> Consider how casually young cats can jump up onto refrigerators. To match that, a man would have to do a standing jump right over the backboard.
Not actually correct. Jumping doesn't scale with height. Potential energy at peak height is m x g x h. Jumping energy is f x d. Mass scales with body height cubed. Force is proportional to body height squared (via muscle cross-section) and the distance your legs are pushing on the ground (as you start jumping) is proportional to body length.
(l x l x l) x g x h ~ (l x l) x l ... so ... g x h ~ constant ... there's no scaling at all!
A similarly shaped (but very differently sized) human, elephant, cat, and grasshopper should be able to jump roughly the same height. The difference is, grasshoppers are jumping machines, and elephants have a very different body plan.
However, the elephant's leg would buckle on landing. Buckling strength goes down with height.
We don't have to imagine how big cats would scale, big cats exist; cats much bigger than men. I don't think a lion or tiger could jump over a backboard.
So can some humans... If you look at the video referred to by that link it's pretty clear that it is the tigers front paw is what is 12 feet off the ground. I believe I've seen footage of someone jumping to touch the top of a basketball backboard. This is massively different than someone jumping _over_ the backboard.
Maybe I jumped the gun, and the article was right.
If a human sized cat has about 1m more reach than a cat (higher CoG, longer "arms", etc) then they should be able to get to the top of a backboard (about 3m), by raising their CoG by about 2m.
I just immediately assume that anyone who says "if X was the size of a human" is wrong, because there's so many bad examples.
In the animal kingdoms, humans are one of the animals with the highest running endurance. We suck at high speed, at climbing trees, at taking quick turns, but we can distance any naturally evolved quadruped over a long run, simply because bipedal gait is more efficient.
Horses, on the other hand, have been bred for qualities like endurance over the millenniums of human domestication.
With any other animal, on 22 miles, my money would be on the human. Horses are maybe the only quadruped that stands a chance in a marathon.
Our ability to sweat and our lungs operating independent of our heart are also factors. The book Born to Run goes into this in great detail. It's a really good, and fascinating, read. Basically humans are the greatest long distance runners the planet has ever known.
As an example of a better long-distance runner, there was a kangaroo which was observed in the wild, to have travelled 200 miles in 10 hours. Since it probably did not go in a straight line, it likely travelled farther.
That's almost 8x the distance of a marathon, at around 50% faster than the absolute best human marathon time, all done over wild terrain.
But ostriches do. Both ostriches and a pronghorn antelope are capable of running a marathon in about 45 minutes. I don't know how much farther they can keep going, but at that distance we're totally outclassed by them.
Sled dogs in the ididitrod regularly go 15 mph for 6 hours. That's faster than a human does a marathon, for several times the distance, while dragging a heavy object behind them.
We're designed for running long distances, and do very well at it for a primate. But we are very, very far from being champions at it.
Yes but you guys have to keep in mind the marathon is nowhere near our upper limit. People run 100 mile ultra marathons all the time. The Tarahumara have been known to run even further than that. It's probably reasonable a human can run 120, 150 even 200 miles in one prolonged effort. Not to mention in more than one effort there's almost no limit to how far a human can run. Dean Karnazes ran across the entire United States, over 3000 miles.
Let's take a good human ultramarathoner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Meltzer has repeatedly demonstrated that he can run 100 miles in about 19 hours. So a bit over 5 miles per hour. (And he's often beating human competitors by hours when he does that.)
The record time in the ididarod represents dogs running on average at close to that speed, through snow, while towing a load, for about 1100 miles. Of course the dogs were only running for a fraction of that time. They needed breaks to eat, sleep, etc. And they carried all of their food. I guarantee that Karl Metzer could not, even under ideal circumstances, manage to run 1100 miles in anywhere close to comparable time.
Also let's go back to that kangaroo. Researchers happened to notice that one ran about 2x the distance that Karl did in half the time that he did. There is no particular reason to believe that the kangaroo could not have done the same thing the next day.
I don't care how you slice it. There is simply no way that humans are the best long-distance runners on the planet.
> The record time in the ididarod represents dogs running on average at close to that speed, through snow, while towing a load, for about 1100 miles.
It's only relevant how long they can run without a break; not how far or how far they can run in a given time.
You seem to completely miss the point everyone is making about humans being long distance runners; they mean a single run without stopping to rest. The point is the human cooling system that allows man to run continuously without overheating like animals seem to.
> Also let's go back to that kangaroo. Researchers happened to notice that one ran about 2x the distance that Karl did in half the time that he did.
You keep moving the goal posts. Earlier you cited the fact that Dean Karnazes ran 3000 miles as evidence that we can go a long way. But by your current standard we shouldn't count that because he stopped to sleep.
Anyways, you claim the point is that we have a cooling system that lets us keep going. Wonderful. According to http://www.austcamel.com.au/cache/Training%20of%20Camels.htm it is not hard for a well-trained camel to run about 10 miles an hour for about 50 miles without stopping to rest. That would mean that it is running like a human marathoner (not ultramarathoner) long enough to be running all of the way through the heat of the day, in an environment that is uncomfortably hot for people.
Our ability to keep running through heat does not seem to exceed what camels can do.
Now what is the real human upper limit by your current standard? The longest race that I'm aware of anyone running without sleep is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfield_Sydney_to_Melbourne_U.... 544 miles, and the best human time is 5 days, 2 hours, and 28 minutes. That's about 4.44 mph.
I do not know of a recorded case where an animal ran that distance without stopping to rest. Wonderful! We win at something!
HOWEVER there are animals that could start on that starting line, travel on foot, leave the humans behind in the dust, and then the humans would never, ever catch up to the animal. Not at 100 miles. 1000 miles. Or 10,000 miles. Despite the fact that the animal took breaks.
To me that is a meaningful definition of "better long distant runner". And by that definition, we are not the best. (We are very, very good, but not the best.)
Whoops, I did indeed pull out a comment by city41 and wrongly attribute it to you. My apologies.
But still the fact that that was said by someone else demonstrates that the definition of "long distance running" that you want to use is not universally accepted by everyone else in this discussion.
Cooling is definitely not a problem for sled dogs running in the snow. (Surviving blizzards is a different story.)
But the kangaroo was traveling in an environment that is hotter than humans are OK running in. Camels are another good runner, in camel races they regularly maintain speeds comparable to top notch marathoners for about 2x the distance while running in conditions hot enough that a running human would collapse from heat stroke.
So yes, cooling matters. But if you're trying to squeeze out a niche for running long distances in hot weather, you still are going to have extreme trouble finding a regime where we are best.
If you really want humans to win, you need a combination obstacle course/distance run. There is nothing that runs at our speed for long distances that can also climb. Of course once you go into that niche, we're no longer being judged on our ability to run, are we?
But no one else is, you seem to not get that no one cares about your point. They're making the point about human distance running without a break and you're going on about unrelated topics of speed. No one disputes that animals are faster, or can travel further in a given time. The issue is who can run the longest non stop without resting or overheating.
>Basically humans are the greatest long distance runners the planet has ever known.
While I like your enthusiasm, recall that most species that ever lived are now extinct. What makes you so sure that a few hundred million years' worth of evolution never produced a better endurance athlete that had fitness for a time but subsequently died out as Nature moved the goalposts?
I can't find any real info on ostriches running long distances. The best I've found is National Geographic stating that they can "run long distances at 31 mph". But how far can they run? Humans can, and often do, run 100 miles in one effort. I'm curious if the ostrich's internal system can maintain 31 mph for over 3 hours, or barring that get to 100 miles at any speed.
Pronghorn Antelopes, on the other hand, can maintain speeds of 60 mph for miles at a time. "If the Cheetah and pronghorn were running side by side, and if the track was longer than a quarter of a mile, the pronghorn would win it, no contest," Carmi Penny, director of collections at the San Diego zoo says. While cheetahs have flexible spines which allow their legs to spend more time pushing off the ground, antelopes have long thin limbs that allow them to run both fast and economically. These legs, paired with tremendous aerobic capacity, are what allow the antelopes to outrun most predators. When you get to long distances, the antelopes can sustain 30 mph for about an hour.
Read more: Long Distance Running Biomechanics – Marathons in the Animal Kingdom - Popular Mechanics
This is a video of human hunters (Koi San, an African ethnic group that has been pushed to extinction over the last millennia by the Bantu tribes) chasing down a kudu antelope. Antelope are great runners, but they can't cool themselves as efficiently as humans. It's a beautiful video, and the way the hunter reacts after the kill is very moving.
That is a really cool video but I'm not sure if I'd take that to say "humans are better long distance runners".
The fact is that humans are the most intelligent species (excluding dolphins and mice) and have used that to their advantage. For example, carrying water and weapons. Since these tribesmen can carry water they can replenish water that the other animal cannot. If the tribemen and the antelope had the same amount of water (none) who would win?
Also, I'm not sure if it is the case in this video (also, my audio is not working so I'm at a loss for anything said during the video), it wasn't clear if they were using a triangle approach where you have two hunters on either side and one in the middle. In that instance the antelope might run back-and-forth over that long distance and not run in a straight line (meaning it ran farther, just not smarter).
Even if we disregard the benefits from a higher intelligence it still only says "humans are great long distance runners in hot/flat terrain when carrying water". For example, try out-jogging a deer this December in the midwestern wilderness, or slap on some tennis and try to wear out a husky when it is twenty-below and 30mph winds.
humans are the most intelligent species (excluding dolphins and mice)
When I read this for a split second I was thinking "man, how can this guy think dolphins are smarter than humans? And mice? What is he think... oohh, Heheh! Nice.
We're really versatile; better at climbing trees, for example, than most animals; we lose of course to specialists e.g. other primates, cats... better at swimming than most land animals... horse/man contest seems unfair, though, since the horse had to carry a guy.
Nitpick: Than most animals? I doubt it. Anything less than a gram (easily over 99% of all animals, likely even of all animal species) will barely notice the difference between a tree standing up and one that has fallen down.
I trained for a 50k with my dog (pit/boxer mix) and routinely ran 20+ miles with him. I'm fairly certain that he could have run much farther than me, judging by his vs my energy level at the end of the run. That was in West Virginia summer, too, where it is humid and warm (although generally I started in the dark ~5 AM and was done by 10 or 11). Of course, I'm not an elite runner :) But I don't think he's an elite dog, either!
Interesting. I have a terrier (~15 lbs). He keeps up with me for 45 minutes and seems barely tired. But if the temperature is above 75 degrees F or so, I can easily run farther and faster than he can. Right from the start I can tell he's less enthused and wants to run slower (which we do, or he stays home; I don't want to bring him anywhere near heat exhaustion).
I was a little concerned at first with my dog, running long distances, but we worked up from 15 or so miles per week to 50, and he seemed fine with it. But I was running in the early morning at the coolest time of day, so I'm sure that helped him.
I do like the youtube crowd comments. As always, a vast number (referring to the fantastic work of the film crew) stating essentially "I don't know how to do this, therefore it's impossible and this is staged".
You read YouTube comments? I don't know man, you might want to watch out. It could turn out in 20 years from now, researchers discover that it kills your brain cells or something.
The Man vs. Horse Marathon is runners against horses with riders on their back. I wonder what the results would look like if the runners would have to carry ~10% of their body weight on their back...
Apart from that, I wonder how the long-distance running speed of animals without rider is measured. Seems like an interesting endeavor, since animals will run long distances only if they have to, which I suppose won't happen often.
A horse can't sweat (at least not enought to reduce body temp. sufficiently) and thus can only get rid of the heat through breathing. Eventually it will overheat and either rest or die.
Humans don't suffer from this limitation. If you're curious I suggest you read Born To Run
Where does the phrase "Sweating like a horse" come from then?
And I've often heard people complaining that training horses in hot weather is horrible because they get sweaty and all the dust sticks to them.
While I have never myself witnessed a horse sweat, I've read/heard enough references to the sweatines of horses that I assume horses do in fact ... sweat.
They key is "not efficiently enough".
The body volume (where heat is produced) is propoprtional to the cube of linear dimensions, when surface area is proportional only to the square — hence the bigger you are the harder it is to get read of extra heat.
And vice versa: the smaller you are the more effort it takes to keep yourself warm.
There's a tool for grooming horses called a "sweat scrapper" for a reason. :)
If you ever watch a horse race or any other time a horse is working hard and fast, you'll see white foam near where the reins touch the horse's neck and and anywhere else there's friction. That's frothed up sweat.
Horses absolutely do sweat.... however, this is where the bipedal aspect comes into play.
Not only is a bipedal gait more efficient over long distances, but the fact that humans have a mostly hairless torso which is directly perpendicular to the direction they are running means two things: a maximum amount of surface area of sweaty skin is being exposed to moving air vs. body mass it has to cool. Much greater than a quadraped's.
I think the BBC 'Origins of us' series covered this in an episode also. They conclude that where humans evolved from in Africa changed from being lush forest to grassy plains at one time. We as a result had to evolve to catch prey and as there was nowhere to hide, we had to out-run the prey, hence no hair and sweating.
Yes, it's unfair in more than one way. It's only 22 miles [1]. Perhaps if it's increased by a further 10 miles more humans will win given that it might prove that 10 more miles are more challenging for the horse than the human.
I also wonder about the preparation of the horses. Marathon runners are, in general, fantastically and specifically well trained for their sport. Are the horses involved specifically trained for endurance racing or just generally fit horses? Are they elite endurance racers? If the horses are specifically trained, does the fact that most equine endurance races are 50 or 100 miles effect the training of the horses?
The author admits that Huskies can outrun humans, albeit in colder places. I wonder if this is not a co-incidence, since humans have directed the evolution of dogs for quite a while now.
This March "The Nature of Things" aired a good episode, "The Perfect Runner", on human adaptations to distance running, evolution, etc.. They cover everything in the article in more depth plus more, such as some possible reasons for the supremacy of Ethiopian long-distance runners.
(If you're really keen, the above link includes references under "resources".)
The article seems a big cribbed quite frankly in that it mostly talks about the a subset of the same things the NoT episode did, only in less detail. The man vs. horse marathon was not in the NoT though.
If you are interested enough in this to watch a 40 minute documentary then the NoT episode is highly recommended. It might be difficult to find for those outside of Canada unfortunately.
Not quite, 6.5 meters would be about a 1:45 marathon time. Currently the best marathoners can do 2:04 which is about 5.6 meters per second. For a half marathon world record pace is just over 6 meters per second.
I may have looked at my calendar during a moment of non-clarity of thought to make sure today wasn't April Fool's day. In case you're wondering, it's not. It's August 31.
This has been known a bit longer than this article mentions. The Western States 100 orginated from the Tevis Cup horse race [1] when Gordy Ainsleigh attempted the race on foot in 1974. While not directly racing horses it was the first known ultradistance man v horse footrace
Not actually correct. Jumping doesn't scale with height. Potential energy at peak height is m x g x h. Jumping energy is f x d. Mass scales with body height cubed. Force is proportional to body height squared (via muscle cross-section) and the distance your legs are pushing on the ground (as you start jumping) is proportional to body length.
(l x l x l) x g x h ~ (l x l) x l ... so ... g x h ~ constant ... there's no scaling at all!
A similarly shaped (but very differently sized) human, elephant, cat, and grasshopper should be able to jump roughly the same height. The difference is, grasshoppers are jumping machines, and elephants have a very different body plan.
However, the elephant's leg would buckle on landing. Buckling strength goes down with height.