Modern Humans Weaklings Compared to Ancestors

Mo Farah would have had some tough competition from ancient farmers living 7,300 years ago.

Scientists claim if they were to cross paths, our ancestors would have been capable of outrunning some of the world’s most talented athletes.

That’s according to recent research by Cambridge University which reveals just how far our fitness has fallen in just a couple of millennia.

“Even our most highly trained athletes pale in comparison to these ancestors of ours,” Dr Colin Shaw told Outside Magazine. “We’re certainly weaker than we used to be.”

The study looked at skeletons dating back to around 5,300 BC with the most recent to 850 AD - a time span of 6,150 years.

It then compared the bones to that of Cambridge University students, and found the leg bones of male farmers 5,300 BC were just as good as those of highly-trained cross-country runners.

But just 3,000 years later, the study found our ancestors had leg bone structures closer to that of the Netflix-watching generation.

When our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones, their lower limb strength and overall mobility decreased.

Men were most affected by the change, which suggested a reduction in mobility and loading. In other words, they were covering less distance on foot and carrying out lighter physical tasks.

“My results suggest that, following the transition to agriculture in central Europe, males were more affected than females by cultural and technological changes that reduced the need for long-distance travel or heavy physical work,” said lead researcher Alison Macintosh, from the department of archaeology and anthropology at Cambridge University.

“This also means that, as people began to specialise in tasks other than just farming and food production, such as metalworking, fewer people were regularly doing tasks that were very strenuous on their legs.”

An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly.

Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 per cent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.

And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller.

The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development.

The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. They blame agriculture, with restricted diets and urbanisation compromising health and leading to the spread of disease.

The theory has emerged from studies of fossilised human remains found in Africa, Europe and Asia.

The earliest, from Ethiopia, date back 200,000 years, and were larger and “more robust” than their modern-day counterparts, said Dr. Marta Lahr, an expert in human evolution.

Macintosh used a portable 3D laser surface scanner to study the femurs, or thigh bones, and tibiae, or shin bones, of skeletons from Germany, Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic and Serbia.

She found that male tibiae became less rigid and the bones of both men and women became less strengthened to loads in one direction more than another.

“Both sexes exhibited a decline in anteroposterior, or front-to-back, strengthening of the femur and tibia through time, while the ability of male tibiae to resist bending, twisting, and compression declined as well,” said Macintosh.

She presented her findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Calgary, Canada.

Evidence of declining mobility in women was less consistent than for men. This suggested they were “multi-tasking” - or at least undertaking fewer tasks requiring significant lower limb loading.

"In central Europe, adaptations in human leg bones spanning this time-frame show that it was initially men who were performing the majority of high-mobility tasks, probably associated with tending crops and livestock.

"But with task specialization, as more and more people began doing a wider variety of crafts and behaviours, fewer people needed to be highly mobile, and with technological innovation, physically strenuous tasks were likely made easier.

“The overall result is a reduction in mobility of the population as a whole, accompanied by a reduction in the strength of the lower limb bones.”

I see stuff like this pop up eery now and again. More and more recently.
While I don’t know the validity of any of these claims, it still makes me want to work harder.
I do believe that we’ve gotten soft these days…

I would expect that if you take a normal person from today that their bones would be a lot less dense and strong than someone who lived 10,000 years ago. But I would be interested to see what the bones of a modern human would be like if they went through exactly the same lifestyle as someone who lived in the past.

The wording seems sensationalised yet the data seems to point to the adaptation in life rather than genetics. This line for example “the leg bones of male farmers 5,300 BC were just as good as those of highly-trained cross-country runners”. This is basically saying that a super active person who lived 7300 years ago had the same bone density as a super active person from today. That seems about right to me so I don’t know where their conclusions are coming from.

[quote]RedFive wrote:
I see stuff like this pop up eery now and again. More and more recently.
While I don’t know the validity of any of these claims, it still makes me want to work harder.
I do believe that we’ve gotten soft these days…[/quote]

I think also a lot of people that would never have lived to adulthood since the dawn of civilization.

Strep throat (which I just had) probably would have killed me 150 year ago, let alone 30,000 years ago living under a tree.

Fun topic. Here’s my bro-science theory:

The average ancient human, IF they managed to survive (more on this later), was probably in much better physical shape than the average person today, if such a thing is measured by bone density, muscle mass, work capacity, etc.

The fittest humans of today would seem like another species in comparison. I doubt there were many people walking around 7,000 years ago who could do the things that Lebron James does. Nor do I think any hunter/gatherer would be anywhere remotely as strong as today’s elite strength athletes. Lothar of the Hill People would not beat Michael Phelps in a race across the river, nor would he out-run Usain Bolt.

We have a much better understanding of human physiology today, which allows us to push our genetic limits in ways our ancestors could not have. All of our knowledge about nutrition and exercise only matters if it is taken advantage of, which is something the average person does not do.

The weakest among us today (from a physical standpoint) would simply not have survived long enough to leave us any bones to analyze at all had they been born 7,000 years ago. Furthermore, death waited around every corner from disease, environmental factors and other humans. Simply surviving was probably a pretty good workout back then.

So yes, I buy it, but only if you are considering what an average person could do 7,000 years ago vs what an average person can do today. Lothar of the Hill People could probably run laps around your brother-in-law, swim circles around Carl from Accounts Payable, and out-lift the Al Bundy types at the bar who once threw four touchdown passes in a single game back in high school.

As far as brain size and intelligence goes, I’ll stay away from that topic for now.

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Fun topic. Here’s my bro-science theory:

The fittest humans of today would seem like another species in comparison. I doubt there were many people walking around 7,000 years ago who could do the things that Lebron James does. Nor do I think any hunter/gatherer would be anywhere remotely as strong as today’s elite strength athletes. Lothar of the Hill People would not beat Michael Phelps in a race across the river, nor would he out-run Usain Bolt.

[/quote]

I somewhat agree. I think if scientist could clone a person from 7000 years ago today, and they were raised with todays equipment, knowledge they would smoke those guys. Granted it would depend a lot on the 7,000 year olds height when it comes to Lebron in basketball, but if he was even pushing 6’, game over. 7,000 year old dude would dominate. Weight lifting, not even close, 7,000 year old dude would own it.

I’ll take being somewhat less “fit” than my ancestors and living past 28 years old thankyouverymuch.

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Fun topic. Here’s my bro-science theory:

The fittest humans of today would seem like another species in comparison. I doubt there were many people walking around 7,000 years ago who could do the things that Lebron James does. Nor do I think any hunter/gatherer would be anywhere remotely as strong as today’s elite strength athletes. Lothar of the Hill People would not beat Michael Phelps in a race across the river, nor would he out-run Usain Bolt.

[/quote]

I somewhat agree. I think if scientist could clone a person from 7000 years ago today, and they were raised with todays equipment, knowledge they would smoke those guys. Granted it would depend a lot on the 7,000 year olds height when it comes to Lebron in basketball, but if he was even pushing 6’, game over. 7,000 year old dude would dominate. Weight lifting, not even close, 7,000 year old dude would own it.
[/quote]

No you’re missing the point. The guys back then were fit because of their lifestyle if you had one of them growing up today he’d be sedentary and would be like anyone else today except he’d be shorter.

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Fun topic. Here’s my bro-science theory:

The fittest humans of today would seem like another species in comparison. I doubt there were many people walking around 7,000 years ago who could do the things that Lebron James does. Nor do I think any hunter/gatherer would be anywhere remotely as strong as today’s elite strength athletes. Lothar of the Hill People would not beat Michael Phelps in a race across the river, nor would he out-run Usain Bolt.

[/quote]

I somewhat agree. I think if scientist could clone a person from 7000 years ago today, and they were raised with todays equipment, knowledge they would smoke those guys. Granted it would depend a lot on the 7,000 year olds height when it comes to Lebron in basketball, but if he was even pushing 6’, game over. 7,000 year old dude would dominate. Weight lifting, not even close, 7,000 year old dude would own it.
[/quote]

Why exactly do you believe that? There is no genetic reason that would be so, it says right there in the excerpt(Marathon runners with matched bone density to guy). Marathon runners aren’t where you would expect to find the highest bone density in a modern human, so Mo Farrah is hardly ‘peak human condition’ in this comparison either.

My ancestral fathers would probably kick my ass.

I am not saying that my theory is 100% fact.

Here is why that is my theory. I’m just thinking out loud here, and I admit I am not the greatest when it comes to putting my thoughts into written form.

Genetics. The saying “only the strong survive” must have been close to a physical law 7000 years ago. So the genetics that make these top of their field athletes, come from the people of that time that were strong enough to survive. Over time because it has become easier for weaker people to survive, the gene pool of the average person has been diluted by genes of people that would have not made it back then. So for a person today to have “it”, “it” must have come from somewhere. 7000 years ago the average person would more likely have the “it” gene. so most of the people surviving then would be capable of the same things our greatest athletes of today are.

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I am not saying that my theory is 100% fact.

Here is why that is my theory. I’m just thinking out loud here, and I admit I am not the greatest when it comes to putting my thoughts into written form.

Genetics. The saying “only the strong survive” must have been close to a physical law 7000 years ago. So the genetics that make these top of their field athletes, come from the people of that time that were strong enough to survive. Over time because it has become easier for weaker people to survive, the gene pool of the average person has been diluted by genes of people that would have not made it back then. So for a person today to have “it”, “it” must have come from somewhere. 7000 years ago the average person would more likely have the “it” gene. so most of the people surviving then would be capable of the same things our greatest athletes of today are. [/quote]

I see what you’re saying.

Of course, all the people today are descendent from the survivors back then. From that, and considering only mutations, I think you could reasonably say that the average today is basically the average back then. Half the people today are above their (and our) average; half are below.

But then we’ve had lots of progress in providing stable food sources. From a nutrition standpoint, and the effect of nutrition on the body, I think you could say that the average continued to be driven up from 7000 years ago.

And then modern medicine enters the picture – lets say around 1500 when it started making a significant impact on life spans. People who “should have” died off didn’t. More weaker people are surviving that “shouldn’t”.

I guess that would bring it to something like this:

From 7,000 years ago, to about 500 years ago, nutrition improvements raised the average. Then from 500 years ago until now, medical improvements have provided a negative force on the direction of the average. Whether the force is still positive or not, I have no idea. It could still be improving, just not as much.

Very naive speculation on my part.

Of course, the article seems to suggest that agriculture had a negative impact. I really have no idea.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I am not saying that my theory is 100% fact.

Here is why that is my theory. I’m just thinking out loud here, and I admit I am not the greatest when it comes to putting my thoughts into written form.

Genetics. The saying “only the strong survive” must have been close to a physical law 7000 years ago. So the genetics that make these top of their field athletes, come from the people of that time that were strong enough to survive. Over time because it has become easier for weaker people to survive, the gene pool of the average person has been diluted by genes of people that would have not made it back then. So for a person today to have “it”, “it” must have come from somewhere. 7000 years ago the average person would more likely have the “it” gene. so most of the people surviving then would be capable of the same things our greatest athletes of today are. [/quote]

I see what you’re saying.

Of course, all the people today are descendent from the strongest back then. From that, and considering only mutations, I think you could reasonably say that the average today is basically the average back then. Half the people today are above their (and our) average; half are below.

But then we’ve had lots of progress in providing stable food sources. From a nutrition standpoint, and the effect of nutrition on the body, I think you could say that the average continued to be driven up from 7000 years ago.

And then modern medicine enters the picture – lets say around 1500 when it started making a significant impact on life spans. People who “should have” died off didn’t. More weaker people are surviving that “shouldn’t”.

I guess that would bring it to something like this:

From 7,000 years ago, to about 500 years ago, nutrition improvements raised the average. Then from 500 years ago until now, medical improvements have provided a negative force on the direction of the average. Whether the force is still positive or not, I have no idea. It could still be improving, just not as much.

Very naive speculation on my part.[/quote]
The main thing is that when you billions of replications of a successful genome, your standard deviation changes. Backwards mapping will progressively converge less and less especially given fewer controls over time.

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The main thing is that when you billions of replications of a successful genome, your standard deviation changes.[/quote]

Definitely, which is why I stuck with ‘average’. Then again, get too far below the starting average would simply die off… which would drive the later average up.

I don’t understand what you mean. What do you mean by “backwards mapping” and “controls”?

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Backwards mapping will progressively converge less and less especially given fewer controls over time.[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean. What do you mean by “backwards mapping” and “controls”?[/quote]
I made it up to use less words. Backwards mapping as in taking a certain landscape then working backwards to a previous one. Controls as in in depth observations of people.

Right agricultural. That’s when it went from “I don’t think this one will make it”. To, “you know what he has a chance”. He doesn’t have to hunt, he doesn’t have to keep up with pack. He is weaker than what was needed prior to agticulture

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Fun topic. Here’s my bro-science theory:

The fittest humans of today would seem like another species in comparison. I doubt there were many people walking around 7,000 years ago who could do the things that Lebron James does. Nor do I think any hunter/gatherer would be anywhere remotely as strong as today’s elite strength athletes. Lothar of the Hill People would not beat Michael Phelps in a race across the river, nor would he out-run Usain Bolt.

[/quote]

I somewhat agree. I think if scientist could clone a person from 7000 years ago today, and they were raised with todays equipment, knowledge they would smoke those guys. Granted it would depend a lot on the 7,000 year olds height when it comes to Lebron in basketball, but if he was even pushing 6’, game over. 7,000 year old dude would dominate. Weight lifting, not even close, 7,000 year old dude would own it.
[/quote]

No you’re missing the point. The guys back then were fit because of their lifestyle if you had one of them growing up today he’d be sedentary and would be like anyone else today except he’d be shorter.[/quote]

You’re missing the point. You, me and other brothers on this site are some of the lucky ones that got that gene that says “I am not going to waste away like a little bitch. I am going to put in work”…

Or is it the ones wasting away on their couch are the lucky ones because if it was 7000 years ago they would not have made it?

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Fun topic. Here’s my bro-science theory:

The fittest humans of today would seem like another species in comparison. I doubt there were many people walking around 7,000 years ago who could do the things that Lebron James does. Nor do I think any hunter/gatherer would be anywhere remotely as strong as today’s elite strength athletes. Lothar of the Hill People would not beat Michael Phelps in a race across the river, nor would he out-run Usain Bolt.

[/quote]

I somewhat agree. I think if scientist could clone a person from 7000 years ago today, and they were raised with todays equipment, knowledge they would smoke those guys. Granted it would depend a lot on the 7,000 year olds height when it comes to Lebron in basketball, but if he was even pushing 6’, game over. 7,000 year old dude would dominate. Weight lifting, not even close, 7,000 year old dude would own it.
[/quote]

No you’re missing the point. The guys back then were fit because of their lifestyle if you had one of them growing up today he’d be sedentary and would be like anyone else today except he’d be shorter.[/quote]

You’re missing the point. You, me and other brothers on this site are some of the lucky ones that got that gene that says “I am not going to waste away like a little bitch. I am going to put in work”…

Or is it the ones wasting away on their couch are the lucky ones because if it was 7000 years ago they would not have made it?
[/quote]

I think it becomes too much speculation at that point, not that anyone is trying to portray that it isn’t. Someone wasting away on a couch because society allows it might fare perfectly well as a hunter gatherer if that was what they had to do to live. It’d be nice if everyone had the ambition to do something, but some people just do what they have to, whether that be work 9-5 then watch TV, be a farmer, or track buffalo with a hunting party until opportunity presents itself.

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Fun topic. Here’s my bro-science theory:

The fittest humans of today would seem like another species in comparison. I doubt there were many people walking around 7,000 years ago who could do the things that Lebron James does. Nor do I think any hunter/gatherer would be anywhere remotely as strong as today’s elite strength athletes. Lothar of the Hill People would not beat Michael Phelps in a race across the river, nor would he out-run Usain Bolt.

[/quote]

I somewhat agree. I think if scientist could clone a person from 7000 years ago today, and they were raised with todays equipment, knowledge they would smoke those guys. Granted it would depend a lot on the 7,000 year olds height when it comes to Lebron in basketball, but if he was even pushing 6’, game over. 7,000 year old dude would dominate. Weight lifting, not even close, 7,000 year old dude would own it.
[/quote]

No you’re missing the point. The guys back then were fit because of their lifestyle if you had one of them growing up today he’d be sedentary and would be like anyone else today except he’d be shorter.[/quote]

You’re missing the point. You, me and other brothers on this site are some of the lucky ones that got that gene that says “I am not going to waste away like a little bitch. I am going to put in work”…

Or is it the ones wasting away on their couch are the lucky ones because if it was 7000 years ago they would not have made it?
[/quote]

I think it becomes too much speculation at that point, not that anyone is trying to portray that it isn’t. Someone wasting away on a couch because society allows it might fare perfectly well as a hunter gatherer if that was what they had to do to live. It’d be nice if everyone had the ambition to do something, but some people just do what they have to, whether that be work 9-5 then watch TV, be a farmer, or track buffalo with a hunting party until opportunity presents itself.[/quote]

True.

One way to find out if you would have had a shot at survival 7000 years ago is to look at your fingers. If your ring finger is longer than your index finger then you are one of us that could have made it. If it is not you would have been fucked.

Just kidding.

Or am I?

No, I am just kidding.

Maybe