Did Humans Evolve to Be Long-Distance Runners?
Thanks to the several readers who have pointed out this recent article in SEED Magazine which once again dredges up the tired argument that humans evolved to be long-distance runners. Most of you know by now that I totally disagree with that theory. I say humans evolved to be excellent slow movers (walk, jog, migrate, forage, crawl, scramble, etc) burning mostly fat. We also developed into pretty decent short sprinters, but we did NOT evolve to run long distances. Sure, early humans were all-around fit enough and capable of the occasional long easy jaunt after an animal, but to think that natural selection redesigned our simian shapes to run the Boston Marathon is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
We’ve hashed this out a bunch in the past when a Men’s Health magazine article a few years ago quoted Dr. Daniel Lieberman, a leading proponent of the “ER” (endurance running) hypothesis as suggesting that early humans would run an animal to death by chasing it for for 5 or 10 miles until it died of heat stroke. They call it persistence hunting. I find the idea – that this behavior led to some specialized human evolution as distance runners – to be preposterous on several levels. First, much of the fossil record suggests early humans were scavengers and lived pretty well off road kill until they started employing weapons a few hundred thousand years ago. No real need to run long distances when you can walk, hide, climb, sprint and crawl to scavenge. Secondly, it’s one thing to track and stalk an animal (using your superior intelligence) with walking, occasional jogging and a few sprints here and there. That’s a primarily fat-burning pursuit and it’s probably how our ancestors actually hunted. But once you have to shift into glucose/glycogen mode to run aggressively for long distances, it’s a whole different ballgame and you encounter a big problem. Run out of glycogen chasing a beast too long in the heat and you become exhausted yourself. If you are lucky enough to bag the beast, at least you get to eat now (albeit mostly protein and fats which won’t completely restore your glycogen reserves). But fail in your mission and your sorry, fatigued, glycogen-depleted butt is now vulnerable to becoming some other beast’s dinner. ER makes no sense to me from an evolutionary perspective.
So now comes Lieberman again in this latest study in The Journal of Experimental Biology (abstract) that compared the mechanical forces in the feet and the metabolic costs of generating these forces to arrive at the following conclusion: “The increased mechanical cost associated with long toes in running suggests that modern human forefoot proportions might have been selected for in the context of the evolution of endurance running.” He basically argues that humans evolved to have shorter toes than our simian relatives because longer-toed relatives were selected out. That same theory would therefore imply that longer-toed ancestors died off at a greater rate as a result of needing an average of a tiny bit more fuel to run after prey for long distances? Hmmm. I’m not buying it and I’m surprised that the JEB bought it. Since the study concluded that there is no difference in cost between long toes and short toes when walking, I could even use that data to shore up my theory that we evolved to be efficient walkers who could sprint when required and who were fit enough to run after the occasional mastodon if it made sense. And then there’s this: If men did most of the hunting, how is it that women are better suited to ultra running than men (compared to shorter running events) and a modern female like Ann Trason can beat most men today straight up in every ultra running event she enters? (Granted, she could be an outlier.)
Of course, the ER proponents typically cite the Tarahumara as current examples of the human genetic propensity to run long distances. This tribe of indigenous Mexican people are known for their prowess in running great distances (often 50-80 miles in a day) and for their participation in occasional persistence hunting, where they literally chase down deer until it is so exhausted they can walk up to it and kill it. But other scientists suggest that the Tarahumara’s endurance is based more on a cultural adaptation (no cars, no phones, no mail service), training, diet and conditioning than it is on heredity. Some 80% of their diet is complex carbs from grains and beans. That goes back to my primary argument as to why we did NOT evolve to be distance runners. Until we had a ready source of reliable high-carb fuel, made available through agriculture, any sort of regular distance running (chronic cardio) was a natural selection killer. Eating grains every day at every meal certainly replenishes the glycogen stores, so you can go out and do it again tomorrow. But why?
Most anthropologists would agree we didn’t evolve to swim. We learned how to make our way through water without drowning and we do it pretty effectively for a land mammal. That doesn’t make it natural or adaptive. Similarly, I say we learned to run marathons when we had the luxury of unlimited carbohydrates. That doesn’t make it adaptive or natural.
One final point I’ll address is the claim that the large size of the human gluteus maximus is further evidence in favor of the ER theory. I would argue that the move to bipedalism makes the default resting position the squat (as I touched on in this video) and that the range of motion and strength required for this position necessitates strong and well-developed gluteus maximus and hamstring muscles. Look no further than your local gym to see how people train these muscles – squats, lunges, deadlifts etc.
Further Reading:
Bloggers and Strength Coaches Name Their 3 Favorite Exercises
Washboard Abs on a High-Fat Diet, No Ab Workouts and No Cardio?
Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds
Posted By: Mark Sisson
What if I don’t believe in evolution? Can I still eat Primal?
Pardon me for not reading through all of the comments, and I apologize if what I say is repetition. I understand the ER theory recognizes that early humans were scavengers. I also don’t think it requires humans to run marathon distances. We must realize that large “roadkill” carcases are obvious at long distances via observation of local scavenger birds. Also, it would be important to get to the site of a carcase quickly and not just at a mere walking pace; this way you have a better chance of beating the competition to the prize. I agree that it is ridiculous to expect early or modern humans to be able to run their prey to death, that is until I see some evidence otherwise.
We do have some “evidence otherwise”
Yes, I recently heard on NPR science that some hunters in africa actually do run their prey to exhaustion. Thanks for the follow-up. I also realize that the guy who runs this site has a rather sizable conflict of interest.
To add to my earlier comments, it is also important to keep in mind that humans are genetically and morphologically very diverse and the pressures that could have forced us toward running relaxed around the time we invented agriculture.
I’ve been following this discussion for awhile, and I think there’s a conceptual problem: No organism evolves “to be” anything – there is no such goal in evolution. That idea is BACKWARDS. Organisms evolve due to conditions in specific environments, that’s why its important to know where hominids originated. Also, most of the changes we label as “human” ocurred BEFORE Homo sapiens, in Homo erectus,who would be difficult to distinguish from many modern humans. Brain size went from 400 cc (apes like “Lucy”) to 900 cc in H. erectus. The rapid increase is likely due to a diet high in fatty acids and concentrated calories: bone marrow and brains being the prime source. These are essential to producing and maintaining a large brain, so this diet would have preceded brain size increase. This includes animal carcasses AND other hominids: H. erectus and later, Homo sapiens may have cannibalized our way to big brain domination. Speedier bipedal locomotion would have favored the predatory human; limited bipedal abilities would have become a deficit.
Short bursts of speed may have produced an edge for scavengers and hunters, with long distance running being an adaptation to specific environments, which we see in humans today.
When humans began adapting to a wider variety of environments by using animal transport (horses, camels, etc.) and then by invention (boats, chariots, trains, planes etc.) these quickly outpaced evolutionary change. Evolution is slow, technology is immediate.
Humans still have a somewhat hard time adapting to walking on two feet (more prone to back pain, knee injuries). Wouldn’t it make sense to say we evolved to hunt while crawling? :p
We keep confusing “lifestyle” for some goal of evolution! Lifestyle is adaptation: people who work in offices, sitting most of the time, who don’t get exercise, ie sedentary Americans, have back problems. All our gizmos and medical intervention are attempts to adapt to unhealthy environments of our own creation. This poes for pregnancy / birth problems too: healthy women with well-developed bone and muscle systems don’t have childbirth problems. We’ve developed a multi-billion dollar industry around childbirth, which is NOT inherently dangerous or difficult in humans. All this intervention is an attempt at adapting ourselves to unhealthy environments that we have created! American women are unhealthy, and therefore we see high rates of preemies, birth defects, etc. This is why, despite the fabulous sums we spend on healthcare, the US ranks low on medical outcomes.
Wasn’t even close. Tyson won it going away!
Dear Author,
You either contradict yourself or show your complete ingnorance of endurance running/distance athleticism. Running very long distances is ALL ABOUT staying in the fat burning zone. Talk to a triathlete or ultra runner. They keep heart rates low and energy on a nearly never ending tap.
“If men did most of the hunting, how is it that women are better suited to ultra running than men ”
Simple, hunting was not a solitary man practise, or even a men’s only practice. Moving to the food, whether persistence hunting it or moving to the “roadkill” to scavenge involved bringing the whole family. And if you want to get there before other scavengers, you had better trot along and a good clip, not simply walk and hope it’s there when you get there.
“I say we learned to run marathons when we had the luxury of unlimited carbohydrates.”
Then you have no idea what you are talking about, and this entire response will fall on deaf ears. You need to understand that long distance events are not about carbs. Until then you will always sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
As to your paragraph on the squat, you show your lack of understanding of basic anthropology and how the body moves from one place to another. Have you ever seen monkeys, apes, and other primates resting? What pose to they rest in? Oh yeah, it’s the squat. And somehow they don’t have massive glutes. Glutes are not used in resting, barely needed in rising from a crouch, not used much in walking, and only truly necessary for running.
You really need to keep in mind that endurance running is the one and only physical activity that we are better at than all other land animals. We are terrible sprinters. Most every predator and prey animal can out sprint us.
If our bodies only ever needed to walk, scramble, and sprint as you suggest, homo sapiens would never have come to dominate the planet and other stronger, faster, and smarter bipeds would run the wolrd.
Ok, so can YOU run a sub 3:00 hr marathon relying only on fats? I’m sure I can walk 26.2 miles on fats, but I can’t run it faster than 8min/mile pace without tapping into my glycogen stores.
Boy – this discussion gets really silly!
If women only mated with “beautiful” men, then ALL men today would look like T.O. or Muhammed Ali! Sickly-looking NERDS (science guys) would not exist, nor would advanced technology. At the top of the wealth-status ladder we see ugly old rich guys parading around young fertile wives: it’s STATUS women go for in the long run – pun intended.
As for butt muscles – these are necessary to maintain a bipedal stance -standing or walking is a controlled fall, and the glutes interrupt that fall so that weight can shift to the opposite leg.
Fatty acids are vital to fueling the brain; about 50% of calories are used to operate the brain. It’s obvious that running as the means of making a living was left in the dust by tool-making and other inventive technology.
Pretty boys? Give me a man with brains!
What’s silly is trying to explain biology, anthropology, biomechanics, and kinesiology to people too close-minded to even listen, let alone consider a point of view.
OK, I guess I’m feeling silly, I’ll give you the short version. Your hot-chick-wants-a-ruch-guy example is irrelevant to evolution. We have created a world where evolutionary forces have almost no effect on our lives. Way back when, the instinct was to survive long enough to reproduce. Now it’s to find a source of wealth to fuel our desire for self comfort. Think about it, when is the last time you worried about living to teh end of the week. I’d say odds are good you were more concerned with how to spend your money this weekend.
As for glutes, as I already explained, yes, they are needed for standing and walking, but nowhere near the size that we have them. Look at other primates that are fully able to stand and walk and squat. They have no rump. They have tiny little glutes that are enough to get around. They do not have massive butts. We do. There is no reason for them other than to jog.
As for your third paragraph, that wasn’t always teh case. We are talking about evolution, remember? In order to find those calories and high quality fats and proteins, we needed a change in food sources. We got that food source by running to it/running it down. We became tool users because we ran.
Where to start? I’m sorry, but the mistakes in your thinking are too numerous to address; magical thinking is the basis for your contentions. (False cause and effect) It’s a HUGE problem among Americans, even those who are educated.
“WE became tool users BECAUSE WE RAN” This ludicrous statement alone demonstrates that you have no grasp (pun intended) of animal evolution.
As for glutes: please check out the anatomy of BIPEDAL DINOSAURS.
Statused males are the exception; so If male status is paramount, how are there so many couples?
The glutes can be used and are important for walking. For example, when the right foot is forward with respect to the pelvis, and planted, then begin to contract the right buttock. Esther Gokhale calls this Glidewalking.
I’m not sure that the glutes can be used for running, but they may be used for jogging if you build your stride around glute contraction. I’ve experimented a little and thought it might have some potential. And I’ve tried this while sprinting, but am unsure about the potential for buttock use here. The required contraction rate seems too high and the landed foot seems too far forward for the short time it is still planted. Gokhale is supposed to return to Africa and do more movement observations, this time of native’s running.
Glutes are a lot smaller than our fat-padded rear ends suggest. A body builder with virtually no body fat has surprisingly small buttocks. So, while we do have “big butts”, the perception of size is due to thick fat, not active muscle.
Glutes CAN BE USED FOR…..
Glutes are NECESSARY for bipedalism. Human anatomy today is the RESULT of becoming bipedal. Please read an anatomy text and go back to basics with how evolution works. This isn’t guesswork or opinion: it’s physics, chemistry, mechanics, anthropology, paleontology, geology.
Cheez Whiz!
Of course, the two smaller gluteus muscles help keep the body upright during walking. However, in the developed countries, the gluteus maximus muscle is not utilized significantly to propel the pelvis (and body) forward after the forward foot is planted. We tend to use only the hip flexors and quads to swing the leg forward and then catch ourselves with some impact and joint stress. Glide (third world) walking uses the gluteus maximus, psoas, and calf muscles for a smoother stride. The crucial feature is gradual to full contraction of the gluteus maximus at the right time. Try it and see the difference!
Tch, tch, tch. Darwin would be dissapoint.
How can you disagree? For one i see fat dudes running marathons all the time. Hell I watched a really really chubby guy win a 12k race just last weekend in the town im living. No way is distance jogging the ultimate fit mans sport. Referring to Mark’s post: best quote, “[...]but to think that natural selection redesigned our simian shapes to run the Boston Marathon is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
Personally, I find marathons laughable, as well. Why not just walk that distance over a longer time??
will obviously everyone else was out of shape also. In track or crosscountry in my school there are no chubby kids, everyone is lean and fast. Just to show off a bit I got first a few times in track last year and probly will this year also for distances 400m – 1600m. In the story this is the part that amazed me “early humans would run an animal to death by chasing it for for 5 or 10 miles until it died of heat stroke.” man that sounds amazing I think ill try it some time gonna go find me a gazzel or something and chase it down to death lol
Interesting discussion; I think both camps have valid arguments. One argument that favors the theory that humans evolved to be long distance runners is the lack of fur, and the presence of sweat glands. We know that animals cool off by panting because they lack sweat glands on their skin. This is why they can only sprint for relatively short distances; otherwise they would overheat and die. Humans on the other hand can run for long distances due to the efficiency of their sweat glands. The sweat glands basically make the entire skin surface an efficient heat exchanger. I tend to believe that early humans did do endurance running, but not often; and mostly walked. I’d say they ran to save time; for example, getting close to a herd of animals before the sun set in order to get dinner for that day.
I guess we did not exactly evolve to ride bicycles, but Lance Armstrong was an example of how we have become a species able to physically endure in a number of situations.
Of coarse people were made to run long distance…why do you think humans can run longer than any other animal on the planet? we evolved to be able to breath and run, which allowed us to stand up erect. Also, we sweat to cool ourselves unlike any other animal…..Everyone read this amazing book! Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
I just got some Five-Fingers a couple weeks ago. I LOVE them. At this stage I’m alternating between my “regular” running shoes and my Five-Fingers to sort of “work up” my calves/shins, but I can see myself preferring the Five-Fingers in the long run. (Pun initially not intended, but upon reading that, it seems right.) I do everything else barefoot, why not run barefoot too!
This is a little off-topic (I’m definitely more into the “Eat” and “Read” aspects of your blog), but wondering if you’ve read “The Myth of Wild Africa” by Jonathan Adams and Thomas McShane. Just read it for an environmental history course and I’d be curious to know your thoughts since you have some first-hand experience with Africa. If you haven’t, I’d recommend it – it’s interesting (albeit 20 years old) and very readable. Thanks.
And as far as the ERglute connection, empirically I’d note that I’ve seen many proficient distance runners with pretty insignificant/undeveloped glutes. At least relatively to other athletes/lifestyles.
Might I ask how you came to this conclusion: “First, much of the fossil record suggests early humans were scavengers and lived pretty well off road kill until they started employing weapons a few hundred thousand years ago.”
In the fossil record, wouldn’t scavenging and persistence hunting be pretty much identical? There’s no way of knowing if the kill was happened upon purely by chance, or if the kill was happened upon because of pursuit…
i dont know if the author is right. but it is pretty much fact that humans are great long distance runners…
That’s why the turtle always beats the rabbit
If you’re interested in cars, think about humans as a engine with a lot of torque, but less horsepower. The engine produces most of its energy at low RPMs, and cannot rev too high.
Running marathons and doing cardiovascular exercises is like an engine with low torque, but a lot of horsepower. The engine produces most of its energy at high RPMs.
Actually humans are the fastest land animal over long distances and in fact we are the ONLY animal that can force themselves to run long distances constantly..its also to do with thermo regulation apparrantly other mammals overheat after a long time and slow down which is when hunters …there are many adaptations in the human body useful only to running long distances and they are not found in other primates. Other primates cannot run well or even travel over great distances. Our bipdalism is key to our success as a species and to really develop good thorough prambulation skills and to develop those muscles you need to develop every gait sufficiently. Also in either a hunter gatherer or sheparding lifestyle YOU NEED to be able to jog long distances and that is a fact. It is key to the practise of Persistance Hunting which dates back http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090319142411.htm To suggest that we did not evolve to be better long distance runners shows you do not understabd evolution we a better runners than all of our ancestors…we evolved to be better runners ..it may not be the entire reason we are successful…but we are the best runners out of all primates and out of all primates we have the best body for running sorry Mark the science just does not point to your theory at this point
I came to this article looking for specific arguments against human endurance running. I don’t feel that this author addressed any of the points looked to as proof for this theory. His argument about no difference between short and long toes for walking just gives credence to the idea that we evolved short toes to run.
He also doesn’t address the fact that humans have a nuchal ligament to support head movement while running, the fact that we have an achilles tendon and chimps don’t (which would help conserve energy lost during a run), and the fact that we are one of the few animals that is both almost hairless and has a vast quantity of sweat glands.
This man seems very biased. I hope he starts backing up his points with evidence before he starts arguing against endurance running in the future.
So if there’s no difference in between the cost of walking with short toes versus long toes, than the simple fact that we have short toes should prove that we were not meant to be walkers, as there would be no reason for the short toed people to survive if it did not give an advantage. Which indicates we’re runners as there’s an advantage to having shorter toes while running. Second who says the men did the hunting? It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that women sat on their backsides when they’re the one who benefit from the protein the most, during lactation and pregnancy. Finally I suggest you check out Born to Run, which clearly mentions how the Kalahari bushmen fuel up on plants they scavenge, before runs after runs, (practically all the time really), which include things such as tubers that are, I believe, quite HIGH in carbohydrates, which would restore glycogen stores.
The kalahari bushmen do practice persistence hunting. And compared to most quadrupeds humans are poor sprinters. The fastest human can run only at a speed of 39km/hr. Scavenging may also require endurance running. A human can locate a dead animal by observing scavenger birds circling in sky, which can be many miles from his location. Then he would have to reach the spot before other animals in which case walking or sprinting would not help him.
”And then there’s this: If men did most of the hunting, how is it that women are better suited to ultra running than men (compared to shorter running events) and a modern female like Ann Trason can beat most men today straight up in every ultra running event she enters? (Granted, she could be an outlier.)”
Is there any evidence that men did most of the hunting in Paleolithic times? Without any reference, I remember form my anthology course back in college, that hunter-gatherer societies were quite sex-wise egalitarian. I think that this stereotype of women being gatherers and men hunters is another perversion of the Neolithic, where agriculture and not perishable foods permitted hierarchies to appear and women to be considered as an inferior cast of humans societies (as it is in many cultures actually) due to a slight physical strength disadvantage. Women are physically weaker than men, it’s true, but sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens is not that huge compared to other mammals: Homo sapiens would definitely prefer running down a cow rather than a bull, but I don’t think a tiger or a lion would care between a male or female Homo sapiens to hunt down. Ok, men are stronger than women, but a man is still a defenseless and weak prey to the predators of the African savannah.
Forgetting that man hunter, women gatherer stereotype, I don’t see why women could not hunt and excel at that theoretical persistence hunting thing.
People seem more able to run long distances than other animals, with their efficient sweating, bipedal movement… a dog could outrun a fit person in a short burst but would tire quickly.
And if you see persistence hunting videos, the people aren’t running like a marathon runner would. They’re more of jogging, and slow down to a brisk trot at times. The fact is humans seem to have a special capability to run more efficiently over long distances than pretty much any other animal.
I can’t deny that.