"Man is the only animal that runs simply to do it."
I don't buy that. My dogs, when let loose in an open field, will run huge, sweeping circles and loops at top speed simply for the fun of it as far as I can tell. Perhaps a better way to put it is that wild animals tend not to run for fun - but domestication, on the other hand, changes things pretty dramatically. I get the impression the author was trying to take that moment to make humans stand out as some kind of special, superior animal in this one case because most of the rest of the examples had humans losing the race. (couldn't resist...)
Wild animals - I doubt they'd ever take that risk. Domesticated ones? I think so. I've seen my dogs expend so much energy in a day that they can hardly walk and even appear to stumble or plop down on the floor without their usual grace. My parents' older dog will spend a day being hyper-excited (usually caused by the presence of my dogs.. :) and refuse to move by evening. Like, literally, she curls up in a ball and will not move for anything. Calling her name, getting excited for her to come, tugging on her collar, holding food in front of her... etc. When she gets that way, you just have to pick her up if you want her to move - because she won't (or can't) do it on her own.
Perhaps it's just dogs and humans. I've never seen my cat get that excited. :) My 8mo old, though, will wipe himself out if allowed to. I've seen him push himself so long and hard that he climbed halfway up a pair of steps and fell asleep in the process. (Was terrible cute seeing him asleep on the step - looked oddly comfortable...)
It's extremely interesting that the only other two animals that the author mentioned as beating a human in a marathon were: dog, and horse.
Anyone have a playful horse and can tell us if they'll play to the point of wiping themself out?
It's also interesting because apparently the problem is getting rid of heat (which humans do very well). In the Iditarod that's not a problem. And I guess dogs are willing to go to the limit, as long as they can. (And other animals are not willing do so, even if they can.)
Are horses good at shedding heat?
Can you (are you willing to) do an experiment with your dog: next time they are that tired (or better, just before), cool them off with a lot of water and tell us if they rejuvenate? (Or keep them cool the whole time, and see if they go longer than usual.)
Yes. I sometimes take care of a half Shepherd/half Collie, and when I take him to the off-leash park, he and his fellow dogs run themselves to exhaustion. I can say this with some confidence because of the way he staggers back over to me after his romp and flops down dead at my feet.
The author didn't even differentiate us as having only two legs. Humans can stand tall and can see over greater areas than say dogs, and keep better watch for threats, opportunities and escape routes.
Because of our brains and hands, we can cultivate and domesticate (observing seasons) so as to prepare and store food in advance for easier survival and longevity, giving us time to think about other things and move beyond subsistence. We can also move between great temperatures zones by using clothes.
We can also navigate with the aid of maps and use fire to cook so that meat is easier to digest, thus being able to have a multi-use digestive tracts. This means having a greater nutritional range so that a more complex organism can evolve and giving us access to a greater array of possible food.
Domesticating dogs meant we could sleep for longer periods while the dogs could warn us of wild animals or scare them off: good for REM whilst travelling over long distances and thus unable to build fences.
Adding to that, I recently visited a wildlife park in Australia and there was a Tasmanian Devil in an enclosure which was just running in loops over and over again. I watched for about 10 minutes, fascinated. It probably won't run itself to death for no reason, though.
Rats run compulsively if given access to an exercise wheel.
"Rats offered wheels are known to steadily increase their use of them over time, said Kanarek, whose study appeared in the August issue of the journal Behavioral Neuroscience."
when i read the article, i got the impression (especially from the last sentence) that the author shakes their head at the insane, wasteful, selfdestructive behavior of humans.
The human body is multi-purpose. Most animals can't climb trees as well as humans. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a great idea to climb lots of trees.
Conventional wisdom is that long slow jogs are a good way to get healthier. The clinical evidence indicates most people would do better with some sub mile sprinting.
Does the book address the physiological damage documented in my link?
That doesn't even mention running or endurance training. It's about fit vs non-fit people, which isn't relevant. I'm talking about a fit person who runs a couple 60s 400s and goes home vs a fit person who heads out to run three miles.
There are two points here. 1) There is a lot of evidence that marathon type running is BAD for you. Not running period, just heavy long distance running. 2) Strength training and sprints have better health benefits, with the added bonus they take a small fraction of the time of distance running.
Actually, multiple studies mentioned in the thread I linked to did examine daily runners. The 32,000 person study, in particular, divided participants up into quite a few different activity levels. At the higher end were daily runners. I can't link to the actual study, since it's behind a pay-wall.
Here's a report on a study that monitored over 100,000 people:
Paul Williams, Ph.D., author of the study, found that men who ran two or more marathons per year were 41 percent less likely to suffer from high blood pressure, 32 percent less likely to have high cholesterol, and 87 percent less likely to be diabetic than non-marathoners. Those who ran only one marathon every two to five years also had significantly lower risk for these conditions than non-marathoners.
The benefits of running marathons were largely independent of total number of miles run per year by participants, indicating that isolated distance running bouts in preparation for marathons may have been effective in decreasing risk of disease. Even runners who didn't run marathons - those who included longer runs as part of their usual exercise routines - were less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol.
This is all about runners vs non-exercisers. Again, the literature on strength training and sprint work indicates major benefits not gained from long distance running. I doubt there are any distance running health benefits compared to benefits from short distance running and/or walking.
Comparing non-exercisers to marathon runners is irrelevant. I repeat: marathons inflict measurable physiological damage. A fit person who got fit by means other than long distance running would not have this damage.
There is a much greater volume of clinical research oriented around treadmills and distance running in general because it is very easy to quantify and study. This does not by consequence recommend distance running.
> I doubt there are any distance running health benefits compared to benefits from short distance running and/or walking.
The 32,000 person study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1999) I mentioned above found that there are.
Can you refer me to any peer-reviewed research linking sprint training or weight training with equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators that Paul Williams's found distance running improved? Or any research demonstrating that strength training induces neurogenesis?
If not, then please stop sharing what you personally "doubt" or "suspect" is the case. It's just not constructive.
> equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators
Insulin resistance, for sure.
> strength training induces neurogenesis
What google informs me about neurogenesis is that it's tied to VOmax training, which long distance running is not especially good for. Interval training, a la tabata intervals, is best for that.
I very much suspect the mental benefits from actual sports exceed running. The stimulation from tennis or basketball would surely do your mind more good than pounding pavement.
How do we know that we are one of the few animals that can run long distance? We might be one of the three who HAVE, but that is only because we have attempted. And one of the other two animals who has run long distance, a siberian husky, has only done it because humans forced him to.
Where is the proof that other animals are physically unable to run long distance? Just because a horse doesn't drink the water does not mean he can't.
I like articles such as this that confirm my belief that nothing is an accident, unless something is too hard to explain, and might then be called an accident.
I don't buy that. My dogs, when let loose in an open field, will run huge, sweeping circles and loops at top speed simply for the fun of it as far as I can tell. Perhaps a better way to put it is that wild animals tend not to run for fun - but domestication, on the other hand, changes things pretty dramatically. I get the impression the author was trying to take that moment to make humans stand out as some kind of special, superior animal in this one case because most of the rest of the examples had humans losing the race. (couldn't resist...)