endurance running nonsense

[Marc Verha]

European Heart Journal 28:183-9 Reduced right ventricular
ejection fraction in endurance athletes presenting with
ventricular arrhythmias: a quantitative angiographic
assessment Joris Ector, Javier Ganame, Nico van der Merwe,
Bert Adriaenssens, Laurent Pison, Rik Willems, Marc Gewillig &
Hein Heidbüchel 2007 hein.heidbuchel@uz.kuleuven.ac.be Aims:
Spontaneous or inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias
(VA) in endurance athletes frequently originate from the right
ventricle (RV), even in the absence of familial arrhythmogenic
RV cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The goal of this study was to
determine whether the RV arrhythmogenic predilection in these
patients is associated with RV functional abnormalities.
Methods and results: Biplane RV angiography was performed in
three groups: 22 endurance athletes with VA, 15 matched
athletes without VA, and 10 non-athletes without VA. Four
methods for quantitative RV angiographic analysis (area
length, Boak, pyramid monoplane, and pyramid biplane) were
used to calculate RV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and
end-systolic volume (ESV) (both corrected for body surface
area) and ejection fraction (EF). In addition RV outflow tract
shortening fraction (SF) was determined. Although only 6 of 22
(27%) athletes with VA fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for
ARVC, RV arrhythmogenic involvement was manifest or probable
in 82%, based on a combination of electrophysiologic,
electrocardiographic, and morphologic criteria. RV EDV in
athletes was higher than in non-athletes (area length:
100.3 ± 26.9 vs. 69.6 ± 14.3 mL/m2, P = 0.001), without
significant difference between athletes with and without
VA. RV ESV, in contrast, was significantly higher in
athletes with VA than in athletes without VA (52.6 ±
101.3 vs. 35.5 ± 11.2 mL/m2, P = 0.004), resulting in a
significantly lower RV EF, a consistent finding across all
methods (area length: 49.1 ± 10.4 vs.
102.7 ± 6.4%, P < 0.001). This functional impairment was also
reflected in a lower RV outflow tract SF (SF right
anterior oblique 32.2 ± 10.1 vs. 40.0 ±
103.6%, P = 0.09; SF left anterior oblique (LAO) 31.9 ± 7.8
vs. 39.0 ± 10.5%, P = 0.10). Conclusion: VA in high-level
endurance athletes frequently originate from a mildly
dysfunctional RV. This raises the question whether
endurance exercise not only acts as a trigger for these
arrhythmias but also as promoter of the RV changes.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 2, 12:33 pm, "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
wrote: <rubbish>

WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim

http://www.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg

[Chapstick]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170451411.797027.275910@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 12:33 pm, "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
> wrote: <rubbish>
>
> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim
>
> http://www.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg
>
yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i guess..

neither camp here has accounted much for the mosquito, the
biggie killer of humans. i guess we have the sickle cell
mutation... --chap

[Mario Petr]

>Chapstick:
>>> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim http://www.-
>>> couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg
>
>> yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i guess..

I don't understand. Was this shark supposed to eat
that human, or not? As I can see, that shark didn't
eat one tiny bit of that human. SHark could have eaten
it, if only it wanted to, it is very graphically shown
on that photo. But, it is also very graphically shown
that shark DIDN'T WANT to eat that human. -- Mario

[Nickname]

On Feb 19, 9:24 am, "Mario Petrinovich"
<mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
> >Chapstick:
> >>> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim http://ww-
> >>> w.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg
>
> >> yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i guess..
>
> I don't understand. Was this shark supposed to eat
> that human, or not? As I can see, that shark didn't
> eat one tiny bit of that human. SHark could have
> eaten it, if only it wanted to, it is very
> graphically shown on that photo. But, it is also
> very graphically shown that shark DIDN'T WANT to eat
> that human. -- Mario

Right Mario, I think everyone will agree that is a good point.

A hippo may also attack and kill a human, but will not consume
it, as hippos are not predators on humans. DD

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> European Heart Journal 28:183-9 Reduced right ventricular
> ejection fraction in endurance athletes presenting with
> ventricular arrhythmias: a quantitative angiographic
> assessment Joris Ector, Javier Ganame, Nico van der Merwe,
> Bert Adriaenssens, Laurent Pison, Rik Willems, Marc Gewillig
> & Hein Heidbüchel 2007 hein.heidbuchel@uz.kuleuven.ac.be
> Aims: Spontaneous or inducible sustained ventricular
> arrhythmias (VA) in endurance athletes frequently originate
> from the right ventricle (RV), even in the absence of
> familial arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The goal
> of this study was to determine whether the RV arrhythmogenic
> predilection in these patients is associated with RV
> functional abnormalities. Methods and results: Biplane RV
> angiography was performed in three groups: 22 endurance
> athletes with VA, 15 matched athletes without VA, and 10
> non-athletes without VA.

47 total? That's it?

http://www.marathonsinternational.com/

http://www.marathonsinternational.com/images/mainimage.jpg

http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2005/04/18/111-
3847213_7503.jpg

http://www.limebooks.co.uk/f/marathon_l.jpg

http://daysof47.com:8080/plone/events-2006/images/marath-
on-10k.jpg

> Four methods for quantitative RV angiographic analysis (area
> length, Boak, pyramid monoplane, and pyramid biplane) were
> used to calculate RV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and
> end-systolic volume (ESV) (both corrected for body surface
> area) and ejection fraction (EF). In addition RV outflow
> tract shortening fraction (SF) was determined. Although only
> 6 of 22 (27%) athletes with VA fulfilled the diagnostic
> criteria for ARVC, RV arrhythmogenic involvement was
> manifest or probable in 82%, based on a combination of
> electrophysiologic, electrocardiographic, and morphologic
> criteria. RV EDV in athletes was higher than in non-athletes
> (area length:
> 100.3 ± 26.9 vs. 69.6 ± 14.3 mL/m2, P = 0.001), without
> significant difference between athletes with and without
> VA. RV ESV, in contrast, was significantly higher in
> athletes with VA than in athletes without VA (52.6 ±
> 22.3 vs. 35.5 ± 11.2 mL/m2, P = 0.004), resulting in a
> significantly lower RV EF, a consistent finding across
> all methods (area length: 49.1 ± 10.4 vs.
> 63.7 ± 6.4%, P < 0.001). This functional impairment was
> also reflected in a lower RV outflow tract SF (SF right
> anterior oblique 32.2 ± 10.1 vs. 40.0 ±
> 11.6%, P = 0.09; SF left anterior oblique (LAO) 31.9 ± 7.8
> vs. 39.0 ± 10.5%, P = 0.10). Conclusion: VA in
> high-level endurance athletes frequently originate from
> a mildly dysfunctional RV. This raises the question
> whether endurance exercise not only acts as a trigger
> for these arrhythmias but also as promoter of the RV
> changes.

[Rich Travs]

Mario Petrinovich wrote:
>
> >Chapstick:
> >>> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim http://ww-
> >>> w.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg
> >
> >> yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i guess..
>
> I don't understand. Was this shark supposed to eat
> that human, or not? As I can see, that shark didn't
> eat one tiny bit of that human. SHark could have
> eaten it, if only it wanted to, it is very
> graphically shown on that photo. But, it is also
> very graphically shown that shark DIDN'T WANT to eat
> that human. -- Mario

As you can see the shark didn't know that UNTIL IT HAD TAKEN
SOME BITES.

[Marc Verha]

Op 19-03-2007 05:26, in artikel
45FE10F3.FC3C444F@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:

> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> European Heart Journal 28:183-9 Reduced right ventricular
>> ejection fraction in endurance athletes presenting with
>> ventricular arrhythmias: a quantitative angiographic
>> assessment Joris Ector, Javier Ganame, Nico van der Merwe,
>> Bert Adriaenssens, Laurent Pison, Rik Willems, Marc
>> Gewillig & Hein Heidbüchel 2007
>> hein.heidbuchel@uz.kuleuven.ac.be Aims: Spontaneous or
>> inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in
>> endurance athletes frequently originate from the right
>> ventricle (RV), even in the absence of familial
>> arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The goal of this
>> study was to determine whether the RV arrhythmogenic
>> predilection in these patients is associated with RV
>> functional abnormalities. Methods and results: Biplane RV
>> angiography was performed in three groups: 22 endurance
>> athletes with VA, 15 matched athletes without VA, and 10
>> non-athletes without VA.
>
> 47 total? That's it?

That is dropping dead when running...

[Marc Verha]

Op 19-03-2007 05:41, in artikel
45FE1485.50BF7945@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:

> Mario Petrinovich wrote:
>>
>>> Chapstick:
>>>>> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim http://ww-
>>>>> w.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg

>>>> yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i guess..

>> I don't understand. Was this shark supposed to eat
>> that human, or not? As I can see, that shark didn't
>> eat one tiny bit of that human. SHark could have
>> eaten it, if only it wanted to, it is very
>> graphically shown on that photo. But, it is also
>> very graphically shown that shark DIDN'T WANT to
>> eat that human. -- Mario

> As you can see the shark didn't know that UNTIL IT HAD TAKEN
> SOME BITES.

?? My boy, do you always shout? Try to be a bit relevant. What
has all this to do with AAT??

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

AAT = shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo.

* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term
Morgan 1982)
* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water,
arbor=tree)
* Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT
strict sense)

AAT s.s. is based on the behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of
living humans
vs. chimps & other animals. Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting
coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish,
algae etc. explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes
or australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling :
brain size, diving skills, breath control, vocality, small
mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer
airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness,
tool use, late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor
climbing, fur loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium,
iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc. Homo & Pan
split ~6-4 Ma. In spite of sea level fluctuations
(difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma
are found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African
coasts : Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table
Bay, Eritrea etc. (18 km sea crossing to reach Flores
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ). Most
likely, Homo populations dispersed along coasts & rivers,
in savannas & elsewhere.

* Max Westenhöfer 1942 "Der Eigenweg des Menschen" Mannstaede
* Alister Hardy 1960 "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS
7:624
* Maggie Roede cs. 1991 "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or
Fiction?" Souvenir
* Elaine Morgan 1997 "The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
Souvenir London
* Marc Verhaegen cs. 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" TREE 17:212
* Stephen Cunnane 2005 "Survival of the Fattest" World
Scientific

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Mario Petr]

Marc Verhaegen:
> * Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term
> Morgan 1982)
> * Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water,
> arbor=tree)
> * Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT
> strict sense)

Also, I have Cliff Hanging Aquatic Ape Theory
(CHAAT), which assumes that we originated on a sea
cliffs. -- Mario

[Marc Verha]

> Marc Verhaegen:

AAT =

>> * Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term
>> Morgan 1982)
>> * Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water,
>> arbor=tree)
>> * Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT
>> strict sense)

> Also, I have Cliff Hanging Aquatic Ape Theory
> (CHAAT), which assumes that we originated on a sea
> cliffs. -- Mario

:-)

We can always produce theories, Mario, but they have to be
based upon evidence. What other animals cliff-hang?

--Marc

[Mario Petr]

Marc Verhaegen:
>> Marc Verhaegen:
> AAT =
>
>>> * Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term
>>> Morgan 1982)
>>> * Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes
>>> (aqua=water, arbor=tree)
>>> * Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo
>>> (AAT strict sense)
>
>> Also, I have Cliff Hanging Aquatic Ape Theory
>> (CHAAT), which assumes that we originated on a sea
>> cliffs. -- Mario
>
> :-)
>
> We can always produce theories, Mario, but they have to be
> based upon evidence. What other animals cliff-hang? --Marc

What other animal, except anteater, eats ants? There
is no place for two animals in one niche. So, we can
say that the lack of animals in that niche proves the
theory, if you like, : ). BTW, baboons use kopjes in
savanna, and geladas use cliffs. Cliffs are climbing
objects, and we are primates. You have tree hyraxes,
and rocky hyraxes. We have tree primates, and I say
that we also have cliff primates. As a matter of fact,
the one primate that doesn't climb trees (even if
comfronted by predators) uses cliffs. There is no
reason why some primate wouldn't explore this empty
niche, because this is a primate theritory, CLIMBING
surface. Primates are climbers. -- Mario

[Mario Petr]

Marc Verhaegen:
>> What other animal, except anteater, eats ants?
>> There is no place for two animals in one niche. So,
>> we can say that the lack of animals in that niche
>> proves the theory, if you like, : ).
>
> Unique things can't prove anything. All ant/termite-eaters
> have reduced teeth, suction feeding, long round tongues etc.

And we have our pelvis. There were a tons of papers
talking how we are adapted for toe-off phase of
walking. This same toe-off phase is crucial in
climbing vertical surfaces. I am saying that fisrt we
were clinbers, then we were walkers. And you have
bipedals with midtarsal break. Which other bipedal
doesn't have midtarsal break? Fusing bones of foot, to
make stiff foot which would bear body weight (in
toe-off phase) is an adaptation for climbing vertical
surfaces. Just like other adaptations, like
aduction/abduction ability or the shape of our hand,
which is good for manipulation of stone. Which other
bipedal creature has our pelvis, pelvis which shape is
a product of muscles that are used in climbing stairs?

>> BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas use
>> cliffs.
>
> Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think?
> Any parallels you see?

They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such
non-adapted climbers (primates) can use cliffs.
But, they have to be adapted for quadrupedal
running in open spaces. In my scenario, we should
be adapted for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as
for running downhill.

>> Cliffs are climbing objects, and we are primates. You have
>> tree hyraxes, and rocky hyraxes. We have tree primates, and
>> I say that we also have cliff primates. As a matter of
>> fact, the one primate that doesn't climb trees (even if
>> comfronted by predators) uses cliffs. There is no reason
>> why some primate wouldn't explore this empty niche, because
>> this is a primate theritory, CLIMBING surface. Primates are
>> climbers. -- Mario
>
> But no cliff-hangers. --Marc

We are cliff-hangers. It is obviously when you see
that Franchman who climbs skyscreapers. And, as I said
so many times, they tested the moat around gorilla's
place in Boston zoo with humans. If humans cannot
climb, they said, then gorillas also wouldn't be able
to climb. -- Mario

[Mario Petr]

Mario Petrinovich:
> Marc Verhaegen:
>>> BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas
>>> use cliffs.
>>
>> Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think?
>> Any parallels you see?
>
> They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such
> non-adapted climbers (primates) can use cliffs. But,
> they have to be adapted for quadrupedal running in
> open spaces. In my scenario, we should be adapted for
> fast climbing of cliffs, as well as for running
> downhill.

Also, they have big canines and large groups. I don't
think they climb cliffs in a hurry. They are only
using it for sleeping, I believe. -- Mario

[Marc Verha]

> We are cliff-hangers.

Yes, and savanna-runners, Mario... :-D

[Marc Verha]

>>>> BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas
>>>> use cliffs.

>>> Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think?
>>> Any parallels you see?

>> They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such
>> non-adapted climbers (primates) can use cliffs. But,
>> they have to be adapted for quadrupedal running in
>> open spaces. In my scenario, we should be adapted
>> for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as for running
>> downhill.

> Also, they have big canines and large groups. I
> don't think they climb cliffs in a hurry. They are
> only using it for sleeping, I believe. -- Mario

Do humans have parallel features to cliff-hangers or
hill-down-runners, Mario?

--Marc

[Paul Crowl]

"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote in
message news:eu4phg$233$1@ss408.t-com.hr...

> And we have our pelvis. There were a tons of papers
> talking how we are adapted for toe-off phase of
> walking. This same toe-off phase is crucial in
> climbing vertical surfaces. I am saying that fisrt we
> were clinbers, then we were walkers. And you have
> bipedals with midtarsal break. Which other bipedal
> doesn't have midtarsal break? Fusing bones of foot,
> to make stiff foot which would bear body weight (in
> toe-off phase) is an adaptation for climbing vertical
> surfaces. Just like other adaptations, like
> aduction/abduction ability or the shape of our hand,
> which is good for manipulation of stone. Which other
> bipedal creature has our pelvis, pelvis which shape
> is a product of muscles that are used in climbing
> stairs?

Firstly, you have slipped into the near- universal habit (in
this 'discipline') of assuming that the species consists only
of adult males.

Secondly, one of the most distinctive characteristics of our
taxon is infant altriciality. No infants are less adapted for
an existence on a cliffs than are those of humans.

Of course you can claim that this characteristic "developed
later" and that you are only talking about some transient
episode at an earlier time. While such a dodge is common (and
even routine) in PA, it would not be acceptable anywhere else
in biology, nor when considering any other taxon.

Paul.

[Mario Petr]

Marc Verhaegen:
>> We are cliff-hangers.
>
> Yes, and savanna-runners, Mario... :-D

For 200 million years we had rain forest. We never had
a savanna environment, before. 8Mya emerged savanna
environment, with grass and all its animals. Along
with that emerged bipedals. Not before, and not after,
but right at that time. AFAIK, early bipedals are
found in open environment. Also Samburupithecus. But
also Ouranopithecus, which has dentition for which
some can easily say that it is of pre-bipedal or early
bipedal stage. It is in no way not strange that the
top scientiests built their scenarios around savanna.
Of course, their scenarios were all silly, because
they had impression that just like with all the other
animals that were found along bipedals in such
environments, savanna created bipedals, as well. But,
this is impossible situation, because bipedals don't
fit. Again, they missed for just a little. Because it
wasn't a savanna that created bipedals, it were
bipedals that created savanna. Well, this certainly
sounds like some exaggeration. But hey, take a look at
us, it needs an exaggeration to change the 200 million
years old ecology into something not seen before. Of
course, we were never running in savanna. All the
other animals were running, except us. Baboons run,
and have big canines. We don't run, and we don't have
big canines. We didn't have any weapon built in our
body, because all the weapons built in animals' bodies
are not good enough for what we had. We had an
external weapon, fire or spears, or whatever. And fire
creates savanna. And we are eating cooked food. This
all fits nicely. And we had both, stone tools and fire
BEFORE our brain enlarged. So, the enlargment of our
brain isn't actually responsible for NOTHING. So, the
scale in which our "inventions" are in correlation
with the size of our brain, isn't true. -- Mario

[Mario Petr]

Paul Crowley:
>Mario Petrinovich:
>> And we have our pelvis. There were a tons of papers
>> talking how we are adapted for toe-off phase of
>> walking. This same toe-off phase is crucial in
>> climbing vertical surfaces. I am saying that fisrt
>> we were clinbers, then we were walkers. And you have
>> bipedals with midtarsal break. Which other bipedal
>> doesn't have midtarsal break? Fusing bones of foot,
>> to make stiff foot which would bear body weight (in
>> toe-off phase) is an adaptation for climbing
>> vertical surfaces. Just like other adaptations, like
>> aduction/abduction ability or the shape of our hand,
>> which is good for manipulation of stone. Which other
>> bipedal creature has our pelvis, pelvis which shape
>> is a product of muscles that are used in climbing
>> stairs?
>
> Firstly, you have slipped into the near- universal habit (in
> this 'discipline') of assuming that the species consists
> only of adult males.

No, kids can climb cliffs even better than adults.
This is the case with all the animals, smaller animals
can climb better than bigger (animal the size of
squirell can really do whatever it wants, on trees). I
presume that the problem with kids on trees could be
maintaining balance, or problem with jumping from tree
to tree. There are no such problems on cliffs, so some
can say that cliffs are even better for kids than
trees. Kids cannot reach some far away bulges, but
kids can use smaller bulges.

> Secondly, one of the most distinctive characteristics of our
> taxon is infant altriciality. No infants are less adapted
> for an existence on a cliffs than are those of humans.

Oh, and water is simply excellent environment for
this. It is known that animals that live in water are,
so to say "less developed", they have weaker backbone,
and things like that. Because in water you can live
like that. Actually, I am even claiming that we
"developed" altricity in precisely such conditions.
Which is very logical, and I am surprised how you
don't see that. -- Mario

[Mario Petr]

Marc Verhaegen:
>>>>> BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas
>>>>> use cliffs.
>
>>>> Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you
>>>> think? Any parallels you see?
>
>>> They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such
>>> non-adapted climbers (primates) can use cliffs.
>>> But, they have to be adapted for quadrupedal
>>> running in open spaces. In my scenario, we should
>>> be adapted for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as
>>> for running downhill.
>
>> Also, they have big canines and large groups. I
>> don't think they climb cliffs in a hurry. They are
>> only using it for sleeping, I believe.
>
> Do humans have parallel features to cliff-hangers or
> hill-down-runners, Mario? --Marc

No. I don't see any animal that lives this kind of
lifestyle. Possibly some monkeys that live in hilly
regions could have the similar conditions for
downhill running. Your version of AAT has parallels
in Proboscis monkey and Oreopithecus. None of them
show similarity to bipeds because of that, although
they are completly immersed in that kind of
lifestyle. But, Harcourt-Smith/Aielo issued a paper
called "Fossils, feet and the evolution of human
bipedal locomotion" (2004). They named only two
current hypotheses that they think are valid today:
"a knuckle-walking ancestor was proposed by Washburn
(1967) and has recently been championed by Richmond
and colleagues (Richmond & Strait, 2000; Richmond et
al. 2001) on the basis of the wrist morphology of A.
afarensis and other early hominins. Tuttle &
Basmajian (1974) rejected Washburn's original
'knuckle-walking' hypothesis on the grounds that
modern human hands showed no evidence of a
knuckle-walking ancestry. Both Dainton
(2001) and Lovejoy et al. (2001) have also questioned the
modern revival of the hypothesis by offering different
interpretations of the A. afarensis wrist morphology. A
second current hypothesis for the ape-like locomotor
behaviour immediately antecedent to the evolution of
bipedalism is the 'climbing hypothesis' involving
vertical climbing and orthograde clambering behaviours,
but no significant terrestrial locomotion (Fleagle et
al. 1981). Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) and Tuttle (1975,
1981) envisage this ancestor as a small-bodied climber
and arboreal bipedal whereas others (e.g. Stern, 1975;
Prost, 1980; Hunt, 1996) argue for a larger-bodied
ancestor who used all four limbs to grasp supports
during vertical climbing and suspension. Most recently,
Crompton and colleagues (Crompton et al. 2003; Thorpe &
Crompton, 2004) have argued on the basis of comparative
bipedal kinematics that the antecedent locomotor type
would have been more similar to pronograde clambering
as observed in modern orang-utans and unknown in extant
African apes." (I don't understand this last sentence.
I think that orang-utans are orthograde.) As is usually
the case, they are missing for just a little, but for
just enough to completly miss the target. IOW, those
top scientiests are very close to my scenario. Also,
your version of AAT is also very close to my scenario,
and you are also missing for just a little, : ). There
was AAT, only not in shallow, floaded waters, but on
sea cliffs. My scenario involves vertcal climbing of
sea cliffs, plunge diving and swimming, and feeding on
small tree fruits, plus downhill running. I believe
that all those things push in the direction of
straight-body bipedality, but the strongest factor is
climbing of vertical surfaces, where you have the need
to position the centre of mass of your body (ie., your
ass) right above your feet. -- Mario

[Mario Petr]

Mario Petrinovich:
> It is in no way not strange that the top scientiests built
> their scenarios around savanna. Of course, their scenarios
> were all silly, because they had impression that just like
> with all the other animals that were found along bipedals in
> such environments, savanna created bipedals, as well.

Actually, when I take a closer look, all those savanna
animals weren't created by savanna. They all were
cursorial animals BEFORE savanna. But, when savanna
emerged, they simply adjusted to grass eating. ONLY
terrestrial humans emerged right along with the
savanna. So really, it is not hard to draw a
conclusion that humans are MORE savanna-connected
animals than other savanna animals. -- Mario

[Paul Crowl]

"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote in
message news:eu877j$kl0$1@ss408.t-com.hr...

>> Secondly, one of the most distinctive characteristics of
>> our taxon is infant altriciality. No infants are less
>> adapted for an existence on a cliffs than are those of
>> humans.
>
> Oh, and water is simply excellent environment for
> this. It is known that animals that live in water
> are, so to say "less developed", they have weaker
> backbone, and things like that. Because in water you
> can live like that. Actually, I am even claiming that
> we "developed" altricity in precisely such
> conditions. Which is very logical, and I am surprised
> how you don't see that. -- Mario

Ah, I see your theory -- it's that hominids evolved to live on
cliffs -- except when they didn't. And for those other times
they evolved features that enabled them to live in a bathtub.

Yep. It all makes sense. That's why human babies drown so
easily, and will suffer from water-poisoning if they drink
more than a tiny quantity.

Maybe the mothers specialised. So some would look after all
the babies and keep them safe in the water -- up to the age of
(say) three, while other mothers would supervise the young
ones as they clambered around the cliffs.

Still, I must not be too harsh. Your (mixed) scenarios are at
least as good as any presented by standard PA. (Generally they
take care to present absolutely nothing at all.)

Paul.

[Mario Petr]

Paul Crowley:
> That's why human babies drown so easily, and will suffer
> from water-poisoning if they drink more than a tiny
> quantity.

Well, I am not so sure that this would happen in that
situation. But, who knows. Find me few babies with
which I can do some experiments, and we'll find out.
Everything else is in tune with my scenario, and
babies certainly show that they have some capabilities
which enable them to overcome difficulties of that
situation. But, what is really the case, who knows.
You? I doubt. -- Mario

[Mario Petr]

Marc Verhaegen:
> Mario:
>> Marc Verhaegen:
>>>> We are cliff-hangers.
>
>>> Yes, and savanna-runners, Mario... :-D
>
>> For 200 million years we had rain forest. We never
>> had a savanna environment, before. 8Mya emerged
>> savanna environment, with grass and all its
>> animals. Along with that emerged bipedals. Not
>> before, and not after, but right at that time.
>> AFAIK, early bipedals are found in open
>> environment.
>
> Extremely doubtful, Mario:
> - Oreopith = swamp forest (bipedal?? parttime wading??)

Bipedal? No.

> - Samburupith = part of maxilla IIRC (no evidence of
> bipedality)

Open environment. Thick enamel.

> - Ouanopith // robust apiths (wetlands, some KWing features)

Hey Marc, wait a minute. Ouranopith is EXTREMLY open
environment, and extremly thick enamel. Robust Apiths
came much later (Ouranopith at the time just before
the emergence of grass, and robust apiths A LOT
MILLION years later).

> If some hominids-pongids (eg, robust apiths, Ouranopith,
> Gigantopith...) lived in "savannas", it was in wetlands:
> parttime wading (probably bipedal
> cf. lowland gorillas wading; rarely running & not impossibly
> on 4 legs then).

Gee Marc, Ouranopithecus (the very first species which
can, in some dental ways, but dental is pretty much
everything we have, be related to bipedals) is found
in EXTREMLY open environment. Even "impoverished",
environment, poor with plants. It was found in
Greek-Iranian Province in Vallesian time, the very
place and time which was the first with open ecology.
And more, while EVERYWHERE in the whole world was
still rain forest, Ouranopithecus (the first which can
be tied to bipedals) was found at the very place where
there WASN'T rain forest. Now, isn't that a strange?

> But all this has nothing to with Homo: Ain-Hanech Algeria,
> Dmanisi Georgia, Mojokerto Java... 1.8 Ma. --Marc

Of course. But Homo HAS something with that. -- Mario

[Mario Petr]

Marc Verhaegen:
> Mario:
>> Marc Verhaegen:
>>>>>>> BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and
>>>>>>> geladas use cliffs.
>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you
>>>>>> think? Any parallels you see?
>>>
>>>>> They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even
>>>>> such non-adapted climbers (primates) can use
>>>>> cliffs. But, they have to be adapted for
>>>>> quadrupedal running in open spaces. In my
>>>>> scenario, we should be adapted for fast climbing
>>>>> of cliffs, as well as for running downhill.
>>>
>>>> Also, they have big canines and large groups. I
>>>> don't think they climb cliffs in a hurry. They
>>>> are only using it for sleeping, I believe.
>>>
>>> Do humans have parallel features to cliff-hangers or
>>> hill-down-runners, Mario? --Marc
>>
>> No. I don't see any animal that lives this kind of
>> lifestyle.
>
> IOW, nothing sensible can be said about this. Hardy's theory
> OTOH is based on SC fat, fur loss, aligned body etc.

Of course. And it is a good one. But, I am talking
about bipedality. This has no direct connections with
SC fat and fur loss. But it has something with
aligned body.

>> Possibly some monkeys that live in hilly regions could have
>> the similar conditions for downhill running. Your version
>> of AAT has parallels in Proboscis monkey and Oreopithecus.
>> None of them show similarity to bipeds because of that,
>> although they are completly immersed in that kind of
>> lifestyle.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscis_Monkey ³While wading,
> the monkey uses an upright posture, with the females
> carrying infants on their hip. Troops have been filmed
> continuing to walk upright, in single file, along forest
> trails when they emerge on land, the only non-human mammal,
> with the exception of gibbons and giant pangolins, known to
> use this form of locomotion for any length of time²

Algis says that all the apes wade bipedaly. So, it
isn't strange that Proboscis is wading bipedaly, and
why shouldn't it? OTOH, gibbons are bipedal on land,
although they don't wade.

>> But, Harcourt-Smith/Aiello issued a paper called
>> "Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal
>> locomotion" (2004). They named only two current
>> hypotheses that they think are valid today: "a
>> knuckle-walking ancestor was proposed by Washburn
>> (1967) and has recently been championed by Richmond
>> and colleagues (Richmond & Strait, 2000; Richmond
>> et al. 2001) on the basis of the wrist morphology
>> of A. afarensis and other early hominins.
>
> On the basis of their belief. They correctly described some
> KWing features in anamensis & Lucy (also described by Leakey
> in boisei). But their interpretation is nonsense: there no
> evidence that the H/P LCA ever KWed, to the contrary:
> - KWing P & G is different, ontogenetically & anatomically
> (studies of Inouye).
> - Parallel evolution (to the same climatic changes) is to be
> expected in strongly resembling spp.
> - Not the slightest rudiment of KWing in Hs http://allserv.-
> rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
>
>> Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) rejected Washburn's original
>> 'knuckle-walking' hypothesis on the grounds that modern
>> human hands showed no evidence of a knuckle-walking
>> ancestry.
>
> Correctly.

I agree.

>> Both Dainton
>> (2001) and Lovejoy et al. (2001) have also questioned the
>> modern revival of the hypothesis by offering
>> different interpretations of the A. afarensis wrist
>> morphology. A second current hypothesis for the
>> ape-like locomotor behaviour immediately antecedent
>> to the evolution of bipedalism is the 'climbing
>> hypothesis' involving vertical climbing and
>> orthograde clambering behaviours, but no significant
>> terrestrial locomotion (Fleagle et al.
>> 1981). Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) and Tuttle (1975, 1981)
>> envisage this ancestor as a small-bodied climber and
>> arboreal bipedal whereas others (e.g. Stern, 1975;
>> Prost, 1980; Hunt, 1996) argue for a larger-bodied
>> ancestor who used all four limbs to grasp supports
>> during vertical climbing and suspension. Most
>> recently, Crompton and colleagues (Crompton et al.
>> 2003; Thorpe & Crompton, 2004) have argued on the
>> basis of comparative bipedal kinematics that the
>> antecedent locomotor type would have been more similar
>> to pronograde clambering as observed in modern
>> orang-utans and unknown in extant African apes." (I
>> don't understand this last sentence. I think that
>> orang-utans are orthograde.)
>
> Yes, or even upside-down (suspensory = "anti-pronograde").
>
> The hypothesis of vertical wading-climbing early hominids
> (H, P & G) is likely IMO.

When you are climbing tree vertically, you CLINCH a
tree trunk with your legs (even cats can do it), to
maintain grip. While doing that, you squizze your
legs, and put knees aside of a tree trunk. This is the
very thing you cannot do when you are climbing cliffs,
so you MUST align your legs, othervise your knees
would bump into cliff.

>> As is usually the case, they are missing for just a
>> little, but for just enough to completly miss the
>> target. IOW, those top scientiests are very close
>> to my scenario. Also, your version of AAT is also
>> very close to my scenario, and you are also missing
>> for just a little, : ). There was AAT, only not in
>> shallow, floaded waters, but on sea cliffs. My
>> scenario involves vertcal climbing of sea cliffs,
>> plunge diving and swimming, and feeding on small
>> tree fruits, plus downhill running. I believe that
>> all those things push in the direction of
>> straight-body bipedality, but the strongest factor
>> is climbing of vertical surfaces, where you have
>> the need to position the centre of mass of your
>> body (ie., your ass) right above your feet. --
>> Mario
>
> Mario, no comparative data = no evidence. There were no
> cliff-hanging hominids or so. --Marc

According to data and evidence, hominids didn't live
ANY kind of lifestyle. There are few theories, and
mine is one of them. It is in tune with the avaible
evidence. -- Mario

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Op 19-03-2007 05:26, in artikel
> 45FE10F3.FC3C444F@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>
> >> European Heart Journal 28:183-9 Reduced right ventricular
> >> ejection fraction in endurance athletes presenting with
> >> ventricular arrhythmias: a quantitative angiographic
> >> assessment Joris Ector, Javier Ganame, Nico van der
> >> Merwe, Bert Adriaenssens, Laurent Pison, Rik Willems,
> >> Marc Gewillig & Hein Heidbüchel 2007
> >> hein.heidbuchel@uz.kuleuven.ac.be Aims: Spontaneous or
> >> inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in
> >> endurance athletes frequently originate from the right
> >> ventricle (RV), even in the absence of familial
> >> arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The goal of this
> >> study was to determine whether the RV arrhythmogenic
> >> predilection in these patients is associated with RV
> >> functional abnormalities. Methods and results: Biplane RV
> >> angiography was performed in three groups: 22 endurance
> >> athletes with VA, 15 matched athletes without VA, and 10
> >> non-athletes without VA.
> >
> > 47 total? That's it?
>
> That is dropping dead when running...

Poor Marc. This is what he's reduced to.

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Op 19-03-2007 05:41, in artikel
> 45FE1485.50BF7945@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Mario Petrinovich wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chapstick:
> >>>>> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim http://-
> >>>>> www.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg
>
> >>>> yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i guess..
>
> >> I don't understand. Was this shark supposed to
> >> eat that human, or not? As I can see, that shark
> >> didn't eat one tiny bit of that human. SHark
> >> could have eaten it, if only it wanted to, it is
> >> very graphically shown on that photo. But, it is
> >> also very graphically shown that shark DIDN'T
> >> WANT to eat that human. -- Mario
>
> > As you can see the shark didn't know that UNTIL IT HAD
> > TAKEN SOME BITES.
>
> ?? My boy, do you always shout?

Because, little one, aat makes one dense.

> Try to be a bit relevant. What has all this to do with AAT??

Ask Mario.

[Marc Verha]

Op 16-04-2007 04:08, in artikel
4622DAAD.A333E598@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:

> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Op 19-03-2007 05:41, in artikel
>> 45FE1485.50BF7945@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
>> <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>>
>>> Mario Petrinovich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chapstick:
>>>>>>> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim http://-
>>>>>>> www.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.jpg
>>
>>>>>> yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i guess..
>>
>>>> I don't understand. Was this shark supposed to
>>>> eat that human, or not? As I can see, that shark
>>>> didn't eat one tiny bit of that human. SHark
>>>> could have eaten it, if only it wanted to, it is
>>>> very graphically shown on that photo. But, it is
>>>> also very graphically shown that shark DIDN'T
>>>> WANT to eat that human. -- Mario
>>
>>> As you can see the shark didn't know that UNTIL IT HAD
>>> TAKEN SOME BITES.
>>
>> ?? My boy, do you always shout?
>
> Because, little one, aat makes one dense.
>
>> Try to be a bit relevant. What has all this to do
>> with AAT??
>
> Ask Mario.

:-D
Why?? Mario is an expert on fire & savannas...

As for AAT, please inform: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
AAT = shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo
* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term
Morgan 1982)
* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water,
arbor=tree)
* Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT
strict sense) AAT s.s. is based on the
behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans
vs. chimps & other animals. Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting
coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish,
algae etc. explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes
or australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling :
brain size, diving skills, breath control, vocality, small
mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer
airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness,
tool use, late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor
climbing, fur loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium,
iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc. Homo & Pan
split ~6-4 Ma. In spite of sea level fluctuations
(difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma
are found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African
coasts : Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table
Bay, Eritrea etc. (18 km sea crossing to reach Flores
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ). Most
likely, Homo populations dispersed along coasts & rivers,
in savannas & elsewhere.
* Max Westenhöfer 1942 "Der Eigenweg des Menschen" Mannstaede
* Alister Hardy 1960 "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS
7:624
* Maggie Roede cs. 1991 "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or
Fiction?" Souvenir
* Elaine Morgan 1997 "The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
Souvenir London
* Marc Verhaegen cs. 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" TREE 17:212
* Stephen Cunnane 2005 "Survival of the Fattest" World
Scientific http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
<http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

[Daud Deden]

On Apr 15, 7:29 pm, Rich Travsky
<traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > Op 19-03-2007 05:26, in artikel
> > 45FE10F3.FC3C4...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > >> European Heart Journal 28:183-9 Reduced right
> > >> ventricular ejection fraction in endurance athletes pr=
esenting
> > >> with ventricular arrhythmias: a quantitative
> > >> angiographic assessment Joris Ector, Javier Ganame,
> > >> Nico van der Merwe, Bert Adriaenssens, L=
aurent
> > >> Pison, Rik Willems, Marc Gewillig & Hein Heidb=FCchel
> > >> 2007 hein.heidbuc...@uz.kuleuven.ac.be Aims:
> > >> Spontaneous or inducible sustained ventricular
> > >> arrhythmias (VA) in e=
ndurance
> > >> athletes frequently originate from the right ventricle
> > >> (RV), even in=
the
> > >> absence of familial arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy
> > >> (ARVC). The goa=
l of
> > >> this study was to determine whether the RV
> > >> arrhythmogenic predilecti=
on in
> > >> these patients is associated with RV functional
> > >> abnormalities. Methods and results: Biplane RV
> > >> angiography was performed in three groups: 22
> > >> endurance a=
thletes
> > >> with VA, 15 matched athletes without VA, and 10
> > >> non-athletes without=
VA.
>
> > > 47 total? That's it?
>
> > That is dropping dead when running...
>
> Poor Marc. This is what he's reduced to.

Oh don't miss the other thread, "running (for fun) without
salt or water"

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op 16-04-2007 04:08, in artikel
> 4622DAAD.A333E598@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Op 19-03-2007 05:41, in artikel
> >> 45FE1485.50BF7945@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> >> <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> >>> Mario Petrinovich wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Chapstick:
> >>>>>>> WARNING: graphic photo of shark-attack victim http:-
> >>>>>>> //www.couliercreatures.com/images-bu/stenbite1_bu.j-
> >>>>>>> pg
> >>
> >>>>>> yeah.. that is pretty graphic... uh... thanks i
> >>>>>> guess..
> >>
> >>>> I don't understand. Was this shark supposed to
> >>>> eat that human, or not? As I can see, that
> >>>> shark didn't eat one tiny bit of that human.
> >>>> SHark could have eaten it, if only it wanted
> >>>> to, it is very graphically shown on that photo.
> >>>> But, it is also very graphically shown that
> >>>> shark DIDN'T WANT to eat that human. -- Mario
> >>
> >>> As you can see the shark didn't know that UNTIL IT HAD
> >>> TAKEN SOME BITES.
> >>
> >> ?? My boy, do you always shout?
> >
> > Because, little one, aat makes one dense.
> >
> >> Try to be a bit relevant. What has all this to do with
> >> AAT??
> >
> > Ask Mario.
>
> :-D
> Why?? Mario is an expert on fire & savannas...

Mario likes aat and cliffs.