New Search Method(s)

[Milos]

It will take a fully faired recumbent bicycle to beat a cheetah at 200M, and a world-class athlete at the pedals.

I guess that a sailfish will have an easy time against us in the pool, even if we are given a bicycle.

True, but we are ground animals after all . If you include air, man goes easily over 200mph in free fall. Faster than any other living creature and can glide faster than a falcon using bat suites.
Even the top man powered water speed is not bad (21mph).

[CThinker]

Humans are also champions of will. No animal running for its life can achieve what humans can only for prestige.
Marathon in just over 2hours, double marathon in under 5 hours, 100km in 6 and a half hours, 200km in under 15 hours...
There's almost no limit in human feats of strength.

So you don't believe that a coyote that runs free out west, runs constantly, can't keep up with a human? They are all leg and lungs, humans carry a lot of excess baggage around (we only use two extremities, not all 4 to run...)

I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, but it certainly seems unlikely that a human is capable of beating animals that are many times stronger and better adapted to running...

It is very difficult to find an animal on earth that could keep up with us. Of course, we people who leave in cities are lazy bastards, but if you leave your whole life depending on persistence hunting, you can run for more than 100 miles at an amazing "cruise" speed. See this book

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-S ... 0307266303

It is a tribe in Mexico of superathletes. The whole group hunts running dears or any other animals down, for the whole day or even longer. They do not use nike shoes, they use a piece of leather with strings ("huaraches"), that just happen to be more suitable than any other shoes!!

We have been designed by nature to be stubborn and absolute pain in the ass for any other animal around. Having two legs is actually an advantage. We can run, swim, climb, jump...

Miguel

When trained properly, the human body is quite capable of very punishing feats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Karnazes

Karnazes has completed a number of endurance events, mostly running events, but also a swimming event. Most notably, he ran 135 miles nonstop across Death Valley in 120°F (49°C) temperatures, and a marathon to the South Pole at −40°F(-40°C). In 2006, he ran 50 marathons, in all 50 US states, in 50 consecutive days, finishing with the New York City Marathon, which he completed in three hours and thirty seconds.

[rbarreira]

Since this thread is definitely derailed now, I found it interesting to learn that although dogs' bodies can overheat easier than humans due to lower ability to sweat, they do have a special mechanism to avoid overheating in the brain area (which humans also seem to have).

[Tord Romstad]

Most humans are easily capable of running 40 kilometer with training assuming their weight is normal

I'm fairly sure they aren't. Most healthy young humans are perhaps (but I'm far from sure of it) capable of jogging 40 kilometers with sufficient training, but only people with exceptional talent can hope to run such distances.

I regard myself as fairly fit. I'm 180 cm tall (5ft 11) and weigh about 77 kg (170 lbs) with very little body fat, and I can run the 400 in about 51 seconds. But there is absolutely no chance that I could ever manage to run anywhere remotely close to 40 km. I guesstimate that the maximum distance I could run, given sufficient training, would be somewhere between 800 and 1000 meters. For anything longer than that, it would be jogging or walking.

[Uri Blass]

Most humans are easily capable of running 40 kilometer with training assuming their weight is normal

I'm fairly sure they aren't. Most healthy young humans are perhaps (but I'm far from sure of it) capable of jogging 40 kilometers with sufficient training, but only people with exceptional talent can hope to run such distances.

I regard myself as fairly fit. I'm 180 cm tall (5ft 11) and weigh about 77 kg (170 lbs) with very little body fat, and I can run the 400 in about 51 seconds. But there is absolutely no chance that I could ever manage to run anywhere remotely close to 40 km. I guesstimate that the maximum distance I could run, given sufficient training, would be somewhere between 800 and 1000 meters. For anything longer than that, it would be jogging or walking.

The question is what is the definition of running.

Looking at the dictionary I can see that jogging in translation to hebrew is a private case of running.
My definition of running is simply to have both your legs in the air in every step.

[Dann Corbit]

Most humans are easily capable of running 40 kilometer with training assuming their weight is normal

I'm fairly sure they aren't. Most healthy young humans are perhaps (but I'm far from sure of it) capable of jogging 40 kilometers with sufficient training, but only people with exceptional talent can hope to run such distances.

I regard myself as fairly fit. I'm 180 cm tall (5ft 11) and weigh about 77 kg (170 lbs) with very little body fat, and I can run the 400 in about 51 seconds. But there is absolutely no chance that I could ever manage to run anywhere remotely close to 40 km. I guesstimate that the maximum distance I could run, given sufficient training, would be somewhere between 800 and 1000 meters. For anything longer than that, it would be jogging or walking.

If by the definition of running you mean "up on the balls of your feet" then I think it would not be hard for someone in excellent shape (51 sec 400M is excellent shape) to run 40 km with some practice. It may be that your muscle fiber is dominantly fast-twitch, which would be a handicap.

I used to run cross-country when in high school, and 18 mile practice runs were not uncommon (about 30 km). I don't think I have ever run 40km, but when I was 19 I could easily have done it. There is no chance I am going to try now, since I am ancient and out of shape, slow, tired and un-motivated.


But let's put world class marathon runners in perspective:
I was a pretty good high school half-mile runner (I would usually place in the meets). I could run a mile under 5 minutes up until about the age of 30. But the time that world class marathon runners devour each mile of the 26 mile, 385 yard course is about equal to my best time ever for a single mile. There are two Boston Marathons that have been run under 2:08 or a little less than 4.9 minutes per mile.

There are 7 billion people on the planet and maybe ten of them can beat 2:10 in a marathon. That's quite a few standard deviations from the norm.

I am sure it is quite similar with any other athletic exercise. Sure, there are humans on this planet who can easily clean and jerk 500 pounds. But I guess that nobody reading this board can do it.

Similarly for trying to run down a deer. I can tell you for sure, I will give out long before the deer does. But he won't outrun my 30'06, which is good enough for me.

[Tord Romstad]

The question is what is the definition of running.

True enough -- Just like in the discussion about "brute force", it comes down to definitions.

My definition of running is simply to have both your legs in the air in every step.

The way I define the words, the main difference between jogging and running is that when jogging, most of the physical effort is spent during the period of ground contact, while when running, most of the physical effort takes place in the air. Running is about aggressively extending the hip and bringing the foot backwards long before the foot hits the ground, with the aim of giving the foot a negative velocity relative to the ground before impact. Jogging is more like walking (except that both legs are in the air at the same time): The foot usually strikes the ground a bit further in front of the body, and almost all the backward movement of the leg takes place while the foot is in contact with the ground.

Jogging and running, to me, are qualitatively different ways of moving. They actually feel more different than walking and jogging.

[Tord Romstad]

If by the definition of running you mean "up on the balls of your feet" then I think it would not be hard for someone in excellent shape (51 sec 400M is excellent shape) to run 40 km with some practice. It may be that your muscle fiber is dominantly fast-twitch, which would be a handicap.

Yes, there is no doubt that my muscle fiber is is dominantly fast-twitch. I suppose this means that I wouldn't have a chance to outrun the fastest non-human animal at any distance.

But let's put world class marathon runners in perspective:
I was a pretty good high school half-mile runner (I would usually place in the meets). I could run a mile under 5 minutes up until about the age of 30. But the time that world class marathon runners devour each mile of the 26 mile, 385 yard course is about equal to my best time ever for a single mile. There are two Boston Marathons that have been run under 2:08 or a little less than 4.9 minutes per mile.

And Gebreselassie's world record is even a little faster, at 2:03:59. Few people realize just how incredible this is.

I am sure it is quite similar with any other athletic exercise. Sure, there are humans on this planet who can easily clean and jerk 500 pounds. But I guess that nobody reading this board can do it.

I certainly can't, but I'm a lot closer to a 500lb clean and jerk than to a sub 2:10 marathon.

Similarly for trying to run down a deer. I can tell you for sure, I will give out long before the deer does. But he won't outrun my 30'06, which is good enough for me.

30'06 on what? The 10,000 meter? That's an amazingly fast time.

[Milos]

30'06 on what? The 10,000 meter? That's an amazingly fast time.

Lol, good one. He was talking about this.

[bob]

If by the definition of running you mean "up on the balls of your feet" then I think it would not be hard for someone in excellent shape (51 sec 400M is excellent shape) to run 40 km with some practice. It may be that your muscle fiber is dominantly fast-twitch, which would be a handicap.

Yes, there is no doubt that my muscle fiber is is dominantly fast-twitch. I suppose this means that I wouldn't have a chance to outrun the fastest non-human animal at any distance.

But let's put world class marathon runners in perspective:
I was a pretty good high school half-mile runner (I would usually place in the meets). I could run a mile under 5 minutes up until about the age of 30. But the time that world class marathon runners devour each mile of the 26 mile, 385 yard course is about equal to my best time ever for a single mile. There are two Boston Marathons that have been run under 2:08 or a little less than 4.9 minutes per mile.

And Gebreselassie's world record is even a little faster, at 2:03:59. Few people realize just how incredible this is.

I am sure it is quite similar with any other athletic exercise. Sure, there are humans on this planet who can easily clean and jerk 500 pounds. But I guess that nobody reading this board can do it.

I certainly can't, but I'm a lot closer to a 500lb clean and jerk than to a sub 2:10 marathon.

Similarly for trying to run down a deer. I can tell you for sure, I will give out long before the deer does. But he won't outrun my 30'06, which is good enough for me.

30'06 on what? The 10,000 meter? That's an amazingly fast time.

That is a rifle bullet. 30 caliber bullet used in 1906, hence 30-06.

Muzzle velocity is way beyond 2,000 fps, and for lighter bullets it will exceed mach II, so it is plenty fast to "catch a deer."