Were Cavemen Stronger Than People Today?

Off Topic
41

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

That’s not at all what he said. 10x10 with 100 vs 1 with 1000 is a huge change of resistance, the body obviously will adapt differently. That fits into his description just fine.

42

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I think the most I’ve done in the gym is about 66,000lbs in one training session

That was an above average volume day though :wink:

43

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I think the most I’ve done in the gym is about 66,000lbs in one training session

That was an above average volume day though ;)[/quote]

You aren’t kidding when you talk about pushing the volume envelope, huh?

44

Here y’all go.

45

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

[quote]
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…[/quote]

‘and the weight was equal’

46

[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]

Sort of. I had read several years ago that paleoanthropology digs of pre ice age campsites reveal that there might have been a ritualistic religious burial of mammoth bones, with signs of having been butchered. the ritual was likely to appease a mammoth spirit, somewhat like first nations are known to have done.

Along with the mammoth bones there averaged the also religiously buried skeletons of 2 humans, who tended to have signs of bone fractures. Often the fractures had signs of healing, indicating that the persons had been been cared for as much as possible.

How pre ice age humans hunted mammoths was not to directly play lacrosse with them, but to dig in advance a deep pit, with punjy sticks at the bottom. The top would be covered over with branches and stuff to conceal the pit. the mammoth would be angered in to charging the humans who would run over the branches (that could support their weight) and sucker the bugger into falling in. Once that happened they would throw rocks onto its head and spear it and whatever until it was dead.

Of course, for every successful mammoth hunt, the tribal group sacrificed the lives of 2 of their own. Since the mammoths were about 12 tons (twice the size of modern African elephants), there was a lot of meat, bone and hide in the trade off.

47

[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]
Maybe you mean Neandertals. They indeed had to use close combat and were probably not as good with bows and atlatlsm which is where we are astoundingly good at.
They also had exceptional bone mass compared to homo sapiens. Various speciemen display massive trauma, leading to your aforementioned conclusions.
Taking aurochses and elk head-on takes real paleo balls as well as skill with the spear.

Regarding farm strength: Maybe some forms of manual labour are tougher than others? Also, not everybody reacts to farm stimulus the same? Plus, you need adequate calories+ protein, something the dark ages in Europe really lacked.

@daily Mammoth hunt: I dont’t believe a paleolithic clan could sacrifice an average of two members even for an abundant supply of mammothy goodness. That’s way too many dead.

48

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@daily Mammoth hunt: I dont’t believe a paleolithic clan could sacrifice an average of two members even for an abundant supply of mammothy goodness. That’s way too many dead. [/quote]

Absolutely, plus, I don’t care how many tons of meat they got, they had no way to preserve it. Not worth losing your Dad and cousin for what was at best a few weeks worth of food.

49

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@daily Mammoth hunt: I dont’t believe a paleolithic clan could sacrifice an average of two members even for an abundant supply of mammothy goodness. That’s way too many dead. [/quote]

Absolutely, plus, I don’t care how many tons of meat they got, they had no way to preserve it. Not worth losing your Dad and cousin for what was at best a few weeks worth of food.[/quote]

Not true.

You can cure meat that will last a few years without it spoiling. I have had culatello that was aged in a 700 year old cellar in Emiglia Romagnia in Italy.

It takes skill and patience, but it can be done.

Also, Native American Pemmican can last years if made properly.

Just be advised, this kind of meat is salty as fuck.

50

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@daily Mammoth hunt: I dont’t believe a paleolithic clan could sacrifice an average of two members even for an abundant supply of mammothy goodness. That’s way too many dead. [/quote]

Absolutely, plus, I don’t care how many tons of meat they got, they had no way to preserve it. Not worth losing your Dad and cousin for what was at best a few weeks worth of food.[/quote]

I would think they could preserve their meat for a few months at a time by smoking it. I would also think that they would have less issues with eating meat that modern man finds ‘expired’.

51

I took many anthropology classes in university and one thing is many early hominids had indications on their bones that heavy muscles were anchored to them.

Also, one of my proudest moments was when the professor was talking about Australopithecus Robustus and one student asked what 'robustus" meant the professor thought for a moment and then pointed at me and said “Like that guy”

52

I like how a lot of people are assuming an ‘average’ human from today is an over fed fat guy who works at a desk. About 20% of the worlds population is living on less than 1.25$ a day. I was watching a tv show ages ago called last man standing, they had to travel and live with tribes then compete In their endurance or fighting events. One episode they was living with a bunch of people I assume were Nepalese, living very basic life styles high up in the mountains.

The event was so many miles (I forget but it was a long way) up the mountain carrying a weave basket with like 50 pounds of rock or something in, the best guy from the group was beaten by about 2 hours by a women close to her 70s, and there was plenty of these people in their 50s and over leaving these self confessed ‘fitness freaks’ in the dust. So these people including endurance athletes not just weight lifters, couldn’t keep up with these old ‘average’ people from their area.

It was similar all along aswell, I don’t think I watched any event where the British guys did better than the natives, and again these are people chosen for the show on their physical prowess, way fitter than the average person from a westernised world. Struggling to keep up with these ‘average’ tribesman. I think argueing that a fat guy who works a desk would of been fitter than pre historic human is pretty dumb, almost as dumb as thinking the average human on the planet today is a fat guy who works at a desk. The better argument is would we be as fit if we lived their life style?

53

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Here y’all go.[/quote]
Nah I’m not buying it.

This seems like a little more objective look. I’ve ready some other scientific studies as well that indicate little significant difference between the natural strength of neanderthals and that of modern humans.

Surely there was a difference, but I think the thing we were discussing in this thread was that Neanderthals were certainly stronger than your average Joe, but there’s no way they were stronger than someone who regularly engages in strength training.

That ends up saying something like “Neanderthals had somewhere between 1.3 and 2.0 times greater strength than the average modern human from an industrialized, agricultural economy”. Well so do I lol!

And that’s using the upper limit. It’s all just conjecture anyhow; anyone claiming to actually know how strong they were is full of it.

54

nah, dude.
You’re looking at it rather broish, as in: “So what if Mr.Neander can bench 250? I can push 300!”

If they had thicker bonemass as well as a larger frame, they will be much stronger than a homo sapiens.
Think of it as ridiculous talent or extreme carryover.
While benching has reasonable carryover to a point, the guys who have the most functional power in strength sports are strongmen.
And neanderthal did train exactly that way: throwing (pointy) stuff, smashing (furry) stuff, carrying (dead) stuff (home) etc

Or to put it differently:
Just because a big adult leopard weighs 200 lbs, it does not follow that a 200 lbs bodybuilder could drag a 600lbs carcass up a tree with their teeth.

And I’m not even talking about potential CNS optimiziation, as with chimps.

Neandertal smash, bra.

55

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
nah, dude.
You’re looking at it rather broish, as in: “So what if Mr.Neander can bench 250? I can push 300!”

If they had thicker bonemass as well as a larger frame, they will be much stronger than a homo sapiens.
Think of it as ridiculous talent or extreme carryover.
While benching has reasonable carryover to a point, the guys who have the most functional power in strength sports are strongmen.
And neanderthal did train exactly that way: throwing (pointy) stuff, smashing (furry) stuff, carrying (dead) stuff (home) etc

Or to put it differently:
Just because a big adult leopard weighs 200 lbs, it does not follow that a 200 lbs bodybuilder could drag a 600lbs carcass up a tree with their teeth.

And I’m not even talking about potential CNS optimiziation, as with chimps.

Neandertal smash, bra.
[/quote]
I’m not sure where you’re coming from with all the bench press stuff; I never mentioned anything like that.

Anyway any strength a Neanderthal had would have nothing to do with “paleo strongman training” and everything to do with genetics and natural selection. I’m sorry but hunting animals is nothing like strength training that has only been a luxury modern humans could afford.

Speculations on bone density and muscle size alone aren’t going to put them that far ahead of modern humans, and the gap is more than made up for by any person today who makes himself strong.

They did not have any grey matter biology similar to that of chimpanzees…

And don’t even get me started on a leopard dragging a 600lb carcass up a tree. That is ridiculous. Maybe 300lbs at the most, which is an incredible feat no less, but you seem to have an extremely exaggerated idea of strength in nature.

56

Is it so hard to understand that Homo Neandertal, being a different animal than us, had a way thicker and larger boneframe.
It’s totally sciency to assume he also sported a proportionally musclemass.
To cite a paleontologist I spoke with in the N.museum in Neandertal, “an Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been the norm”.

Of course muscles aren’t only for show.
Animals usually use the fleshmass they grow naturally. And if it’s only to fend off other males.
That’s where the fractures come into play that are all over the paleontological evidence.
So they either hunted their pray with grit and spear OR maybe they bashed their limbs against trees to impress females?
You tell me.

Against that, being “homo sapiens buff” is just …homo.
Not only do we lack the bonemass to withstand being gored by wild Aurochs, other traits like aggression, regeneration and a lot of other hormonal and physiological factors probably come with the whole Neander package.

In other words, even the fittest and buffest T-Nationeer would not be able to hunt together with Neandertals.

p.s. Leopards have been observed to drag prey 3x their bodyweight up a tree. They are pound for pound the strongest cats, along with Jaguars.

57

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
nah, dude.
You’re looking at it rather broish, as in: “So what if Mr.Neander can bench 250? I can push 300!”

If they had thicker bonemass as well as a larger frame, they will be much stronger than a homo sapiens.
Think of it as ridiculous talent or extreme carryover.
While benching has reasonable carryover to a point, the guys who have the most functional power in strength sports are strongmen.
And neanderthal did train exactly that way: throwing (pointy) stuff, smashing (furry) stuff, carrying (dead) stuff (home) etc

Or to put it differently:
Just because a big adult leopard weighs 200 lbs, it does not follow that a 200 lbs bodybuilder could drag a 600lbs carcass up a tree with their teeth.

And I’m not even talking about potential CNS optimiziation, as with chimps.

Neandertal smash, bra.
[/quote]
I thought there was still a debate as to whether or not we mixed with neanderthals?

58

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Is it so hard to understand that Homo Neandertal, being a different animal than us, had a way thicker and larger boneframe.
It’s totally sciency to assume he also sported a proportionally musclemass.
To cite a paleontologist I spoke with in the N.museum in Neandertal, “an Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been the norm”.

Of course muscles aren’t only for show.
Animals usually use the fleshmass they grow naturally. And if it’s only to fend off other males.
That’s where the fractures come into play that are all over the paleontological evidence.
So they either hunted their pray with grit and spear OR maybe they bashed their limbs against trees to impress females?
You tell me.

Against that, being “homo sapiens buff” is just …homo.
Not only do we lack the bonemass to withstand being gored by wild Aurochs, other traits like aggression, regeneration and a lot of other hormonal and physiological factors probably come with the whole Neander package.

In other words, even the fittest and buffest T-Nationeer would not be able to hunt together with Neandertals.

p.s. Leopards have been observed to drag prey 3x their bodyweight up a tree. They are pound for pound the strongest cats, along with Jaguars.
[/quote]
You have no idea what you’re talking about lol.

Some random paleontologist has no concept of what it takes to be as big or strong as someone like Arnold. Ancient people weren’t like that rofl. I’m saying a decent, natty strength athlete would have no trouble besting a Neanderthal strength wise. If you’re throwing in people on gear… fucking forget about it man. If you could put a Neanderthal up against someone like Vytautas Lalas the caveman would get his shit pushed in. It’s just biology man. They didn’t have magical Krypton strength.

And no, leopards cannot do that. Possibly a smaller female could drag up a 200lb carcass which would be 3x her size, but a 200lb male leopard is grossly incapable of dragging a 600lb beast up anything. Along the ground I’m sure it could, but you show me anywhere where something larger than 300lbs has been seen or cited as being dragged up a tree by a leopard. This does not occur in nature; you are making it up lol.

I don’t know why you are so quick to believe the wildest exaggerations about these things.

59

This is really not a fair comparison, because today’s strongmen compete in strongmen/BB/PL contests, while cavemen competed to survive, defend themselves or their tribes from invaders or predators, and hunt to ensure survival.

You guys are talking about men who lift bars and dumbells made of iron, compared to men who lift stones, wood, animal carcasses, and perhaps other men.

In a hand to hand combat situ, I give it to the caveman, I figure him to be tough as shit. The stronger man does not always win a fistfight.

60

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Is it so hard to understand that Homo Neandertal, being a different animal than us, had a way thicker and larger boneframe.
It’s totally sciency to assume he also sported a proportionally musclemass.
To cite a paleontologist I spoke with in the N.museum in Neandertal, “an Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been the norm”.

Of course muscles aren’t only for show.
Animals usually use the fleshmass they grow naturally. And if it’s only to fend off other males.
That’s where the fractures come into play that are all over the paleontological evidence.
So they either hunted their pray with grit and spear OR maybe they bashed their limbs against trees to impress females?
You tell me.

Against that, being “homo sapiens buff” is just …homo.
Not only do we lack the bonemass to withstand being gored by wild Aurochs, other traits like aggression, regeneration and a lot of other hormonal and physiological factors probably come with the whole Neander package.

In other words, even the fittest and buffest T-Nationeer would not be able to hunt together with Neandertals.

p.s. Leopards have been observed to drag prey 3x their bodyweight up a tree. They are pound for pound the strongest cats, along with Jaguars.
[/quote]
You have no idea what you’re talking about lol.

Some random paleontologist has no concept of what it takes to be as big or strong as someone like Arnold. Ancient people weren’t like that rofl. I’m saying a decent, natty strength athlete would have no trouble besting a Neanderthal strength wise. If you’re throwing in people on gear… fucking forget about it man. If you could put a Neanderthal up against someone like Vytautas Lalas the caveman would get his shit pushed in. It’s just biology man. They didn’t have magical Krypton strength.

And no, leopards cannot do that. Possibly a smaller female could drag up a 200lb carcass which would be 3x her size, but a 200lb male leopard is grossly incapable of dragging a 600lb beast up anything. Along the ground I’m sure it could, but you show me anywhere where something larger than 300lbs has been seen or cited as being dragged up a tree by a leopard. This does not occur in nature; you are making it up lol.

I don’t know why you are so quick to believe the wildest exaggerations about these things.[/quote]

You’re flat out ignorant, 1lbs on a chimp will be potententially way more strong than on a human.
I’m not saying the Neandertaler will be stronger than the strongest, roided up humans in a bench press competition. Reread my post.
I’m saying he was genetically build to carry and smash things. While being, relatively much more muscled.
That has some serious implications.

@sardines
It is more or less academic consensus that all caucasians carry a small amount of Neandertal DNA, about 1-2%.
However, someone with pure african heritage will have zero Neandertal DNA.
Asians, I dunno, probably very little, though there were other hominids which they probably shagged to extinction (eg Homo Erectus Pekinensis).