I just watched a documentary on BBC about Eddie Izzard, a chubby transvestite comedian, who decided to run 42 26 mile marathon's in 46 days to raise money for charity.

His best time was 5 hours.

He didn't carry a pack though, and had an ice cream van following him around.

Edited by tallbloke on 03/22/2010 14:29:28 MDT.

"Actually this is true in about any race from 800 meters and up. I have seen many good runners lose a race because they went out too fast and faded in the end.
For example in a mile or 1500 meter race, running the first half faster than the 2nd half is called a negative split."

I think you've got it backward, Nick. Running negative splits refers to running the last half of a race faster than the first. Your point holds, though, as a rule of thumb. That said, it depends on an individual runner's capabilities and psychology. In cross country, where getting hung up in the pack can ruin a top runner's chance of victory, he will often go out fast and try to hang on
as others try to reel him in. Some folks are comfortable running from the front, others will hang back and try to reel a front runner in in the latter stages of a race. Others still will make their move on hills if that plays to their strength. Lots of tactical approaches to running a race. The nature of the course will have an impact as well;
hills, temperature, humidity all have an impact on a runner's tactics.

Tom,

Brain fart on my part :)

I was a miler in the day, and my son is finishing up 4 years of distance running at Cal Poly SLO, so running has been near and dear for many decades.

"He didn't carry a pack though, and had an ice cream van following him around."

This comment reminded me of a cool little DVD I purchased online called "The Runner" (by Journey Film, only available online I think).

It chronicles David Horton's 2005 record breaking run of the PCT.
At one point along the PCT David had his crew backpack in to him ice cream packed in dry ice.

This is a great DVD even if you're not a runner, and offers some good insite into the PCT.

p.s.
for those who ask "Why", this is a must see film. After watching this film you'll really ask WHY.

Edited by asandh on 03/23/2010 09:04:17 MDT.

Another way I look at this:

We don't hunt anymore, at least not in the traditional sense (I must assume that taking an elk at 250 yards with a .300 magnum is a bit different than running it down with an atlatl or spear).

Male or female, with the exception of our military, we don't have a warrior class either. We don't fight. We really have no reason to ever have to try to do anything at maximum physical capacity. There are no consequences, social or physical, for not being able to physically rise to a challenge.

Nobody HAS to climb or run anymore. If you do, it's a game.

Yet I think our bodies are hardwired for these activities, for struggle, and for the adrenaline rush.

But in 2010, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of citizens in wealthy countries are completely disconnected from their biology. They live vicariously through books, TV, movies, etc., getting their danger and adventure through surrogates.

Others, we invent physical games.
Rock climbing. Whitewater kayaking. Free diving. Ultrarunning. There's no real reason for these activities, at least no direct benefit to society in them. Yet some of us, our bodies and brains still crave struggle and the greatest thrills we experience are those that come after adrenaline surges or long periods of physical effort. It makes us feel alive, like we're doing what our bodies were MEANT to be doing.

It seems that the majority of people out there either resist these urges and go back to bed, talk themselves out of them with seemingly practical "it might be dangerous" arguments, or are altogether oblivious to them.

I say keep struggling, it's what we were made for.

Edited by xnomanx on 03/23/2010 10:45:07 MDT.

+1 Craig

And since most developed countries are disconnected from their biology (esp the US), the result is an overweight and out of shape populace resulting in increased health care, social problems, and disfunction individuals (i.e. TV will be the demise of western civilization).

good post craig

Craig - Nice Post.

>>It makes us feel alive

Craig, great post!

Reminded me of one of my favorite quotes:

The real work of men was hunting meat. The invention of agriculture was a giant step in the wrong direction, leading to serfdom, cities, and empire. From a race of hunters, artists, warriors, and tamers of horses, we degraded ourselves to what we are now: clerks, functionaries, laborers, entertainers, processors of information.

- Edward Abbey

That's a beautiful Abbey quote.

Well, this is getting philosophical. Great post Craig.
Running after deer with a spear in the UK will get you arrested, so I force myself to trap the occasional rabbit and skin and cook it. To be honest I have a slight revulsion about killing anything bigger than a mosquito, but I do it anyway to keep myself ready to survive tough times if I need to.

It's one of those activities which will prevent me from breaking any running records on long distance treks. Well, that and not being fit or fast enough. :-)

"The real work of men was hunting meat"

actually wasn't the "Real" work of men running from the meat :-)

I'm not sure we've devolved, as long as we have the wisdom to deal with our circumstance in a well thought out way.

I'd much rather be running for fun than running for my life, no matter how exhilerating that used to be :-)

Hunting is a waiting game, even with bows and spears. In fact even more so because you have to get closer. You would probably need to sprint every once in a while. Walking long distances would be more normal.
I, like a lot of people do not think ultrarunning is healthy and I certainly don't think its natural.

I'd differ with you on the necessity of running when hunting as well as ultrarunning not being healthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo

Humans are a formidable running creature- we forget this because we lost it. Pit me against a dog on a summer day and I could probably run it to death- literally. The Western States 100 was originally a horse race...until humans started doing better than horses.

I'm reading more and more about persistence hunting being the key to human survival in many regions- and quite possibly part of the reason that the Neanderthal hit a dead end. Stocky, thick people are not well adapted to chasing game on the plains...they're far better at cornering and clubbing mega fauna to death.

As for ultrarunning not being healthy...Why? What's this assumption based off of?

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/19091
Here is just one article. It not really "proven" but there is evidence. It seems to me that marathons are about managing damage to a body breaking down more than a way to build the body up.

As for hunting, hunting is not "chasing" around animals. You would not take 2 steps at a gazelle before its long out of range for any spear.
Hunting is about planning and intelligence. Those things make us human. We are clumsy and sloooow. Lions and tigers are sprinters too: they are pretty good hunters.
Good hunters wait and hide until prey is in range and strike before they know whats going on- they do not run into a field chasing animals for 20 miles. In fact the case could be made that trapping is far more productive. Natives often spooked herds into corners or off cliffs. Modern day people who live off the land probably get more food from there traps than hunting, and of caorse there is fishing: no marathon running required.

"As for hunting, hunting is not "chasing" around animals. You would not take 2 steps at a gazelle before its long out of range for any spear."

The video link I posted above shows men doing exactly what you just said they can't do.

As for marathons being harmful...I'm at the point that I can run a slow one (~5 hours) at will. I could run one right now if asked, followed by another later in the week. The more I do it, the more often I can, without ill effect so far. I have close friends that have been logging 75-150+ miles per week for a decade, injury free.

The concept of running distance being harmful is not something I've ever experienced amongst conditioned people. In fact, their overall health is substantially better for it.

nm

Edited by greg23 on 03/23/2010 14:28:00 MDT.

Guys...
That's the same video I linked above....

"I have close friends that have been logging 75-150+ miles per week for a decade, injury free."

I don't have strong opinions about this, but a few questions:

How old are they?
On trails or tarmac?
Will their knee joints be worn out prematurely?

Those old hunters didn't have the life expectancy we enjoy today. My dad has just been for his pre-op exam for a second hip replacement (other side). he's 82 and never was a runner.

I think I'm just going to walk it. Those fruits and veg will never outpace me.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/proseminar/Bramble_Leib_2004_nature.pdf

For those interested in a serious read, this is the first article that I read that really lays out the evolutionary case for humans as distance runners. Pretty fascinating observations here.