Our cavemen ancestors shit all over us

[Shivayan]

How would one achieve this supposed level of "caveman fitness?"

http://www.outsideonline.com/1923776/ho ... has-fallen

From the article I can gather it would involve a lot of MS, SE and loaded carries; farmer's walks, sandbag runs, etc.

Thoughts?

[Blackmetalbunny]

Here's a key part:

1. Take every single baby born.
2. Pit them against each other in physical tests
3. For every 1,000, kill the 999 weakest.
4. Let them grow up
5. Encourage a kill or be killed mentality
6. Only allow the strongest and fittest to breed. All others can die.

That's what the article fails to address. Our progress in medical technology has allowed us to save lives that would have otherwise been snuffed out at childbirth.

The lack of culling of the human herd has allowed, to some extent, weakness and illnesses to breed.

[Shivayan]

These are our ancestors, so surely the potential to be as fit and strong as them is still in our genes?

[bytes-cruncher]

Here's a key part:

1. Take every single baby born.
2. Pit them against each other in physical tests
3. For every 1,000, kill the 999 weakest.
4. Let them grow up
5. Encourage a kill or be killed mentality
6. Only allow the strongest and fittest to breed. All others can die.

That's what the article fails to address. Our progress in medical technology has allowed us to save lives that would have otherwise been snuffed out at childbirth.

The lack of culling of the human herd has allowed, to some extent, weakness and illnesses to breed.

I don't want to offend you, but I totally disagree with this, and these were exactly the thoughts or reason given for mass genocides or colonialization carried out by some dictators during last century. The medical technology has helped us to save lives and there is NO "weak" or "ill" life. Our ancestors if did any culling then it was only in the extreme cases like physical paralysis when they become a burden on the herd, it was never on the basis which is more fit or better warrior as shown in movies or written in fiction books.

These ancestors had a different lifestyle and needs than us, i.e., they were primarily hunters and food-gatherers. Hence, they were trained to be fit for hunting since childhood. It is similar to being trained for becoming piano maestro or olympian by putting more than 50,000 hours for the same skills. Now, if you compare these hunters to cave man who instead of hunting was growing food on the ground and got settled near that habitat rather than wandering and fighting like hunters, then definitely hunters will be more fit on an average than the cave man growing food on the ground.

Comparing ourselves to ancestors is like comparing apple to oranges.

[Blackmetalbunny]

I don't want to offend you, but I totally disagree with this, and these were exactly the thoughts or reason given for mass genocides or colonialization carried out by some dictators during last century. The medical technology has helped us to save lives and there is NO "weak" or "ill" life. Our ancestors if did any culling then it was only in the extreme cases like physical paralysis when they become a burden on the herd, it was never on the basis which is more fit or better warrior as shown in movies or written in fiction books.

Err, I think you took my illustration the wrong way dude. I'm not espousing eugenics. I'm not saying that's how one should go about getting a race of Übermensch, but rather that the article is comparing a race of people who are hardened by their environment vs a race of people who can control their environments. The only way you'd get a super hardy race is if the weak were culled, irrespective of the greater loss to the race - we'll end up with a race of Super Saiyans, but with any culture or technological advancements.

The author (or maybe the executive summary) fails to point out that these super-cavemen are strong because they represent the 1% of the 1% of the 1% that survived birth, were more hard-bodied and were luckier than the brethren which just were unlucky or late bloomers (and hence were probably eaten or were unrepresented in the article). I don't see how we should be compared to these lucky populations.

My illustration was simply showing that one reason these supposed super-cavemen would shit all over us is probably because the weaker ones might not have survived (i.e. lets take away antibiotics, and let's see how the population fares), or were severely under-represented.It's like comparing an Olympic weightlifter to someone just starting out on Starting Strength.

A fairer comparison would be to compare these super-cavemen to a Navy SEAL or Delta Force operator. After all; these samples represent the 1% of the 1% of the 1%, but in this case, my money's on the highly trained operators with automatic weapons.

[Blackmetalbunny]

These are our ancestors, so surely the potential to be as fit and strong as them is still in our genes?

My view is that potential will only remain potential if it is untapped.

This is like people saying "I don't understand what so and so athlete's coaches are doing, I could train that same athlete and get him stronger and faster", without realising that these athlete's have a limited resource to train their strength, hone their techniques, develop strategies and recover. Do you need a weight-lifter that can sprint faster than Usain Bolt? No, you need a weight-lifter that can lift as much weight as possible.

In that same vein, would you rather spend time getting caveman big and strong, or would you rather spend more time developing skills which can take your career further?

Your body could probably develop the same way, but considering that you probably had a limited amount of time and calories to expend on developing your body, what would your rather spend it on?

In addition; remember that cavemen had to deal with disease, famine, natural disasters, pathogens etc... even drinking water represented a possible source of dysentery - if we were to assume that a lack of medical care meant that the weaker ones were continuously being cut from the herd, don't you think that all that remained were prejudicially skewed towards the excessively strong? How can we compare these 1% of 1% of 1% to an average joe?

[Green2Blue]

While I do think the breeding selection was definitely more leaning towards physical attributes in the past, simply out of necessity...

I disagree somewhat with the point this author is trying to make. The population as a whole is certainly weaker. That's because the population as a whole sits on their ass all day. Heard recently that the average male grip strength today is the same as the average female grip strength in the 60's.

But if you aren't talking about the average person, I think those of us that train have those in the moderately recent past beat. The reason for this is superior training techniques, nutrition, free time, medicine, etc.

Those that think our recent ancestors were just completely beyond anything possible today because their lives required more physical challenges don't quite understand physical training. The body can only adapt to so much physical stress. Eventually if that physical stress becomes too great it has a negative impact on adaptation, aka overtraining. The advanced training techniques we use today (including TB) take that into consideration and provide us superior results.

I'm sure some of you on here are quite possibly the strongest, fastest, etc. in your genetic line in thousands of years.

[KS-90]

Their sample population.. : http://www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/undergraduates

Not exactly a rugged group.

[Shivayan]

Their sample population.. : http://www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/undergraduates

Not exactly a rugged group.

Yeah agreed.
I am currently an Aerospace engineering undergrad student. My buddies are the most athletically demotivating people I've met.