Bred by intelligent hands for a particular outcome is not the same as evolution. I’d figure that somebody so against bullshit could see that.
Again, I notice you don’t actually take on the meat of the argument. And yes, I think that humans could outrun horses (endurance-wise). Barring the breaks, they do, and HAVE. A horse with no breaks would be run down within a day (if that long) by experienced hunters that have ran since childhood. And I actually have more than internet handwaving to support my claim.
Yeah; I can clarify by saying that in this particular case, my “should” means, “should, if the person in question wishes to maintain a reasonably healthy body.” Reasonably is up to the individual, of course, but I would maintain that a level of zero exercise would not be reasonably healthy by anyone’s measure. No, I have no real way of quantifying this, and there may be some cite out there to back me up but I am not going to go hunt it down right now.
As for the rest, I would definitely agree that gaining pleasure from life is important. I think that anyone who wants to lose weight and sustain that weight loss long-term needs to come up with a program that they can live with. For me, that means making sure that I still enjoy my meals and gain pleasure from eating. Removing all pleasure from eating would not be a sustainable long-term solution for me.
Somebody who knows something about evolution might disagree. Directed breeding is faster, mind you, but not substantively different than natural evolution directed in favor of a particular characteristic due to natural evolutionary pressures. (The main difference being that in controlled breeding humans manually select the ‘fittest’ and encourage them to reproduce, rather than using lions predating on the unfit to achieve the same result.)
But if you’re not worried about FACTs, then this one won’t bother you either. After all, I’m on the internet, so how can I be right? (Unlike you, who is not on the internet.)
A horse under these circumstances would be galloping. In other words, sprinting. Comparing that against a non-sprinting human is, of course, an unfair comparison, as you well know. You persist in comparing apples to oranges because unless you distort the comparison you are unable to maintain your little fantasy of human supremacy.
For you to be right in your claims, a man on a horse would have to be unable to keep ahead of a man on foot, despite efforts on the rider’s part to maintain the horse at a persistently sustainable pace. This is of course not going to happen. And you know it.
You are succumbing to the frothy internet rage of one who wishes not to lose an argument. I am intimately familiar with that feeling. It is not good for you. Trust me. Maybe you should take a break.
Ooh, you do not want to hand me “reasonably” and tell me to run with it. Especially if we haven’t quantified what, besides “zero exercise”, the theoretical person is doing. What if they have a perfect diet? Always have been thin. Never smoked, drank, took drugs, been injured? Can they have a job as a stockboy? In construction?
Me either - I slip. Rather a lot. I’ve already stopped losing weight; it remains to be seen if I start gaining it back…
A horse cannot gallop for long stints. Yes, a horse will run faster than a human. A human can outLAST a horse. Why are you not getting this? ENDURANCE, distance, not speed. No, humans aren’t supreme when it comes to endurance. The Bar-tailed Godwit has that honor. They are better than horses though.
Also I have FACTS to support my argument. I’m not the one losing. Your one cite was your own downfall:
Horses can only sustain a gallop for about a mile or two. Horses drink 30 gallons of water a day, and cannot go long without a drink. Humans can go much longer and can carry the water with them. I’ve already pointed out that one culture can even run day and night… straight through. No horse can do this.
Epimetheus, the human running 100 miles takes half again longer than the horse. Six to eight hours longer. I think the horse can afford to take a few water breaks - even hour long ones. And I note how you shift the goalpost away from the equine marathon races back to straight galloping as quick as you can, because if you pick this set of FACTS, rather than that inconvienient set of facts over there, then your position doesn’t collapse in flames quite as fast!
Suffice to say, outside of your head, the advantage the human has over the horse isn’t his legs or tendons or sweat; it’s his brain. The human knows to pace himself, the human knows to carry water, the human can convince himself he has a reason to go on running. You can get that out of a horse when you add a rider and looky there - the horse-and-rider wins. By hours.
But you go ahead and keep stating that you have FACTS. Myself, I’ll just stick with plain old facts.
Also, my goalposts have never moved. I was only showing you the maximum a horse can gallop to show you that the horse cannot gallop the entire time. Hence would not be AS FAR ahead as you think.
However, persistent hunting has likely always existed, as it exists today (in the aforementioned cultures). Humans can outrun (endurance) most game (not horses apparently).
Well, I suspect that most of the horses that they’re trying to hunt don’t have riders on them, meaning that humans could take advantage of the critter’s stupidity - sneaking up on them, spooking them, and then tracking them, rinsing and repeating. Though, I still strongly suspect that the average cro-magnon was not averse to throwing the odd spear now and then; if nothing else, injured critters may run slower or tire faster. Especially if they’re dead at the time.
I don’t miss sweet things (of which I eat none but a little fruit), but I understand your point about quality of life. ‘Shoulds’ are dangerous territory. People have the right to make their own choices and determine what is worthwhile for them. Even if those choices are detrimental to them, I don’t think it’s my job to try to police someone else’s lifestyle.
BTW, if you make people run without shoes, they run on their toes/ball of the foot, like all other animals. Striking with your heel is very painful without padded atheletic shoes. This is how I run (usually in bare feet, or very light flexible shoes) and I no longer have the hip and ankle pain I used to from jogging.
(It will surprise noone here that I have not tried running in bare feet. I don’t even like walking outside in bare feet; I am nearly callous-free and find merely walking on asphalt in my bare feet very, very uncomfortable.)
Feet are very sensitive! This is one reason I believe it’s very unnatural to slam your heels into the ground the way you do with thick-soled shoes. In bare feet it is essential tread more lightly, with a shorter stride.
I worked up to it slowly. I started with tender indoor-only feet and it was uncomfortable. I used to have more calluses, they are mostly gone now. The soles of my feet are tougher, but not with built-up callus.
Another nice side-effect is an incredible firming of my calf muscles. I never had hard muscular calves before.
Epimetheus, eyes are very useful in avoiding sharp objects. I have yet to hurt my feet on anything, even running on grass and trails (I also run on asphalt and cement). When I do step on an object, because my gait is light and I land on my toes, it’s not painful.
Okay, I’m out. I won’t point out that being less than the absolute best at something isn’t the same thing as sucking at something, because I am absolutely tired of trying to tell a fat lazy otaku that he should get off his ass and try moving in a hurry. I am done, because you cannot reason somebody out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into.
Geez! I do something else for a few days and this thread goes bananas. I can’t keep up
On horses v. humans: begbert got it mostly right. A horse might outrun a human if it has a rider on it, because a human brain is guiding the horse’s pace and decisions. In the wild, if Og jumps out of the bushes screaming ‘booga-booga-booga’ at a grass-eating horse, the thing is going to take the fuck off at full tilt. If Og wants it bad enough, he can persistence hunt the thing into the ground as with other animals. How am I so sure of that? Because, silly, horses became extinct in North America millenia ago, because they were hunted to extinction by humans. The natives never thought to ride them until the Europeans clued them in to the idea. Before that they were tasty; then they were gone. Now deer, elk, moose, those didn’t disappear for some reason. Probably because they hang out in forests where outrunning them isn’t going to work very well, just a guess.
But, going back to the marathon-running horses. It isn’t the breeding that makes them special, it is the fact that human riders train them. See, they get these horses used to running long distances by… having them run long distances.
I hadn’t thought of it this way, so thanks again you skeptical bastard, but you could compare a yoga class to this effect. Nobody would ever think of yoga on their own. There is a leader who takes you through it. As physical training. The reason being that the eventual results are the kind of thing a lot of people are ready to sign up for.
For the same reason, begbert, I highly recommend you find some kind of professional to help you with your fitness. Join a gym. Get a weightlifting spotter- they’re everywhere. Get a coach. Find somebody who knows about this subject (a Harvard scientist is totally unnecessary) and listen to them! It works for horses; it’ll work for you too.
I don’t understand why so many in this thread are so frustrated by begbert’s disinterest in joining a gym or taking up jogging.
He had some health problems and was overweight. He is working with his doctor to lose weight and become healthier, in which he has been fairly successful. And he does cardio! He gets on his exercise bike while he is watching tv. He is more actively invested in his own health than most people I know.
Right now, I am hardly exercising at all, and haven’t been for 4 or 5 months (I go through phases jogging or yoga). I walk a few hours a week. I am still muscular and have a resting heart rate of 64 (atheletic range) - mostly because of my diet (I wasn’t muscular with a low heart rate when I was a fairly sedentary vegetarian).
There is not very much evidence that exercise beyond moderate, normal activity improves overall health or longevity. Being totally sendentary/bedridden is all that is ‘bad’ for you. The key is just to keep moving, which begbert is. You do not have to pump iron or run for miles. The rate of death between somewhat-fit individuals and very fit individuals is not a big difference. And none of the studies that have been done so far on humans are controlled for diet, which is a shame, since generally the more of a gym-rat someone is the more pains they take with their diet as well.
These studies seem to define ‘moderate fitness’ as someone who gets the equivelant of 30 minutes per day of walking:
People do not become diabetic, heart diseased, or cancerous from lack of exercise - diet and hereditry are the main factors here. And there is no evidence controlling for diet AND exercise habits among large groups of people, so there is no way to be sure that it is in fact the amount of exercise someone does, or what they are eating, or a combination, that causes the postive health effects correlated with fitness levels.
Newsflash, all: before the 60s, the only ‘exercise’ people got was from their work and daily life. Now most of us are making an effort to deliberately ‘exercise’ in some way and we are much fatter and still suffering from a lot of chronic disease.
Especially if we haven’t quantified what, besides “zero exercise”, the theoretical person is doing. What if they have a perfect diet? Always have been thin. Never smoked, drank, took drugs, been injured? Can they have a job as a stockboy? In construction? 