Discussion: New theory: Man's evolution-Endurance

An interesting article in the current Seed Magazine claims that man evolved from apes because of his increasing ability to run...and his shorter toes.

...[In] a theory known as the endurance running hypothesis (ER)...proponents believe that being able to run for extended lengths of time is an adapted trait, most likely for obtaining food, and was the catalyst that forced Homo erectus to evolve from its apelike ancestors. Over time, the survival of the swift-footed shaped the anatomy of modern humans, giving us a body that is difficult to explain absent a marathoning past....[For example] Tarahumara cover up to 400 miles in festive, multiday events....They are also the picture of health, enjoying almost total immunity to cancer and the diseases that plague modern society....

So if you're doing your early spring training, and everything seems to hurt....just remember, you were born to run!

I once heard a story on NPR about a couple of guys that were training to test the hypothesis. They tried to run some deer in the desert until exhaustion. Over many hours they gave chase and the deer would just sprint of the next hill, wait until the runners arrived, and then sprint behind another hill. The deer were just too fast never seemed to flag from effort. Might work with with some animals, just not those deer. Fascinating theory though.

My theory would ask the question: why spend 5 hours running a single deer to exhaustion when you could set a bunch of snares and capture rabbits for dinner with almost no effort at all. I know the ideal of a great hunter slaying prey, or CHASING prey is quite romantic and all, but in the end very unreliable.

That was Scott Carrier (and his brother), and it was pronghorn antelope.

Also, as I recall from the NPR explanation, the big difficulty they experienced was that the pronghorn merged and separated with other pronghorn and they were never completely certain that they were continuing to pursue the same animals. So as I understand, they were not sure whether they failed to run a single animal to exhaustion or merely lost track and successively chased different ones.

Ideally, this experiment could be repeated with a paint marked or radio tagged target.

If you felt like it, you could run a tiger to the ground. Though chances are it wouldn't be all that smart to actually catch up to it (if it did run to begin with).

More than chasing and getting an antelope, early humans would have used stones and or spears to catch their prey, and their endurance would enable them to stay within range for long enough to eventually bring large animals down. This would involve chasing a wounded animal as well. Most likely, rabbits were not in the picture for long term nutrition.

But it was the second part of the Seed Magazine article, about toe length, that was particularly interesting:

...Our toes, for instance, are shorter and stubbier than those of nearly all other primates, including chimpanzees...short toes make human feet exquisitely suited to substantial amounts of running....

And I can imagine that self-protection, as well as food, could have motivated long and fast running, if last month's gruesome chimp attack is any indication of the dangers early man confronted in the wild...to run like hell from those long-toed chimps!

I can't claim any expertise in the subject, but pursuing prey to exhuastion seems like a pretty boneheaded way to hunt. I would think adaptations to the brain would be far more significant than adaptations to the toes. However, given the long human tradition of using up all available local resources and having to move on to greener fields would lend some credence to long distance walking being a useful survival trait.

Yup. Much better to use the brain to...

spear fish trapped in a weir.
or dig clams,
or break a rotten log to get at the grubs,
or toss rocks into a flock of birds attacted by bait,
or gather eggs from their nesting ground,
or smoke a muskrat out of a hole,
or catch mice in a pit trap,
or light an entire forest on fire to drive all the game towards waiting hunters.

Eating grubs is not very macho.
Not the kind of thing you would brag about around the campfire.
But it is the kind of thing that keeps the tribe alive.

Now on the other hand, if you want to impress the ladies...
Chasing down a pronghorn antelope is surely the way to go...
Which may explain why we worship the big game hunters so.

My guess is that there was a strategy/plan to running down these large animals, as a group, not just a "hey there's an antelope, let's chase it down."

...Now on the other hand, if you want to impress the ladies...
Chasing down a pronghorn antelope is surely the way to go...

I'll buy that. And guess who's genes were propagated most efficiently...the clam digger's, or the short-toed guy's, sharing his antelope with all the admiring ladies?

Bison may not be the easiest thing to subdue, either, but they were certainly hunted.

I think the underlying theory is that humans hunted prey into *heat exhaustion*, which would be more applicable to certain geographies http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/5...
Having raced Primal Quest Utah, where desert heat made even a slow hike-a-bike enough of an effort to drive us into heat exhaustion - I have more appreciation of how this tactic could work with large animals with fur.

One bit of advice gained form experience (not mine): when you do catch up to your prey, don't kill it immediately, but rather tie it up and let it rest first. Meat full of lactic acid is not a tasty treat.

Wolves and other predators must enjoy the taste of lactic acid.

I'm not sure wolves pursue healthy prey to the point of exhaustion. But you're right, they're probably not that fussy.

Another factor in chasing large kills a long distance is you have to carry the meat back to camp; way better to kill relatively close, gut and cook it on the spot and get a bunch of family members to carry as much as possible back. Marathon-dude who kills a bison isn't going to be a favourite in camp when he's made everyone walk 6 miles (carrying babies, water and such) for a feed.

Also, maybe it's just the women I hang around with on fieldwork but the comments on the hunting prowess of the guys seldom dwell on their ability. Then again, I don't work with Pleistoceners so maybe times have changed...

Interesting side note: if I understand correctly, despite many attempts over many years, Swampfox has never managed to touch any cattle.

It is far easier at night. Even a city-slicker knows that.

All this talk about early man and running led me to look further into Atanajuat: Fast runner. I saw the DVD on sale a few years ago, but didn't buy it. I found the movie online at : http://www.isuma.tv/?site/displayFilm/id/68
There are some serious HTFU running scenes. None really of running down animals, but a good insight into Inuit's nomadic lifestyle.

occassionally during a forest run I'll startle a deer and then chase it for entertainment/curiosity sake. I am always suprised at how quickly and how many times you can get VERY close to one in the first several minutes (I stop after a few 'tags' so as not to be 'mean')... it may be different in 'open' land?

Didn't the Plains Indians use the handy technique of running the bison off a handy cliff? With camp set up near the base, they could take their time about dealing with the pile of meat, hides etc.

There were wombats see on the maps at the Australian Easter 3 Day in Tasmania - now there is an animal that you can out run.

From Wikipedia. I was looking at the site to get more info on the tribe due to the barefoot discussion and found this as part of the tribes description.

The Tarahumara also practice persistence hunting, using their ability to run extremely long distances (sometimes as far as 160km) to catch animals such as deer; the animals eventually tire and slow down, and the Tarahumara get close enough to the animal to kill it.

To those who said that using your brain would be more beneficial than chasing big game: The brain requires high ammounts of protien to form. So, gauranteed access to large ammounts of meat was required before the brain was able to problem solve the way you say. I am not sure if ER theory is correct, but intelligence became the strategy you describe after a method was perfected to gain access to consistent large ammounts of meat.

didn't god make us as we are?

Hey Lost Richard
Wombats can run at speeds of up to 40km/hr. Outrun that?

usain can!

Actually he can't, at least not over any distance - his current WR of 9.58s/100m = 37.58km/h. The wombat wins again!

</nitpick>

i said he can run faster than 40km/h and he can :)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/08/beijing-20...

note that this is from the old record...

Oh sure, but where's the analysis of the wombat? :)

i couldnt find one :X

I'm guessing wombats can't run very far at those speeds, either. No citation though.

hmmm, i guess usain cant hold it for 90 seconds ...

They generally move slowly, and because of this are known for taking shortcuts, but when threatened they can reach up to 40 km/h (25 mph) and maintain that speed for up to 90 seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wombats

Their dozy reputation hides another surprising wombat characteristic -wombats can turn on the power if they need to! The average wombat could win a gold medal in a 100 metre race with a human, as they can maintain 40 km/hr for 150m. They've also been seen to leap over metre-high fences and squeeze through gaps only 10 cm high.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/june2006...

on the other hand he might have a chance. i guess he can accelerate faster :)

But can he beat the cheetah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3VDG-U8u2o

The native Attack Badger of Wyoming can run 400km/hr over 1500m, can jump 10m fences and can squeeze through gaps only 1cm high. On the other hand, do not believe any claims regarding white squirrels because they are nonsense, and so are the squirrels.

I have done my fair share of hunting in the past. It makes sense that early man could anticipate where animals would go as they developed greater intelligence. Deer and other animals can be funneled using advantages offered by the landscape. It would make more sense to chase prey into a canyon or some other trap provided by the landscape.

Furthermore, the hunting would most likely be done during the heat of the day making hunting easier during the hotter months. Our ability to sweat would be an obvious advantage. Sweat cools us down allowing us to endure more heat. This also offers protection from any sort of super predator who would be forced to lie in the shade during the heat of the day.

This group hunting technique could allow for the taking of more than one animal on any particular hunt.

Another addition could have been the strategic placing of several hunters in locations often used by game. Or for instance a hunting party could fan out and chase animals towards other hunters. This would give the advantage of making the other animal sprint longer while giving other hunters the chance to jog and rest.

Simply following behind a target would be the most rudimentary form of this hunting. It would not take a very high level of intelligence to formulate a very basic strategy such as this.

Wild dogs use similar techniques when hunting their prey. The lead dog will herd the prey back toward the other dogs. This teamwork is how they hunt. I would expect humans to act in a very similar manner given our capacity for cooperation.

Early man, though maybe not as smart as Homo-Sapiens, would still possess enough intelligence to begin forming basic strategies. this would also explain the development of a larger brain. Intelligence would obviously provide a large genetic advantage just such a group.