Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Info / News Items / Announcements => Topic started by: TylerDurden on June 17, 2010, 10:15:22 pm
-
Here's a scientist mentioned on a cooked-palaeo forum:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6372432/Usain-Bolt-would-have-been-outrun-by-our-ancestors-claims-anthropologist.html
-
Trained to capacity, a Neanderthal woman would have reached 90 per cent of Schwarzenegger's bulk at his peak in the 1970s.
Mr McAllister claims that with modern training, spiked shoes and rubberised tracks, aboriginal hunters...
The reason for the decline in modern humans is that we are more inactive than at any time in history, Mr McAllister claims.
and yet your conclusions elsewhere is for males being under 50-70 kg this is not underweight...and all strength training does not strengthen muscles more efficiently than constant everyday activity and body-weight exercises? All this opinion piece basically 'proves' is that our potential in a clearer environment, inheritance and food source is much higher than the common person might believe. It doesn't mean that their types of activities were superior in building speed or strength, especially if he has to extrapolate through training. The result is in fact in comparison Mr. Universe type bodybuilder that everyone agrees is not efficient in strength, and not a competing strength training athlete, and in regards to speed not being very shocking considering the better skeletal structure and musculature tissue.
-
Well, I wasn't actually referring to a specific weight-range, I just made a general comment that some RPDers were overly concerned re wanting weight-gain, when obesity is a rather more pressing problem nowadays.
I agree that the article is biased in that it claims that more training would be required or shoes worn etc., but the fact remains that 1-on-1 the Cro-Magnon would beat a modern man to pulp with ease, as strength-training(3 short, intense periods a week for most) cannot compensate for constant daily activity in palaeo times as the latter is more related to functional strength. As for the Neanderthal comment, obviously, Neanderthals with far better muscle-development than modern humans would be able to beat any modern human without the need for any extra training and only minimal exercise, for obvious reasons re biology.
-
As for the Neanderthal comment, obviously, Neanderthals with far better muscle-development than modern humans would be able to beat any modern human without the need for any extra training and only minimal exercise, for obvious reasons re biology.
in fairness, right, you never specified that amount, but the conversation had mentioned a man that went from 30 something to 50 kg and another person that said they were 'emaciated'. I supplied the upper value. When you replied that "raw foods seem to constantly cause weight-loss" and that "If you do indeed have a little extra flab on the stomach, that would indicate that you were a little above your ideal weight" no matter how thin otherwise it seems to contradict that paleo man had size and strength eating only raw foods not including 'dairy and fermented grains'. Your point might be accurate for those being 'over-concerned' but overall, paleo man couldn't have been both 120 lbs and strong in the ways the article describes, no matter how devoid of toxins in tissues, so I'm less interested in proving that paleo man was weak in that I find the other comments incredibly baffling in comparison to what should be 'normal' for eating naturally and having an appropriate amount of activity.
as for the other stuff, according to the expert that you posted this is not true. Either way, this seems - to me - to be far more confirmation of natural diet and makeup/structure which cannot be improved otherwise than the actual activities and techniques which it seems to suggest does to a large degree [edit: make us more formidable]. Otherwise contemporary humans would have not even a remote chance with poor foods and inheritance AND their 'poor modes of activity', and would be FAR surpassed by the added superior primitive activity as well as biology, and that doesn't seem to be the case, at least according to this article.
-
in fairness, right, you never specified that amount, but the conversation had mentioned a man that went from 30 something to 50 kg and another person that said they were 'emaciated'. I supplied the upper value. When you replied that "raw foods seem to constantly cause weight-loss" and that "If you do indeed have a little extra flab on the stomach, that would indicate that you were a little above your ideal weight" no matter how thin otherwise it seems to contradict that paleo man had size and strength eating only raw foods not including 'dairy and fermented grains'. Your point might be accurate for those being 'over-concerned' but overall, paleo man couldn't have been both 120 lbs and strong in the ways the article describes, no matter how devoid of toxins in tissues, so I'm less interested in proving that paleo man was weak in that I find the other comments incredibly baffling in comparison to what should be 'normal' for eating naturally and having an appropriate amount of activity.
The thing is, the only raw food that seems to promote weight-gain is raw dairy, which is a non-palaeo food which commonly causes other unpleasant side-effects re health. I don't discount the possibility that some Rawapalaeos might have less than ideal weight, but I do seriously question the notion that eating excess amounts of raw foods on a constant basis is a solution as that didn't happen in palaeo times(it wasn't necessary). Now, it may be that some people, due to the abnormal effects of modern lviing, re chemicals in the environment/unnatural lifestyles/lack of (proper) exercise/genetics, have this issue, so might have to resort to unnatural methods such as overeating. As for being 120lbs and strong, it is technically possible, I suppose, if you were an African pygmy. But the point is, that , weight-for-weight, palaeo peoples would have had more functional strength than modern peoples.
as for the other stuff, according to the expert that you posted this is not true. Either way, this seems - to me - to be far more confirmation of natural diet and makeup/structure which cannot be improved otherwise than the actual activities and techniques which it seems to suggest does to a large degree [edit: make us more formidable]. Otherwise contemporary humans would have not even a remote chance with poor foods and inheritance AND their 'poor modes of activity', and would be FAR surpassed by the added superior primitive activity as well as biology, and that doesn't seem to be the case, at least according to this article.
Well, the above article's author was stupid in suggesting that our palaeo ancestors would need shoes in order to compete with us. A far fairer comparison would have been to compare our barefoot modern selves with our barefoot Cro-Magnon ancestors, which, judging by that article's claims, would have meant that modern athletes could not possibly have competed against our Cro-Magnon ancestors. You have to bear in mind this guy was comparing the performance of an Olympic athlete in modern times to the everyday activities of average palaeo tribesmen, not necessarily the best representatives of their tribes, in terms of physical performance. Yet, they still were able to beat Usain Bolt, on a barefoot level-comparison, with Usain Bolt and the rest merely supposedly "winning" due to artificial enhancements(ie shoes, and no doubt steroids as well).
Same applies re genetics:- if we took a cross-section of the modern population and compared them to tribes in palaeo times, you would find that the modern population have much higher rates of genetic diseases/weak genetic make-up etc., making them, overall, far less impressive physically etc. This is because, in palaeo times, they were still subject, to a certain extent, to natural selection re weeding out undesirable traits, whereas modern medicine now allows many such to stay alive and breed.
Simply put, we are a weaker lot than the Cro-Magnon, and have to compensate with the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
-
these guys deal in milliseconds to finish on time, he's talking about a deficit of 23 and 28! miles an hour its already a major extrapolation that absolutely requires training. Since we know that proper training w/o shoes will yield the best benefit, this is another paradox of your logic that modern man has both an asset and a detriment rolled into one. just like its impossible to create weight on RPD because it has no unnatural foods yet paleo man was much bigger and stronger than anyone can get even with harmful substances (non steroids).
The very article you posted suggested exactly the opposite 100% that the techniques and training despite being genetically weaker and having poor foods created the best results. there is no dispute that modern means destroy health, which is why they should not stand a chance instead of being superior.
The idea that these people were merely average only confirms just average amounts of activity as you have suggested in paleo times did not compete with modern training. Its irrelevant if their was a faster man in paleo times or even if further fossils are discovered.
modern activity and modern intelligence to diet is required and superior to make up for issues resulting from poor genetics and poor quality of food choices and would be even more superior without those issues.
-
Naturally the article is clearly dead wrong in suggesting that modern training would be required as palaeo peoples did such training re running every day, pretty much - however, it suggested also that modern athletes could only outperform palaeos by the use of shoes - ie minus shoes, they would have been beaten every single time by barefoot palaoes - that makes sense.Also, I did NOT state that those fossils/tracks found were merely "average" by modern standards, but average by palaeo standards, which is at least equal to modern athletes' performance re standards, and, judging from evidence re palaeo bones, quite possibly higher.
Simply put, without steroids and similiar drugs, and going barefoot, modern athletes would stand no chance against the best palaeo tribesmen, no chance at all.
-
Why the hell would shoes make them faster?? That is stupid...
-
Simply put, without steroids and similiar drugs, and going barefoot, modern athletes would stand no chance against the best palaeo tribesmen, no chance at all.
Yeah right.
please post reference's.
The neolithic athletes would out perform paleo's, the neolithic has a population of 7 billion to choose from, the cream of this would out perform paleo's.
-
Why the hell would shoes make them faster?? That is stupid...
Because most modern athletes have grown accustomed to the crutch of shoes and would be severely handicapped if forced to perform shoe-less.
-
Yes, but... 'They', and Tyler, are suggesting that paleo-people would be at a disadvantage for their lack of shoes.
Tyler is saying that: If paleo's were to be split in to two test groups, where everything is normal paleo, but one group were to be raised from birth with shoes and the other not, that the group with shoes would be faster. Also that if modern people were to be split in to two groups where again, life is normal except one group is raised from birth without shoes and the other with, that the group with should would again be faster.
He is saying that a person who lives with access to shoes will be faster than someone who lives without access to shoes...
-
Yes, but... 'They', and Tyler, are suggesting that paleo-people would be at a disadvantage for their lack of shoes.
Tyler is saying that: If paleo's were to be split in to two test groups, where everything is normal paleo, but one group were to be raised from birth with shoes and the other not, that the group with shoes would be faster. Also that if modern people were to be split in to two groups where again, life is normal except one group is raised from birth without shoes and the other with, that the group with should would again be faster.
He is saying that a person who lives with access to shoes will be faster than someone who lives without access to shoes...
I didn't read his comment that way. Quite the opposite. -\
Well, the above article's author was stupid in suggesting that our palaeo ancestors would need shoes in order to compete with us. A far fairer comparison would have been to compare our barefoot modern selves with our barefoot Cro-Magnon ancestors, which, judging by that article's claims, would have meant that modern athletes could not possibly have competed against our Cro-Magnon ancestors. You have to bear in mind this guy was comparing the performance of an Olympic athlete in modern times to the everyday activities of average palaeo tribesmen, not necessarily the best representatives of their tribes, in terms of physical performance. Yet, they still were able to beat Usain Bolt, on a barefoot level-comparison, with Usain Bolt and the rest merely supposedly "winning" due to artificial enhancements(ie shoes, and no doubt steroids as well).
-
He said that:
Both Barefoot - Paleo man would beat Modern athlete;
Paleo man barefoot, Modern athlete shod - Modern athlete would beat Paleo man;
He is saying that, if Paleo man were to have shoes, he could beat Modern athlete... This is silly, to think that shoes would give an advantage...
-
He said that:
Both Barefoot - Paleo man would beat Modern athlete;
Paleo man barefoot, Modern athlete shod - Modern athlete would beat Paleo man;
So basically he is saying that, if Paleo man were to have shoes, he could beat Modern athlete... This is silly, to think that shoes would give an advantage...
You're committing a logical fallacy.
-
No... Ok I didn't write that very well... I was not deducing the third point from the first two, though it sounded like it. But the third point is what Tyler thinks... It's what he said...
"winning" due to artificial enhancements(ie shoes"
He refers to shoes as 'enhancements', he is saying that on a barefoot level comparison, the paleo man could win, but due to 'enhancements' such as shoes, the modern athlete would win. It's right there he wrote it... lol I don't even see how we could disagree over what he wrote when it's there.
-
No... Ok I didn't write that very well... I was not deducing the third point from the first two, though it sounded like it. But the third point is what Tyler thinks... It's what he said...
I'm still not seeing it miles. To me it looks like TD is in agreement that they (paleos ancestors) wouldn't need shoes to compete with us (modern day athletes).
Well, the above article's author was stupid in suggesting that our palaeo ancestors would need shoes in order to compete with us. A far fairer comparison would have been to compare our barefoot modern selves with our barefoot Cro-Magnon ancestors, which, judging by that article's claims, would have meant that modern athletes could not possibly have competed against our Cro-Magnon ancestors. You have to bear in mind this guy was comparing the performance of an Olympic athlete in modern times to the everyday activities of average palaeo tribesmen, not necessarily the best representatives of their tribes, in terms of physical performance. Yet, they still were able to beat Usain Bolt, on a barefoot level-comparison, with Usain Bolt and the rest merely supposedly "winning" due to artificial enhancements(ie shoes, and no doubt steroids as well).
-
Naturally the article is clearly dead wrong in suggesting that modern training would be required as palaeo peoples did such training re running every day, pretty much - however, it suggested also that modern athletes could only outperform palaeos by the use of shoes - ie minus shoes, they would have been beaten every single time by barefoot palaoes - that makes sense.Also, I did NOT state that those fossils/tracks found were merely "average" by modern standards, but average by palaeo standards, which is at least equal to modern athletes' performance re standards, and, judging from evidence re palaeo bones, quite possibly higher.
Simply put, without steroids and similiar drugs, and going barefoot, modern athletes would stand no chance against the best palaeo tribesmen, no chance at all.
-
Perhaps I should add a comment while I have time. I should add that it would depend on the surface travelled over(I would assume that running over hardened pebbles with shoes would have an advantage over a shoeless person), plus most modern sports-shoes boast of extra technology for increasing speed(websites such as this one describe enhancements such as spikes used to increase speed:-
http://www.design-technology.org/sportsshoes1.htm
Obviously, a super-marathon involving someone with cushioned etc. shoes might have an advantage over a barefoot person who can stub his toes etc. while running.
Whatever the case, I doubt that palaeoman could have been beaten by modern athletes if both were barefoot. And the 7 billion figure is meaningless as almost none of those 7 billion have the advantages that palaeoman had re constant daily strenuous activity, better genes due to natural selection etc.
-
Why would he stub his toes???? Is he retarded? Spikes increase speed compared to shoes which don't have spikes...
Of course, there will be some surfaces which could give shoes the advantage, but not any normal surface which one might expect to be racing on.
An ultra-marathon would not give shoes an advantage over barefoot.
-
Shoes do provide an advantage in running on a surface that is heavily strewn with jagged pebbles (which is pretty rare in the foot-racing world) and I could see spikes on the front of the shoe providing an advantage in sprinting, but I find cushioning to be a detriment, rather than a help, in both long and short distance running, as it promotes poor form and adds unnecessary weight and inflexibility (see Barefoot Ted (http://www.barefootted.com/index.php?q=/) and a growing number of other sources on this). For long distance running on any foot-race surface I've ever seen, anything more than Barefoot Ted's sandals is probably more hindrance than help.
... I doubt that palaeoman could have been beaten by modern athletes if both were barefoot.
I suspect you're right about that--at least for most athletes.
-
According to Barefoot Kenbob, one of the more well known barefoot runners, the Kenyans who race in America these days run as if they are barefoot. The only reason they wear shoes is because they have sponsors and they have to.
-
Yeah.
-
Yeah, I was watching a marathon once back in the 70s or 80s when the Kenyan dudes wore their sponsored sneakers for the first time. The lead Kenyan developed a look of disgust on his face and threw off the sneakers and continued to run on the blacktop in his bare feet. I vaguely recall other Kenyans doing the same. The announcers were surprised and so was I. That was my first inkling that barefooted running might actually make sense. I later learned that Native Americans walked with more emphasis on the forefoot, which was another clue, but it also mostly just puzzled me at first. My next clue was the South African female runner, Zola Budd, who ran barefoot. However, it wasn't until I went Paleo and started investigating all things Ancestral that I fully realized how foolish the recent invention of heavily cushioned Nike running shoes was and got up the motivation and courage to buy and wear barefoot-style shoes. I can tell ya that I ain't going back to big-heeled shoes. Cushioned shoes are now believed by some to be part of the reason for the rise in running injuries and sports/athletic injuries in general.
-
It was for me, I developed horrible leg pains that stopped me from walking down my stairs. I went to the a sports doctor twice a week and all he could do was ease the pain. Ever since I started running barefoot all my pain is gone.
-
Tyler wrote: "Now, it may be that some people, due to the abnormal effects of modern lviing, re chemicals in the environment/unnatural lifestyles/lack of (proper) exercise/genetics, have this issue, so might have to resort to unnatural methods such as overeating."
I haven't seen anyone claim anything to the contrary, except that in my case the main culprit seems to have been modern cooked/processed foods (according to Dr. Pottenger it takes at least 3 generations to reverse the problems caused by modern cooked/processed foods). Nearly everyone acknowledges that eating raw is slimming (even Wrangham), so when one starts out already too thin, that can be a problem. It's interesting that I don't see nearly as many complaints of people being overweight at raw diet forums as I do at cooked diet forums, and some of the raw fruitarians are positively skeletal.
"As for being 120lbs and strong, it is technically possible, I suppose, if you were an African pygmy."
I remember seeing somewhere a report that very short people cannot possibly have the same strength as someone of equal muscle proportions and larger size--something like the way no matter how much muscle a mouse puts on he can't be as strong as an elephant, to use an extreme example. This is apparently part of the reason different weight classes are used in boxing and wrestling. I'm no expert in this, however. Instead of using strength in hunting and fighting, pygmies and Bushmen (Ju/hoansi/!Kung) apparently used things like poison arrows, stealth, and speed.
-
I know that bushmen poisoned there prey then ran them down for days if nescessary. Eventually the animal would give up and the bushmen would then spear it to death. Some of the still existant bushmen still do it this way.
-
"As for being 120lbs and strong, it is technically possible, I suppose, if you were an African pygmy."
Paleophil: "...."
Strength isn't that simple these days, when many people, even a large proportion of athletes and body-builders included, suffer similar chronic issues to those you had with your ankle Paleophil. A man can have a decent amount of muscle, but due to his diet actually be frail. For example, he may be able to lift a large amount of weight in a controlled environment, but if he were to jerk it at all, go slightly out of his usual ROM or to attempt to try and swing a hard punch without warming up for example, he would hurt himself...
-
Strength isn't that simple these days, when many people, even a large proportion of athletes and body-builders included, suffer similar chronic issues to those you had with your ankle Paleophil. A man can have a decent amount of muscle, but due to his diet actually be frail. For example, he may be able to lift a large amount of weight in a controlled environment, but if he were to jerk it at all, go slightly out of his usual ROM or to attempt to try and swing a hard punch without warming up for example, he would hurt himself...
Excellent point. Connective tissues (ligaments and tendons) and joint health are also important to strength. Given that modern foods cause damage in all these areas, Stone Agers were likely stronger in this way too.
-
In something such as a 100m race, modern sprinting shoes would give a clear advantage only because the spikes would give traction for a faster take off. Other than that, the only "advantage" modern shoes may give is protection from sharp objects, although anyone who runs barefoot regular can tell you that the bottom of the sole toughens notably, and after running barefoot for a while you get really good at paying attention to the running surface.
120 pounds and strong - Look up some olympic weightlifters, some of those guys are brutally strong and weigh relatively little. However, a 300 pound olympic lifter will of course be overall stronger. After reading multiple articles about how badass early man was, I can only imagine that Cro-magnon man must have been like mariusz pudzianowski, in terms of strength and performance.