I don’t see any reason why “cavemen” who are still genetically homo sapiens would be any different physically from Amazonian tribal peoples, the Inuit, or Native Americans. It’s not like they were hand-to-hand fighting bison and mammoth for their meat, they were more likely to collaborate with their community, dress up in furs, and jump around like rodeo clowns to scare a herd into stampeding themselves off of a cliff.
The body (and mind) are programmed to survive, so the advantage goes to caveman.
The conveniences of modern life have made modern man into a pussified jellyfish.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Plus I am sure their stress levels were through the roof. Something about having to worry about predators and not knowing when your next meal is would stress me the fuck out. Oh and I am sure the modern human exerts themselves a lot less throughout the day (outside of training) which would attribute to better recovery.[/quote]
Actually, they likely had far less stress than we do, or at least less stress like reactions.
The book “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers” covers this in detail, but in general, we deal with stress, and its negative consequences, far more than animals in nature do. The basic idea is that while being chased by a lion sounds a lot worse than having a super important meeting tomorrow, the reaction in our body is exactly the same. Furthermore, the lion encounter is over in a minute or two at which point you go back to normal (or are dead), while for the meeting, you continue to stress all day leading up to the meeting. So while no one would trade places with a cave man, our sympathetic nervous system is likely far more active than there’s was.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Plus I am sure their stress levels were through the roof. Something about having to worry about predators and not knowing when your next meal is would stress me the fuck out. Oh and I am sure the modern human exerts themselves a lot less throughout the day (outside of training) which would attribute to better recovery.[/quote]
Actually, they likely had far less stress than we do, or at least less stress like reactions.
The book “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers” covers this in detail, but in general, we deal with stress, and its negative consequences, far more than animals in nature do. The basic idea is that while being chased by a lion sounds a lot worse than having a super important meeting tomorrow, the reaction in our body is exactly the same. Furthermore, the lion encounter is over in a minute or two at which point you go back to normal (or are dead), while for the meeting, you continue to stress all day leading up to the meeting. So while no one would trade places with a cave man, our sympathetic nervous system is likely far more active than there’s was.
[/quote]
Anticipation and duration. Precisely that.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Plus I am sure their stress levels were through the roof. Something about having to worry about predators and not knowing when your next meal is would stress me the fuck out. Oh and I am sure the modern human exerts themselves a lot less throughout the day (outside of training) which would attribute to better recovery.[/quote]
Actually, they likely had far less stress than we do, or at least less stress like reactions.
The book “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers” covers this in detail, but in general, we deal with stress, and its negative consequences, far more than animals in nature do. The basic idea is that while being chased by a lion sounds a lot worse than having a super important meeting tomorrow, the reaction in our body is exactly the same. Furthermore, the lion encounter is over in a minute or two at which point you go back to normal (or are dead), while for the meeting, you continue to stress all day leading up to the meeting. So while no one would trade places with a cave man, our sympathetic nervous system is likely far more active than there’s was.
[/quote]
Anticipation and duration. Precisely that.[/quote]
Smart stuff.
I thought the evidence of men’s height/size was consistently that men have gotten taller (at least, maybe not heavier) over the centuries. Did humans shrink from caveman days to civilization and then get bigger as civilization provided more calorie opportunities? If so then the really shitty power lifters and athletes could have been the dark ages guys. Which doesn’t fit the image of barbarians/vikings running around looking like thor from a comic book.
On a side note, I was going through my great grandfathers WWI papers and souvenirs and his military ID had him at 5’10 240 pounds. Seems heavy for height and time period, particularly in the military.
[quote]comus3 wrote:
I thought the evidence of men’s height/size was consistently that men have gotten taller (at least, maybe not heavier) over the centuries. Did humans shrink from caveman days to civilization and then get bigger as civilization provided more calorie opportunities? [/quote]
My understanding is exactly that - paleolithic man was reasonably tall because those that survived childhood had a diet very high in good quality protein and they also spent a large proportion of their day napping/socialising. The amount of time taken to hunt and forage didn’t take up that much of their day. With the advent of agriculture man had access to cheap and plentiful carbohydrates (grain etc) and their protein intake took a hit. In addition as farmers they had to graft for long hours each day, so their recovery was also reduced. The rich could afford meat, but the majority lived off “staples” of bread and oatmeal and, more recently, potatoes. Over the last few centuries with improved agricultural methods and technology (cheaper protein) and a less strenuous lifestyle (more rest) height has been steadily increasing again.
[quote]comus3 wrote:
If so then the really shitty power lifters and athletes could have been the dark ages guys. Which doesn’t fit the image of barbarians/vikings running around looking like thor from a comic book. [/quote]
I think it’s been established that Vikings were actually nothing like how they are usually depicted in films etc. The vast majority of Vikings were simple farmers, and probably looked the same as everyone else at that time period. I’m sure some of them were brutal warriors, but contrary to modern thinking you don’t have to be huge and ripped to be a brutal warrior.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I don’t see any reason why “cavemen” who are still genetically homo sapiens would be any different physically from Amazonian tribal peoples, the Inuit, or Native Americans. It’s not like they were hand-to-hand fighting bison and mammoth for their meat, they were more likely to collaborate with their community, dress up in furs, and jump around like rodeo clowns to scare a herd into stampeding themselves off of a cliff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-Smashed-In_Buffalo_Jump[/quote]
But on that note, WHO were the people that actually fought stuff head on? The only advantage that us humans have is that we’re smarter and can work as a unit.
[quote]furo wrote:
[quote]comus3 wrote:
If so then the really shitty power lifters and athletes could have been the dark ages guys. Which doesn’t fit the image of barbarians/vikings running around looking like thor from a comic book. [/quote]
I think it’s been established that Vikings were actually nothing like how they are usually depicted in films etc. The vast majority of Vikings were simple farmers, and probably looked the same as everyone else at that time period. I’m sure some of them were brutal warriors, but contrary to modern thinking you don’t have to be huge and ripped to be a brutal warrior.[/quote]
Thank you.
[/quote]
Years ago there was a paleolithic study that questioned the reason so many of their remains showed boned breaks and other traumatic injuries. In looking at the types of injuries, and comparing it to modern man’s activities, these injuries were almost identical to those of today’s rodeo riders! What does this mean? It means early man was so strong that they often would take on a wild animal directly.
[quote]CLINK wrote:
Years ago there was a paleolithic study that questioned the reason so many of their remains showed boned breaks and other traumatic injuries. In looking at the types of injuries, and comparing it to modern man’s activities, these injuries were almost identical to those of today’s rodeo riders! What does this mean? It means early man was so strong that they often would take on a wild animal directly. [/quote]
the cry heard through the ages… “hey ya’ll…watch this!”
Strength gained via manual labor is know joke, and I would rate it as “more functional” than weight room strength. So on average I’d say they probably were stronger than your AVERAGE Joe. Just wrestle with one of those farm boys and you’ll experience what I mean. Now obviously I doubt that they were stronger than the Brock Lesnar’s of the world, but at the same time we run into the issues of how you define strength. It’s like pondering who is stronger; the gymnast, the powerlifter, the grappler, the Olympic lifter etc…
[quote]silverblood wrote:
[quote]CLINK wrote:
Years ago there was a paleolithic study that questioned the reason so many of their remains showed boned breaks and other traumatic injuries. In looking at the types of injuries, and comparing it to modern man’s activities, these injuries were almost identical to those of today’s rodeo riders! What does this mean? It means early man was so strong that they often would take on a wild animal directly. [/quote]
the cry heard through the ages… “hey ya’ll…watch this!”[/quote]
They just never had a run in with Bodacious…
The bollocks it is. See, where I come from manual labour is just one of those things you have to do, and the average farmboy trying to play rugby is a pitiful sight. When I was in school, there was a teacher called David Selcon who had actually bothered to lift weights and was, as a result, bigger and stronger than anybody in a 30 mile radius of this economically stagnant shithole. The actual poundage, in this age of 25 kilo bags of cement, that you have to lift in the course of a day’s work is pitiful compared to what a good powerlifter lifts. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but there it is.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
The bollocks it is. See, where I come from manual labour is just one of those things you have to do, and the average farmboy trying to play rugby is a pitiful sight. When I was in school, there was a teacher called David Selcon who had actually bothered to lift weights and was, as a result, bigger and stronger than anybody in a 30 mile radius of this economically stagnant shithole. The actual poundage, in this age of 25 kilo bags of cement, that you have to lift in the course of a day’s work is pitiful compared to what a good powerlifter lifts. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but there it is.[/quote]
You sir know your stuff. Thumbs up.
Good. I’m glad that’s cleared up.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
The bollocks it is. See, where I come from manual labour is just one of those things you have to do, and the average farmboy trying to play rugby is a pitiful sight. When I was in school, there was a teacher called David Selcon who had actually bothered to lift weights and was, as a result, bigger and stronger than anybody in a 30 mile radius of this economically stagnant shithole. The actual poundage, in this age of 25 kilo bags of cement, that you have to lift in the course of a day’s work is pitiful compared to what a good powerlifter lifts. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but there it is.[/quote]
Eh, thats questionable. The thing is, most of both is conditioning and skill specialization. I’ve had to place 32 135 lb. steel sections by hand, in approximately 2 hrs. time, walking each piece from 160 to 20 feet or so like a ladder run in 10 foot increments, fitting using a sledge for hours on end, and run 20 cubic yards of concrete in wheel barrows all kinds of distances in the course of a day. Volume wise, I don’t know that any PL’ers are moving 20 thousand lbs. in a workout, let alone running it over rough terrain, up hill, down, or what ever it takes to get it into the forms.
And you don’t ever want to be the only guy stocking block for 3 block layers. That will run you to death.
Granted, I don’t know squat about rugby conditioning, but either one will make you very good at doing that specific task.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
The bollocks it is. See, where I come from manual labour is just one of those things you have to do, and the average farmboy trying to play rugby is a pitiful sight. When I was in school, there was a teacher called David Selcon who had actually bothered to lift weights and was, as a result, bigger and stronger than anybody in a 30 mile radius of this economically stagnant shithole. The actual poundage, in this age of 25 kilo bags of cement, that you have to lift in the course of a day’s work is pitiful compared to what a good powerlifter lifts. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but there it is.[/quote]
It comes down to how you can display said strength, an immobile powerlifter with tons of movement issues is going to be pitiful in displaying his strength in many instances. And rugby/football is more of an explosive sport imo anyway.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
The bollocks it is. See, where I come from manual labour is just one of those things you have to do, and the average farmboy trying to play rugby is a pitiful sight. When I was in school, there was a teacher called David Selcon who had actually bothered to lift weights and was, as a result, bigger and stronger than anybody in a 30 mile radius of this economically stagnant shithole. The actual poundage, in this age of 25 kilo bags of cement, that you have to lift in the course of a day’s work is pitiful compared to what a good powerlifter lifts. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but there it is.[/quote]
Eh, thats questionable. The thing is, most of both is conditioning and skill specialization. I’ve had to place 32 135 lb. steel sections by hand, in approximately 2 hrs. time, walking each piece from 160 to 20 feet or so like a ladder run in 10 foot increments, fitting using a sledge for hours on end, and run 20 cubic yards of concrete in wheel barrows all kinds of distances in the course of a day. Volume wise, I don’t know that any PL’ers are moving 20 thousand lbs. in a workout, let alone running it over rough terrain, up hill, down, or what ever it takes to get it into the forms.
And you don’t ever want to be the only guy stocking block for 3 block layers. That will run you to death.
Granted, I don’t know squat about rugby conditioning, but either one will make you very good at doing that specific task.
[/quote]
Right. Manual labor can consist of more than 50# bags of concrete. To me that’s like comparing apples to oranges. The body doesn’t know the difference in where the resistance is coming from, it just recognizes there’s resistance and it needs to start adapting. If you took a person that had to move heavy ass weight doing manual labor, and a person that was doing it in a gym, and the weight was equal…wait, haven’t you ever seen Rocky IV
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
The bollocks it is. See, where I come from manual labour is just one of those things you have to do, and the average farmboy trying to play rugby is a pitiful sight. When I was in school, there was a teacher called David Selcon who had actually bothered to lift weights and was, as a result, bigger and stronger than anybody in a 30 mile radius of this economically stagnant shithole. The actual poundage, in this age of 25 kilo bags of cement, that you have to lift in the course of a day’s work is pitiful compared to what a good powerlifter lifts. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but there it is.[/quote]
Eh, thats questionable. The thing is, most of both is conditioning and skill specialization. I’ve had to place 32 135 lb. steel sections by hand, in approximately 2 hrs. time, walking each piece from 160 to 20 feet or so like a ladder run in 10 foot increments, fitting using a sledge for hours on end, and run 20 cubic yards of concrete in wheel barrows all kinds of distances in the course of a day. Volume wise, I don’t know that any PL’ers are moving 20 thousand lbs. in a workout, let alone running it over rough terrain, up hill, down, or what ever it takes to get it into the forms.
And you don’t ever want to be the only guy stocking block for 3 block layers. That will run you to death.
Granted, I don’t know squat about rugby conditioning, but either one will make you very good at doing that specific task.
[/quote]
Right. Manual labor can consist of more than 50# bags of concrete. To me that’s like comparing apples to oranges. The body doesn’t know the difference in where the resistance is coming from, it just recognizes there’s resistance and it needs to start adapting. If you took a person that had to move heavy ass weight doing manual labor, and a person that was doing it in a gym, and the weight was equal…wait, haven’t you ever seen Rocky IV
[/quote]
Not really, that’s like saying doing 10x10 with 100 pounds equals doing 1 rep for 1000 pounds. It’s clearly different.