Marks Daily Apple
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.
14 Jul

Persistence Hunting in the Park

UPDATE: Wow! Quite the response to this post! I had a good chuckle at many of the comments at first, but things have spiraled out of control a bit. First, let’s please keep things nice and civil in the comment boards. Heated arguments are one thing. Nasty ad hominem attacks are another, and they’ll be removed. Second, the reality is that if you never get within 40 yards of your target they’ll never be aware of your existence. I thought it went without saying, but don’t invade anyone’s personal space and don’t do anything else that common sense tells you not to do. I took out the line “Hide behind a tree for a second or two.” just so no one gets the wrong idea.

In most locales, summer is upon us. The sun acts as powerful beacon, a call to action for even the habitually sedentary to venture out and frolic in its rays. Hopeful mothers and fathers nudge chubby kids with creaky Xbox fingers, barely able to grasp the brand new football with which they’ve been tasked, out the door to partake in a mysterious, archaic activity known as “play.” Running shoes are finally removed from shoeboxes and attached to feet. Excuses to avoid going outside grow exceedingly pathetic and totally unconvincing, even to the skilled self-deceivers, who can no longer deny the basic awesomeness of a summer day. Squinting into this wonderful, terrible new light, they all gather in public areas – parks, hiking trails, outdoor malls, beaches – each in turn making personal pledges (or fulfilling imposed ones) that this will be the summer they finally take advantage of the great outdoors.

They are also weak and defenseless and, especially as they try to right the metabolic ship with outdoor Chronic Cardio through the park/sidewalk/trail/track, thrown into a state of confusion by all the sights, smells, and fresh air accosting them. Stale air-conditioning this is not. They are unprepared for what awaits them.

You, however, have been preparing for this moment for months, if not years. You’ve been eating meat, vegetables, roots, and fruit, molding your body and stoking your furnace with healthy fat, appropriate amounts of glucose, and measured bouts of intense lifting, sprinting, and steady movement. Even if you’re just beginning your Primal journey, even if you’re still adjusting – you’re still way ahead of the rest of ‘em.

It is a good time to be a persistence hunter.

Next time your stomach rumbles for a little physical exertion, venture out to the local park or track. Any spot where people will be jogging will work. You could even hit up a trail, as long as you’re sure there’ll be joggers. (I did this once in the back of a 10k race). Strap on your shoes (or don’t), wear something comfortable (or wear as little as possible), and survey the area. It’s now sacred hunting ground. You are the hunter; you can have your pick of the lot.

Regard your prey. Pick a jogger, any jogger, and let him or her gain some distance on you. A few dozen yards, perhaps. Now, walk after your target.

Keep your eye on the target, but let it gain ground on you. This isn’t a race, remember. It’s a battle of wits, of picking and choosing your spots.

When your target is a few hundred yards ahead, start to jog. Don’t let it range too far ahead, but don’t over exert yourself. Kiss the ground with a soft stride, making as little noise as possible. If you’re not barefoot, run like you are. You wouldn’t want to tire early and come home empty-handed; you can only subsist on foraged bitter nuts for so long.

Keep that pace for a couple minutes. Now speed up a bit. If you begin to gain ground, stop before you catch up completely.

Now sprint! Sprint for thirty seconds, and really push it – you might even be licking at their heels, but do not pass your prey. You’re not ready to finish just yet.

Stop. Let them continue on. Once they’ve turned a corner, passed behind a bend, or otherwise disappeared from sight, continue on. Jog, but jog in fractals. Start, stop, and run in spurts. For this portion, you aren’t breaking up the hunt into jog/sprint/walk sections; you’re melding them all together on the fly. Sprint for two seconds, stop for three, then jog for ten. Leap over branches, vault over bushes. You can even drop to all fours and crawl along the trail for a bit. Get creative.

(By now, it’s obvious that you’re a bit of a nut. You’re going to look a little strange. Are you okay with that? You should be used to it by now.)

Once you catch sight of your target, catch up by any and all means. Sprint if you have to. Just pass them up (no actual hunting, of course) and take a breather. You’ll probably need it. Flop down on the ground, stretch out, because you deserve it. Keep your wits about you, though, for there’s more prey afoot.

Even as you rest up, start the process of selecting your next target. After all, it’s open season and your tribe is hungry.

If there are multiple joggers zigzagging all over the place in all directions, you might try switching to a new target every time a new one passes in the other direction. Follow one for a couple minutes, then switch to another going the opposite way. Sprint after that one, then jog/crawl back in the other direction. How close can you get and for how many times without any of them knowing you’re there? The possibilities are endless.

Why the mind games?

The success of a workout. Whether you actually motivate yourself enough to begin and complete it, your performance throughout, and your intensity hinges largely on your state of mind. Persistence hunting in the park (yeah, I know, I thought about calling it “stalking” in the park, but somehow that sounded wrong) is a fantastic way to visualize and compel you to workout without “working out.” You’re in the moment, but that moment doesn’t occur on a treadmill while zoning out to the TV; you stay engaged in the act of movement itself. You’re aware of your muscles contracting and extending. You feel each footfall, every tiny pebble, every expansion of your lungs. You can’t ignore your physicality, nor should you want to, because we are physical creatures whose physicality must be nurtured and stimulated for us to be whole and healthy.

Give persistence hunting a try and report back with your experience. Grok on!

You want comments? We got comments:

Imagine you’re George Clooney. Take a moment to admire your grooming and wit. Okay, now imagine someone walks up to you and asks, “What’s your name?” You say, “I’m George Clooney.” Or maybe you say, “I’m the Clooninator!” You don’t say “I’m George of George Clooney Sells Movies Blog” and you certainly don’t say, “I’m Clooney Weight Loss Plan”. So while spam is technically meat, it ain’t anywhere near Primal. Please nickname yourself something your friends would call you.

  1. And if you want some insight into what it means to be a woman running alone, here are my thoughts, a little essay I wrote.

    My favorite quote on the subject: “If a woman goes for a lone run, she must be a warrior, too.”

    Robin wrote on July 14th, 2010
    • A good article. Just because some might see you as a victim/prey doesn’t make you one. A good book to read is “Meditations on Violences” by Rory Miller.

      Joshkie wrote on July 17th, 2010
  2. Too much! A good way to start the day at the office! I think Mark was in a bit of a naughty mood when he wrote this. I think its a great idea though and cannot wait to try it!

    sangita wrote on July 14th, 2010
  3. This is not a good idea. Try explaining how you were just “playing” to the police in the case that something does happen and someone gets raped in the same park where you were just “playing” and you were spotted chasing people down?

    People rant about others missing the context of Mark’s post. I think some, including Mark, have missed the context of the real ugly world we actually live in.

    “Playing” by chasing down someone who is not part of the “game” is not “playing” to them.

    How would you like it if your someone you loved got the sh$t scared out of them, or worse, by someone who decided to “play chase” them down in a park?

    How would you like it if someone chased you down, and you had no idea if they were “playing grok”, or “enacting their freaky fantasy of rape and murder” on you?

    go google “park rape” and see if you still think this is a good recreational activity.

    it isnt…. it is the same behaviour as rapists.

    debbie_downer wrote on July 15th, 2010
  4. Better played between friends, or animals…dogs are good for this.

    First I’m not going to say, don’t stalk women in this way, any gentleman should have already thought about it and decided not to.

    If you did this to me without permission you would be in danger of a) Me kicking you in the gonads thinking that you were attacking, and b) A 40 Kg hound biting your leg off.

    Primal women kick ass, they are not victims, don’t expect them to not feel you chasing them…

    Judy wrote on July 15th, 2010
  5. a very primal way to mix up your workouts!

    Katherine wrote on July 15th, 2010
  6. Heh, This place is funny, I rather enjoyed reading everyones posts.

    Funny how something so simple can escalate so quickly out of control.

    I read Justa’s first post as just friendly advice.

    Think the rest of the more interesting comments count as thread hijacking and should be deleted as they are not relavant or helpful.

    But … flame on!!

    ferrol wrote on July 15th, 2010
  7. What a bunch of numbats lol

    I cant wait to hunt down and tackle a beautiful brunette, and take her to my cave grrrr

    (If you take that literally, you’re an idiot)

    Lighten up peoples, sheesh

    Cro Cop wrote on July 15th, 2010
  8. Bad Grok! People ought not hunt people. Nor cultivate a mindset of superiority over others.

    Want to try a “persistent hunting” workout? Go chase a rabbit. Or better yet, play stealth “capture the flag.” The rabbit doesn’t need the workout.

    chris wrote on July 15th, 2010
  9. Those that don’t have an effective plan to defend themselves are not applying rule # 10

    Dave K wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • EXACTLY!

      It is best to utilize all 10 laws for the best possible life!

      Primal Toad wrote on July 15th, 2010
  10. It’s hard to believe how big of a deal this was made out to be. I’m willing to bet if someone tried this with another person jogging the worst thought going through the chronic carioer’s mind would be “dang, that person is really out of shape.” If this is a busy area where people often jog is someone really going to be concerned with another person who clearly isn’t as talented at keeping pace as they are? And unless the person is running away from someone I doubt they are constantly looking over their shoulder to see who is behind them. How many times have you been out running and someone passed you? Did you pull out your pepper spray and yell at them to stay away? Tell them to stay at least 10ft away or get sprayed in the face? Or did you think nothing of it and just continue on with your routine.

    It isn’t like Mark said to hide in the bushes in a ski mask and trench coat and pounce on someone. Your thinking is out of context. A person out exercising that see’s another person out attempting to do the same activity isn’t likely to arouse suspicion.

    jus wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Agreed!!!

      As I mentioned earlier, when you pass the other person at the end, the only discomfort you may cause them is the internal monologue they have in their own head – “I wish I was as fit and vital as that guy/girl”

      Some people not only assume the worst, but they also feel the need to assume everyone else is stupid, so they need to “swoop in and save the day” by letting everyone know of the “danger” that ONLY they were smart enough to work out…

      The actual POINT of the post, and ANY enjoyment and excitement has been systematically squeezed out of it by the “fun police” who live in misery, and want everyone else to share their self inflicted pain of existence…

      LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE, there are WORSE problems in the world!!!

      You live a charmed life when a post about having some fun whilst exercising causes you so much distress – A LOT of people would happily trade you for your “problems”… Ever heard of the saying “the least of your problems”???

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE, there are WORSE problems in the world!!

        Worse than Rape and Murder? Because that is ultimently what there woorues are. Now the article was ment to be fun and light hearted but dismissing some fears is not productive.

        Joshkie wrote on July 17th, 2010
      • LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE, there are WORSE problems in the world!!

        Worse than Rape and Murder? Because that is ultimently what there worries are. Now the article was ment to be fun and light hearted but dismissing some fears is not productive.

        Joshkie wrote on July 17th, 2010
  11. Mark, this is probably the stupidest idea you have had, what you are describing is stocking, in fact, in the last few months your posts have become pointless, i will no longer be supporting or recommending you website, there are better sites out there with more practical information on a paleo/primal lifestyle that don’t need to fluff up there site with irrelevant trash

    JUPITER wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • I think all of us here a PB will not miss you.

      Vince wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • I don’t know. I’m kind of fond of run on sentences, incorrect superlatives, and improper word choice…

        jus wrote on July 15th, 2010
        • you be ideioit me hat you now

          JUPITER wrote on July 15th, 2010
  12. Let me get all sociologist on y’all for a sec. Throughout the comments, with only a few exceptions, it’s MEN saying: “aw, lighten up. We’re not REALLY threatening you!” (Sorry Mark, it is *stalking* when you do it to a person you’ve not cleared it with in advance. I love your idea with a willing participant, but whew, you missed the mark with “pick any jogger.” ) Notice, too, it’s the women trying to bring some awareness to their very different perception of the world and how women joggers would feel.

    Men have written here:
    “remind us of the dark side of humanity”
    “You are never going to GRAB them physically, so I don’t see the issue?”
    “People need to not take EVERYTHING so seriously!?”
    “turn it in to a morbid example of what may happen”
    “It’s a suggestion for those that may have sense of adventure to try something different and be a bit self indulgent — nothing wrong with that — as long as it doesn’t harm others. … I said don’t take all of this too seriously, or personally. It’s not that important!”

    Not that important? That women are (actually, truly, physically) in jeopardy of carjacking at Costco? Of being kidnapped or attacked or raped or beaten no matter the time of day or location? (Dyah really think no woman is attacked in a daylight park? Or “safe” in her own home?) Should women forget that almost always it is an unknown male who does this things? It’s the foolish woman who is not a little afraid of all unknown males.

    Women are naturally (and correctly) more afraid because women are the ones who usually get threatened, attacked, and raped. And no, it’s not just the media that makes it seem so common — ask any woman friend if she has been threatened or attacked, or knows someone who has (and please don’t be so stupid as to say a threat doesn’t count! A threat — because it comes from someone larger and stronger (as most men are to most women) — absolutely causes mental and emotional harm. (Do you need to see fMRI scans to believe it? You can, they’re out there, Mr Librarian). Is it as physical as an attack? No. Does that make it any less harmful? Not by much!

    Men choosing, or suggesting, that they can be self-indulgent at the possible expense of some woman they do not know isn’t primal, it’s selfish and wrong!

    Being chased or stalked or even looked at too hard out in public: you know — prey animal seeing a predator watching them? — even has a primal name: the threat stare. It is not something women can or should “just ignore.” And it is something that happens to women all the time! You want to talk primal? Primal is that prey animals ALWAYS take predators seriously — without fail, because failure can mean death. Mark has suggested that predators can just “play” with prey animals. Women are and have always been prey animals for (some) men. (Think not? Look at the history of the primate home homo sapiens! And how is any woman supposed to sort out the good guys from the “potential abductors/rapists/boogeymen”? How can she tell if THIS pitbull running loose in the street is one of the good ones? She CAN’T!) (No, I’m not calling men pitbulls, I’m trying to help men to understand the sense of threat women deal with all the time: hoping a man can recognize that he would (rightly) be concerned about an unknown pitbull running toward him, yes?)

    I think it’s Emerson Eggerichs who talks about the fundamental, permanent, biological difference in how men and women view the world. He asks his men, at conferences, if they have feared for their physical safety at any time during the day. No hands go up. How about during the past week? No hands go up. During the past month? Still, no hands go up.

    Then he asks the men to look around them as he asks women the same question. How many women have feared for their physical safety at any time during the past month? Nearly every hand goes up. During the past week? Almost no hands go down. Have you feared for your physical safety today? MOST hands still stay up.

    It does not matter whether or not it is a realistic fear or an exaggerated fear: it is a REAL fear, and women are biologically wired to have what men consider — and denigrate, as is so very visible in these comments — this “over-reaction.” (And yes, Mr. Librarian, fMRI studies show that women and men have different brain reactions to threats — real or otherwise! It’s not stupid, it’s biology!)

    Until both sexes understand this fundamental biological difference in how we see the world (Eggerichs calls it blue glasses and pink glasses, blue hearing aids and pink hearing aids), we will continue to be at odds about this oh-so-important difference in perspective. Men will continue to denigrate women for it; women will continue to despair that men will ever “get it.”

    Elenor wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Thanks elinor. Truth to power.

      shannon wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • If you are going to quote what I said – don’t USE it out of context…

      “It’s a suggestion for those that may have sense of adventure to try something different and be a bit self indulgent — nothing wrong with that — as long as it doesn’t harm others. … I said don’t take all of this too seriously, or personally. It’s not that important!”

      This comment was not even REFERRING to the safety of women debate – and yet you CONVENIENTLY use it to demonise me as a man!

      I was referring to prich’s comment that the concept was silly and self-indulgent (and even he/she was not referring to the female safety issue.

      At NO STAGE have I suggested that the safety of women is not important, and whether you are a sociologist or not, your use of my words out of context to suggest I was suggesting the safety of women is not important indicates you may be a Misandrist….

      Your point does not address the point I WAS making and that is why is everyone here (male and female) that is in uproar about this post assuming that the men OR women who may take it up would not be as SMART OR as SOCIALLY AWARE as you are and realise these issues and act appropriately.

      My point is you arrogant twats assume the rest of us are stupid, and AGAIN if you read my posts, I point out that ALL these posts prove NO-ONE has been ignorant of the potential issues (including Mark – likely he assumed no one is as stupid as you assume them to be)…

      Dismissing this STUPID thread does not mean I am ignorant or do not care about the safety of women, it does however suggest I think all you people that think you are smarter than the rest of us (including those that need to get into “intellectual” issues of sociology need to LIGHTEN UP and realise that we are not all as stupid as your ego would like us to be!!! 😉

      Sociology has ALSO proven some people are perpetual victims, just as some are perpetual aggressors, the MAJORITY are neither, and many of us (male and female) are sick and tired of being stereotyped by physiology/sociology types as falling into ONLY one of these camps.

      Many women are never victims and many men are victims – to say men don’t understand women is insulting to both sexes, and may be useful for people that want to sell books based on what supposed planet we come from, but ignores the fundamental TRUTH that we are all human and far more complex than BINARY definitions.

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • Sadly, there are a lot of stupid people reading random posts on the internet, and some of these stupid people might think, “Cool, I’ll go pretend to hunt a woman.”

        If there weren’t a good number of stupid men, there wouldn’t be so many rapes, assaults, etc.

        Most people who commit crimes like this aren’t real bright, obviously. And it’s not that rare to be kinda dumb. Or under the influence of some substance. A dumb impaired guy can be quite dangerous. Not saying this is true of anybody leaving comments here, but these guys are out there, and some have internet access…

        shannon wrote on July 15th, 2010
        • Do YOU REALLY think that some man (or women) will think – hey yeah, I’m going to go hunt a women to the point of distressing her/him?

          Do you REALLY think someone will read this and decide to do this without concern for the impact on others?

          Here’s my thought on that:

          1) weirdos DO NOT need to get their weird ideas from Mark’s Daily Apple

          2) Mark cannot post based on what someone may do under the influence of drugs – I’d say MANY of his posts would be dangerous under the influence of drugs

          3) Just because a small minority are idiots, does not mean the majority of us have to miss out on information. This is the first source of censorship, the “thought police” decide who is smart enough to view certain information and then decide that it would be just safer if NO-ONE sees any information.

          As to your assertion of stupid men being the perpetrators of rape and assault, I am sure the women raped on Uni campuses and the psychopaths with immense intelligence would prove that wrong.

          Again I have to ask, why any of you (male or female) get to decide what is allowed on this site?

          You will notice I have not made a comment at JUPITER that stated their dislike of this post and promised never to return – that is your right, you DO NOT have the right to tell us what we should read, think and feel, especially when you assume things about our intelligence and emotional/social awareness… or WORSE misquote us to slander us and suggest we are misogynists.

          Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • Luke, i thought you were completely well-meaning until you called people you felt misunderstood you “twats.” I try to look at each person as an individual iespecially online where we can’t see the twinkle in a person’s eye, their gentle smile, or their eye contact or lack of eye contact–all the clues that ca make the exact same words from one person, even a stranger seem sympathetic and from another seem deliberately agressive. I filter out the typos, spelling mistakes & even the cliches(since your post comes across to me as if you feel misunderstood/attacked, i feel like i must say,you write beautifully, not talking about you) to see if i will get a new facts and/or ways of looking at the topic that i haven’t thought of or experienced.
        I just wanted you to know, though, that you lost me when you called the people you felt misunderstood you “twats.”
        It doesn’t convey your implied desire not to categorize individuals by their gender.

        Mahala wrote on July 15th, 2010
        • Mahala,

          Thank you for your feedback.

          As I have stated:

          1) Until Elenor personally singled my comments out and then inferred I must have a sister etc, so couldn’t understand I never made personal attacks/statements towards any individual

          2) I used the word you referred to in the English/Australian context – I’m Australian – and as I have noted I forgot that Americans use that word to refer to female genitalia. I have noted this and apologised. I would NEVER use that word in that context. As I said look up the word wikipedia and it clearly states that the UK (English) use is not the same. It doesn’t mention Australia, but we use it like the English – which is someone that is a fool. There is no way I would ever use a statement to refer to the sex of a person – as I have stated and ALL my other posts reflect, so I hope you can recognise thus was a cultural mismatch of the word – lost in translation.

          ONCE AGAIN to the Americans that interpreted my use of a word that has a completely different meaning in your country to mine – I apologise.

          The intent was not gender based at all.


          Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • So Elenor – answer this – whether the runner is running as suggested here, or as a normal jogger – HOW would the outcome be different for the hyper-vigilant person they run up to and pass (again – female or male – both could be concerned)???

      When reading what Mark posted he does not suggest that you run up to the jogger, then fall back, so they are aware of you, you just have picked someone in the distance to eventually catch up to (again MANY “regular” joggers do this EVERY DAY – why don’t you ALL take your concerns to the running blogs, and make sure ALL those runners know how much psychological damage they are doing if they EVER run up to and pass another person, especially those male runners that pass female runners?!

      Most humans can see many hundreds of yards ahead, and can keep someone in sight (whether running primally or walking or running chronic cardio), and MANY runners will see a runner ahead and make it a target to catch up and pass them. Whether that is done in 5 minutes or 30 minutes what difference does it make (for some of us it takes 30 minutes to do it when running Chronic Cardio style!)

      Again my point is this technique is NO different in terms of the NORMAL rules you would apply to running – even chronic cardio joggers know that they shouldn’d purposely freak other people out (AGAIN female or male).

      YES they do sometimes, but we don’t outlaw chronic cardio because of misunderstandings (that will always occur).

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • Hello, the post suggests you hide behind a tree!! To run up close behind an unaware person, then fall “out of site”, then suddenly reappear and run after them! That is a long way from normal running. Ask any policeman what he or she would think of that kind of behavior if you want to know how “regular” it is.

        Jamie wrote on July 15th, 2010
  13. And, oh yeah:

    Luke adds:
    “In the end though, as Mark says, if you are doing it right the jogger wont notice you.”

    And if she does notice you? If you’re NOT doing it right or maybe she has already been attacked in her life and, so, is hyper-vigilant about her safety while jogging in a daylight crowded park? “Oh well, too bad for her,” right? You’ve just terrified some woman you don’t know, but, hey, no harm no foul?! “You are never going to GRAB them physically, so I don’t see the issue.” (Obviously not!)

    I’m guessing you have no daughter, no wife, maybe even no sister, with whom to empathize? If your daughter came home, flooded with her entirely appropriate fear-reaction to being “stalked” while out jogging by some primal nut who decided it was okay to stalk her: would you tell HER she needs “to not take EVERYTHING so seriously”?

    Do you actually think it’s okay to “play” with some woman’s mind and emotions because — well, hell, you’re just getting primally fit.

    Elenor wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • What if the same scenario plays out but without the intent suggested here? By that I mean, what if I go to the park and decide I want to run some intervals, just intervals, no primal games or stalking involved. And while running intervals I stay behind someone and while I get close to the person, I never truly pass them. (Nor do I care about passing them, since I’m only focused on my exercise and not them). To finish the work out I decide to do an all out sprint during which I finally pass the person and then stop to walk for a cool down.

      Am I at fault because a hyper-vigilant person interpreted my actions as hostile? I was just working out, same as them. It’s the exact same scenario here, just remove the “game” motivation.

      jus wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • EXACTLY Jus..

        At no point has ANYONE going on about any of the QUITE REAL concerns some may have about being followed whilst running or passed whilst running addressed the FACT that this would be no different whether done as Mark suggested here OR as a “normal” chronic cardio workout.

        YET they get up on their high horse in their ivory tower and demonise Mark, this idea and those that see it for what it is, which is a FUN variation on the normal workout… they IGNORE the fact that the same perceived concern could (and likely does) occur for regular running, cause then they’d have to get down form both the horse and the tower of elephant tusk!!! 😉

        There are males AND females that have recognised this post for what it is, and noted it would be fun, without getting in a froth, because they also recognise that this is no different to normal jogging/running in that you MUST be aware of others when you run and the impact you have on them.

        I suggest all these people get onto Runners World and ensure ALL the runners there are aware of the emotional distress their filthy, stupid, absurd, silly, self-indulgent sport inflicts on others!!! :-)

        There are places and times I do not feel safe walking or running in Sydney. Am I stupid for feeling that way – NO, and I have never suggested anyone’s fear of harm by those that mean harm is unwarranted – However it also does not mean that everyone there is posing a threat to me.

        As my MOTHER has told me (how convenient Elenor forgot EVERY man has a mother – it didn’t help her point about me not understanding!!! – haha), she has no issue with men in running gear approaching her, especially if they look like they are exercising, she has been concerned with people approaching her when they aren’t doing any exercise (why are they there) and especially when they are wearing clothing that suggests that exercise is the furthest thing from their mind. Then again, my mother is one of the smartest people I know, so she is likely using logic in assessing who and what may be a threat and who/what may not be.

        Call my Mother and me stupid, but SHE taught me that:

        1) the majority of people are good, decent human beings (just as we wish others to think of us)

        2) you should use your brain and minimise risk by assessing the available data/inputs

        3) life is NOT completely without risk. Doesn’t mean you should be a victim, but you shouldn’t live your life in fear of what MAY be if it prevents your enjoyment of what IS – as I said, my mother is the smartest person I know!!! 😉

        Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • And ONCE again you select a few words from a post out of context to support your rampant Misandristy…

      At no point do ANY of my posts distinguish between males or females, because I would imagine male or female ANYONE would be worried if they observed your behaviour.

      Once again you attempt to pseudo-pychoanlaylise me based on your prejudices… making inferences about my family and my relationships within them.

      Despite ALL this – you have used your biases to cherry pick my posts (and no doubt the posts of others) to support your position, by ignoring the point I was making which is no one is suggesting you STALK someone in a way that makes them uncomfortable (notice I didn’t suggest you cannot comprehend or suggest you lack understanding as you suggest of me – I simply suggest you consciously ignore what doesn’t support your point of view – I NEVER insult your intelligence).

      NO – I do not think it is OK to play with some woman’s mind and emotions FOR ANY REASON. I also do not think it is OK for the same to be done to a man.

      I DO however believe that this activity CAN be done without distress to women or men.

      Again you assume I (and others) are not as smart or emotionally aware as yourself – how is it up on that high horse in your ivory tower?

      I have run many times (not like this – just in general chronic cardio style) and caught up and passed women, men and children, most times I just say G’day as I pass and they reply in kind. If anyone indicates my “sudden” presence I apologise (it has happened maybe 3 times out of hundreds). Likewise I have men, women AND children pass me (i’m not a great runner), same deal.

      My point, and the point of many is NO-ONE even the paranoid, when running turns and looks around all the time… and if I did encounter someone like that (female or male) in the future I’d just make it clear I wasn’t intending anything untoward (no-one ever in my years of running has noticed me until I was on their heels (despite the fact I could have been approaching them for miles).

      I NOW wonder how many of the people up in arms over the terrorisation of women (and hopefully possibly the same for some poor men too) actually RUNS?!

      I suggest if you do have a point to make about ANY men here that you think do not understand you choose to quote the men that have stated FEMALES have nothing to worry about and females should not take things so seriously with regards to their safety.

      I have never said females should not care for their safety, I never would, and to suggest I have by quoting my words out of context is slanderous – I suggest you cease to do so… You are impugning my character with regard to my respect, empathy and understanding of women, when at no stage have I EVER made reference to a person’s sex or directed my comments at someone because of their sex with regard to this topic. My suggestion to lighten up is directed to all people, and as I will repeat again, my main point is why has this STUPID thread occurred when it is based on one group assuming everyone else is too stupid and not emotionally/socially aware enough to realise their impact on others – I repeat – GET OVER YOURSELVES!

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
  14. >This comment was not even REFERRING
    >to the safety of women debate …
    >I was referring to prich’s comment
    >that the concept was silly and
    >self-indulgent (and even he/she was
    >not referring to the female safety

    But don’t you see Luke? You CANNOT discuss stalking a woman and NOT have it relate to the female safety issue! The two cannot be separated. I’m not suggesting you don’t think “actual” safety for women is important — I’m pointing out that you have no conception whatsoever of how a woman feels when stalked (real or mock), and whether or not her fears are rational, reasonable, and appropriate. All of your messages have glossed over or rejected the idea that stalking any woman anywhere, whether or not you mean her harm, is flat-out wrong! You seem to be trying to say that there IS some circumstance under which it’s “okay” to stalk some woman you do not know (i.e., for primal fitness).

    >…indicates you may be a Misandrist….

    On the contrary, at the risk of horrifying the women here, I’m so far to the right that I just about fall off the scale. I am thrilled that my husband wears a .45 on his hip when we’re out. I am, if anything, an anti-feminist! I applaud the primal male’s desire to return to his biological roots. I am suggesting he not forget that women’s “primal” (biological) experiences differ, substantially, from men’s!

    >Your point does not address the point
    >I WAS making and that is why is
    >everyone here (male and female) that
    >is in uproar about this post assuming
    >that the men OR women who may take it
    >up would not be as SMART OR as
    >SOCIALLY AWARE as you are and realise
    >these issues and act appropriately.

    It’s not about socially aware: if you, if ANYONE, stalks a woman — and Mark’s description is, alas, just exactly that! — then you are not aware of a woman’s natural biological mindset! Men who take this up will naturally (because ‘Nature’-ally, they don’t view the world the same way!) *not understand* how their experience of it differs from the women’s experience — predator vs. prey!!

    >My point is you arrogant twats assume
    >the rest of us are stupid,

    ?! Quite the gentleman, eh?

    I’m assuming only that you do not — as so many men do not — understand how WOMEN view the world. How women RIGHTLY recognize — however unconsciously or consciously — that just like the antelope y’all are pretending she is — she IS a prey animal in the world! And prey animals do not think a predator “playing” with them is okay.

    (You didn’t answer my comment either: what about when youre not “doing it right” — what about when the woman you’re stalking DOES see you and rightly fears for her safety? You okay with that? You just don’t care about that specific woman’s terror? If everyone is ‘smart and socially aware’ enough — then they WILL recognize that woman’s (any woman’s) entirely appropriate fear when stalked by some primal male — and he will not EVER do it!

    >and AGAIN if you read my posts, I
    >point out that ALL these posts prove
    >NO-ONE has been ignorant of the
    >potential issues (including Mark –
    >likely he assumed no one is as stupid
    >as you assume them to be)…

    Mark is a man. Mark is probably rarely if ever conscious of his physical safety. He probably does not ever think twice before walking down to his mailbox after dark – it would never occur to him to fear for his safety. Is there ANY woman on this thread who does NOT think, however briefly, about her safety before walking out in the dark?

    I-m not saying Mark is stupid, or even that you are stupid — I’m saying this is a HUGE blind spot nearly all men have, because they are biologically wired differently from women! Your every message merely confirms that difference. Where it would probably never occur to you to fear for your personal, physical safety if some guy began stalking you while you were out jogging — there is probably not a woman in the world who would not react to that “stalking” with fear. That’s not about stupidity — it’s about experience of the world! And men’s is DIFFERENT from women’s!

    >Dismissing this STUPID thread does not
    >mean I am ignorant or do not care
    >about the safety of women, it does
    >however suggest I think all you people
    >that think you are smarter than the
    >rest of us (including those that need
    >to get into “intellectual” issues of
    >sociology need to LIGHTEN UP and >realise that we are not all as stupid >as your ego would like us to be!!! 😉

    See? You don’t get it — this is not about stupid or smart — it’s about the entirely different world views between prey and predator. (Nietzsche calls it master morality and slave morality.) The predator needn’t fear for his safety, and it never occurs to him that he should. The prey is *always* aware of her safety — or lack of it — and it colors every single thing she does! (“All you people that think””? Are you arguing with me or some chorus in your head?)

    >… to say men don’t understand women
    >is insulting to both sexes…

    There is nothing insulting about a normal biological difference. There is no possibility for a man to understand a woman, nor a woman to understand a man — not on the most fundamental, biological levels. Do you ever think about your safety before stepping out into the night? If not, then you cannot ever imagine what being a woman is like. Just as no woman (unless brainwashed into thinking she can be Buffy the Vampire Slayer) can ever step out into the night withOUT thinking about her safety, at some level, in some way.

    That’s not stupid or smart — it’s a fundamentally different way of viewing the world! And yes, it’s the difference between predators and prey!

    >, and may be useful for people that
    >want to sell books based on what
    >supposed planet we come from, but
    >ignores the fundamental TRUTH that we
    >are all human and far more complex
    >than BINARY definitions.

    Yeah, yeah, we’re all individuals, blah blah blah… So — do you assume every single uncontrolled pitbull you see running after you as you jog is one of the friendly ones? Or do you weigh the likelihood that any pitbull, more so than, say, a collie, may prove to be massively dangerous to you until you learn otherwise about this specific pitbull?

    Do you wait to look to your safety until AFTER you’ve discovered whether this dog is offering kisses or slavering jaws? Or do you assume that all pitbulls are all “human” and far more complex that binary definitions – in which case you’re just as likely to be mauled as greeted with joy?

    Women reasonably look at all unknown men as possible “potential abductors/rapists/boogeymen” — there is no other way to safety. It’s too bad that hurts your feelings, but better your feelings get hurt, than some woman ignore a stalker while she’s jogging!

    Elenor wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • AND YET AGAIN you ignore the plain and simple fact this is NO different to running “normal” chronic cardio.

      My point about this being done without distress remains – IF you can run normal chronic cardio without distressing women (or men) you can do this.

      “arrogant twats” – a twat in Australia and England is a derogatory term, I just realised you Americans refer to female genitalia, my apologies for using that term without realising the American sensitivities (look up the word in wikipedia if you want confirmation of the fact that in the UK and Australia it is not used to refer to female genitalia., again my apologies, I would never use that term.

      As I have stated – ad nausea – I consciously CHOSE not not get into the female safety debate here, because whilst I agree it is relevant to the safety of women, I DO NOT agree that Mark’s post is an INVITATION for men to stalk women.

      AGAIN I believe people are smarter than you give us credit for, and I did not even THINK that I would do this to a women (because I AM aware of the issue), but I ALSO do NOT see this as ANY different to when running chronic cardio, so I do NOT see the justification for demonising this post, Mark, or myself of others as you have, simply because we do not see this as ANY different to ANY activity in a public place.

      IF you can point out WHERE in Mark’s post he explicitly states you should terrorise a member of the opposite sex, I retract ALL my statements?

      You should read a book called “The Fall” – you will see that your belief that women have always been the prey of men is not entirely true. However based on your assertion of being far right (which by the way does not mean you are free of Misandrist) you may not like it though, as it does point out that religions have largely perpetuated the oppression of women and children at the hands of men with their assertion that men are superior to men (the suggestion females were made from the spare parts of men, just to keep him happy is the 1st and ultimate insult to women!!!)

      My point remains, you have used my quotes to suggest I am dismissive of the fear women feel, you now twist it to suggest that not directing my comments at this suggests I am ignorant of it – neither are true and both are insulting.

      I am sorry you view the world in such harsh and stark terms of men vs women. I am surrounded by a family and friends that are not subjected to such views of the world. And FOR YOUR INFORMATION, on both my fathers and my mothers side our family has had matriarchs that have been the guiding influence on us all (and remain so), so don’t EVER tell me I don’t understand women and wouldn’t be capable of doing so.

      At no stage prior to your unwarranted attack on the character of me have I suggested someone lacks in character – who the HELL are you to judge me or anyone else?

      I have made my points without being personal (I went to lengths to point out my dig about self-righteousness was a joke). I made generalisations, but I did not as you did single out an individual for Weeties-box psychoanalysis.

      Look at your derision with “we are all individuals… blah blah blah…” funny, but my statement that quoted wasn’t ANY THING about individuality, you pick and choose stuff to make a point, without regard to the context… if ANYTHING I was saying the majority of us are the SAME – i.e. I do NOT subscribe to the women vs men debate – I think we are ALL HUMAN – how is that a comment about individuality!?!?!

      Regarding the comment about pitbulls, refer to my post about my mums wisdom… yeah pitbulls maybe (i.e. a guy on a running track in jeans and a hoodie), as opposed to a labrador (i.e. the guy seating his ass off and in running gear). BOTH COULD BITE you, but based on intelligent deduction, you’d assume the pitbull is more likely to, and so take precautions….

      Again, just because I assume most men aren’t pitbulls, does not mean I ignore the danger of pitbulls, I just know that there are more labradors than pitbulls, and IF and WHEN I see a pitbull I take precautions, when I see a labrador, I don’t fret, but also don’t think I am entire safe (again, signs like a wagging tail are pretty good indicators).

      I am aware of the danger of some breeds of dogs, but that does not mean I demonise and put down all breeds I encounter. It also does NOT mean I am ignorant or incapable of understanding the fear of those that some people feel towards ALL dogs, but that doesn’t mean i have to agree with them that all dogs are bad.. And I’d like them to recognise the breeds/signs that may indicate that you don’t have to worry – anyway now we need Caesar Milan to sort this issue out!? 😉

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Are you a sociologist or biologist?

      I studied biology, and there is no fundamental difference in biology that makes women less secure.

      There are sociological reasons, but no biological reasons.

      You picked the wrong male to single out Elenor for two reasons:

      1) I NEVER made any comments about the concerns of females for their safety being irrational (although I did, and continue to state this is no different to any other running)

      2) I’m not ignorant of the oppression of women by males, and in fact in many areas I am more of a feminist that most of my female friends

      3) I have never done this before, but I cannot stand your assertions that I would not know what fear for my physical safety is, as I am a man. I am gay, and growing up in the outer suburbs of Sydney I know all too well what it is like to fear for your safety just because of who you are. Even in Sydney city, when I was growing up (which was a while ago now) I often feared for my safety and was physically and verbally abused by people (mostly men, but some women) that feel the need to attack someone due to their sexuality. So quite frankly when it comes to your crap about me not understanding, all i can say is – piss off!!! I have little regard now if that is rude or not.

      Whilst I have experienced that fear, I have also learnt to not let it rule my life. In some instances I am more aware of it, to this day there are areas of Sydney and situations I would not show affection to a partner, but I will not live in fear because of it.

      As I stated I was brought up in a family of matriarchs (and for those that are wondering if that is why I’m gay – I’m one of 28 cousins, and I’m the only one) and we were taught and only knew respect for women.

      I have both gotten into fights protecting women that have been intimidated by men, I am aware of what women experience, both from experience and empathy (funny isn’t it, gay guys are often much more respectful of women that hetero men – that has ALWAYS confused me) I have also protected other guys from bullies – I cannot stand people that use their physical size to intimidate others.

      I cannot believe I have had to state this, but I just cannot sit her and let you attack my character and my understanding of what women experience, on some premise that I have never left the house with fear. Sorry to say I have.

      No doubt you will claim that even this fear I have experienced myself is not the same. I acknowledge it isn’t, but it does let me have some insight to what it feels like, so I once again say back off with your rubbish psychoanalysis of me and what I know, feel, think, understand and experience – you have NO IDEA of who I am, and from what you have written here, I am now of the firm opinion, even with years more study you never would.

      I have to finish this, as I have to retire for the evening. It is a shame you felt the need to make your comments personal and directed towards a specific individual, you say you are intelligent, and yet so many others had the decency to attack the argument and not the person, which is how I always try and post here, until your unwarranted attack on my character and what you THINK I do or do not know or feel – you are an arrogant person to presume so much about another human being.

      For everyone else – just read the post (and not all this other rubbish) and see it for what it is – a variation on a chronic cardio run, that adds some fun, and LIKE a chronic cardiio run, don’t do anything that may distress another human being (though most of us do that all the time – even when posting on MDA)


      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • Oh – and don’t think I want empathy or am using my sexuality as an excuse, I hate I had to state it, but it is central to why I feel I do understand what females feel in terms of fearing for their safety.

        I am not a flag waving gay guy… I don’t think there is any “pride” in being gay – I don’t think there is any shame either… likewise there is no pride or shame in being heterosexual… pride and sexuality is foreign to me. But in this case I made an exception, as it does speak to why your assumptions about me are false…

        Also, I didn’t want to do this to you, but you fail to recognise the logic paradox in your argument when you emphatically state that men and women are fundamentally different, and so men cannot EVER understand women.

        Well IF your statement is true, then as a WOMAN, you cannot EVER understand a man, and hence what he thinks/feels, so any statements you make about us must be false!!!


        Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • I’m just posting on you’re pit bull comment…I think that that is one of the most ignorant statements made in these postings. I would actually be more scared of the collie or a German sheppard than a pit bull. Statistically, you’re much more likely to be mauled and killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I’d be a lot quicker to kick the collie in the jaw the the pit. But as someone whose grown up with several breeds of dogs, including pits, in my houses and friends houses, and who has been but by multiple dogs, I understand this, and don’t expect most the ignorant population in this country to understand that.

      Brandon wrote on July 15th, 2010
  15. Persistence

    Namkabe, sitting on the mountain high,
    Saw the sun settle with a gentle sigh.
    Recalling the baboons with their red butts,
    He ran to the children down by the huts.
    Falling forward with each gentle step forth,
    Leaving perfect footprints impressed in earth.
    The hungry band stood around the bright fire,
    With hopes of a situation less dire.
    With their hunger slightly sated, he spoke:
    “People, our ancestors we will invoke,
    Drinking for the hunt under the full moon
    Which won’t end until the sun hits high noon.
    In this light the kudu will play too late;
    This time tomorrow, you may say we ate.
    Women, bring the water for the hunters,
    Then fill their cups like God’s flowing rivers.
    My good people, we shall drink, we shall drink.”
    With this speech the young Nate began to think
    Guilty thoughts of the fat he received from
    Xabon, wrinkled with womanly wisdom.
    With full belly under a tree he sat,
    ‘Till Namkabe said to sleep where he’s at.
    “No,” he said, “I want to go out with you.”
    “You will, early tomorrow rendezvous
    With me under the old tree near the lake
    And at the right time the lead you will take,”
    Namkabe said to the eager young boy,
    Whose attitude this assurance did cloy.
    So, in his peaceful slumber he did dream,
    Of the fleeing kudu, and the chasing team.
    In the night Namkabe stayed far downwind,
    Lest the hunt be over before its end.
    But then, the slightest noise distracted him,
    And he ‘gan to follow it on a whim.
    Under a pile of rocks he thought its source,
    Which he was slightly nervous to coerce.
    He made way to it very carefully,
    Then a bird flew out all too suddenly.
    Like a scared little girl he shrieked too loud;
    Yet, of what he found he was still proud.
    There was a bird’s nest with five little eggs,
    Which did tickle him right down to his legs.
    He picked them up and saved them for breakfast,
    So that his old legs would not tire too fast.
    The eggs carefully packed within his bag,
    On his way to the tree he did not lag.
    Once there he remembered a little trick,
    And into the ground his spear he did stick.
    Miles away he heard the elephants play,
    Where water and kudu would be by day.
    Assured of their thirst he slept by the tree,
    ‘Till by the morning light the night would flee.
    Whence the sun rose to heat the fresh, new day,
    Along came Nate, and the wise Karoha.
    “Why do you dare to sleep, you senile old fool?
    Is there a reason you’re covered in drool?”
    Karoha said to the waking old man,
    “I hope that you have not foiled our plan.”
    “Never,” Namkabe said to Karoha,
    “At the watering hole, the kudu play.”
    With open distrust they began to run,
    As their skin began to bake from the sun.
    The pace Namkabe was setting scared Nate,
    For it was he who would be running late.
    The dry sand made the kudu hard to track,
    And in his limited skill he hung back.
    Eventually, they came upon a hill,
    And ‘gan to speak like birds, in coo and shrill;
    The kudu were there on the other side.
    They waited for Namkabe to decide.
    Then, the old fool stalked silently upwind,
    And crouched behind a rock, breaking his wind.
    He signaled for the young men to prepare,
    For the kudu would soon be gone from there.
    To his delight the kudu ran away,
    But not so fast that the men rued the day.
    Up in the air Namkabe threw his cane,
    And with this gesture the meaning was plain.
    The chase had begun. It was time to run;
    The kudu would tire under the high sun.
    By the big rock the tired old man did stay,
    And it was Karoha who led the way.
    They began to single out the old bull,
    Their heads, as well as its, began to lull.
    In trance they felt his every step and breath,
    And the weight of his horns would speed his death.
    The hours passed as they expressed with their hands
    As needed, and also from their sweat glands.
    With bull alone, and sun at its highest,
    Karoha signaled he must stop and rest.
    “I cannot run any longer,” he said.
    “Go, and run the old lizard’s trail ahead,
    Run fast, beat him to the crooked shade tree.”
    Nate sprinted in sand, alone, wild, and free.
    He worried the bull would hide in thicket,
    Catching its breath, leading to a forfeit.
    But, a sooner worry was the old trail;
    Treachery forced his tired legs to fail.
    Reminded of Uahe who had died,
    Stifling his scream, Nate fell down and cried.
    A sidewinder took his soul far too soon,
    Four short years ago, on this trail at noon.
    In agony Nate lied there far too long,
    Until water to lips brought him along.
    He staggered amongst the rocks, and stumbled
    Until he felt his stomach, which rumbled.
    He forgot where the crooked shade tree was,
    Yet this was no necessity for pause.
    He heard faint rustling, in his tracks he stopped,
    His body screaming at him, his head dropped.
    Moving with the earth, conscious of nothing,
    ‘Till he saw a print, and began crouching.
    His spear he grasped in hand, and he was there
    Beneath the crooked shade tree sucking air.
    It leapt to its feet, but began stumbling,
    Eyes glazed over, it fell in the clearing.
    By the ritual he was taught to know,
    Into the kudu’s chest he made the throw.
    He knelt beside the dying animal,
    And sprinkled sand as was conventional.
    He touched the old bull, and felt its last breath,
    Giving thanks for this animal’s good death.
    He scooped out the animal’s saliva,
    Salving his sore knees, which burned like lava.
    He lied in the sand by the dead creature
    For half an hour, waiting for composure.
    When the young man finally could, he stood,
    Knowing that his band would not starve for food.

    Lima_dat wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • This awesome – where did you get it from?

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
  16. >I DO however believe that this activity CAN be
    > done without distress to women or men.

    And this sums it up entirely. This is where you and I cannot ever come to an agreement. You (as a man) believe — I’m guessing because of how you would feel about it were it to happen to you — that there is a way to do Mark’s “hunting” (my “stalking”) that does not distress whatever woman it is you’ve decided without her permission or knowledge to “hunt.” I am stating (as a woman) that I do not believe this is possible. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Mark’s:
    Regard your prey. Pick a jogger, any jogger, and let him or her gain some distance on you. A few dozen yards, perhaps. Now, walk after your target.
    Keep your eye on the target, but let it gain ground on you.
    When your target is a few hundred yards ahead, start to jog. Don’t let it range too far ahead, but don’t over exert yourself.”
    Keep that pace for a couple minutes. Now speed up a bit. If you begin to gain ground, stop before you catch up completely.
    Now sprint! Sprint for thirty seconds, and really push it — you might even be licking at their heels, but do not pass your prey.
    Stop. Let them continue on. Once they’ve turned a corner, passed behind a bend, or otherwise disappeared from sight, continue on.
    Sprint for two seconds, stop for three, then jog for ten. Leap over branches, vault over bushes. Hide behind a tree for a second or two. You can even drop to all fours and crawl along the trail for a bit.
    Once you catch sight of your target, catch up by any and all means. Sprint if you have to. Just pass them up (no actual hunting, of course) and take a breather.

    Perhaps I’m not.

    That is SO not your “run[ing] many times … and caught up and passed women, men and children” or Jus’s “while running intervals I stay behind someone and while I get close to the person, I never truly pass them.”

    Hugely, hugely different program! (And, as I wrote — I think Mark’s idea is *super* WITH A KNOWLEDGEABLE PARTNER! With someone who is playing along with you.

    NOT NOT NOT Mark’s “pick a jogger, any jogger” — not ever!

    Elenor wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Again – not an issue – as I have said in the FEW times out of hundreds someone has been startled by my presence whilst chronic cardio running, I have just said G’day and as I have said most people can see, if you are exercising and sweating that is LIKELY your intent – not all of us (even not all women I have run past towards etc) think the worst.

      I am CERTAIN if I ran at them in jeans, they’d be WTF – but I’m not that stupid or insensitive… also most guys WOULD freak out if you ran towards them fully clothed (again I do not buy your assertion men don’t ever feel concerned for their safety).

      Even if I “licked at their heels” for a while (optional mind you), I’d say G’day and quickly say, I’m doing intervals (male of female), and most would be fine, again I have to ask – DO YOU RUN!?! Or are you pontificating as someone that has no idea of the culture and how you interact with others whilst on a run? Again I am not assuming you don’t (like you do for me), I’m asking you.

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • AGAIN – your assertion, not “pick a jogger, any jogger” – not ever! is out of whack with what happens weekend after weekend, day after day, evening after evening (probably less likely) with people doing chronic cardio runs…

      Even without people knowing you, runners do see people ahead of them and either decide to:

      1) match their pace for as long as they can

      2) catch up to them

      3) pass them

      They do this without the other persons knowledge or permission.

      Often I have seen runners pass me, and the later I have passed them, this happens.

      Again I run with females, they don’t assume the person passing them is playing with them (emotionally or mentally), they just assume (as I do) that the person is doing their training as they see fit.

      ONCE AGAN – you have a lot to say about me and my ability to understand, however I ask, how is Mark’s suggestion ANY different to what runners do all the time during chronic cardio!?

      You (and others here – you are not alone) have continued to ignore this – you demonise this suggestion, without regard to how it is no different to what people do already, the only difference being the technique (the intent is the same – pick a target (runner) and track/pass them, just at a a chronic cardio pace, are with intervals rather than fractal running.

      What evidence do you have that fractal pursuits are more distressing to someone else to base this hysteria?

      Note – Hysteria is a word that perpetuates the male dominance of women – as the males of ancient Greece/Rome believed all “irrational” emotions came from the female of the species (I do not believe that – however that is the word in English for irrational beliefs/thoughts, so I use it reluctantly, and apply it to men and women without prejudice of the nature of irrational thoughts being female – how do I know this?! I’m a misogynistic ignorant man – aren’t I Elenor?!)

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • Actualy she did answer your question, which was the hiding be hiding be hind trees, the crawling on the ground and the other thing you don’t do while interval training. These activities coulde be seen as alarming.

        Joshkie wrote on July 17th, 2010
  17. How about all of us men stay indoors at all times, lest a female feel threatened by any innocent activity we may be engaged in. To you, the person engaging in this “game”, you are stalking a fellow runner, to everyone else at the park, you are just another person exercising, albeit one running fractally rather than at a steady pace. You will pass some people, some people will pass you. Someone will see you jump over the trashcan or hop up on a bench for a couple of strides and think “That person is an idiot” but no one is going to know that you are actively trying to catch up to anyone, and no one is going to feel threatened. Really, if you are going to mace or otherwise assault everybody who runs past you at a park, maybe you should save yourself and alot of other people alot of grief and buy a treadmill.

    Jay wrote on July 15th, 2010
  18. Statistics and all aside…unless you’re a child on a playground, chasing someone and hiding behind a tree is really creepy. I know it’s meant to be in good fun, but this could scare a reasonable person.

    Lori wrote on July 15th, 2010
  19. Haha! This thread is hilarious. I love this idea to recreate the movement patterns of the persistance hunter. The jogger runs at a steady pace, while you move like a persistence hunter. Who the hell’s going to arrest you for alternating sprinting and walking? Of course, if there are no other joggers around and you are obviously going out of your way to follow someone, that’s creepy. And if you come on a jogger and start crawling at their heels you deserve to get smacked. This artice is great advice for level-headed people. I think Mark thinks high enough of his readers to assume they understand that being creepy, annoying, offensive, or staulkerly is not cool. Don’t let him down.

    Michael wrote on July 15th, 2010
  20. Wow, this thread is intense. Back to the real subject. Does anyone know of a podcast, etc. that would have this kind of training? I’d love to find something with music, but also tells me “sprint now”, “jog now”, “walk now”, etc. I realize I can just decide myself when to sprint, but I do better if someone is pushing me harder. Thanks

    Mitch wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Hey Mitch – as Marl points out the idea here is not to have set intervals (so no tape should do it), but rather (to quote Mark):

      “For this portion, you aren’t breaking up the hunt into jog/sprint/walk sections; you’re melding them all together on the fly”

      The idea is just go with the flow, no set times, intervals, just do what is necessary to keep your chosen jogger in sight and with enough in the tank to sprint to pass them at the end. I will assume you are male Mitch, so for F’s sake pick a male jogger – just be careful though, depending on where you live he may are may not want you to catch him!!! 😉

      Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • Thanks, but my issue is I live in a rural area. Rarely are there any joggers, and if I got close to them or followed them it would definitely be wierd. So, I’m just looking for some type of podcast or something to help me out. Thanks

        Mitch wrote on July 15th, 2010
        • Ah ok – understand – this may be a case of finding a buddy, sibling, etc who is a devotee to chronic cardio and explaining what you want to do.

          I reckon that would be interesting too, you could measure which one of you gets the most fitness/speed gains from the different approaches.

          The science would suggest that doing the fractal running approach (as long as there isn’t too much walking), would result in the biggest fitness/speed gains.

          You could both do a 5km time trial on a sports track initially and THEN train with the hunter/prey approach for a few weeks and see who has gained the most (that would keep your motivation up).

          Of course you’d have to allow for current fitness levels etc, if one of you is super fit and the other isn’t, the unfit person will always get the biggest gains…

          Just an idea – hope that helps – have FUN (ah fun – such a weird concept!?) 😉

          Luke in Oz wrote on July 15th, 2010
        • Mitch, i live in a rural area too. And I think in the true spirit of *play* just bring along an imaginary friend or 5. Borrow someone else’s dog (they will welcome the extra ‘walkies”). Borrow some kids. Chase your shadow. Insects. A leaf blowing in the wind. There’s also an old-school frisbee game: MTA Maximum Time Aloft. where you throw the frisbee up at an angle in the wind in such a way that you can run after it & catch it your self.
          (secret subliminal message: pllaayyyy)

          Peggy wrote on July 15th, 2010
        • Hey Mitch, I also grew up in a rural area and I did pretty much what Peggy suggested. I also used to go sprinting on bright moonlit nights when I was a teenager and imagine that I was running from something or hunting. Cross country running is so much more fun because of the obstacles. It is amazing how much faster you can run when your mind is awake and you are not bored.

          Angelina wrote on July 15th, 2010
  21. As I live in a border state, would it be ok for me to go “stalk” or “chase” or “primal hunt” people I see crossing the border illegally?

    debbie_downer wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Maple Syrup traps work for Canadians.

      Jay wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • I say go for it. But in this case, grab them and send them back after the chase please.

      Brandon wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Plez don’t!!!! I don’t want to hear about you getting shot on the boarder buy drug runners.

      Joshkie wrote on July 17th, 2010
  22. This is all well and good, but I could really use some tips for preparing the jogger post-hunt. If you’re making roast jogger’s feet, do you leave the running shoes on?

    Anybody with some good recipes?

    Hannibal the Cannibal wrote on July 15th, 2010
  23. If I even suspected that someone was doing this behind my back, I would set a snare or pit trap for them and catch them as they tried to sprint past me. They would find themselves the recipient of a primal beatdown!

    CJ wrote on July 15th, 2010
  24. That was an awesome video link for the persistence hunt. Wow! Fascinating.

    Carrie wrote on July 15th, 2010
  25. I had a sudden insight while thinking about this thread. Maybe the reason there has been this uptick in violence against women for the last 5000 years is that all the game was gone, from the Mediterranean at the beginning of this period, and from the rest of Europe shortly thereafter. Guys were designed by evolution to hunt, so if they can’t hunt deer, maybe they started hunting…women?

    shannon wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • I’ll comment that the increased anonymity in urban life combined with decreased community/family structure doesn’t aid in female safety (for the last 50 years).

      Evan wrote on July 15th, 2010
  26. >[B]ut you fail to recognise the logic paradox in your
    > argument when you emphatically state that men and
    >women are fundamentally different, and so men cannot
    >EVER understand women.
    >Well IF your statement is true, then as a WOMAN, you
    > cannot EVER understand a man, and hence what he
    >thinks/feels, so any statements you make about us must be false!!!

    Non sequitor. I acknowledge that I cannot understand a man’s feelings: I can try, I can empathize with what I think their feelings are, but understand them? No. However, that in no way means statements I make about men — especially biological statements — must be false.

    Luke, I did not and do not mean to cause you such apparent distress. Clearly you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this matter. I’m not sure how it is that my messages are ‘sounding’ in your head (often a problem in online communication), but I have not attacked or insulted you. I disagree with you and I have been stating(or trying to state) my disagreement clearly, and trying to lead you/readers to understand my reasoning – and have not succeeded. I wish you well. (But I still recommend strongly that primal males NOT “hunt” some women jogger they do not know, go find a primal woman who wants to play!)

    Brandon: you’re not correct in your defense of pitbulls. Pitbulls are great dogs when properly socialized – but any unknown pitbull running towards me, I will assume to be *very* dangerous! (As should everyone!) (German shepherds do make the list, but I’m more likely to give a German Shepherd the benefit of the doubt; collies don’t make the list at all.)

    Just two refs, you can find hundreds by just looking:

    “Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006: [link provided]) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. …
    According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study,…”


    “in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998″ in 2000. This study found that 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 fatal dog bites from 1979-1998. In over half of the deaths where the dog’s breed was known, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were responsible.
    More recent dog bite statistics continue to back up the CDC’s findings. In one study of United States dog bite fatalities from 2006-2008, Pitbulls were found responsible for nearly 60% of all deaths.”

    Elenor wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Eleanor – I’m curious. How are you an anti-feminist?

      Do tell.

      Evan wrote on July 15th, 2010
  27. Most men are not a danger to me. Some are. Most women are not a danger to me, but some are.

    I can’t tell by appearance which is which (safe vs. dangerous). I must simply assume that a person is good/safe until, by this or her behavior, he or she demonstrates otherwise.

    It’s not paranoid nor anti-male to be aware of the behavior of others in a shared space with me especially men who tend to be stronger and faster than I. I must be smarter and react more quickly to those who are stronger and faster and who may pose a threat to me. It’s not in the forefront of my mind all the time—that would leave to overly anxious and paranoid behavior—unless someone does something out of the ordinary or what I perceive as threatening behavior. One simple must be “unconsciously aware” of what is going on around you.

    If a complete stranger–MALE or FEMALE–seemed to be following me on purpose, I would be very uncomfortable and would want to know why.

    And I’m sure that my brother would be just as uncomfortable were he to realize that a woman unknown to him was “stalking” him on his runs.

    However, if you can do this strategy without making it appear you are following me, then I have no problem. I just don’t think everyone is as stealthy as they like to think they are.

    Merry wrote on July 15th, 2010
  28. The game is called Antelope. You get 4-5 people together in a park/wherever, one is the antelope, the rest are hunters. Antelope takes off 5 minutes earlier than the rest, who then follow suit. The hunters must track down the antelope, and the antelope can only run if it “feels threatened” (like a real antelope would). Once the antelope is tagged, switch it up. We play this at Virgnia Tech all the time. It’s just an adult version of Tag

    Will wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Where do you do this at Tech, Will? The sightlines on the Drillfield would seem to rule it out. Using the general campus might freak a few folks out due to unfortunate events in the recent past. Never been to Pandapas Pond, but hear it’s popular, do y’all go there?

      Anonymous wrote on July 29th, 2010
  29. I generally just chase a chicken… 😀

    Arthur wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • LOL. That reminds me of a time we had free ranging chickens that roosted in a tree. They hatched a bunch of chicks and we had to catch them. That was frickin’ hilarious!!

      Carrie wrote on July 15th, 2010
  30. Brava Merry, Well said… er..written!

    Evan asked: Elenor How are you an anti-feminist?

    This wanders pretty far afield from Mark’s blog, so I’ll give only a short answer.

    The alleged purpose of feminism (and I’m old enough to have been there, back through a good part of it) — was to give/protect women rights in the workplace and in the financial and political worlds — has been perverted (in my view) rather astonishingly into political correctness in hiring, in speech, in education, in pretty much every facet of life — most especially interpersonal relations. Feminism has turned the sexes into enemies to each other, into competitors, and has become an poisonous ideology, more interested in pushing its agenda than in the reality of the world.

    Because these “feminists” have cared more about numbers than skills, you can no longer rely on whatever fire fighter appears in your time of need to actually be able to carry you down a flight of stairs. (And I write that having been medical affairs director and crew chief for an ambulance corps and carried my share of stretchers.) Today, when women prove not to be capable of fulfilling the duties of a job( granted, few jobs), “feminists” rush in to require the duties be cut down to suit the women, not the job. The media pretend women are as capable as men, they show a woman punching and man and the man flying backwards — that’s not possible under the physics of this universe. Sheer physical mass wins out every time. The only reason Buffy could do it was her superhero powers. {eyeroll}

    Anyway, the merest gloss of a huge problem, but this isn’t the place… Thanks, Mark for your patience.

    Elenor wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • Well said Elenor. I am also an anti-feminist. I disagree with your comment on women not being able to send men *flying backwards across the room* though. My husband is twice my size and weight and I can manage it. Not only that, it has everything to do with physics (and I major in physics). You just need to know how, along with the practice. Traditional Kung Fu is part of my Grok lifestyle and I love it :)

      our Kung Fu class has the occasional evenings where we try to find, run down, and capture our fellow class mates in the bush. We learn such skills as blending into the landscape so that others walk straight past us without seeing us, how to run fast over rough ground in the dark, how to be the hunter and how to escape the hunter. We have two teams where one team is sent out to hide and then the other team is sent out to hunt them down. Those being hunted have to try and make it back to the *safe* area without being caught. It is very exhilarating.

      Angelina wrote on July 15th, 2010
      • A friend of mine took up martial arts for self defense. Ironically, the instructor assaulted her :) Isn’t that happy?

        But well done for blaming every woman who doesn’t have the time, money, or inclination to take up martial arts. Classic victim blaming there.

        Hey, if I stole your wallet, would you mind if I claimed that really it was your fault for not having it in a locked money belt chained round your waist under your trousers?

        Rachel wrote on August 2nd, 2010
        • You need to calm down Rachel. I did no such thing. I cannot see how you can even get that from what I said.
          I took up Martial Arts because I HAVE been a victim of stalking, kidnapping, and rape on more than one occasion. I do not believe that I was to blame for any of these! Nor do I believe that ANY woman is to be blamed for being raped!
          My first comment was to Elenor explaining that it IS possible for a woman to throw a man across the room (nothing more); and my second comment was to Mark, commenting on a way that this game can be practiced with all participants willing and knowing what is happening. I will also add that this game is performed on a private property where there are no strange people to worry about. I am also obviously very fortunate that they people in my martial arts class are people that I know and trust (as you have pointed out, this may not always be the case).
          In answer to your question: If you stole my wallet I would call the police. I would not care whose fault you thought it was. In this I SUPPORT the comment of every other woman who has posted on here; that if they think a man is stalking them they will get the pepper spray. If a woman believes they are being stalked and are in danger, I BELIEVE that they should take whatever measures necessary to protect themselves.

          Angelina wrote on August 2nd, 2010
    • Elenor – very impressive, I mean that with 100% sincerity.

      It is quite a rarity to come across someone, woman or man, who can articulate what you just did.

      Evan wrote on July 15th, 2010
  31. What the hell are you guys arguing about?

    I’m going to try this, and I’m going to pick a cute girl. When I’m done, I’ll run right up to her, introduce myself, and hit it off from there. Because it’s not a big deal unless you make it one. Remember that, gents.

    In fact, this seems like a great way to break the ice.

    Paul wrote on July 15th, 2010
    • This is what worries me about this. OF COURSE guys are going to pick a “cute girl” to chase, not some big burly muscular guy who might turn around and beat the crap out of them!

      And this cute girl will have been stalked before in parks, and she will be scared s*&^-less, and you’re expecting her to be flattered!

      shannon wrote on July 19th, 2010
  32. Wow – Mark – You could use an editor – I had the exact thoughts as the first poster when I read your blog entry.

    In my relations with women and with society in general, I am decidedly Neolithic. I guess the Primal Blueprint should not extend to many behaviors.

    Love your blog – hang in there

    Chuck wrote on July 16th, 2010
  33. Why thank you very much Evan! {blush}

    I actually (study and) write this sort of thing rather frequently as I run a “dating, mating, marrying advice” list (on Yahoo) where I am teaching young women (well, young to me {eye roll} mostly in the their 30s and 40s, some younger, some older) (and a few men!) the graciousness and complementarity that has been driven out of our Western societies. (And also the science / biology that underlies it!)

    It goes (completely!) against the “party line” laid out 24/7 that men and women are interchangeable and do not differ except by upbringing. (You know … anti-feminism!) {wink}

    Elenor wrote on July 16th, 2010
    • Very interesting!

      Would it be possible to provide a link to the site? You’ve definitely got me curious.

      Evan wrote on July 16th, 2010
      • Evan, I don’t know Mark’s policy on linking to outside sites. It’s a Yahoo Group called Pat Allen Dating, so you can search it out. (Dr. Pat Allen is the psychologist/teacher who is our inspiration.)
        (I’m sorry Mark, if this violates your terms.)

        Elenor wrote on July 16th, 2010
  34. AND, I forgot to add the winter version! (can’t help it, I live in a ski town) I usually ski alone, so I can hone my tele skills by picking some random other skier & try to keep up. I still have a long way to go on snowboarding, so this is a way for me to loosen up a bit & improve. A diversion while xc skiing…

    Peggy wrote on July 16th, 2010
  35. There is an easy answer to this. You can have printed T shirts that say what you are doing. Like I am using other runners to help with my traing if I’m bothering you I will stop. Or even better start a runners group where you switch of being prey and hunter. Start of with set distance a part. Hunters try to close the distance prey try to widen it or get to a sertan point with out being cought. Kind of like tag. Now you don’t have to worry about worring any body. :-)

    Joshkie wrote on July 16th, 2010
    • Sorry missed WilL’s post. Didn’t no they had a game already. See what get for not ready all the post.

      Joshkie wrote on July 16th, 2010
  36. This post has gotten an OUTRAGEOUS response… good job Mark! You need to do more of these!!!!

    Primal Toad wrote on July 16th, 2010
  37. I think common sense is key. Don’t hunt women if you’re a guy. Don’t try this at dusk. Do try it in busy parks with lots of people and mix it up so you are not following the same jogger all the time. If done right it will just look like interval training and no one is the wiser. It’s just a fun way to bring out the primal animal in us all.

    Chelle wrote on July 16th, 2010
  38. Mark,

    Great post! I love the idea of incorporating the concept of “play” into our weekly exercise strategy. It makes it more real and enjoyable!


    Bob Mass wrote on July 17th, 2010

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

© 2016 Mark's Daily Apple

Subscribe to the Newsletter and Get a Free Copy
of Mark Sisson's Fitness eBook and more!