There is a theory that distance running is intimately related to humans evolution and their brain development. The human foot is beautifully engineered to be used for long distance running, to help absorb the impact and transfer the force into our Achilles and larger glute muscles. The fact that we have feet designed to run for a long time, have the nifty ability to sweat (unlike our prey at the time who needs to stop and pant to cool off), and are social creatures leads some to believe that we were persistent hunters, akin to a pack of wild dogs; ideally chasing down our prey as a group during the hottest part of the day when the animal would have most difficulty cooling off. Some believe the introduction of animal protein into our diet also helped trigger brain growth. So some combination of sociability, persistent running, and animal protein helped accelerate human brain growth back in the day.
Recommend reading Born to Run or watching the Ted talk by the author for those interested.[1]
> The human foot is beautifully engineered to be used for long distance running, to help absorb the impact and transfer the force into our Achilles and larger glute muscles.
The foot is terribly engineered and suffers from injuries.
Human bones are frail; you have only 25% of the bone density of a gorilla or chimp. Hence the stress fractures.
The big, protruding heel of the human foot is completely counterproductive for running. It helps us stand on two legs and walk. Humans have to consciously learn a proper technique for running to avoid misusing the heel. Doing "what comes naturally" is just horrible.
By contrast, an animal doesn't have to study running technique. A cheetah doesn't have to think "Gee, I'm doing this wrong according to some pages I Googled; I should change my form so that my center of gravity is rather such and such, and my footstrike is altered in such and such a way."
We can't even stand up when we are born and have to learn how to walk, which usually takes place more than a whopping year after birth.
The sheer thickness of the meat and fat on the lower leg of a human tells you that we have evolved away from running.
Running requires a stick-like lower appendage, with all the muscle higher up.
The big, protruding heel of the human foot is completely counterproductive for running.
The heel does not protrude when running.
Humans have to consciously learn a proper technique for running to avoid misusing the heel. Doing "what comes naturally" is just horrible.
Children, when running, do not land on their heels. Heel-landing is a learned development caused by heel-heavy shoes. Children land on the front/middle of their feet.
By contrast, an animal doesn't have to study running technique. A cheetah doesn't have to think "Gee, I'm doing this wrong according to some pages I Googled; I should change my form so that my center of gravity is rather such and such, and my footstrike is altered in such and such a way."
Cheetahs do have to think about how to run. Have you ever seen cheetah cubs?
I should change my form so that my center of gravity is rather such and such, and my footstrike is altered in such and such a way."
Try running without shoes. You'll learn very quickly, without google, not to land on your heels. It's the same way that animals like cheetahs learn to run-by doing.
The sheer thickness of the meat and fat on the lower leg of a human tells you that we have evolved away from running. Running requires a stick-like lower appendage, with all the muscle higher up.
Ironically, living in a small house with hardwood flooring applied to car-decking (t&g 2x8 subfloor, atop 4x8 girders 4'oc -- loud AF), my kids naturally began to avoid striking their heel after a year or two.
The sound transmission through flooring here is unusually bad though. But we never allowed shoes indoors anyway.
I was using the term to refer to a very thin-soled sandal. I might be using it incorrectly. "Sandal" to me evokes a 2-inch thick chunk of plastic with giant velcro straps.
Google "ostrich weight" immediately comes up with a "250 pounds" factoid result. A Wikipedia result just below that quotes cached text stating that they range from 63 to 143 kilograms.
>The big, protruding heel of the human foot is completely counterproductive for running. It helps us stand on two legs and walk. Humans have to consciously learn a proper technique for running to avoid misusing the heel. Doing "what comes naturally" is just horrible.
"Doing what comes naturally" after being trained and conditioned from childhood to ambulate in shoes is a far cry from what actually comes naturally.
People do wear thin soled footwear, and go barefoot indoors. It doesn't make a difference. Chronic wearers of flimsy sandals, in which you feel every jarring footstep and every little stone, do not have any better running instincts than anyone else.
>People do wear thin soled footwear, and go barefoot indoors.
As I discovered myself, walking barefoot is utterly different from running barefoot, and no amount of walking around barefoot will teach you to run barefoot, if you are used to putting on shoes to run. And the 'thin soled footwear' people show me when they try to explain that they already 'run practically barefoot' is almost always too inflexible. I use $16 water deck shoes, myself.
It took six weeks of daily practice for me to learn to run properly barefoot - the process is very counterintuitive, after a lifetime of running in shoes. There are conditioning problems too: halfway through, I could neither walk normally nor 'barefoot' without some pain, because I didn't have the muscles to run barefoot properly - landing on the ball of my feet and pushing off with my heel (many people think that barefoot running is just 'running on your toes'. Do that and you will have a bad time).
Now that I have learnt to run barefoot, the other method feels difficult and unnaturally jarring, as it did, before I could run barefoot style.
Cheetah goes barefoot from day 0. Chimps and gorillas do physical exercise from day 0.
Resistance exercise can make your bones at least 50% more dense and, given that single hip can withstand one metric ton of load, makes your bones more than adequate.
If you go barefoot from day 0, you'd learn proper run technique from day 0. Or, if you have massive body like me, you have to learn proper run technique to just run. And you, just like me, will do that in one day.
Having our posture to be very different from other animals, we have to have different muscle groups trained (thick meat). For example, the more upright position of animal, the more thick gluteus maximus is - for horse it is very small, for chimp it can be seen as just small and it is very thick for humans. So, as upright walking humans, we have to have different legs from all other animals. And different running technique.
"In this compelling clip, we see a tribesman runner pursue his prey through the most harsh conditions in a gruelling eight hour chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
High altitude trekking in mountains is even better than long distance running, at least in terms of breathing and sweating.)
The crucial difference is in variety of breathing patterns on a trail - it changes with a terrain, in contrast to steady breath while running on a flat surface.
I do both - moderate distance running (10-15km) and up to 6000m trekking as a guide.
there is no clear definition, but for most mountaineering starts when you need technical equipment (crampons, ice axe etc). I do hikes in alps in non-winter almost every weekend in 2000m-3000m band and its pure hiking.
There are peaks higher than 6000m where you will not need this (ie in andes, tibet), and there are much lower peaks where you can't do anything without it.
One example I did - you can do Kilimanjaro without touching any snow or ice, via standard route, and that's 5895m high.
I've always gone with the concept that mountaineering starts where a rope is needed to prevent serious injury in case of a fall. Altitude or even protection is outside of the equation. A sidewalk, if beside a 100-foot drop, counts as mountaineering because the rope is needed.
There's a bit of naturalist fallacy there. Evolution optimizes for rates of success far below what we desire for comfortable living today. For instance, if 70% of humans were made for hunting and long distance running, that is an evolutionary success- we wouldn't go extinct and the trait, when inheritable may be selected for. But in modern life, if 1000 people take up long distance running, we cannot tolerate 300 suffering from debilitating injuries. Let's start with pre-running apes, assume ability to run results in k% rate of survival over inability to run and assuming these features are heritable, after N generations humans should all be organisms perfected for running. Both k and N should be high for all humans to be perfectly suited for running barefoot today without risk of injury. It will be nice to hear an expert on human evolution chime in here.
The question also remains, can we extrapolate something that gave us evolutionary advantage to help us individually.
I mostly agree with this theory. But I would argue that this model applies to humans before we migrated out of Africa. Certain human races have dramatically higher athletic performance while others have lower performance. Take the Olympic performance in track and field between Jamaicans and the Chinese.
You will note that despite a targeted program designed to win as many gold medals as possible China did incredibly poorly in track. I would argue that this is evidence for the fact that while the human foot may be vestige designed for long distance running, other factors such as cardiovascular endurance and physical strength have already begun evolving away from this design. The change is so recent that I believe the degree of this divergence depends on your race.
Evolution does not work this way. It does not engineer or design. If you are an atheist you cannot coherently say there is a design for anything in the human body. I think the language used here is important, especially when used as the basis for an argument of what activities or exercises we ought to do.
Unless he isn't an atheist? Plenty of theists can hold to evolutionary views or intelligent design.
Further, the language choice could be colloquial in which case he wasn't trying to make a theological statement; rather, op used common phrases to convey the relevant thought. not sure we need to push a worldview here...
I didn't assume they were an atheist. The language choice was used to confer normative value to long-distance running. This isn't pushing a worldview, it's pointing out that the basis for this argument for long-distance running is something which is not coherent with many readers' beliefs.
It's standard to refer to the outcomes of evolution as having been designed by evolution, with no one assuming that requires a "designer". Perhaps it's just easier to say than "emergent design", but it also communicates more about how evolution actually works via this metaphor. The system as a whole designs complex solutions to problems, without self awareness, that's the amazing discovery.
For what it's worth the entire field is fine with this language and no one takes it assume any superstitious beliefs.
I'm of the opinion that rhetoric which imbues evolution with purpose damages understanding far beyond your water example. It is common to see people cite evolution in moral claims, for example: "we evolved to eat meat". I'm not interested here in the question of whether or not eating meat is moral, I'm pointing out this is a bad form of argument which is encouraged by lazy language use when dealing with evolution.
I didn't downvote but I wouldn't be so sure either. Design as a figure of speach can mean a lot and, baring the discussion about determination and free will, creating and making can feel very passive. Intent is often open ended.
I downvoted because it's tiring and pedantic to raise the objection every time someone says "designed for" in the context of biology. Yeah, we get it: evolution has no designer. It doesn't matter, because the semantic space is well understood. The figure of speech "designed for X" just means it's narrowly optimal at X -- it's good at X at the expense of being bad at not X.
Hence explanations like, "A cat's digestive system is designed for meat: it has enzymes Q and Z which are really good at breaking down flesh but also react poorly to plant matter." We get the point. We don't need a reminder that, "well, the scientific consensus is that the cat digestive system arose without an intelligent designer".
Thanks. I didn't mean to suggest it was a documented definition, so much as "the characteristic that makes it 'feel' like a human-designed thing" and makes us want to refer to it that way, even when knowing it wasn't.
Stress can inhibit neurogenesis (among other things) in the hippocampus, as the article states. Is it possible that HIIT was not as beneficial for the rodents, because they were, unlike the moderate exercisers, forced to exercise? Being forced to exercise intensely might have been the real source of stress.
This struck me as the most important potential difference -- that the moderate-intensity rats were able to make choices about when and how to exercise, while the HIIT rats had exercise forced upon them.
It reminds me of Rat Park -- when you stress out rats by treating them poorly, all you end up measuring is the effect of misery on rat physiology.
Also, I think they understated the impact that the stress of the high intensity interval training simulation would have. Imagine being stuck in a room where the floor below you was moving, at random intervals of walking pace and sprinting pace, with no warning. It would be unbelievably stressful.
The psychological impact of that, versus getting the same type of exercise from playing basketball, seems like it would be hugely different.
How would you test this hypothesis? With a non-physical mental stimuation? Multi-colored paper confetti in the cage, or laser-light shows, to give the rats something to play with?
And the weight-training rats, although they were much stronger at the end of the experiment than they had been at the start, showed no discernible augmentation of neurogenesis.
This phenomenon was deeply studied and illustrated in the 'Jersey Shore' series documentary
The conclusions presented by the article gel with my experience. There is nothing like cardio for helping me think better. Anything more intense forces my mind to concentrate on the exercise. Less intense and I don't really get any benefit from the exercise, might as well be sitting or laying down.
When I did HIIT-style cardio, the train of thought would be broken during the intense periods. I found that doing longer periods of less-intense activity was perfect for braining.
And alas we live in an age where we are scored by a cargo-cult process that mostly rewards sitting at a desk for 8-12 hours a day over producing actual results yet it is somehow called "agile."
Evidence: my last job watching the t-crossers and the i-dotters get promoted over the engineers doing the heavy lifting hence why I left.
It's kind of like a Nexus 6 that instead of going on the run in search of a cure for its 2-year lifesppan, its happily sits at its desk filling out TPS reports and their ilk right up to its last day whereupon it conveniently punches out the clock just before it punches out it own clock.
I find aerobic exercise / running extremely boring. My ADD kicks in and my mind wanders like crazy. I find it hard to do because it's so boring.
Anaerobic exercise / lifting weights is the opposite. I focus intensely on what I'm doing. I shut out the world. Time flies by. It's like intense meditation for me with the bonus of building muscle.
Reasonable intensity cardio might facilitate thinking while you're doing it, but which of the three (high, mid, or low intensity) facilitates your average ability to think when you aren't doing it?
I'm not saying that the answer isn't still mid-intensity, just pointing out that you're not answering the same question.
Anecdotal (and risking downvotes), but my opinion: Brazilian Jiujitsu. It's like Chess for the mind while simultaneously getting an incredible workout.
I've known too many people who have had serious injuries from this sport. One colleague is now on permanent disability after a concussion he received while wearing headgear and practicing on a mat. Another friend has chronic shoulder issues that he can't seem to heal from after a couple bad rolls with a few overly aggressive sparring partners.
I think for long-term health and overall fitness BJJ is a tough sell for most people.
I did both folkstyle and freestyle wrestling for a time (similar), and have used the chess analogy to describe it before. Two equally weighted opponents on a level playing field, with only their limbs as the different pieces to be moved strategically across the board.
I am not currently practicing BJJ (did years ago) but I would agree. Constantly tapping to veterans is very humbling and the mental strength it takes to maneuver another human being as they attempt to maneuver you, while you're completely gassed, makes a lot of other tasks seem trivial.
I don't do BJJ, but am familiar with it and have done some judo.
In contrast to stand-up striking arts, you have limited possibilities of movement when "hugging" your opponent on the ground, so you need to do have a strategy, do some planning, and have to adapt rapidly to changing conditions. Like "what move can I do in the current position?", "what moves could my opponent pull off form this position?", "what moves could I do if I changed to this other position?", etc. etc.
I do believe that you won't find any better than anecdotal evidence for this subject, tho. Expecially if you'd need to compare between arts.
I've always felt the chess analogy applied to rock climbing when I did it. Like a constant "game" against the wall and my body, to see if I could manoeuvre into position to attain the next hold. Very stimulating and at the same time relaxing.
Wow... Please do not rely on an animal model to make lifestyle choices.
What this article needed to answer the question was IQ tests conducted possibly right after exercise and later in the day for people exercising in specific ways and not exercising at all.
This is a misunderstanding of the claims in the article. They are claiming that exercise leads to improved brain function over the course of weeks and months, not that being tired right after doing exercise will improve brain function.
You cannot apply these things to humans from an animal model. Also, if it works over months you'll see it increasing over months according to the procedure I descibed (and that has been previously done on humans in other studies). If there are short term effects, those would also show up.
If brain structure stayed static throughout your lifetime I would be inclined to agree. But as the structure is constantly in flux, and proven so, no so much. Granted there is disagreement on how much your iq can change over time.
May be I needed to be more clear. Of course there can be variations, but the maximal potential iq is static throughout life and we can't change it. Good nutrition, good environement will help someone achieve it, I don't know about exercise.
^ What he said. IQ is a measurement of capacity for development. So if you are perfectly healthy, have perfect nutrition, perfect exercise, perfect learning, etc. you could perfectly realize your development. This is unlikely to happen, and there are various things (malnutrition, lack of exercise) that can lower your performance IQ temporarily, but you can't really change your capacity for development. And you can't add to it.
You're mistaking IQ with the underlying factors which it is derived from. IQ is, by definition, just a function of your scores on a bunch of standardized tests which try to determine your intelligence. If you can study for the kinds of questions the tests ask you, you can improve your IQ. It is a different story from improving whatever the underlying factors are.
For example, some IQ tests ask you "What's the next number in this series...". If you aren't very good with numbers, you might do very poorly on this section. However, if you sit down and learn about a lot of the patterns that show up frequently in those types of questions, then you may increase your score dramatically on that section, and thus improve your IQ.
Read the link you posted. The very first sentence: "An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence."
Improve your score in one of the standardized tests, and you will by definition improve your IQ.
They said that they were testing for the result of "resistance training" in rats. For rats that means climbing a wall with weights tied to their tails.
However, if a human was going to do resistance training, they would probably do it by lifting weights. There are other ways, I suppose, but that's the main one.
Weightlifting, once you get to higher weights, is a pretty cerebral activity that requires perfect form and close attention to training schedule, repetitions, amount of weight, and diet. It's a very different activity from pulling a weight along because it happens to be attached to your ass and you can't escape it.
You wouldn't do interval training without a mileage base. There is no either/or there.
I follow the rule of thumb that no more than 3% of the weekly mileage consists of hard repeats. So for instance a weekly mileage of 30 "buys" about a mile of repeats, which could be, say, 4x400 at the track. Some intermediate percentage of the mileage is tempo running, say 15 to 20%. The rest, easy miles.
So it turns out different kinds of exercise are more or less beneficial for different parts of our bodies, probably ("probably" because the study was in rats only). I reminded myself while reading that article to remember that what may be best for the brain is not necessarily the best for our cardiovascular systems and others.
I wonder if there has been any study regarding the head impact involved with running for long periods of time. I've heard for instance the water-skiing can cause minor brain damage because of the constant bumps in the water. I'm curious because I know that running involves a similar kind of minor - although constant - head impact as your body jumps out of each stride. I have no data to back this up so sorry if I'm just blabbering nonsense.
I would imagine there is a step change somewhere in causing brain damage. I.e., if your brain can withstand a 1.5g impact it can withstand any number of 1.5g impacts, but 2g or 3g impacts lead to cumulative damage.
Then again, I don't know what I'm talking, or where running impacts might fall in that spectrum.
The article stated that rats who ran more miles had more neurogenesis. So my guess would be walking = less distance than running = less benefit.
But this is too much of a simplification. If you walk a mile in 15 minutes and run a mile in 7.5, is there a difference? Maybe not, but if you run, you can then run two miles in the same 15 minutes and increase your efficiency.
Great. So if you run a lot (long distance cardio), you get a marked increase in new brain cells. What brain cells? The part of the nervous system that regulates (wait for it) breathing and metabolism.
No kidding.
This is like the study [citation missing] that showed a huge increase in brain cell generation for seniors playing wii fit ... in the area of the brain that regulated fine motor skills.
The "Brain" is not a general-purpose computing resource. Until someone can show that these skill-specific increases can translate to IQ or (better) improved long-term creativity and happiness, take them with a grain of salt.
Adult neurogenesis has only been shown to occur in three brain regions as far as I know: in the hippocampus (declarative memory and learning)[1], the olfactory bulb (smell)[1] and the striatum (procedural memory and learning) [2].
Adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN) has been linked to exercise. The conceptual leap which requires empirical validation is that exercise induced neurogenesis in the hippocampus indeed has a positive effect on memory. Maybe those experiments exist.
I know a little about neurology, but their study mentioned increase in hippocampus. Hippocampus Wikipedia entry does not mention that it is responsible for breath or metabolism. Some Google searches list different parts of brain responsible for breath[1] and metabolism[2].
I'm skeptical that the "weight training" routine was at all adequate. Climbing a wall with weights attached to you is nothing like a set of heavy squats.
I agree. I used to just use free weights for upper body, and only calf raises, and machines for leg presses and quads, but when I started squatting with just a barbell (non-guided), my lower back pain went away, and standing up off the mattress I had on the floor became a breeze. I jump rope and run as well (barefoot or with FiveFingers by Vibram). I find jumping rope to be a great way to get in 20 min. intense cardio to music. My last job was diving and fixing underwater hydraulics and electrical systems, and always walking with about maybe 3 hours sitting at a desk per day. Jumping rope, or the run, made me feel sharp many hours after. Sometimes weights would make me focus, and be very clear, but I tired and became groggy afterwards. I suspect your body takes a hit, and wants you to sleep to repair all the muscle you tore down.
What exercise is better for improving my cooking skill? What about the exercise that's best for my alcohol consumption?
If you want to improve your brain, it's important to be healthy, I get that. But come on, the point of exercising is to be healthy. Beyond that no exercise is going to improve your brain directly if it doesn't actually use your brain. This whole movement makes me very skeptical.
This logic isn't quite right though your intuition is easy to understand.
The thought behind these studies is that exercise leads to the release of certain chemicals, in this case BDNF (brain-derived neurotropic factor) that leads to new neuron growth. This mechanism is a physiologically reasonable way for exercise to improve your brain without directly using/engaging the neural circuits in a way that would modify learning and memory.
Recommend reading Born to Run or watching the Ted talk by the author for those interested.[1]
[1]https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_mcdougall_are_we_born_...