undefined

points

[-]

I’m always very cautious of “evolution” as a justification for any health/wellness advice. I’d like to preface this point by saying I am a fan of daily walk, and do about 30mins of very hilly terrain daily. I just don’t like your argument for it.

1. It’s really easy to create a fictional narrative of what our ancestor’s activity was 50k years ago because of the lack of empirical evidence. The truth is we know only a little and guess at a lot.

2. It’s been associated with many false claims. So many fad diets, fad supplements, and fad exercise routines have made use of evolution to build a narrative of why it’s healthy. I’ve seen both carnivore and vegans use evolution to explain why their diet is correct.

3. The modern environment is just different than the pre-historical environment. We have clean drinking water, unlimited sodium, modern medicine, air conditioned and heated shelter. To me the real question is what is the healthiest decision for me, not what is the healthiest decision for someone 50k years ago.

by kjkjadksj3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Whatever it is, clearly sitting 8+ hours in a chair is no healthy way to live. You don’t have to ask what our ancestors did. You can see it in our bodies. What does a healthy body take? Something on the order of 3-4 days a week of intense exercise. Seeing past 20 feet from time to time to avoid eye strain. Getting sufficient sleep. Time to relax to let stress blow off. Simple, obvious truths, but few of us actually live them with the pressures of modern society.

by bitmasher91 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I’m more triggered by someone using a weak argument that is in support of something I also support. The amount of direct empirical evidence for the health benefits of walking is so huge that we shouldn’t relay on the evolutionary argument, which is often associated with scams and pseudo-science.

Furthermore I’m saying that even if there was a very solid evolutionary argument for a specific human health behavior, it would answer the question “what helped humans 50k years ago reproduce”, instead of “how can I live a healthy life in the 21st century.”

by iammjm7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

There are highly intelligent species such as whales and dolphins, which cannot walk nor run. There are also highly intelligent species that generally do not walk, such a octopuses and birds. Also you skipped other ways of locomotion, such as crawling and climbing. Sure locomotion is crucial, but it's not a simple just a switch to walking. You made it seem like intelligence is only about walking and running, but in reality intelligence was acquired as a long process of various adaptations. Other examples for crucial adaptations that are completely missing from your narrative would be communication, prosociality, or tool-using

by bluGill6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Most of those animals don't have a significant part of my genetic heritage. There are lots of ways to an end, how humans got here is different from others. The comment boxes here don't allow for the space needed to write a book so it is expected to leave out a lot of details.

by LargoLasskhyfv6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

They can speed up and jump out of the water, making big splashes when diving back in again. Obviously for fun. They won't just float under water, and their mechanisms of movement have evolved in their environment, just like ours did for us.

I don't see your point? Not seeing the forest because of all the trees?

Octopussies have fun moving in weird ways, too. Also exploring, and making fun of captors!

Birds...did you know that their five feathers on the ends of their wings are the equivalent of our fingers, neurologically/network-wise? They sense the currents of the air with them.

Whatever. I think, no matter which species you are belonging to, it can be good to have these systems in more or less autonomous action, moving by themselves, while having a somewhat detached mind, soaring along, thinking about other stuff than the usual chores.

Edit: Maybe something like micro-dosing a little bit of 'Runner's high' by walking aimlessly?

by BigTTYGothGF6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> their five feathers on the ends of their wings are the equivalent of our fingers, neurologically/network-wise?

When was the last time you saw a feather? (Or a bird).

by saalweachter4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The primary feathers of a bird's wing are anchored to the bird's "hand bones". In modern birds these bones are kind of grown together into a big lump, but the outermost five primaries are attached to the five fingers, or what used to be digits in the bird's ancestors.

by LargoLasskhyfv6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Almost daily? Having Hummingbirds atm. Sometimes collecting them in a basket after sudden coldsnaps, warming them up slowly from hibernation, and feeding them :-)

Edit: Have you ever had a big white swan spread his wings, and touch his five feathers against the spread fingers of your hand? 'Gimme five' so to speak. I did.

As I did with Seagulls, Crows/Ravens, Starlings, Blue tits, Robins, city and forest Pigeons, and really long ago a common Swift, which I successfully raised.

by gowld46 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Do you have a photoblog?

by LargoLasskhyfv29 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Nope. I have no public personal presence on any webs. (intentionally)

Thinking about the possible reason you're asking:

I've stopped trying getting good pictures anyways, long ago.

I came to the conclusion that any camera, be it digital compact, action, smartphone irritates the animals. They may be curious initially, but as soon as the electronics try to 'rangefind/sharpen/focus' the picture they are gone. Or getting angry. Not even thinking of flash.

Edit: It destroys the moment. Be it by sounds, or even visible laserfingers fanning out. Or maybe distracting me from holding my internal projection of intent and movement upright. Which I'm thinking of having some impact on the goodwill of the involved animals, too.