I'll add that major meta analyses done at very "pro running" universities found that 85% of the health benefits of running occur at 60 minutes per week, and 100% occur at 2 hours per week at which point health hazards regress and actual death rates increase to the level of sedentary individuals by 4 hours a week. (This was average time run over a 6 month period). More than 2 hours of running a week causes no additional health benefits and more than 4 is worse than nothing. This included highly experienced and elite runners. At 4 hours a week, runners were 25% more likely to have a major negative health issue than at 2 hours per week.
Being metabolically healthy, exposing yourself to hormetic stressors, eating nutrient dense foods strategically (organ meat and cruciferous vegetables). Basically a ketogenic NUTRIVORE approach with strategic non refined carb refeeds targeted to support muscle recovery. The strategic stimulation of both a catabolic and an anabolic state is fundamental to get stronger. Increasing your heart rate, challenging yourself, sweating on a daily basis without overtraining, listening to your body... Endurance does not permit you to optimize your parameters (nothing that goes over exercise duration) If you want to achieve great duration without destroying your body you can opt for an 80/20 approach, it is wonderful and it works! do your research.
Exercise is good but it's about balance if you do too much exercise in the wrong way you are at risk of getting an overuse injury which can be long-term and disabling
You're dead right. How far could you run like that before breaking your ankle, or at least a bone in your foot from stepping on a sharp rock? This didn't happen.
Well put. I don't think he's trying to mislead us by suggesting a particular way to be active though. A recent study showed that - over *an equivalent distance* - brisk walking and running used the same amount of energy. Running is just faster. So brisk walking, stair climbing, moderate swimming, etc. can all give you the benefits described.
As someone who’s brisk walked 3.5 miles a day, 6 days per week for years, I’m now seriously considering getting into running. Even if the same amount of energy is used for same distances, maybe running offers more benefits because of its increased intensity over brisk walking. Maybe not. I’d like to find out.
A couple of problematic items in the presentation: 1. Not sure if the screen is distorted somehow but those forelimbs on the human figure in slide #1 are freakishly long. 2. 10m per second is 36 kph. While Bolt can go a bit faster than this, Lieberman is suggesting the average chimp can sprint 72 kph (twice as fast). That seems absurdly high.
Long distance running as we think of it, isn't really necessary or even healthy. If you watch videos of persistence hunts you'll see that they aren't running the entire time. They walk at a brisk pace as they track the animal and when they get close to the animal they break into an easy lope. It isn't like the elite marathoners who keep up a 6 minute mile pace for 26 miles. Although the speaker clearly advocates running, he goes on to admit that modern hunter gatherers are just very active.
The last stretch of the persistent hunt typically is where running comes in and it can last for several hours, depending on how quickly the animal tires out or overheats.
Humans were very capable of funding megafauna with sharpened sticks. Persistence hunting came about when the megafauna were extinct or too few in number to rely on.
Scientists say that the population whose numbers fall to a certain level must go extinct. Well, let's reverse the question. How a population that counts 2 individuals, and even a few, can grow to a few hundred and then further. ? One theory is that Neanderthal was extinct because they lived in small groups and genetic errors accumulate. Let's ask: how can Neanderthal reach the order of hundreds of thousands from one or few individuals ? After reaching the number of a few individuals, it should disappear as population was too small ? An interesting question? Answers can develope a theory of evolution.
Persistence hunting in Australia? Maybe. But not in the last 10,000 years since they hunted out all the megafauna. The modern kangaroo is well adapted to travel long distances at high speeds. Yep, that bipedal locomotion is very efficient. From wiki... "Kangaroos are the only large animals to use hopping as a means of locomotion. The comfortable hopping speed for a red kangaroo is about 20-25 km/h (13-16 mph), but speeds of up to 70 km/h (44 mph) can be attained over short distances, while it can sustain a speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) for nearly 2 km (1.2 mi).[28] This fast and energy-efficient method of travel has evolved because of the need to regularly cover large distances in search of food and water, rather than the need to escape predators."
***** Have you asked any biologist or anthropologist if "biological frugivore" even exists as a recognized category? Chimpanzees are categorized omnivorous according to the Jane Goodall website.
Yeah, a frugivore that is pathetic at tree climbing compared to it's ancestors. Makes perfect sense- to someone who eats too much fruit and not enough protein.
@@freestyle9368 Where's the protein in a lump of any fruit found in natural Australia? What was found in Australia before Europeans showed up? If anyone was going to start bragging about humans being fruit eaters, it wouldn't be Australians.
So, I suppose you're going to tell us that after running and catching this four-legged animal, he brought it back 20km on his shoulders to his family. 😅🤣Oh, num managed to follow the head and keep up in the sandstorms and rain.
Absurd. Lion don't gallop. Outside of treed habitat, early hominids were an easy meal to lion, hyena, etc. Early hominids had their hand full keeping large food competitor species--elephants--out of their garden habit. Hominids didn't hunt. The tools/weapons that are associated with early homids had to do with keep food competitor out of their garden habitat.
I'm an expert on this subject. (Paleoanthropologists are all morons who don't understand evolution.) The most fundamental behavior of agriculture is simply communal territorialism. The behaviors associated with communal territorialism emerged in the earliest years of hominid evolution as a strategy the survive the dry season, it having recently emerged in the habitat as a consequence of the Indian Monsoon. BTW, human intelligence and communicative abilities emerged as part of a strategy for the members of these communities to coordinate their efforts to achieve survival through the dry season, which mostly involves throwing rocks (the earliest instances of war) and collectively dissuading large animals that would otherwise destroy the food supply and water supply upon which they depended to survive the dry season. This behavior is pest control. Pest control is agriculture. Thus agriculture has been with hominids from the earliest years of hominid evolution, 5 to 8 mya. Paleoanthropology is pseudoscience. Humans were not out in open habitat where they had no chance to chase down other species and no chance of out running lions, hyena, and other ridiculously vicious animals, like the short faced bear. Humans have more slow twitch muscle, unlike either predators or prey species. Slow twitch muscle is more efficient, which is consistent with a species whose main strategy for survival is waiting out the dry season--avoiding predators by staying in trees.
This man is a legend. So interesting, highly recommend his books.
Awesome presentation
I'll add that major meta analyses done at very "pro running" universities found that 85% of the health benefits of running occur at 60 minutes per week, and 100% occur at 2 hours per week at which point health hazards regress and actual death rates increase to the level of sedentary individuals by 4 hours a week. (This was average time run over a 6 month period). More than 2 hours of running a week causes no additional health benefits and more than 4 is worse than nothing. This included highly experienced and elite runners. At 4 hours a week, runners were 25% more likely to have a major negative health issue than at 2 hours per week.
Very interesting 👌. I had a feeling about this myself and only run a max of 90 minutes per week. The rest is walking.
Being metabolically healthy, exposing yourself to hormetic stressors, eating nutrient dense foods strategically (organ meat and cruciferous vegetables). Basically a ketogenic NUTRIVORE approach with strategic non refined carb refeeds targeted to support muscle recovery. The strategic stimulation of both a catabolic and an anabolic state is fundamental to get stronger. Increasing your heart rate, challenging yourself, sweating on a daily basis without overtraining, listening to your body... Endurance does not permit you to optimize your parameters (nothing that goes over exercise duration) If you want to achieve great duration without destroying your body you can opt for an 80/20 approach, it is wonderful and it works! do your research.
Thank you. I have, for many years, thought that my exercise (limited) was important for mental health.. Evolution has proven it so.
Exercise is good but it's about balance if you do too much exercise in the wrong way you are at risk of getting an overuse injury which can be long-term and disabling
You're dead right. How far could you run like that before breaking your ankle, or at least a bone in your foot from stepping on a sharp rock? This didn't happen.
Well put. I don't think he's trying to mislead us by suggesting a particular way to be active though. A recent study showed that - over *an equivalent distance* - brisk walking and running used the same amount of energy. Running is just faster. So brisk walking, stair climbing, moderate swimming, etc. can all give you the benefits described.
As someone who’s brisk walked 3.5 miles a day, 6 days per week for years, I’m now seriously considering getting into running. Even if the same amount of energy is used for same distances, maybe running offers more benefits because of its increased intensity over brisk walking. Maybe not. I’d like to find out.
Somebody plug in the damn mic at 2:19?
A great discussion of human evolution/physiology. to download free @ tinyurl . com \ qctunkd . delete spaces.
This is GOLD
From what I have read, short sessions of high-intensity interval training are more beneficial than endurance training.
Beneficial by what metric?
@@funtimevideo7453 look for tabata studies
A couple of problematic items in the presentation:
1. Not sure if the screen is distorted somehow but those forelimbs on the human figure in slide #1 are freakishly long.
2. 10m per second is 36 kph. While Bolt can go a bit faster than this, Lieberman is suggesting the average chimp can sprint 72 kph (twice as fast). That seems absurdly high.
2. He's not talking about chimps.
Long distance running as we think of it, isn't really necessary or even healthy. If you watch videos of persistence hunts you'll see that they aren't running the entire time. They walk at a brisk pace as they track the animal and when they get close to the animal they break into an easy lope. It isn't like the elite marathoners who keep up a 6 minute mile pace for 26 miles. Although the speaker clearly advocates running, he goes on to admit that modern hunter gatherers are just very active.
The last stretch of the persistent hunt typically is where running comes in and it can last for several hours, depending on how quickly the animal tires out or overheats.
Persistence hunting is a complete and utter myth
very interesting. another thing I would be interested to hear about is the role that scavenging may have played in our evolutionary past
We have not evolved. We devolve.
Humans were very capable of funding megafauna with sharpened sticks. Persistence hunting came about when the megafauna were extinct or too few in number to rely on.
Poderia ter legenda em português.
Scientists say that the population whose numbers fall to a certain level must go extinct. Well, let's reverse the question. How a population that counts 2 individuals, and even a few, can grow to a few hundred and then further. ? One theory is that Neanderthal was extinct because they lived in small groups and genetic errors accumulate. Let's ask: how can Neanderthal reach the order of hundreds of thousands from one or few individuals ? After reaching the number of a few individuals, it should disappear as population was too small ? An interesting question? Answers can develope a theory of evolution.
Persistence hunting in Australia? Maybe. But not in the last 10,000 years since they hunted out all the megafauna. The modern kangaroo is well adapted to travel long distances at high speeds. Yep, that bipedal locomotion is very efficient. From wiki...
"Kangaroos are the only large animals to use hopping as a means of locomotion. The comfortable hopping speed for a red kangaroo is about 20-25 km/h (13-16 mph), but speeds of up to 70 km/h (44 mph) can be attained over short distances, while it can sustain a speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) for nearly 2 km (1.2 mi).[28] This fast and energy-efficient method of travel has evolved because of the need to regularly cover large distances in search of food and water, rather than the need to escape predators."
*****
Have you asked any biologist or anthropologist if "biological frugivore" even exists as a recognized category? Chimpanzees are categorized omnivorous according to the Jane Goodall website.
Yeah, a frugivore that is pathetic at tree climbing compared to it's ancestors. Makes perfect sense- to someone who eats too much fruit and not enough protein.
Many surviving tribes around the world still do persistence hunting.
@Substance Perhaps you should find another source. Where did you dream up that humans ever were frugivores? There is no such thing.
@@freestyle9368 Where's the protein in a lump of any fruit found in natural Australia? What was found in Australia before Europeans showed up? If anyone was going to start bragging about humans being fruit eaters, it wouldn't be Australians.
When the pizza guy comes I'm gonna run up the driveway.
So, I suppose you're going to tell us that after running and catching this four-legged animal, he brought it back 20km on his shoulders to his family. 😅🤣Oh, num managed to follow the head and keep up in the sandstorms and rain.
Audio sucks
Where do you find 65kg dogs? I'm an obese woman and I weigh 60kg.
did. that. to. hear. the. get
said. please. and. thank. to
We're nature's zombies basically. Neat.
It s the professor in "Thatwasepic" video lol
Wack sound
Absurd. Lion don't gallop. Outside of treed habitat, early hominids were an easy meal to lion, hyena, etc. Early hominids had their hand full keeping large food competitor species--elephants--out of their garden habit. Hominids didn't hunt. The tools/weapons that are associated with early homids had to do with keep food competitor out of their garden habitat.
Claudius Denk farming has been around for 10000 years, we are talking millions but the number might be a bit big for your brain
I'm an expert on this subject. (Paleoanthropologists are all morons who don't understand evolution.) The most fundamental behavior of agriculture is simply communal territorialism. The behaviors associated with communal territorialism emerged in the earliest years of hominid evolution as a strategy the survive the dry season, it having recently emerged in the habitat as a consequence of the Indian Monsoon.
BTW, human intelligence and communicative abilities emerged as part of a strategy for the members of these communities to coordinate their efforts to achieve survival through the dry season, which mostly involves throwing rocks (the earliest instances of war) and collectively dissuading large animals that would otherwise destroy the food supply and water supply upon which they depended to survive the dry season. This behavior is pest control. Pest control is agriculture. Thus agriculture has been with hominids from the earliest years of hominid evolution, 5 to 8 mya.
Paleoanthropology is pseudoscience. Humans were not out in open habitat where they had no chance to chase down other species and no chance of out running lions, hyena, and other ridiculously vicious animals, like the short faced bear.
Humans have more slow twitch muscle, unlike either predators or prey species. Slow twitch muscle is more efficient, which is consistent with a species whose main strategy for survival is waiting out the dry season--avoiding predators by staying in trees.
@@jamesmcginn6291 That makes a lot more sence to me.
False. We hunted and it is the reason you talk and reason now