ATHLETES- Marathon runner > Sprinter (Ha, I think not)

[payton34]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-hrm111204.php

How running made us human
Endurance running let us evolve to look the way we do

A study by University of Utah biologist Dennis Bramble and Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman made the cover of the Nov. 18 issue of the British science journal Nature. The study assembles evidence that humans evolved and human anatomy looks the way it does because our ancestors were more likely to survive if they could run.

Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors because they needed to run long distances ? perhaps to hunt animals or scavenge carcasses on Africa's vast savannah ? and the ability to run shaped our anatomy, making us look like we do today.

That is the conclusion of a study published in the Nov. 18 issue of the journal Nature by University of Utah biologist Dennis Bramble and Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman. The study is featured on Nature's cover.

Bramble and Lieberman argue that our genus, Homo, evolved from more ape-like human ancestors, Australopithecus, 2 million or more years ago because natural selection favored the survival of australopithecines that could run and, over time, favored the perpetuation of human anatomical features that made long-distance running possible.

"We are very confident that strong selection for running ? which came at the expense of the historical ability to live in trees ? was instrumental in the origin of the modern human body form," says Bramble, a professor of biology. "Running has substantially shaped human evolution. Running made us human ? at least in an anatomical sense. We think running is one of the most transforming events in human history. We are arguing the emergence of humans is tied to the evolution of running."

That conclusion is contrary to the conventional theory that running simply was a byproduct of the human ability to walk. Bipedalism ? the ability to walk upright on two legs ? evolved in the ape-like Australopithecus at least 4.5 million years ago while they also retained the ability to travel through the trees. Yet Homo with its "radically transformed body" did not evolve for another 3 million or more years ? Homo habilis, Homo erectus and, finally, our species, Homo sapiens ? so the ability to walk cannot explain anatomy of the modern human body, Bramble says.


"There were 2.5 million to 3 million years of bipedal walking [by australopithecines] without ever looking like a human, so is walking going to be what suddenly transforms the hominid body?" he asks. "We're saying, no, walking won't do that, but running will."

Walking cannot explain most of the changes in body form that distinguish Homo from Australopithecus, which ? when compared with Homo ? had short legs, long forearms, high permanently "shrugged" shoulders, ankles that were not visibly apparent and more muscles connecting the shoulders to the head and neck, Bramble says. If natural selection had not favored running, "we would still look a lot like apes," he adds.

I Run, Therefore I Am

Bramble and Lieberman examined 26 traits of the human body ? many also seen in fossils of Homo erectus and some in Homo habilis ? that enhanced the ability to run. Only some of them were needed for walking. Traits that aided running include leg and foot tendons and ligaments that act like springs, foot and toe structure that allows efficient use of the feet to push off, shoulders that rotate independently of the head and neck to allow better balance, and skeletal and muscle features that make the human body stronger, more stable and able to run more efficiently without overheating.

Humans are poor sprinters compared with other running animals, which is partly why many scientists have dismissed running as a factor in human evolution. Human endurance running ability has been inadequately appreciated because of a failure to recognize that "high speed is not always important," Bramble says. "What is important is combining reasonable speed with exceptional endurance."

Another reason is that "scientists are in developed societies that are highly dependent on technology and artificial means of transport," he adds. "But if those scientists had been embedded in a hunter-gatherer society, they'd have a different view of human locomotor abilities, including running."

Why Did Humans Start Running?

The researchers do not know why natural selection favored human ancestors who could run long distances. For one possibility, they cite previous research by University of Utah biologist David Carrier, who hypothesized that endurance running evolved in human ancestors so they could pursue predators long before the development of bows, arrows, nets and spear-throwers reduced the need to run long distances.

Another possibility is that early humans and their immediate ancestors ran to scavenge carcasses of dead animals ? maybe so they could beat hyenas or other scavengers to dinner, or maybe to "get to the leftovers soon enough," Bramble says.

Scavenging "is a more reliable source of food" than hunting, he adds. "If you are out in the African savannah and see a column of vultures on the horizon, the chance of there being a fresh carcass underneath the vultures is about 100 percent. If you are going to hunt down something in the heat, that's a lot more work and the payoffs are less reliable" because the animal you are hunting often is "faster than you are."

Anatomical Features that Help Humans Run

Here are anatomical characteristics that are unique to humans and that play a role in helping people run, according to the study:


Skull features that help prevent overheating during running. As sweat evaporates from the scalp, forehead and face, the evaporation cools blood draining from the head. Veins carrying that cooled blood pass near the carotid arteries, thus helping cool blood flowing through the carotids to the brain.

A more balanced head with a flatter face, smaller teeth and short snout, compared with australopithecines. That "shifts the center of mass back so it's easier to balance your head when you are bobbing up and down running," Bramble says.

A ligament that runs from the back of the skull and neck down to the thoracic vertebrae, and acts as a shock absorber and helps the arms and shoulders counterbalance the head during running.

Unlike apes and australopithecines, the shoulders in early humans were "decoupled" from the head and neck, allowing the body to rotate while the head aims forward during running.

The tall human body ? with a narrow trunk, waist and pelvis ? creates more skin surface for our size, permitting greater cooling during running. It also lets the upper and lower body move independently, "which allows you to use your upper body to counteract the twisting forces from your swinging legs," Bramble says.

Shorter forearms in humans make it easier for the upper body to counterbalance the lower body during running. They also reduce the amount of muscle power needed to keep the arms flexed when running.

Human vertebrae and disks are larger in diameter relative to body mass than are those in apes or australopithecines. "This is related to shock absorption," says Bramble. "It allows the back to take bigger loads when human runners hit the ground."

The connection between the pelvis and spine is stronger and larger relative to body size in humans than in their ancestors, providing more stability and shock absorption during running.

Human buttocks "are huge," says Bramble. "Have you ever looked at an ape? They have no buns." He says human buttocks "are muscles critical for stabilization in running" because they connect the femur ? the large bone in each upper leg ? to the trunk. Because people lean forward at the hip during running, the buttocks "keep you from pitching over on your nose each time a foot hits the ground."

Long legs, which chimps and australopithecines lack, let humans to take huge strides when running, Bramble says. So do ligaments and tendons ? including the long Achilles tendon ? which act like springs that store and release mechanical energy during running. The tendons and ligaments also mean human lower legs that are less muscular and lighter, requiring less energy to move them during running.

Larger surface areas in the hip, knee and ankle joints, for improved shock absorption during running by spreading out the forces.

The arrangement of bones in the human foot creates a stable or stiff arch that makes the whole foot more rigid, so the human runner can push off the ground more efficiently and utilize ligaments on the bottom of the feet as springs.

Humans also evolved with an enlarged heel bone for better shock absorption, as well as shorter toes and a big toe that is fully drawn in toward the other toes for better pushing off during running.
The study by Bramble and Lieberman concludes: "Today, endurance running is primarily a form of exercise and recreation, but its roots may be as ancient as the origin of the human genus, and its demands a major contributing factor to the human body form."

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````
so why are sprinters ''better'' athletes? because humans evolved by running 'marathons' not running sprints, meaning we insitinctively have the abiltiy to run long distances
we are not made to run a 100m dash so we have to work harder for our body to adapt to it

so everyone saying these people running 200 miles and ultramarathons are the greatest athletes, well youre wrong, theyre just doing what humans have been doing for millions of years

[traildog]

i think what is actually in question is what do you consider a "athlete". someone with a measurable 40 time, vertical jump, quick hips, and fast reflexes that are better than 98% of the human population or someone who is able to complete feats of endurance that 98% of the human population cannot/won't do.
i am a long distance runner and i guarantee you if i lined up next to say, Terrell Ownes, i would kick his butt in a 10k, but if you put a football in my hand and put me in an NFL game, i wouldn't last 10 seconds.

[Environ]

It's like comparing apples and oranges. They are both elite athletes, but in different ways. They train differently. Evolution made us what we are, but none of us HAVE to be athletes, do we? No. People choose to be athletes and they choose what sport or event to participate in. Running a marathon is no better than sprinting 100 m and vice versa. Both of them take a huge amount of commitment and self-sacrifice. And, both of them are psycholigically demanding. So, I don't think any one is better than the other.

[Lightning3]

well the thing is, to paraphrase a famous distance runner, everyone can run 100 meters but not everyone can run a marathon. But to excell in either event is equally impressive.

[Reiv]

Originally Posted by payton34

so why are sprinters ''better'' athletes? because humans evolved by running 'marathons' not running sprints, meaning we insitinctively have the abiltiy to run long distances
we are not made to run a 100m dash so we have to work harder for our body to adapt to it

so everyone saying these people running 200 miles and ultramarathons are the greatest athletes, well youre wrong, theyre just doing what humans have been doing for millions of years

Are you say that we aren't instinctively made to run 100m either? Thats crazy talk.

[Cracky]

what crud are you talking about?

any of the top runners in their field is a great athlete. If its one that can blast the 100 in 9.8 or one that can win a marathon etc. They are ALL great athletes.

One is just better suited to do a certain race. No matter howmuch training you arent gonna get maurice green to be a top marathonner and you arent gonna get a top marathonner to be a world class sprinter.

it comes down to the individual and their genetics. Training plays a big role but theres only so much it can do to overcome (or help ) your genetics.

some are more white muscle fibre types while others are more red...

all the top atheletes are great.

the 100m is of a more popular event cause its all about explosive balls to the wall power and that appeals to more people.(+ its more exciting to watch)

[DaJager_Meister]

Who the hell said they weren't athletes? I think that they are a little nuts, cuz who the hell wants to run for that long? But I also think they are pretty much pussies lol

[traildog]

Originally Posted by DaJager_Meister

Who the hell said they weren't athletes? I think that they are a little nuts, cuz who the hell wants to run for that long? But I also think they are pretty much pussies lol

Crazy maybe, pussies though, obviously you don't know much about endurance athletes. i respect endurance athletes because they can compete in there sport for more than a hour and do it without time outs, half times substitutions, and instant replay.

[concept]

Holy cliff notes.

10,000 years ago, when a man had a spear and a responsibility to feed his family, he did not rely on distance running for killing games.

[wubby]

Originally Posted by DaJager_Meister

Who the hell said they weren't athletes? I think that they are a little nuts, cuz who the hell wants to run for that long? But I also think they are pretty much pussies lol

Crazy, probably, but I have yet to experience anything in my life that comes remotely close to requiring the fortitude that it takes to get through a competitive marathon.

I think sprinters and distance racers require the same amount of training, commitment, and drive. That said, there is a point in a competitive marathon (or other distance races) where you face demons that you never knew existed and you either suck it up and drive though it, or you fail. That physical and mental pain will teach you a lot about yourself. That is why I run them - it is a greater challenge than I have found anywhere else.

[wubby]

Originally Posted by concept

Holy cliff notes.

10,000 years ago, when a man had a spear and a responsibility to feed his family, he did not rely on distance running for killing games.

I tend to think the opposite... I can't see them ever really chasing down prey in a sprint. I can however see having to track prey long distances and tiring them out as they are built for bursts of speed and not distance. I would also expect that there were a lot of wounded prey that had to be followed a long way and collected before something/someone else got to it.

Of course if I am the prey ... I'd want to be able to sprint ... lions would catch me every time...

[Robb_P]

Could I just point out that people like Hicham El-Guerrouj, Wilson Kipketer etc at their best could probably run something like 11 flat in the 100m, 22.5 in the 200m and maybe 46 secs in the 400m?

Marathon World record is at something like under a 5 minute mile pace, all race. 26 miles at under 5 minute per mile pace!!! 5K world record has average lap splits of something like 62 secs.....

You have to be a genetic freak to get anywhere in athletics. People who get to elite level are INCREDIBLE athletes - in terms of genetics, people who reach Olympic finals are probably in the top 0.000000000000000000000000001%.

These people would have been good at probably any discipline, regardless - however, they excel in their chosen field. Most people would get slower doing so much endurance work - these guys still end up being pretty fast.

Respect to all elite athletes, whether they are sprinters or marathon runners.

[Kozma]

There are bushmen in the Savannah that will chase a lion till it gets tired. So yeah endurence running is what humans are designed to do I guess. But **** that to me there is either walking or sprints, no in between.

[Malodrax]

LOL you think endurance runners are pussies?? you've never had to go for an intense run before have you... its MUCH more difficult than doing stuff in the gym or doing short sprints.