Skip to comments.Modern Men Are Wimps
Posted on 10/27/2009 12:31:30 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Modern Men Are Wimps
Oct 23, 2009 Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Our ancestors were much stronger, says the author of a new book on anthropology. PhysOrg reported on a book by Peter McAllister that says todays males dont measure up physically to their counterparts even a century ago, let alone those in the Roman empire and earlier.
According to McAllister humans have lost 40 percent of the shafts of the long bones because they are no longer subjected to the kind of muscular loads that were normal before the industrial revolution, the article said. Even our elite athletes are not exposed to anywhere near the challenges and loads that were part of everyday life for pre-industrial people. Cro-Magnon men were taller, more fit and had bigger brains than the average man of today. Neanderthal women could have easily whipped Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle, he claims. Records show that even in recorded history men had better overall fitness on average.
Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male blames our inadequacies on our sedentary lifestyles. Its a good thing we are not competing against ancient people in the Olympics. McAllister says Greek rowers in their trireme ships could outperform todays world-class rowers. He wrote of Roman soldiers who completed the equivalent of one and a half marathons a day, carrying equipment weighing half their body weight, and Australian Aborigines who could throw a spear over 10 meters further than the current javelin world record. Even a century ago Rwandan men and Australian natives could have eclipsed modern track and field records. Todays champions merely outcompete one another in a bad lot. Even our elite athletes are not exposed to anywhere near the challenges and loads that were part of everyday life for pre-industrial people.
McAllister claims modern weaknesses are reversible with the right kind of diet and exercise. The benefits can accrue to individuals as well as populations.
There are still ethnic groups today who show what humans are capable of. Remember the sherpas in the 06/17/2005 entry? (see also 10/31/2007, bullet 4). Its understandably hard to live optimally with todays hectic urban lifestyles that subject both men and women to mental stress in a sitting position (e.g., sitting in traffic hurrying to get somewhere, working at a computer all day). Each individual needs to assess their fitness level and improve as opportunity allows. We suggest vigorous walks in nature, up and down hills, carrying a load when possible. Whatever McAllisters book shows (and it is undoubtedly oversimplified), it is not showing that evolutionary progress is occurring. Read the Old Testament and study ancient civilizations for amazing feats of strength and endurance. Its startling to think of the extreme ancient monuments around the world that were built without petroleum and electromagnetic power.
Darwinian anthropology creates a mindset that we are evolving upward from the apes. That runs diametrically opposed to the Biblical worldview that says creation was perfect at the beginning, but was cursed and is running downhill. Old testament people lived for centuries. It is more credible to think that mutational load over millennia of exposure to cosmic rays and other mutagens is taking its toll. Scientific and engineering knowledge can accumulate to counter these trends, but thats intelligent design, not evolution. Wed better take care of what we have left.
Appropriate since feminists have castrated men and tied the balls to themselves.
Well, yes, and no. This does not take into account the high level of disability owing to disease in early man.
faux science ?
“Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Our ancestors were much stronger, says the author of a new book on anthropology.”
It’s not survival of the strongest, it’s survival of the fittest. If it were all about strength, we’d have been aced-out by wolves and bears long ago. We’re fitter than others because they’re dumbasses. Humans are smart. It’s Revenge of the Genetic Nerds!
**Whatever happened to survival of the fittest?**
While LIBERALS PREACH Darwin as a GOSPEL, they at the same time initiate programs that Thwart Darwin at every turn..
Hypocrits ... period.
What about the size of their, um, you know... manhood.
Hard, physical work ain't easy and the toll it takes on your body is terrible.
Anybody that wants to romanticize the old ways needs to spend a day getting acquainted w/ a pick ax, or a scythe.
I’ll put my 700BDL 30-06 with 168gr moly-coated boattail hollowpoints against Og’s big muscles any day of the week.
That sound awfully strange coming from a guy named Bert.
More important than diet and exercise is will. As long as little Johnnie just sits and wags his thumbs above the game controller, he ain't about to develop the will.
Not to worry, though, the gubmint guy will be around to fix things.
What? I’ve lost “40% of the shaft of my long bone!”
Speak for yourself Tonto!
Could you imagine some of them creating a civilization out of the New World wilderness ???
Barbara Streisand. Prove it.
There are WWII vets who fought at Normandy who would disagree with this, those men had courage to face those German machine guns facing down on them on Normandy beach.
LOL...it’s where they get to be violent and get plenty of exercise without actually being violent or getting plenty of excercise! And don’t even get me started on all the blue jeans with the fake wear and tear!!!
I dare any caveman, hoplite, samurai or indian scout to sit for even half as long as I do!
I got tired just thinking about it!
You don't believe in Cro-Magnon man.. you think the Earth is 6000 years old.
Neanderthal women could have easily whipped Schwarzenegger
You don't believe in Neanderthals .. you think the Earth is 6000 years old.
Which is it?
The article wasn’t referring to courage. Nobody has got the greatest generation beat in that department!
This is what is known as tautology.
Survival of the fittest? Who are the fittest? By definition, whatever survives.
Simple fallacy. There's no meaning there. Just self-referencing, circular definitions.
I believe in de-evolution.
I used to say that too, until I realized that devolution implies that we evolved in the first place. I have since replaced devolution with degeneration.
For a lot of American men the biggest work out he has all day is standing in line to stuff his face at McDonalds. We’ve been a country of fat slobs who eat too much and never do anything physical and the difference between now and twenty years ago is stunning. IIRC the statistics correctly the average American man weighs almost thirty pounds more than he did 50 years ago.
Except that the average hight of men today is 6' 9". Exactly the same as the Cro-Magnon skeletal collection.
They were physically stronger because living at that time required more physical strength than today.
Bring on the Captain Obvious poster.
Wow....the writer doesn’t even know what “fittest” means.
Earth to dumbarse, Man of today is more “fit” than men of yesteryear even though we are weaker.
Many modern women are pretty wimpy and whiny, as well.
Cro-Magnon men were taller, more fit and had bigger brains than the average man of today.
Perhaps, but they had very short life spans.
I bet a cro-mag couldn’t pry the remote control from my hand regardless of how tuff he’s suppose to be.
Whoa! Im 6'3" and haven't run into very many guys that tall. I think you meant 5'9".
"You don't believe in Neanderthals .. you think the Earth is 6000 years old."
More likely that you misrepresent the argument because you don't like his article. He likely has no problem with the existence of either Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthals but does not accept the assumed timeline that underlies your position. But you knew that we knew that.
"Which is it?"
Fallacy of the false dilemma noted.
“There are WWII vets who fought at Normandy who would disagree with this, those men had courage to face those German machine guns facing down on them on Normandy beach.”
....point well taken!.....however, the other night I was watching a WW2 documentary on the History channel....it was about how America had to gear up for war after Pearl Harbor...the old news reels were interesting because they showed the men standing in line down at the induction center....they were in their skivies and not a man looked over weight....compared to today’s men they looked downright skinny....I remarked to my wife that they really didn’t look like men of today....maybe that’s what the author of this story was getting at....we are a lot bigger, heavier and more sedendary than 60 years ago...it’s startling when you look at the old news reels....women too, BTW.
“they at the same time initiate programs that Thwart Darwin at every turn”
The thing about Darwin is that, so far as this particular theory goes, he can’t be thwarted, sort of by definition. Despite the popular understanding, fitness does not refer to strength, intelligence, cunning, or what-have-you. “Fittest” does not mean best. Whoever survives is “fittest”.
Therefore, if liberals were somehow able to overturn human nature (for argument’s sake), and allowed only stupid, ugly, weak, lazy, insane dupes with stumps for hands to reproduce, Darwin would still be in force. For whoever passes their genes along, by whatever means, are the fittest. In this case, ugly, stupid, crazy sloths are fit.
Begging a question is not legitimate research. Man arose, not because he was the strongest, or the fastest, or had the sharpest teeth and claws, it was because he was the smartest and that allowed him to adapt to every ecosystem on the planet and dominate in the competition for food and mates.
Yeah, tell that to this guy!
Wow...the poster doesn't even know what 'tautology' means.
"Man of today is more fit than men of yesteryear even though we are weaker."
Survival of the fittest? Who are the fittest? The survivors, of course. Simple tautology.
"Earth to dumbarse,.."
LOL....Liddell got his block knocked off last week but he is still one hard hitting wb.
You are correct. I should’ve wrote 5’9”.
I liked being taller there for a sec.
“More important than diet and exercise is will. As long as little Johnnie just sits and wags his thumbs above the game controller, he ain’t about to develop the will”
However lazy and fat, put Little Johnnie face to face with a neanderthal and Johnnie will prevail. So long as he gets to bring along a gun, that is. Just to be fair, we’ll let Ogg bring his culture’s best weapon. A bone-tipped spear, or whatever. I bet on the gun.
So which was Adam or Noah?
Cro-Magnon man or Neanderthal?
No fallacy ever is.
"Man arose, not because he was the strongest, or the fastest, or had the sharpest teeth and claws, it was because he was the smartest and that allowed him to adapt to every ecosystem on the planet and dominate in the competition for food and mates."
Fallacy of affirming the consequent noted.
You do know how type is determined, correct?
You do realize it is impossible to determine, correct?
You knew that before you posted, correct?
Does Rampage Jackson or Shogun Rua ring a bell? d:op
And then there's the Obama voters.
I'd even go you one better:
Give Johnnie NOTHING but a one-month time to prepare, and the odds are, Johnnie will have some kind of killing machine ready that will make the Neanderthal either A) die or B) Bow down in worship.
Even a sword would kill a Neanderthal..... and most of us know about saltpeter/sulphur/charcoal. Saltpeter can be harvested from any bat cave, sulphur is abundant around any volcanically active area, and it's a cinch to make charcoal. Not too much after that, you have either a gun or a series of bombs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.