Yes but you guys have to keep in mind the marathon is nowhere near our upper limit. People run 100 mile ultra marathons all the time. The Tarahumara have been known to run even further than that. It's probably reasonable a human can run 120, 150 even 200 miles in one prolonged effort. Not to mention in more than one effort there's almost no limit to how far a human can run. Dean Karnazes ran across the entire United States, over 3000 miles.

Let's take a good human ultramarathoner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Meltzer has repeatedly demonstrated that he can run 100 miles in about 19 hours. So a bit over 5 miles per hour. (And he's often beating human competitors by hours when he does that.)

The record time in the ididarod represents dogs running on average at close to that speed, through snow, while towing a load, for about 1100 miles. Of course the dogs were only running for a fraction of that time. They needed breaks to eat, sleep, etc. And they carried all of their food. I guarantee that Karl Metzer could not, even under ideal circumstances, manage to run 1100 miles in anywhere close to comparable time.

Also let's go back to that kangaroo. Researchers happened to notice that one ran about 2x the distance that Karl did in half the time that he did. There is no particular reason to believe that the kangaroo could not have done the same thing the next day.

I don't care how you slice it. There is simply no way that humans are the best long-distance runners on the planet.

> The record time in the ididarod represents dogs running on average at close to that speed, through snow, while towing a load, for about 1100 miles.

It's only relevant how long they can run without a break; not how far or how far they can run in a given time.

You seem to completely miss the point everyone is making about humans being long distance runners; they mean a single run without stopping to rest. The point is the human cooling system that allows man to run continuously without overheating like animals seem to.

> Also let's go back to that kangaroo. Researchers happened to notice that one ran about 2x the distance that Karl did in half the time that he did.

I'll remind you again, Kangaroos don't run. :)

You keep moving the goal posts. Earlier you cited the fact that Dean Karnazes ran 3000 miles as evidence that we can go a long way. But by your current standard we shouldn't count that because he stopped to sleep.

Anyways, you claim the point is that we have a cooling system that lets us keep going. Wonderful. According to http://www.austcamel.com.au/cache/Training%20of%20Camels.htm it is not hard for a well-trained camel to run about 10 miles an hour for about 50 miles without stopping to rest. That would mean that it is running like a human marathoner (not ultramarathoner) long enough to be running all of the way through the heat of the day, in an environment that is uncomfortably hot for people.

Our ability to keep running through heat does not seem to exceed what camels can do.

Now what is the real human upper limit by your current standard? The longest race that I'm aware of anyone running without sleep is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfield_Sydney_to_Melbourne_U.... 544 miles, and the best human time is 5 days, 2 hours, and 28 minutes. That's about 4.44 mph.

I do not know of a recorded case where an animal ran that distance without stopping to rest. Wonderful! We win at something!

HOWEVER there are animals that could start on that starting line, travel on foot, leave the humans behind in the dust, and then the humans would never, ever catch up to the animal. Not at 100 miles. 1000 miles. Or 10,000 miles. Despite the fact that the animal took breaks.

To me that is a meaningful definition of "better long distant runner". And by that definition, we are not the best. (We are very, very good, but not the best.)

> Earlier you cited the fact that Dean Karnazes ran 3000 miles as evidence that we can go a long way.

I think you're confused about who you're talking to, I said no such thing.

Whoops, I did indeed pull out a comment by city41 and wrongly attribute it to you. My apologies.

But still the fact that that was said by someone else demonstrates that the definition of "long distance running" that you want to use is not universally accepted by everyone else in this discussion.

Humans don't gallop, either. It's no fair improving over galloping, but then rejecting further improvements made by kangaroos.

Would that be the cooling factor, mentioned in the article, at play?

Cooling is definitely not a problem for sled dogs running in the snow. (Surviving blizzards is a different story.)

But the kangaroo was traveling in an environment that is hotter than humans are OK running in. Camels are another good runner, in camel races they regularly maintain speeds comparable to top notch marathoners for about 2x the distance while running in conditions hot enough that a running human would collapse from heat stroke.

So yes, cooling matters. But if you're trying to squeeze out a niche for running long distances in hot weather, you still are going to have extreme trouble finding a regime where we are best.

If you really want humans to win, you need a combination obstacle course/distance run. There is nothing that runs at our speed for long distances that can also climb. Of course once you go into that niche, we're no longer being judged on our ability to run, are we?

People are talking about distance, you keep bringing up speed?

Read it again. I am talking about animals that run both farther and faster than we do.

But no one else is, you seem to not get that no one cares about your point. They're making the point about human distance running without a break and you're going on about unrelated topics of speed. No one disputes that animals are faster, or can travel further in a given time. The issue is who can run the longest non stop without resting or overheating.