> 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.
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.)
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.
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. :)