The question of whether humans are inherently runners or walkers is explored from evolutionary and health perspectives. The "born to run" hypothesis, suggesting that endurance running capabilities drove the divergence between Homo and quadrupeds, is reviewed. While bipedalism conferred numerous advantages, including free use of the forelimbs, it remains unclear if running was a fundamental adaptation in early hominids or evolved from walking. Hunting, predator evasion, and food acquisition likely incentivized faster, longer-distance locomotion, leading to the development of running. However, modern lifestyles are characterized by significant sedentary time, increasing risk of numerous non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Physical activity, including running, offers protection against NCDs and improves overall health. The paradox lies in the modern context: our evolutionary past favored running for survival, yet in contemporary settings, its inherent risks of injury and overuse in extended lifespans demand careful consideration.

The authors review literature on human evolution and locomotion, referencing Bramble and Lieberman's "born to run" hypothesis (2004) and examining the energetic and endurance benefits of bipedalism compared to quadrupedalism. They also consider research on sedentary behavior and its association with NCDs, highlighting the protective effects of physical activity and the World Health Organization's recommendations for activity levels. Studies on running injuries, their risk factors (age, previous injury, distance), and the impact on long-term physical activity are reviewed. The longevity disparity between our ancestors and modern humans is highlighted, emphasizing the shift in the cost-benefit analysis of running versus walking.

This is a perspective article, not an empirical study. The methodology involves a review and synthesis of existing scientific literature on human evolution, biomechanics, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and running-related injuries. The authors use this synthesis to present an argument based on evolutionary biology and modern health considerations. No original data collection or statistical analysis is performed. The authors critically assess previous research to construct their argument regarding the implications of long-term health and modern lifestyles on locomotion strategies.

The authors' synthesis of existing literature leads to the following key observations: 1. Bipedalism provided advantages for early hominids, and the development of running likely contributed to survival and success. 2. Modern sedentary lifestyles are associated with a high risk of NCDs. 3. Running, while beneficial in promoting physical activity, has significant injury risks, particularly in long-distance runners and older individuals. 4. The increased risk of running-related injuries in the context of modern longer lifespans needs careful consideration. 5. While running provided survival advantages to our ancestors with shorter lifespans, in modern times walking might be a more sustainable and less injury-prone way to combat sedentary lifestyles and improve long-term health. The authors do not provide specific quantitative data, instead using qualitative synthesis of previous studies to support their arguments.

The paper highlights the mismatch between the evolutionary pressures that favored running in our ancestors and the realities of modern life, emphasizing increased life expectancy and the cumulative effects of injuries. The increased risk of overuse injuries from running, especially in older individuals, questions its suitability as the sole or primary physical activity. The authors propose a shift in focus, suggesting that walking, being a lower-impact activity, can better serve the needs of long-term health while still combating sedentary behavior. The authors argue this strategy is more sustainable and better supports the goal of lifelong physical activity.

The authors conclude that while running played a crucial role in human evolution, its inherent risks in the context of extended lifespans warrant reconsideration. They suggest prioritizing walking as a more sustainable and less injury-prone form of physical activity to combat the negative effects of sedentary behavior. Further research could investigate the optimal balance between running and walking for individuals of different ages and fitness levels, focusing on long-term health outcomes and injury prevention. Investigating the impact of age and injury history on the selection of physical activity is recommended.

This article's limitations stem from its nature as a perspective piece. It does not present original research but relies on a synthesis of existing studies. The selection of studies might introduce bias. The authors do not quantify the relative risks and benefits of running versus walking across different populations, making generalizations challenging. Individual needs and circumstances related to physical activity choice are not thoroughly addressed.