400-Pound Man Runs LA Marathon

Off Topic
101

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier

102

[quote]handsomedevil wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]handsomedevil wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Good for him.
His mental fortitude rapes ours.
Think about that. Pushing yourself for 10 hours with a total body weight of 400 pounds.
Balls, he’s got them.[/quote]

I am glad to see that he is doing something active, but I SERIOUSLY doubt he has more mental fortitude than us…how the fuck does a strong-willed person ever get to 400 lbs???

It was his LACK of mental fortitude that led him to indulge in junk food till he weighed 400 lbs.[/quote]

Did your lack of mental fortitude cause you to not read the thread at all?[/quote]

No.
I get he is a sumo wrestler and strong and not completely a fat ass, that his 400 pounds is muscle to some degree.

I agree that what he did is praise worthy and he has my respect for doing the marathon.
However, to say that because he put himself through hell in that marathon now makes him mentally tougher than us, is, in my opinion,unwaranted. Sure, that took some balls, BUT, sumo wrestler or not he must have done some gorging. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that having that much fat (regardless of your sport) is unhealthy and shows a weakness (gluttony).

Once again, do I respect the guy for what he did, hell yes! I just thought that he is not inherantly tougher than all of us. Shit, bodybuilder (of which there are a number of on this site) have to adhere to a strict diet 24/7 and drag their ass to the gym every day when they just want to die from lack of energy. Then they still have to go to work, take care of their families etc. That takes balls too. Thats all I was trying to say.[/quote]

No, he’s tougher than most of us

103

[quote]handsomedevil wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Good for him.
His mental fortitude rapes ours.
Think about that. Pushing yourself for 10 hours with a total body weight of 400 pounds.
Balls, he’s got them.[/quote]

I am glad to see that he is doing something active, but I SERIOUSLY doubt he has more mental fortitude than us…how the fuck does a strong-willed person ever get to 400 lbs???

It was his LACK of mental fortitude that led him to indulge in junk food till he weighed 400 lbs.[/quote]

Wait, don’t summo wrestlers get that big on purpose? He’s big but he’s also strong as hell I’m sure.

104

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

105

[quote]SSC wrote:

[quote]handsomedevil wrote:
I agree that what he did is praise worthy and he has my respect for doing the marathon.
However, to say that because he put himself through hell in that marathon now makes him mentally tougher than us, is, in my opinion,unwaranted. Sure, that took some balls, BUT, sumo wrestler or not he must have done some gorging. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that having that much fat (regardless of your sport) is unhealthy and shows a weakness (gluttony). [/quote]

You are beyond help.

1.) Who is US? “Makes him mentally tougher than us” - Do you have a picture on this website? How do I know what you look like or how tough you are? You could be a 135 kid who doesn’t do a goddamn thing right in the weight room. For the record, this site really has FAR less “serious” weight lifters than it advertises, if you actually start paying attention to who’s posting. You may want to double-check your “us” statement.

2.) You are seriously just extremely dense or oblivious. Did you know sumo wrestlers actually typically have an extremely high muscle to body fat ratio? Next you’re going to be on here saying that Pat Williams, BJ Raji and Terrence Cody aren’t impressive because they’re too fat too? Furthermore, gorging is required in SO many more athletics than sumo wrestling… how else would you gain weight? You may not know about this, because you may actually be a 130-pound 16 year old kid. (See point #1)

3.) Gluttony? What is this, Dante’s Divine Comedy? Isn’t you being judgmental and not being impressed make you sound a little… PROUD? Talk about double standards. Ignoramus.

1.) That’s really weird, because I was a “bodybuilder” at 350 pounds when I started. I started eating the part, lifting like so, except I was still 60% bodyfat probably. But yet I put in the work and reaped the results. And you know what? When I was big, instead of dragging my ass to the gym, I drug my ass to school. Or work. Or social outings. Because it wasn’t a fucking priority. (Weird, not all people place the same level of importance on daily endeavors?)

2.) You don’t think this guy wanted to “die from lack of energy?” I mean, really, how do you think you’d feel after completing a marathon at 400 pounds? I dare you to find out.

3.) I get the feeling that you just started lifting within the last couple months, or very recently. I could be off-basis here but you don’t seem to understand the concept that not everyone in the world gives a shit about nutrition and exercise. Seriously, put that in your blunt and smoke it.[/quote]

Good post.

106

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

He was an Airman, actually

107

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
C’mon you haters.

What’s worse, that fat guy’s 10 hours, or that dude who shit himself while running?

dear god, why keep running? Worst, smelly, infected chaff in history…ever

108

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

[/quote]

I doubt the “average” height of a roman soldier was 148 cm (4.8 ft). If we’re really talking about “average” height that means some soldiers were 160 cm tall while others were between 120 or 130 cm (3.9 to 4.2 ft). Totally implausible. Heck! full blood male pigmies have an average height of 4 ft 10 in!

109

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

[/quote]

I doubt the “average” height of a roman soldier was 148 cm (4.8 ft). If we’re really talking about “average” height that means some soldiers were 160 cm tall while others were between 120 or 130 cm (3.9 to 4.2 ft). Totally implausible. Heck! full blood male pigmies have an average height of 4 ft 10 in![/quote]

Interesting subject. There’s debate over the average height of the romans which includes dietary factors, integration of other conquered races into the legions and which period you’re referring to.

To say the average height of a roman is X is a broad and misleading statement. While at some point the recorded average height of a roman citizen may have been 4.8 feet, they have also been recorded at an average of 5.5 ft and more. Gaius Marius, who pretty much reformed the legions into the bad-assery they became, lowered recruitment restrictions and opened them up to all regardless of wealth or class. This undoubtedly had an impact on the average height of the legions when you take into consideration the nutrition of the lower classes however even he had a personal standard when it came to the minimal height of a roman soldier which, as far as I can ascertain, was 5.10ft. Of course, this wasn’t strictly adhered to during recruitment according to records and was later lowered even more to fill in the ranks. But even at that - there was no shortage of volunteers during the Marius reform and I doubt they couldn’t afford to be picky.

Consider further the expansion of the empire, which required a greater army obviously, and you have to also consider a great portion of that army were conscripted ‘barbarians’ and mercenaries, former enemies of the Empire, who were “on average” even taller than your true-blooded roman citizen.

So, yea, to say the average height of a roman legionary was 4 foot 8 is at best misleading.

110

wow the hate is crazy around here

111

[quote]gangstpmp3 wrote:
wow the hate is crazy around here[/quote]

Which side are you talking about?

112

To be fair this guy us a champion sumo wrestler in the USA . It’s not like being the japanese champ . I have no idea how many people compete in this country but I’m sure it’s not the same size competitive pool.

And it’s great he accomplished a goal , but many people do similar . Good for them , but I’m not going to be wowed at something I see many ordinary out of shape people do . He gets an atta boy , but that’s about it .

Many marathons and the ironman races have spots for pr stories . People that would normally qualify . This could be fund raising for charity , or just these feel good draw attention to our event things . Some people love this stuff . It’s not my cup of tea.

113

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

[/quote]

I doubt the “average” height of a roman soldier was 148 cm (4.8 ft). If we’re really talking about “average” height that means some soldiers were 160 cm tall while others were between 120 or 130 cm (3.9 to 4.2 ft). Totally implausible. Heck! full blood male pigmies have an average height of 4 ft 10 in![/quote]

Interesting subject. There’s debate over the average height of the romans which includes dietary factors, integration of other conquered races into the legions and which period you’re referring to.

To say the average height of a roman is X is a broad and misleading statement. While at some point the recorded average height of a roman citizen may have been 4.8 feet, they have also been recorded at an average of 5.5 ft and more. Gaius Marius, who pretty much reformed the legions into the bad-assery they became, lowered recruitment restrictions and opened them up to all regardless of wealth or class. This undoubtedly had an impact on the average height of the legions when you take into consideration the nutrition of the lower classes however even he had a personal standard when it came to the minimal height of a roman soldier which, as far as I can ascertain, was 5.10ft. Of course, this wasn’t strictly adhered to during recruitment according to records and was later lowered even more to fill in the ranks. But even at that - there was no shortage of volunteers during the Marius reform and I doubt they couldn’t afford to be picky.

Consider further the expansion of the empire, which required a greater army obviously, and you have to also consider a great portion of that army were conscripted ‘barbarians’ and mercenaries, former enemies of the Empire, who were “on average” even taller than your true-blooded roman citizen.

So, yea, to say the average height of a roman legionary was 4 foot 8 is at best misleading.[/quote]

Sorry guys, the Roman records themselves show that the average height of a Roman soldier was around 148cm. 300 years later it was around a gigantic 165, but only because they recruited more Gauls and Germans.

http://www.anthropologynet.info/sub-racial/german-and-celtic-mercenaries-fill-the-ranks-of-the-roman-army.html

114

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

[/quote]

I doubt the “average” height of a roman soldier was 148 cm (4.8 ft). If we’re really talking about “average” height that means some soldiers were 160 cm tall while others were between 120 or 130 cm (3.9 to 4.2 ft). Totally implausible. Heck! full blood male pigmies have an average height of 4 ft 10 in![/quote]

Interesting subject. There’s debate over the average height of the romans which includes dietary factors, integration of other conquered races into the legions and which period you’re referring to.

To say the average height of a roman is X is a broad and misleading statement. While at some point the recorded average height of a roman citizen may have been 4.8 feet, they have also been recorded at an average of 5.5 ft and more. Gaius Marius, who pretty much reformed the legions into the bad-assery they became, lowered recruitment restrictions and opened them up to all regardless of wealth or class. This undoubtedly had an impact on the average height of the legions when you take into consideration the nutrition of the lower classes however even he had a personal standard when it came to the minimal height of a roman soldier which, as far as I can ascertain, was 5.10ft. Of course, this wasn’t strictly adhered to during recruitment according to records and was later lowered even more to fill in the ranks. But even at that - there was no shortage of volunteers during the Marius reform and I doubt they couldn’t afford to be picky.

Consider further the expansion of the empire, which required a greater army obviously, and you have to also consider a great portion of that army were conscripted ‘barbarians’ and mercenaries, former enemies of the Empire, who were “on average” even taller than your true-blooded roman citizen.

So, yea, to say the average height of a roman legionary was 4 foot 8 is at best misleading.[/quote]

Sorry guys, the Roman records themselves show that the average height of a Roman soldier was around 148cm. 300 years later it was around a gigantic 165, but only because they recruited more Gauls and Germans.

http://www.anthropologynet.info/sub-racial/german-and-celtic-mercenaries-fill-the-ranks-of-the-roman-army.html

[/quote]

Yeah, but they were all built Like Franco Colombu!

lol

115

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

[/quote]

I doubt the “average” height of a roman soldier was 148 cm (4.8 ft). If we’re really talking about “average” height that means some soldiers were 160 cm tall while others were between 120 or 130 cm (3.9 to 4.2 ft). Totally implausible. Heck! full blood male pigmies have an average height of 4 ft 10 in![/quote]

Interesting subject. There’s debate over the average height of the romans which includes dietary factors, integration of other conquered races into the legions and which period you’re referring to.

To say the average height of a roman is X is a broad and misleading statement. While at some point the recorded average height of a roman citizen may have been 4.8 feet, they have also been recorded at an average of 5.5 ft and more. Gaius Marius, who pretty much reformed the legions into the bad-assery they became, lowered recruitment restrictions and opened them up to all regardless of wealth or class. This undoubtedly had an impact on the average height of the legions when you take into consideration the nutrition of the lower classes however even he had a personal standard when it came to the minimal height of a roman soldier which, as far as I can ascertain, was 5.10ft. Of course, this wasn’t strictly adhered to during recruitment according to records and was later lowered even more to fill in the ranks. But even at that - there was no shortage of volunteers during the Marius reform and I doubt they couldn’t afford to be picky.

Consider further the expansion of the empire, which required a greater army obviously, and you have to also consider a great portion of that army were conscripted ‘barbarians’ and mercenaries, former enemies of the Empire, who were “on average” even taller than your true-blooded roman citizen.

So, yea, to say the average height of a roman legionary was 4 foot 8 is at best misleading.[/quote]

Sorry guys, the Roman records themselves show that the average height of a Roman soldier was around 148cm. 300 years later it was around a gigantic 165, but only because they recruited more Gauls and Germans.

http://www.anthropologynet.info/sub-racial/german-and-celtic-mercenaries-fill-the-ranks-of-the-roman-army.html

[/quote]

At the end of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus’ reign. It’s important to keep that distinction in mind as even that link you provided suggests that before the “end of his reign” the average height was actually higher.

In fact I’m still sceptical they were ever actually that short. I see plenty of anthropometric/anthropological and Roman history resources telling a very different tale to that link you’ve posted.

116

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

[/quote]

I doubt the “average” height of a roman soldier was 148 cm (4.8 ft). If we’re really talking about “average” height that means some soldiers were 160 cm tall while others were between 120 or 130 cm (3.9 to 4.2 ft). Totally implausible. Heck! full blood male pigmies have an average height of 4 ft 10 in![/quote]

Interesting subject. There’s debate over the average height of the romans which includes dietary factors, integration of other conquered races into the legions and which period you’re referring to.

To say the average height of a roman is X is a broad and misleading statement. While at some point the recorded average height of a roman citizen may have been 4.8 feet, they have also been recorded at an average of 5.5 ft and more. Gaius Marius, who pretty much reformed the legions into the bad-assery they became, lowered recruitment restrictions and opened them up to all regardless of wealth or class. This undoubtedly had an impact on the average height of the legions when you take into consideration the nutrition of the lower classes however even he had a personal standard when it came to the minimal height of a roman soldier which, as far as I can ascertain, was 5.10ft. Of course, this wasn’t strictly adhered to during recruitment according to records and was later lowered even more to fill in the ranks. But even at that - there was no shortage of volunteers during the Marius reform and I doubt they couldn’t afford to be picky.

Consider further the expansion of the empire, which required a greater army obviously, and you have to also consider a great portion of that army were conscripted ‘barbarians’ and mercenaries, former enemies of the Empire, who were “on average” even taller than your true-blooded roman citizen.

So, yea, to say the average height of a roman legionary was 4 foot 8 is at best misleading.[/quote]

Sorry guys, the Roman records themselves show that the average height of a Roman soldier was around 148cm. 300 years later it was around a gigantic 165, but only because they recruited more Gauls and Germans.

http://www.anthropologynet.info/sub-racial/german-and-celtic-mercenaries-fill-the-ranks-of-the-roman-army.html

[/quote]

At the end of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus’ reign. It’s important to keep that distinction in mind as even that link you provided suggests that before the “end of his reign” the average height was actually higher.

In fact I’m still sceptical they were ever actually that short. I see plenty of anthropometric/anthropological and Roman history resources telling a very different tale to that link you’ve posted.[/quote]

An AVERAGE height of 4.8 ft is impossible, period. If the romans were pygmy-sized people it wouldn’t go unnoticed!

117

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I do not know if you of the posters who posted that this is not a feat ever enjoyed the glory of prolonged marches with heavy rucksacks, but as far as I could find out the most US army special forces do is around 50 lbs in training.

The most anyone did ever do where Roman soldiers with up to 100 to 150 lbs.

Fiven that those soldiers usually are skinny runts that brings them to about 300 lbs tops which is still way below 400.

If any one of you ever tried to walk 26 miles with 100 lbs on his back you would know that is neither pleasant, nor easy.

[/quote]

Your a fool, these guys were not “skinny runts”. skinny maybe, also the most effective infantry of its time. And they were everywhere. One day you rebel figuring the romans were chillin in milan, and literally they would cross half a continent in mere weeks. Also, skinny runts do need less food. PX would be an expensive soldier[/quote]

Ok, so at Caesars time thee average height of a roman soldier was 148 cm. So, they were not skinny runts, they were perfectly average dwarfs.

Which hauled up to 69 kgs of equipment but at this point we really should consider whether their very, very low center of gravity was not a massive help.

[/quote]

I doubt the “average” height of a roman soldier was 148 cm (4.8 ft). If we’re really talking about “average” height that means some soldiers were 160 cm tall while others were between 120 or 130 cm (3.9 to 4.2 ft). Totally implausible. Heck! full blood male pigmies have an average height of 4 ft 10 in![/quote]

Interesting subject. There’s debate over the average height of the romans which includes dietary factors, integration of other conquered races into the legions and which period you’re referring to.

To say the average height of a roman is X is a broad and misleading statement. While at some point the recorded average height of a roman citizen may have been 4.8 feet, they have also been recorded at an average of 5.5 ft and more. Gaius Marius, who pretty much reformed the legions into the bad-assery they became, lowered recruitment restrictions and opened them up to all regardless of wealth or class. This undoubtedly had an impact on the average height of the legions when you take into consideration the nutrition of the lower classes however even he had a personal standard when it came to the minimal height of a roman soldier which, as far as I can ascertain, was 5.10ft. Of course, this wasn’t strictly adhered to during recruitment according to records and was later lowered even more to fill in the ranks. But even at that - there was no shortage of volunteers during the Marius reform and I doubt they couldn’t afford to be picky.

Consider further the expansion of the empire, which required a greater army obviously, and you have to also consider a great portion of that army were conscripted ‘barbarians’ and mercenaries, former enemies of the Empire, who were “on average” even taller than your true-blooded roman citizen.

So, yea, to say the average height of a roman legionary was 4 foot 8 is at best misleading.[/quote]

Sorry guys, the Roman records themselves show that the average height of a Roman soldier was around 148cm. 300 years later it was around a gigantic 165, but only because they recruited more Gauls and Germans.

http://www.anthropologynet.info/sub-racial/german-and-celtic-mercenaries-fill-the-ranks-of-the-roman-army.html

[/quote]

At the end of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus’ reign. It’s important to keep that distinction in mind as even that link you provided suggests that before the “end of his reign” the average height was actually higher.

In fact I’m still sceptical they were ever actually that short. I see plenty of anthropometric/anthropological and Roman history resources telling a very different tale to that link you’ve posted.[/quote]

An AVERAGE height of 4.8 ft is impossible, period. If the romans were pygmy-sized people it wouldn’t go unnoticed! [/quote]

I waiting for your well researched paper on the flaws of the height measuring system of the Roman legions.

118

I didn’t read all the posts. Just a few…

To all you haters out there. Most of you are probably under 200 lbs. Slap on a four plates on your back and go ‘run’ 26 miles. Let us know how that goes for you.

119

[quote]tom63 wrote:
To be fair this guy us a champion sumo wrestler in the USA . It’s not like being the japanese champ . I have no idea how many people compete in this country but I’m sure it’s not the same size competitive pool.

And it’s great he accomplished a goal , but many people do similar . Good for them , but I’m not going to be wowed at something I see many ordinary out of shape people do . He gets an atta boy , but that’s about it .

Many marathons and the ironman races have spots for pr stories . People that would normally qualify . This could be fund raising for charity , or just these feel good draw attention to our event things . Some people love this stuff . It’s not my cup of tea.[/quote]

I’m also not impressed that your son can deadlift 315 pounds or whatever it is that you are always bragging about…hell, my girlfriend can deadlift 315 pounds! I can do it with a back injury 1 handed…its not impressive at all…

UNTIL you consider the fact that he is only 12 or wahtever he is now…do you see where I am going with this? A man in his 40’s running a 10 hour marathon isn’t impressive at all, UNTIL you throw in another factor (the fact that he is 400 pounds, analagous to your sons age)…that is when people need to stand up and give the guy his due…

For fucks sake there are some haters in this thread…

120

It’s not hating to point out that it’s not that great of an accomplishment . And American sumo wresing champion is a huge difference than Japanese sumo wrestling champion .

My son is most likely better at powerlifting than this guy . At 16 he was just missing a 3x bodyweight deadlift raw and 2x bodyweight squat raw . He’s pulling over 400 now .

Not many people can pull 320, 355 for triples then ten sets of 300 x 4 with one minute breaks . This is at a weight of 150. Try it with equivalent weights . That is at sixteen. The kid is close to the plusa top 100 at his age . This is both hard and difficult . The difficulty is from the standards if performance , not just a completion with no parameters of weight and time .

Good for Jim that he accomplished a goal , but I’ve seen out of shape housewives and people line oprah do better .

Just because something is hard it doesn’t mean it’s difficult .

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
To be fair this guy us a champion sumo wrestler in the USA . It’s not like being the japanese champ . I have no idea how many people compete in this country but I’m sure it’s not the same size competitive pool.

And it’s great he accomplished a goal , but many people do similar . Good for them , but I’m not going to be wowed at something I see many ordinary out of shape people do . He gets an atta boy , but that’s about it .

Many marathons and the ironman races have spots for pr stories . People that would normally qualify . This could be fund raising for charity , or just these feel good draw attention to our event things . Some people love this stuff . It’s not my cup of tea.[/quote]

I’m also not impressed that your son can deadlift 315 pounds or whatever it is that you are always bragging about…hell, my girlfriend can deadlift 315 pounds! I can do it with a back injury 1 handed…its not impressive at all…

UNTIL you consider the fact that he is only 12 or wahtever he is now…do you see where I am going with this? A man in his 40’s running a 10 hour marathon isn’t impressive at all, UNTIL you throw in another factor (the fact that he is 400 pounds, analagous to your sons age)…that is when people need to stand up and give the guy his due…

For fucks sake there are some haters in this thread…
[/quote]