Something my Mom Sent me

[Darth Wong]

Is a bear really fast enough to catch a human in a dead run? Or was this idiot tripping over every available rock and tree?

Despite its great mass, a bear can effortlessly catch a human in a dead run. An extra pair of legs does wonders for running speed, which is why a dog whose legs are a foot long can easily outrace the world's fastest human sprinters.

Of course, that reminds me of the old joke about two campers who see a bear approaching their campsite. One of them starts putting on his running shoes, to which his friend says incredulously: "You don't think you can outrun a bear, do you?" And the first camper finishes tying his shoes and says "I don't have to. I only have to outrun you."

[DPDarkPrimus]

Another random fact about bears: They can run faster UPHILL than downhill.

[Baron Mordo]

Which is why the man was an idiot. He should've ran downhill and jumped in the river to get away.

[weemadando]

Of course, that reminds me of the old joke about two campers who see a bear approaching their campsite. One of them starts putting on his running shoes, to which his friend says incredulously: "You don't think you can outrun a bear, do you?" And the first camper finishes tying his shoes and says "I don't have to. I only have to outrun you."

And so was born one of the great RPG quotes:

"You don't have to outrun the daemon, you just have to outrun the dwarf..."

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Despite its great mass, a bear can effortlessly catch a human in a dead run.

that depends... I know that Polar bears top out at about 25mph -- roughly equivalent to the maximum sprint speed for top-class human athletes. I would not call that speed effortless by any stretch. They do however posess superior endurance, although I wouldnt put them in the same class as hyenas who can maintain a run indefinitely.

An extra pair of legs does wonders for running speed, which is why a dog whose legs are a foot long can easily outrace the world's fastest human sprinters.

it isnt the number of legs that produces the superior speed -- the forelimbs are there for stabilization and steering, as well as for improved performance in going uphill and up trees, but in flat out propulsion, they do little. Matter of fact I would say that bears are just as handicapped as humans when it comes to the energy efficiency of their running mechanics, due to the structure of their legs and feet (and the fact that they really dont run, but rather use a very fast walking or jogging gait), but have an enormous advantage in the sheer brute force they can bring to the equation.

If you want to see what I mean, compare the limb structures and gait profiles of bears to other animals such as cats, dogs, deer, horses etc -- all of which are capable of speeds in excess of 35mph... no bear can make that kind of speed.

[Peregrin Toker]

What would this story have been like if the atheist in question happened to be a Raëlian?

It would be impossible for an atheist to be a Raelian, since it is a religion.

Hopefully he meant instead of the atheist it is a Raelian.

Something like that.

(movie clip plays)

God: WHAT?? You mistook me for a space alien??

[Darth Wong]

Despite its great mass, a bear can effortlessly catch a human in a dead run.

that depends... I know that Polar bears top out at about 25mph -- roughly equivalent to the maximum sprint speed for top-class human athletes. I would not call that speed effortless by any stretch. They do however posess superior endurance, although I wouldnt put them in the same class as hyenas who can maintain a run indefinitely.

Polar bears are not as fast because they must conserve energy in their environment. Grizzlies can do 30mph, and they can keep it up for more than enough distance to catch a top sprinter, never mind the average human.

An extra pair of legs does wonders for running speed, which is why a dog whose legs are a foot long can easily outrace the world's fastest human sprinters.

it isnt the number of legs that produces the superior speed -- the forelimbs are there for stabilization and steering, as well as for improved performance in going uphill and up trees, but in flat out propulsion, they do little.

At a full gallop, a four-legged creature flexes its entire body to bound forward, while a human can only move its legs. Watching a greyhound run is an object lesson in the usefulness of four legs.

Matter of fact I would say that bears are just as handicapped as humans when it comes to the energy efficiency of their running mechanics, due to the structure of their legs and feet (and the fact that they really dont run, but rather use a very fast walking or jogging gait), but have an enormous advantage in the sheer brute force they can bring to the equation.

Bears are obviously not very energy-efficient, but they do have the ability to generate startling bursts of speed in order to catch prey. Physically speaking, humans are just pathetic compared to virtually every other animal. Good thing we know how to build weapons

If you want to see what I mean, compare the limb structures and gait profiles of bears to other animals such as cats, dogs, deer, horses etc -- all of which are capable of speeds in excess of 35mph... no bear can make that kind of speed.

True, no bear can beat a greyhound. But the average bear, despite its enormous mass, can keep up with the world's fastest humans in a dead sprint, and can keep it up for longer. Catching the average human would indeed be effortless.

[Baron Mordo]

But the average bear, despite its enormous mass, can keep up with the world's fastest humans in a dead sprint, and can keep it up for longer. Catching the average human would indeed be effortless.

[Utsanomiko]

Hey, that's not a fair comparison! After all, he's smarter than the average bear.

(You knew it was coming.)

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Polar bears are not as fast because they must conserve energy in their environment. Grizzlies can do 30mph, and they can keep it up for more than enough distance to catch a top sprinter, never mind the average human.

no doubt about that

At a full gallop, a four-legged creature flexes its entire body to bound forward, while a human can only move its legs. Watching a greyhound run is an object lesson in the usefulness of four legs.

yes, they do flex... but that flexing is for the purpose of maximizing the stroke of the legs (for purposes of this discussion, even four-legged animals only really have 2 legs, with the forelimbs actually being arms). the forelimbs are used to stabilize the animal, provide steering and keep it from crashing into the ground due to the animal's far forward CG. the forelimbs can provide some assistance for going uphill, but it isnt used unless the terrain is really steep -- its' sort of like a car that usually operates as a 2WD, but can switch to 4WD when necessary

Bears are obviously not very energy-efficient, but they do have the ability to generate startling bursts of speed in order to catch prey. Physically speaking, humans are just pathetic compared to virtually every other animal. Good thing we know how to build weapons

certainly they do... they have alot of available torque to get moving. to continue my car analogy, my GMC Jimmy/Blazer 2 door can accelerate faster than most high-performance cars that cost 3 to 5 times as much so long as I'm in first gear (they tend to catch and pass me as I shift from 2nd to 3rd) -- to say nothing of the Typhoon I used to own which could outpace anything short of a ferrari F40 (or its' own stablemate the Syclone) to 50mph. Past that, other factors like drag and gearing start to come into play, just as they do for the ursinae

True, no bear can beat a greyhound. But the average bear, despite its enormous mass, can keep up with the world's fastest humans in a dead sprint, and can keep it up for longer. Catching the average human would indeed be effortless.

I still say it isnt effortless. I think it would be more like this:

human: OH SHIT!!! BEAR!!! (runs)
bear: dammit! dont make me chase you... that pisses me off!!! I hate running... Ill just catch your pathetically slow ass anyway (I cant beleive you're actually slower than I am) and maul you WORSE!!!

[Ted C]

yes, they do flex... but that flexing is for the purpose of maximizing the stroke of the legs (for purposes of this discussion, even four-legged animals only really have 2 legs, with the forelimbs actually being arms). the forelimbs are used to stabilize the animal, provide steering and keep it from crashing into the ground due to the animal's far forward CG. the forelimbs can provide some assistance for going uphill, but it isnt used unless the terrain is really steep -- its' sort of like a car that usually operates as a 2WD, but can switch to 4WD when necessary

The forelegs don't provide as much "thrust" as the hind legs, but the do contribute, and they make it possible to bring the hind legs far forward for the next stride. Forelegs are not there just to stabilize the animal, the make a major contribution to its running speed by extending its stride.

[Utsanomiko]

Why don't we just test this out in the field? Shaka can set up a camera with a wide zoom on a tripod, and get a bear to try and chase him.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Why don't we just test this out in the field? Shaka can set up a camera with a wide zoom on a tripod, and get a bear to try and chase him.

in case you hadnt noticed... I AGREE WITH YOU GUYS!!! I am just saying that it isnt 'effortless' on the bears' part! frankly I think the effort of chasing prey down would piss the bear off more (see above)! there is no way I would go so near a bear that a wide angle would be usable (maybe a 400 or 600 -- preferably with a 1.4 extender)

The forelegs don't provide as much "thrust" as the hind legs, but they do contribute, and they make it possible to bring the hind legs far forward for the next stride. Forelegs are not there just to stabilize the animal, the make a major contribution to its running speed by extending its stride.

sorry Ted, but compared to the hindlegs, the forelimbs have no propulsive strength whatsoever. The bone structure and musculature of their 'arms' is oriented towards shock absorbtion and rebound, along with a substantial degree of vectoring ability to provide for course correction and steering. These adaptations allow the animal to maintain proper orientation and altitude relative to the ground -- a task made absolutely necessary due to the far forward center of gravity. In addition, the 'arms' also have to assist the neck in isolating the head from from all the impact stresses.

By contrast, the hindquarters have very little ability to vector force, and have a great deal more muscle for powerful driving strokes, with some added capacity for absorbtion and rebound as a result. I would be willing to say, just for the sake of argument, that the propulsive split is somewhere around 5%front/95%rear.

as to the idea that the forelimbs extend the stride -- hogwash. they merely make it possible for the stride to be extended by countering the CG placement far forward of the hips. without that need, animals would be more like kangaroos and their ilk which dont suffer from this problem, as their CG is placed ideally... allowing them to attain speeds in excess of 50mph with *very* little effort, and without the need of forelimbs.

Just as a sidenote... Ive owned 3 dogs (2 Malamutes, 1 greyhound/retreiver mix) and 3 cats, and observed their mobility in depth. None of them ever exhibited any real propulsive strength in the forelimbs.