 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Modern man 'a wimp', says anthropologist... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Paul Murray... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-22, SolomonW <SolomonW at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:56:25 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath wrote:
People who have jobs that exercise their bodies need not exercise:
farmers, dock workers, construction workers, etc. Good diet alone
will keep them healthy and long living. Only if you have a desk job
you need to get on a bicycle or otherwise exercise.
In my experience white collar workers are healthier than blue collar
workers.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2008/10/AT0810019I.htm
The study shows clear differences between blue-collar and white-collar
workers in terms of life expectancy as a result of strenuous work (Figure 1
below). Whereas blue-collar workers have a probability of 75.7% of reaching
the age of 70 years, the same holds true for 84.4% of white-collar workers.
[/quote]
OTOH, white-collar workers are probably better paid, and have a higher
standard of medical care and diet, which would contribute to higher life
expentancy.
The study also shows that shift workers performing more strenous work (but
presumably being paid more) have the same life expectancy as white-collar
workers, which again shows that income is more of a determinant. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 8:18 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
That doesn't invalidate the statistics in the slightest.
That's right, they remain just as worthless as your posts in
this thread.
[/quote]
It must be awful to have no manners.
[quote]Just because B does the dirty work for A, doesn't mean that statistics
saying that A lives longer than B are false. Learn the difference.
Didn't get it? Without the B's you wouldn't have A's in the first
place, a fact you seemed to have missed in the McAllister article.
[/quote]
You are terribly confused. Unlike you, the statistics are not
concerned with moral or social judgements about a societal group
exploiting another, but the longevity of those groups. If you belong
to the exploited and have a beef with it, become an engineer and put
on that white collar you so envy and join the long-living. You can
also start your own thread where you can go on about it unmolested.
[quote]
"What good does a marathon do the the body?"
What good do bicycle races do to the the body?
Unable to see the difference too?
You specified "races", don't you know the difference?
[/quote]
I do; there are long races, short races, hard races and easy races.
A race doesn't imply that it's as hard as a marathon. Learn that
difference too.
[quote]A marathon involves running 26 miles -- always an excess.
BS, not all runners are professionals who do a marathon in
2 hours flat, don't you know the difference?
A bicycle race can be of any duration or difficulty.
Duh...ditto marathons.
[/quote]
Get thee to a library.
This is an excellent time for you to learn that a marathon is a well
defined Olympic event, it's a foot race of 26 miles and 385 yards: A
FIXED difficulty. If you run less, it's not a marathon.
[quote]Statistics on
the last century I did, which was on an almost perfectly flat course,
said that the youngest participant to complete the race was 5 and the
oldest 87.
How long had the 87 person been running?
[/quote]
Pay attention, he was not running he was cycling. I didn't meet or
know anything about the geezer, so I don't know.
[quote]
Not to mention that running involves impact and bicycling doesn't.
I don't run, and never did much, like close to zero. I've biked a lot
and have
bad knees. Probably genetic, who knows?
[/quote]
Maybe, but any doctor will tell you that if you have bad knees you are
better off on a bicycle than running. Many cyclists have bad knees
because arthritis runs in their families, and cycling makes their
knees better as long as they don't abuse it: No centuries no hard
hills, and gearing for fast cadence.
[quote]
Without the short-lived bluecollars to feed the doctor, we wouldn't
have doctors either....so much for Dr's. longevity.
I guess you do not work in an office.
If I were you (and thank God I'm not),
[/quote]
<snip rage>
Thought so.
[quote]Here is where you
got off on the wrong track: "longevity."
[/quote]
That goes only for those who recognize you as the arbiter of where the
right track is. Count me out.
The comment on longevity follows from the ridiculous subtitle of
McAllister' Book: "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."
Glossing over the silliness of comparing prehistoric people with
people today, which smacks of anthropologist gone tabloid, what
possible inadequacy may he refer to? What needs must humans fullfill
and what requirements must they meet foremost?
To mind come the need to solve the problems we face in our environment
in the short time we walk the earth. Take your pick. We can now
adequately defend ourselves againsts microscopic pathogens, insects,
and any larger predator to the point that we live on average more than
twice as long as the ancients. We no longer need to wonder when the
next meal will come along. And we can flee natural disasters most of
the time before they harm us. We have a few problems the ancients
didn't have, but the trade off is still advantageous.
We not only pack many more years into our life but also pack much more
life into your years: we travel faster, see farther, understand
better, and play harder than any other people that came before.
How inadequate is that?
I have not read the book and I will not -- have better writers to read
-- but according to the article, McAllister lists an example of our
inadequacy saying that a prehistoric woman could beat Arnold in an arm
wrestle. Gee, fantastic. Arnold will probably live three times as
long as most prehistoric women, and how much better... How inadequate
of Arnold.
By the way, the rationale for that example is also flawed. Apparently
the woman's advantage is in muscle mass (no bone strength advantage
cited in the article). I quote:
"McAllister said a Neanderthal woman had 10 percent more muscle bulk
than modern European man. Trained to capacity she would have reached
90 percent of Schwarzenegger's bulk at his peak in the 1970s."
What's wrong with that argument? Your critical faculties should have
told you that at the hypothetical match Arnold will still come to the
table with 10% MORE muscle than the woman, who supposedly will beat
him.
And...
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| George... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 23, 6:58 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible?
[/quote]
Added to the fact that women do not have a great amount of upperbody
strength.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 3:30 pm, George <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 23, 6:58 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible?
Added to the fact that women do not have a great amount of upperbody
strength..
[/quote]
If you can find such inconsistencies in just excerpts of the book
imagine what lies therein.
Maybe the article misquotes the book, but if it does not it's full or
rubbish.
Look at this claim:
"Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day
carrying more than half their body weight in equipment."
One of the times when legionnaire's carried the heaviest loads is
after the Marian reforms, the notorious "Marius Mules," when men took
to carry equipment normally carried in the baggage train. So in
addition to armor, provisions, and cooking utensils they carried
materials to dig and fortify their camp at night. That weight is said
to have been 50-60 pounds. A strong 5' 6" short legionnaire would
weight at least 160 pounds, and according to McCallister he would
carry more han 80 pounds, when in fact in the worst period of the long
story of the Roman army the legionnaire carried much less, and even
less at other times.
The sentence also suggests that marching more than one-and-a-half
marathons (>39 miles) a day was a daily occurrence when it was not.
The legions were capable of Marathon-plus long marches but only in
times of dired need. Caesar marched more than 40 miles in one day in
Gaul if I remember correctly, and at times sustained 15-20 miles a day
for weeks, but those amounted to a relatively few days in a
campaign.
So BOTH the average length of their marches and the load their carried
are greatly exaggerated. Such inaccuracy and exaggeration is
unbecoming a serious scientific book. It's sensationalism labeled as
science = Bad Science.
If he researched the military marches of WWII he would find that the
armies of sixty years ago would march sometimes as long as Ceasar's
legions in a given day. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 10:58 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:18 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
That doesn't invalidate the statistics in the slightest.
That's right, they remain just as worthless as your posts in
this thread.
It must be awful to have no manners.
[/quote]
Look in a mirror:
"The author should get a job in
McDonalds instead or writing lousy articles like this."
[quote]
Just because B does the dirty work for A, doesn't mean that statistics
saying that A lives longer than B are false. Learn the difference..
Didn't get it? Without the B's you wouldn't have A's in the first
place, a fact you seemed to have missed in the McAllister article.
You are terribly confused. Unlike you, the statistics are not
concerned with moral or social judgements about a societal group
exploiting another, but the longevity of those groups.
If you belong
to the exploited and have a beef with it, become an engineer and put
on that white collar you so envy and join the long-living. You can
also start your own thread where you can go on about it unmolested.
[/quote]
You are terribly confused, the article is not about longevity, only
those who can't read worry about something that is not at issue.
[quote]
"What good does a marathon do the the body?"
What good do bicycle races do to the the body?
Unable to see the difference too?
You specified "races", don't you know the difference?
I do; there are long races, short races, hard races and easy races.
A race doesn't imply that it's as hard as a marathon. Learn that
difference too.
A marathon involves running 26 miles -- always an excess.
BS, not all runners are professionals who do a marathon in
2 hours flat, don't you know the difference?
A bicycle race can be of any duration or difficulty.
Duh...ditto marathons.
Get thee to a library.
[/quote]
No, get thee to some of marathon times
[quote]
This is an excellent time for you to learn that a marathon is a well
defined Olympic event, it's a foot race of 26 miles and 385 yards: A
FIXED difficulty. If you run less, it's not a marathon.
[/quote]
Boy you are dense, there are probably 10% pro-runners who are willing
to kill
themselves trying to set records, the rest are joy runners.
Let's see, a typical loser time 6:12:55, ROFL. Those who croak of a
heart attack, probably
would have done so riding a bike to work also.
[quote]
Statistics on
the last century I did, which was on an almost perfectly flat course,
said that the youngest participant to complete the race was 5 and the
oldest 87.
How long had the 87 person been running?
Pay attention,
[/quote]
Huh? Where did you say the course was a bike course? Flat sounds more
like
a marathon.
[quote]he was not running he was cycling. I didn't meet or
know anything about the geezer, so I don't know.
[/quote]
"geezer"? What happened to your manners?
[quote]
Not to mention that running involves impact and bicycling doesn't.
I don't run, and never did much, like close to zero. I've biked a lot
and have
bad knees. Probably genetic, who knows?
Maybe, but any doctor will tell you that if you have bad knees you are
better off on a bicycle than running. Many cyclists have bad knees
because arthritis runs in their families, and cycling makes their
knees better as long as they don't abuse it: No centuries no hard
hills, and gearing for fast cadence.
[/quote]
That maybe, but since the ancients in the article did not have
bicycles,
and their bones and muscle attachments were far superior to us modern
wimps, you can bet they were running better than us also.
[quote]
Without the short-lived bluecollars to feed the doctor, we wouldn't
have doctors either....so much for Dr's. longevity.
I guess you do not work in an office.
If I were you (and thank God I'm not),
snip rage
[/quote]
[quote]
snip halucination
Here is where you
got off on the wrong track: "longevity."
That goes only for those who recognize you as the arbiter of where the
right track is. Count me out.
[/quote]
Is that a joke? Cite the word "longevity" in the article, you are
delusional.
Cite anyone besides yourself that thinks the ancient robust skeletons
got
that way during old age.
[quote]
The comment on longevity follows from the ridiculous subtitle of
McAllister' Book: "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."
[/quote]
Do you know nothing of anthropology? Our brains, teeth, and bone
structure is shrinking fast, thanks to agriculture, Big Macs, etc.
[quote]
Glossing over the silliness of comparing prehistoric people with
people today, which smacks of anthropologist gone tabloid, what
possible inadequacy may he refer to?
[/quote]
Your mental inadaquacy for one, oops, sorry, all of ours for one.
[quote] What needs must humans fullfill
and what requirements must they meet foremost?
[/quote]
If you don't use it, you lose it.
[quote]
To mind come the need to solve the problems we face in our environment
in the short time we walk the earth. Take your pick. We can now
adequately defend ourselves againsts microscopic pathogens, insects,
and any larger predator to the point that we live on average more than
twice as long as the ancients. We no longer need to wonder when the
next meal will come along. And we can flee natural disasters most of
the time before they harm us. We have a few problems the ancients
didn't have, but the trade off is still advantageous.
[/quote]
For this time slot, but that will change for the human species
eventually.
The machinery feed-back-loop will come to an end some time.
[quote]
We not only pack many more years into our life but also pack much more
life into your years: we travel faster, see farther, understand
better, and play harder than any other people that came before.
[/quote]
....and burn out quicker.
[quote]
How inadequate is that?
[/quote]
So what do we have now, 25% of the world's population starving?
How long do you think the appointed few are going to keep this up,
another thousand years?
[quote]
I have not read the book and I will not -- have better writers to read
-- but according to the article, McAllister lists an example of our
inadequacy saying that a prehistoric woman could beat Arnold in an arm
wrestle. Gee, fantastic. Arnold will probably live three times as
long as most prehistoric women, and how much better... How inadequate
of Arnold.
[/quote]
Once again, wimps physically (running etc) was the authors claim, not
in cultural
feed-back-loop technology, of course that has changed over time. You
really need to read
these articles for what is being claimed, not what you think is in
them. And besides,
how many people on the planet alive now actually benefit from them?
[quote]
By the way, the rationale for that example is also flawed. Apparently
the woman's advantage is in muscle mass (no bone strength advantage
cited in the article). I quote:
"McAllister said a Neanderthal woman had 10 percent more muscle bulk
than modern European man. Trained to capacity she would have reached
90 percent of Schwarzenegger's bulk at his peak in the 1970s."
[/quote]
So what do you want me to do, go to the library and find a Trinkaus
paper
for you? Their bone size matched the muscle size. Do pro tennis
players have
larger serving muscles and bone in one arm?
[quote]
What's wrong with that argument? Your critical faculties should have
told you that at the hypothetical match Arnold will still come to the
table with 10% MORE muscle than the woman, who supposedly will beat
him.
[/quote]
OK, put a mean 150lb chimp in a cage with Arnold and see who comes
out.
We, at some point, have lost ground, physically. And no matter how
hard Arnold
trains, he can't reach that point where he can beat up on the chimp.
We all had the
same genes at some point, now we don't. You are confusing cultural
advances
with physical loses. You may think that's great at the moment, but
moments tend
to be fleeting.
[quote]
And...
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible?
[/quote]
Ahh, I think you need to find out how much spin the article's writer
put on this. He was also quoted as saying:
"McAllister said that, with modern training,....."
We are hunter gathers, every bit of our ancestry evolved from that
condition,
including our big brains (which are now again declining in size along
with our teeth).
There is no reason to think muscle and bone is any different. Use it,
or you lose it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 12:30 pm, George <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 23, 6:58 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible?
Added to the fact that women do not have a great amount of upperbody
strength..
[/quote]
If you go back far enough in time, the author has to be correct,
whether Neandertals
fit the bill, I don't know. They are making these statements based on
muscle
attachment ridges on bone, bone size, density etc. How these match up
between
a chimp and Neanderthal, I don't remember. But let's see you get a
lady chimp off
your back. At some point in time cultural gagets overtook the need
for brute force.
At some point in time we will end up mushrooms if the present trend
continues. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 5:25 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]That doesn't invalidate the statistics in the slightest.
That's right, they remain just as worthless as your posts in
this thread.
It must be awful to have no manners.
Look in a mirror:
"The author should get a job in
McDonalds instead or writing lousy articles like this."
[/quote]
It is a lousy article/book. But as long as there are people like you
that enjoy that sort of thing your job is safe.
[quote]
You are terribly confused, the article is not about longevity, only
those who can't read worry about something that is not at issue.
[/quote]
Discover thinking out of the box any time you are ready.
The book's premise is that today's man is inadequate compared to
ancient man. Longevity is just one reason why such argument holds no
water. Personal fulfillment could be another. Technological success
yet another. Philosophical satisfaction one more. And the book is
not about any of those things, either.
Shed the mental straight jacket.
[quote]Boy you are dense, there are probably 10% pro-runners who are willing
to kill
themselves trying to set records, the rest are joy runners.
[/quote]
What part of "running 26 miles non-stop is bad for your health" is
that you can't comprehend, thickie?
The point is that to reap the benefits of regular exercise you need
not run, marathons, triathlons, etc.
Even if it it takes you ten hours to finish a marathon, you still ran
or jogged for ten hours non-stop, which is torture for your feet,
knees, spine, organs, and specially the heart, according to this
study:
-----------------------
http://http://tinyurl.com/yfsnobq
Finally, in one of the largest recent studies, published in January,
Canadian researchers recruited 129 non-elite runners in Winnipeg and
tested their blood just before they ran a half or full marathon. Their
blood markers for heart injury were normal. By the time they’d reached
the finish line, though, according to blood tests done there, most of
the half marathoners and even more of the marathoners displayed
elevated troponin and other blood markers of heart damage, and after
an hour, when they were tested yet again, even more of both groups,
especially the marathoners, showed blood indicators of cardiac damage.
“We measure those same blood markers when someone comes in to the
emergency room and we suspect a heart attack,” says Davinder S.
Jassal, MD, an assistant professor of cardiology, radiology, and
physiology at the University of Manitoba medical school in Winnipeg
and lead author of the study. Blood profiles like those displayed by
the runners, he says, “are similar to those in a very mild heart
attack.”
-----------------------------------------
[quote]How long had the 87 person been running?
Pay attention,
Huh? Where did you say the course was a bike course? Flat sounds more
like
a marathon.
[/quote]
Pardon for assuming that someone who cycles would know that a
"century" is doing 100 miles on a bicycle.
[quote]
he was not running he was cycling. I didn't meet or
know anything about the geezer, so I don't know.
"geezer"? What happened to your manners?
[/quote]
I reserve them for polite, good mannered people. Once you lose them
as you rushed first to do, you get treated accordingly.
You know... "you treat me well, I treat you better; you try to rain on
my parade, I piss all over you."
It has always served me well with the likes of you.
[quote]
That maybe, but since the ancients in the article did not have
bicycles,
and their bones and muscle attachments were far superior to us modern
wimps, you can bet they were running better than us also.
[/quote]
Evidence?
There were plenty of wimps in antiquity, when people could and would
use slave labor to do manual work for them.
There is no reason why today's fit men should differ from those of
ancient times since human physiology has not changed enough in the
last two thousand years to make a drastic difference.
[quote]Here is where you
got off on the wrong track: "longevity."
That goes only for those who recognize you as the arbiter of where the
right track is. Count me out.
Is that a joke? Cite the word "longevity" in the article, you are
delusional.
[/quote]
Hilarious.
This poster, apparently, has a rule that unless a book mentions a
topic you must not infer any implications of the book for that
topic.
In-the-box thinking par excellence.
[quote]Cite anyone besides yourself that thinks the ancient robust skeletons
got
that way during old age.
[/quote]
Curious attribution. Make your own points, don't ask me.
[quote]
The comment on longevity follows from the ridiculous subtitle of
McAllister' Book: "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."
Do you know nothing of anthropology? Our brains, teeth, and bone
structure is shrinking fast, thanks to agriculture, Big Macs, etc.
[/quote]
I just saw evidence of brain shrinking...
[quote]
Glossing over the silliness of comparing prehistoric people with
people today, which smacks of anthropologist gone tabloid, what
possible inadequacy may he refer to?
Your mental inadaquacy for one, oops, sorry, all of ours for one.
[/quote]
I gues any further serious discussion with you would be a waste of
time. Please note you belong now to the entertainment category.
[quote]What needs must humans fullfill
and what requirements must they meet foremost?
If you don't use it, you lose it.
[/quote]
You don't have to answer my questions but if you do an apt reply would
be better for the readers and especially for you.
[quote]
To mind come the need to solve the problems we face in our environment
in the short time we walk the earth. Take your pick. We can now
adequately defend ourselves againsts microscopic pathogens, insects,
and any larger predator to the point that we live on average more than
twice as long as the ancients. We no longer need to wonder when the
next meal will come along. And we can flee natural disasters most of
the time before they harm us. We have a few problems the ancients
didn't have, but the trade off is still advantageous.
For this time slot, but that will change for the human species
eventually.
[/quote]
Foul. The book doesn't mention "eventually." Keep to your rules,
man.
[quote]The machinery feed-back-loop will come to an end some time.
[/quote]
A statement so broad that says nothing, white space would be more
informative.
[quote]We not only pack many more years into our life but also pack much more
life into your years: we travel faster, see farther, understand
better, and play harder than any other people that came before.
...and burn out quicker.
[/quote]
Let's see... Ancient longevity <30. 2009 longevity ~70.
Where is the quicker burnout?
Do you ever think before you write?
It must be the shrinking brain.
[quote]
How inadequate is that?
So what do we have now, 25% of the world's population starving?
How long do you think the appointed few are going to keep this up,
another thousand years?
[/quote]
I try to not predict the future. But don't let me stop you.
You may surmise that any lower middle-class child has today better
medical care than the heirs to the throne of the best kingdoms and
empires of antiquity. And you can throw the Middle Ages and the Early
Modern period in for good measure.
You should learn to count your blessings, and read up a little on the
history of mankind, before jumping on the inadequacy of today's
people.
[quote]
I have not read the book and I will not -- have better writers to read
-- but according to the article, McAllister lists an example of our
inadequacy saying that a prehistoric woman could beat Arnold in an arm
wrestle. Gee, fantastic. Arnold will probably live three times as
long as most prehistoric women, and how much better... How inadequate
of Arnold.
Once again, wimps physically (running etc) was the authors claim, not
in cultural
feed-back-loop technology,
[/quote]
Is that why the author deliberately picked out the example of a
prehistoric woman and Arnold?
[quote]
By the way, the rationale for that example is also flawed. Apparently
the woman's advantage is in muscle mass (no bone strength advantage
cited in the article). I quote:
"McAllister said a Neanderthal woman had 10 percent more muscle bulk
than modern European man. Trained to capacity she would have reached
90 percent of Schwarzenegger's bulk at his peak in the 1970s."
So what do you want me to do, go to the library and find a Trinkaus
paper
for you?
[/quote]
I would much prefer if you just went away. I'm learning nothing from
you and we have enough morons and sour annoys in the history
newsgroups already, thank you.
[quote]Their bone size matched the muscle size. Do pro tennis
players have
larger serving muscles and bone in one arm?
[/quote]
Which means that Arnold having 10% more muscle than the Neanderthal
woman, as the book has it, would also have stronger bones. Duh!
[quote]
What's wrong with that argument? Your critical faculties should have
told you that at the hypothetical match Arnold will still come to the
table with 10% MORE muscle than the woman, who supposedly will beat
him.
OK, put a mean 150lb chimp in a cage with Arnold and see who comes
out.
We, at some point, have lost ground, physically. And no matter how
hard Arnold
trains, he can't reach that point where he can beat up on the chimp.
[/quote]
That comparison is not in the book, you are breaking your rule again,
unruly boy.
Put the crack pipe down, would you?
[quote]We all had the
same genes at some point, now we don't.
[/quote]
Please don't try to pass raw sewage for information.
Humans and chimps never had the same genes; our common ancestor was
not a human or a chimp. Don't you know anything about
anthropology?
[quote]
And...
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible?
Ahh, I think you need to find out how much spin the article's writer
put on this.
[/quote]
I will leave that as an exercise to you so that you can forestall
brain-shrinking somewhat.
[quote]
We are hunter gathers,
[/quote]
<snip egg-sucking lesson to grandma>
Good bye. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 5:35 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 12:30 pm, George <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:58 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible?
Added to the fact that women do not have a great amount of upperbody
strength..
If you go back far enough in time, the author has to be correct,
[/quote]
????
If you go back enough the author can't be correct, because that is not
what the author says. The author, specifically, compares a
prehistoric human female and Arnold. And he seems to think that a
shorter arm can exert more force than a longer one in an arm wrestling
match.
This is an egregious howler. It reminds me of a historical fiction
writer who wrote "The Assyrian" and at one point he mention the
protagonist steading himself on the stirrups of his horse before a
battle. This book looks in the same vein of research quality.
Unless you read the book and find some redeeming qualities, defending
the bits in the article alone is not going to go your way. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 4:32 pm, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 5:35 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:30 pm, George <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:58 am, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
So the woman has less muscle than Arnold and less leverage and she
wins? Burn that book.
Are you THAT gullible?
Added to the fact that women do not have a great amount of upperbody
strength..
If you go back far enough in time, the author has to be correct,
????
If you go back enough the author can't be correct, because that is not
what the author says.
[/quote]
No, that's what I say.
[quote]The author, specifically, compares a
prehistoric human female and Arnold.
[/quote]
Yep, and he (and others) have good reason for saying so. They and
others,
are looking at bone density, bone size, muscle attachments to the bone
at large ridges formed by a lot of stress--- to arrive at that
conclusion.
Can he prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Can any
inference,
made by 90% of most anthro research do that? I doubt it.
Chimps don't look that stong either, so where, besides your
imagination
is your evidence that he is wrong? This author is not the first to
come up
with this idea and of course it is hard to test, since Archaic humans
are gone.
If you claim he is not correct based on what you imagine, then you may
as well
burn all anthro books, after all, it is a soft science. He gave data
on running at
20 kya, what do you have to refute that?
[quote] And he seems to think that a
shorter arm can exert more force than a longer one in an arm wrestling
match.
This is an egregious howler. It reminds me of a historical fiction
writer who wrote "The Assyrian" and at one point he mention the
protagonist steading himself on the stirrups of his horse before a
battle. This book looks in the same vein of research quality.
[/quote]
Well, you know as well as I that a lot of spin may have been placed
in that article, quotes or no quotes.
[quote]
Unless you read the book and find some redeeming qualities, defending
the bits in the article alone is not going to go your way.
[/quote]
"Many animals have physical powers we can only dream
of."
Compared to humans, running isn't one of them.
"The strongest human is still an underpowered animal."
In a sprint, most of the predators and other runners, like antelope,
can beat a human in a short race. None of them can even come
close in a distance run where stamina is required. Native Americans,
Australian Aborigines, Africans just run animals 'til they drop.
This is training for a marathon and it is more than a coincidence
that they can do this, they inherited those genes from somewhere.
http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
(this link no longer goes to directly to the article, I'll have to
find the issue again)
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups
have traditionally practiced “persistence hunting,” chasing antelopes
or other
game in the midday heat, often for hours, until the animals overheat
and collapse."
The evolution of endurance running and the tyranny of
ethnography: A reply to Pickering and Bunn (2007)
Daniel E. Lieberman, Dennis M. Bramble, David A. Raichlen, John J.
Shea
Journal of Human Evolution 53 (2007) 439-442
"Endurance running (ER) poses a conundrum for paleoanthropologists.
As summarized in Bramble and Lieberman
(2004), human ER capabilities, which are unique among primates,
either match or exceed those of mammals adapted for
running (cursors), including dogs and equids. Because many
of the biomechanical and physiological challenges of human
ER are so different from those of walking, we can conclude
that human ER capabilities did not arise merely as a by-product
of selection for walking. Instead, the available evidence
suggests that an array of features that improve ER performance
were selected in the genus Homo, and they were probably
present to some extent by the appearance of Homo erectus at
approximately
1.9 Ma. Yet, ER is no longer necessary for human
survival, even among extant foragers such as the Hadza or the
Bushmen."
Because humans are no longer selected for these traits, it is no
wonder most
have knee problems when they try it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 23, 1:28 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart... at (no spam) Yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Tiglath wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:08 am, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/modern-man-a-wimp-says-anth....
"Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day
carrying more than half their body weight in equipment."
---
Extract -
"We are simply not exposed to the same loads or challenges that people
were in the ancient past and even in the recent past so our bodies
haven't developed. Even the level of training that we do, our elite
athletes, doesn't come close to replicating that.
"We wouldn't want to go back to the brutality of those days but there
are some things we would do well to profit from."
David Christainsen
Like 696 years. Yeah, right.
[/quote]
Is that supposed to make sense, or are you always that dysfunctional?
[quote]
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tiglath wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 10:08 am, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/modern-man-a-wimp-says-anth...
"Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day
carrying more than half their body weight in equipment."
---
Extract -
"We are simply not exposed to the same loads or challenges that people
were in the ancient past and even in the recent past so our bodies
haven't developed. Even the level of training that we do, our elite
athletes, doesn't come close to replicating that.
"We wouldn't want to go back to the brutality of those days but there
are some things we would do well to profit from."
David Christainsen
Like 696 years. Yeah, right.[/quote]
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jerry warner... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch wrote:
[quote]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/modern-man-a-wimp-says-anthropologist-1802501.html
"Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day
carrying more than half their body weight in equipment."
---
Extract -
"We are simply not exposed to the same loads or challenges that people
were in the ancient past and even in the recent past so our bodies
haven't developed. Even the level of training that we do, our elite
athletes, doesn't come close to replicating that.
"We wouldn't want to go back to the brutality of those days but there
are some things we would do well to profit from."
[/quote]
You would be attracted to this item of boiler plate,
which appeared in another group. Do you have a day job?
[quote]
David Christainsen[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Odysseus... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<528faad1-3f7d-4ba3-8165-2cf313bd5020 at (no spam) r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Tiglath <temp6 at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
<snip>
[quote]
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
[/quote]
I'm cetrainly no biomechanics expert, but it seems to me that when
arm-wrestling, considering the forearm as a lever and the elbow (resting
on the table) as the fulcrum, most of your effort is applied to the
short end, while your opponent has the long end.
--
Odysseus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 1:17 am, Odysseus <odysseus1479... at (no spam) yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
[quote]In article
528faad1-3f7d-4ba3-8165-2cf313bd5... at (no spam) r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
snip
'But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.'
Hang on. Would not a SHORTER arm have LESS leverage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeverPrincleple.svg
I'm cetrainly no biomechanics expert, but it seems to me that when
arm-wrestling, considering the forearm as a lever and the elbow (resting
on the table) as the fulcrum, most of your effort is applied to the
short end, while your opponent has the long end.
--
Odysseus
[/quote]
A longer forearm will need a smaller force to counter a greater force
from a shorter forearm, because the arm-elbow system constitute a
lever. All other things being equal the longer forearm will win,
which is exactly the opposite to what the book states, allegedly.
Arm wrestling involve muscles in the torso, shoulder and arm that keep
the whole arm in the wrestling position but the elbow firmly planted
on a table isolates the effort to a large extent to the forearm, and
since both contenders hold the same position the distribution of
effort in the body is that same for both. What makes a difference is
the force applied by the hand, which in the correct position and
movement, side-to-side, comes from the forearm, supported mostly by
the shoulder. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 23, 3:50 am, jerry warner <jwar... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]crunch wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/modern-man-a-wimp-says-anth...
"Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day
carrying more than half their body weight in equipment."
---
Extract -
"We are simply not exposed to the same loads or challenges that people
were in the ancient past and even in the recent past so our bodies
haven't developed. Even the level of training that we do, our elite
athletes, doesn't come close to replicating that.
"We wouldn't want to go back to the brutality of those days but there
are some things we would do well to profit from."
You would be attracted to this item of boiler plate,
which appeared in another group. Do you have a day job?
...
[/quote]
Usenet was originally set up for discussion
and this thread certainly has seen discussion.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:46 pm
|
|