mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Well, our bodies aren't designed to run like that... so no.
If our bodies were designed to run on all fours... well, we wouldn't have any more stamina than before, but it would help alleviate the pain in your legs from impacting the ground since each leg would be supporting less weight.
If our bodies were designed to run on all fours... well, we wouldn't have any more stamina than before, but it would help alleviate the pain in your legs from impacting the ground since each leg would be supporting less weight.
who knows?! maybe we're in the process of getting rid of the appendix and tonsils in our evolution. Tonsils actually serve a purpose although it's redundant. Lots of lymphatics there, FYI.
I imagine we are, but things take time.
You do understand the point, though, right? Just because we've since evolved away from some need does not mean the capability is gone...could just be dormant.
And while this thread has taken it to a bit of an extreme, comparing walking on all fours to flying is just silly
If we've evolved away from something long enough, those features would no longer even be dormant but would be completely lost.
He didn't say "walk." The OP said "run a longer distance." Running on all 4s is vastly different from walking or crawling for a short distance. The biomechanics would screw up your spine. Compare the human spine to other organisms. We have 2 natural lordoses and 2 kyphoses. It was built for bipedal motion.
Our body is designed to travel on two legs. It has evolved as such.
I would have to say that, based on my observations of animals, the length of their stride is far longer due to the fact that they can create a stride that is limited based on a combination of the length of their body and legs, while with humans, our stride is limited simply by the length of our legs. While the length of our legs is a function of our height since most of us are rather proportional, our height is not a benefit as with animals, and it even serves as a hidnerance since it creates a larger surface area that causes more drag.
I am totally ignoring differences in muscles mass and flexibility of course.
Preslove, mind comping me for a apir of Crown Royals?
Originally posted by: preslove
Canading whiskey? CANADIAN Whiskey???????? CANADIAN WHISKEY?????????!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!
why you cheap partriotic bastard:{D
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: preslove
Canading whiskey? CANADIAN Whiskey???????? CANADIAN WHISKEY?????????!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!
why you cheap partriotic bastard:{D
Ah, did I hert de cute goosey woosey? Here, take this little itty guy...*hands goosemaster a B.C. spliff*
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Hmmmmm.... I'm pretty skeptical of those claims. Sounds like a lot of bad science is involved...
Our appendix is useless, much like our abilities at 4-limb locomotion. We're better at 2.
4-limb running IS much faster, but we'll never be able to do it right. Just not built that way. We're pretty good at long-distance walking or running, though.
It's the same 2 lungs you're breathing through, regardless of how you propel yourself. Using all 4 limbs would probably just run you out of breath sooner.
I doubt losing an appendix and tonsils would give an advantage to a person so they are more likely to live and reproduce over somebody with an appendix and tonsils, so why would we lose them?
And no, a normal person would not be able to run farther on all four limbs. We just aren't designed to work that way. Only somebody who is deformed would find an advantage to moving on all fours.
well, if we can use tools, then maybe. Some form of arm extensions (such as crutches, but perhaps not as crude) might help - however such a thing would also add weight (a draw back).
We're meant to walk on our legs, our arms are too short and our center of gravity would be way too out of whack to make 4 limb locomotion practical let alone any sort of advantage. The more comfortable positions have most of the body's weight destributed over your arms - which they're not meant to take - and any sort of work around (such as a leaping motion where you use your arms to stay up and your legs to spring you forwards) requires too much energy to be practical over long distances (and would also cause problems with potential stress on arms due to the sprint action impact)
We're meant to walk on our legs, our arms are too short and our center of gravity would be way too out of whack to make 4 limb locomotion practical let alone any sort of advantage. The more comfortable positions have most of the body's weight destributed over your arms - which they're not meant to take - and any sort of work around (such as a leaping motion where you use your arms to stay up and your legs to spring you forwards) requires too much energy to be practical over long distances (and would also cause problems with potential stress on arms due to the sprint action impact)
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
It appears we need to test this hypothesis. You need to do a marathon three times and time your results. Once on two feet, once on all fours, and once lying down on your side and rolling yourself. I'm betting that the fastest method on a downhill marathon would be rolling, while the fastest method on any other marathon would be running on two feet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter