Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Modern Man is a Wimp (article)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Modern Man is a Wimp (article) - Page 9

post #121 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenny View Post
Nah bro, they didn't have creatine.

move your head to the left and right 3 times. you will find out when doing that you concentrate on a spot between your eyebrows while moving your head.

what's the name of that spot?

it doesn't have a name. but 6 billion people move their head with it everyday. why it doesn't have a name? because there is no empiric proof for the existance of this spot. no muscles, no tendon, no nerves and no blood vessel at that spot is responsible for turning your head. even the center for turning your head in your brain is slightly above your ear. so why is it between your eyebrows? why does acupuncture work? why do women have a g-spot that no one has ever proven to exist?

yes, ancient doctors, witches, shamans and priests did have a knowledge that would help much more people than medication of today can provide. and athletes wouldn't take stuff that change their sex or give them cancer.
if you read about box fighting in ancient greece some of the stories might be not completely true, but the rest is still impressing ..
post #122 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldarchon View Post
move your head to the left and right 3 times. you will find out when doing that you concentrate on a spot between your eyebrows while moving your head.

what's the name of that spot?

it doesn't have a name. but 6 billion people move their head with it everyday. why it doesn't have a name? because there is no empiric proof for the existance of this spot. no muscles, no tendon, no nerves and no blood vessel at that spot is responsible for turning your head. even the center for turning your head in your brain is slightly above your ear. so why is it between your eyebrows? why does acupuncture work? why do women have a g-spot that no one has ever proven to exist?

yes, ancient doctors, witches, shamans and priests did have a knowledge that would help much more people than medication of today can provide. and athletes wouldn't take stuff that change their sex or give them cancer.
if you read about box fighting in ancient greece some of the stories might be not completely true, but the rest is still impressing ..

I'm having a bad day. Please tell me you're a teenager.
post #123 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eason View Post
Is the basic premise any surprise? The further back in our evolution you go, the stronger we get. Look at chimpanzees, any single one could tear the strongest man on earth to bits. I doubt there is any difference from just 10,000 years or even 50,000 years back, though.
Really? Go even farther back to when we were single celled organisms.

Then who's the man? Man's the man!

Also we did not evolve from chimpanzees but share a common ancestor.
post #124 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahab View Post
Really? Go even farther back to when we were single celled organisms.

Then who's the man? Man's the man!

Also we did not evolve from chimpanzees but share a common ancestor.

post #125 of 135
I was going to write a really well thought out response to various points raised in the article and the thread but instead: We tend to over exaggerate how unfit and useless we are compared to the past. Yes, people who did physical labour all day were probably fitter than people who sit at desks all day, not a revelation. However we live longer, don't have to be farmers and can watch HD movies. Also compared to our recent past we are not doing too badly. Coldarchon has some pretty unorthodox opinions. Original article is stupid.
post #126 of 135
I think "strength" is overrated. We have evolved to fit our environment. I was thinking about this thread while driving the other day and was wondering if modern Italians genetically different than Romans? Maybe if a Roman from 2,00 years ago given a modern diet from birth would be just as tall. Indistinguishable from any Italian today. 2,000 years is not a long time in human evolution and today it seems diet and activity seem to be the real difference.

This argument reminds me of stupid conversations like "Who would win between a Crocodile and a Great White shark?". Both animals are perfectly adapted for their environment and neither would probably meet in the wild and then would not even know what to do with the other. They would likely not fight given the choice.

Also ants weigh more by overall mass than any other animal. Seems they must be doing something right.
post #127 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
I'm having a bad day. Please tell me you're a teenager.

you have been told twice to post something useful or get out of here. this is the third and last time. added to ignore list btw ..

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngscientist View Post
Coldarchon has some pretty unorthodox opinions. Original article is stupid.
tell me the name of that spot I mentioned ..
post #128 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldarchon View Post
you have been told twice to post something useful or get out of here. this is the third and last time. added to ignore list btw ..
Lame.
post #129 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldarchon View Post
you have been told twice to post something useful or get out of here. this is the third and last time. added to ignore list btw ..


tell me the name of that spot I mentioned ..


I see a ban in your future.
post #130 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Please stop posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
I did: I told you to stop posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
I'm having a bad day. Please tell me you're a teenager.
there is nothing useful he has contributed yet, only trolling and flameing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLantern View Post
I see a ban in your future.
if he doesn't get banned, why should someone who provides information and explanations get banned?

back to the topic, what's the name of the spot I mentioned above?
post #131 of 135
reading through the article again, I am thinking that some of the people arguing here haven't read it, or are stuck on specific irrelevant points.

the author is suggesting that the biggest difference comes following the industrial revolution - less than 200 years ago. he is not suggesting a massive genetic change, he is suggesting that a decrease in physical labor and walking and a reliance on machines is responsible for the changes.

also, I think that the only real argument against the article is that the absolute, very best athletes in the world might very well be stronger/fitter than the average man in the pre-industrial world. that still doesn't really argue well against the premise that modern man is a wimp
post #132 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
reading through the article again, I am thinking that some of the people arguing here haven't read it, or are stuck on specific irrelevant points.

the author is suggesting that the biggest difference comes following the industrial revolution - less than 200 years ago. he is not suggesting a massive genetic change, he is suggesting that a decrease in physical labor and walking and a reliance on machines is responsible for the changes.

also, I think that the only real argument against the article is that the absolute, very best athletes in the world might very well be stronger/fitter than the average man in the pre-industrial world. that still doesn't really argue well against the premise that modern man is a wimp

There is no basis for any of that. The article jumps all over from Neanderthals to Roman legionnaires, then makes a tiny mention of the effect of the industrial revolution (where?) before concluding that modern man is weak.

It's total nonsense.
post #133 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
also, I think that the only real argument against the article is that the absolute, very best athletes in the world might very well be stronger/fitter than the average man in the pre-industrial world
they rebuilt an ancient greek ship and tried to row a famous trail 2 years ago. the crew was made of young, healthy men. a warship escorted them, and had to exchange one of them each 4 hours because they weren't able to stay on the ship for more than 5 hours on a nice sunny day.

just go into a supermarket and count how many fruits and vegetables they got. any kid 200 years ago probably was able to eat only 10 to 20 of them during their whole life. but these kids new more flavors and tastes than any civilized kid of today ..
post #134 of 135
I think we're all mostly in agreement that the modern western post industrialised lifestyle has made us wimps, but if we had been brought up on farm labour and fighting we'd be the equal of our genetically identical ancient ancestors. The only evidence that jumps out from the article is the aboriginal footprints, the rest is extrapolation and conjecture. Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, this find of some iron age bog bodies in Ireland is fascinating: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sh_bogmen.html The size difference is quite shocking - we always assume our ancestors were smaller than us, but the best preserved ancient bodies we have show there have always been big variations within the normal range of the human frame. I've seen some pretty big (6' +) medieval skeletons in person too. I assume statistically averages were less, I should really try to find out.
post #135 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangfastic View Post

I read the title of the article and LOL'd
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Modern Man is a Wimp (article)