes I’ve heard that wolves have incredible running endurance.
Scott and Michael, the runners Modzelewski, completed the 100 mile (160 km) race in 23 hours and 47 minutes, running continuously – climbing 19,000 feet and descending 24,000 feet over the mountainous course.
Considering the mountainous terrain, I think humans win!
Given the variables mentioned; whether the racer stops for sustenance, represents the population as a whole, is compelled by pursuit, the vagaries of relief and terrain possible, a more compelling answer might be reached through a clarification of the original question which, certainly, is a good one.
The 48 hour record appears to be Yiannis Kouros of Australia 473.797Km run on a track in Surgeres France in 1996.
As for animals from here…
I can’t find a endurance information so maybe TheLoadedDog could help us out but either way looks like the Aussies have us all beat. Anyway I think this demonstrates a Kangaroo is certainly capable of faster speeds.
Kangaroo 100Km approx 93 mins Man approx 500 mins. I don’t know though if this answers the OP.