14 ms·

No doubt models were selected specifically for their muscular builds, but I find it very fascinating to see the sheer amount of fat free mass (some) people were

No doubt models were selected specifically for their muscular builds, but I find it very fascinating to see the sheer amount of fat free mass (some) people were able to sustain hundreds/thousands of years in the past. It speaks a lot to just how effective frequent, high volume stress is at producing muscle mass even in cases where people were (most likely) eating very plain diets which a lot of people today would categorize as "insufficient". EDIT: I mistakenly thought that 'selected specifically' and 'some' would be sufficiently adequate at emphasizing that I meant that these people existed; I'm not suggesting that the average Roman citizen was built like a young Arnold. My apologies.

erfgh 3y ago
I don't understand why you are projecting the build of a few individuals onto a whole society.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  They specifically said "some people" unless that was added afterwards.
- joshribakoff 3y ago
  The parent comment specifically calls out they’re not, ergo “some people”.
manmal 3y ago
I guess when: - you live in the mediterranean area (plenty of olive oil and sea food), - red meat is not a daily staple, - fruit is not available all year, - fasting is done as part of religious practice, and - sugar is only rarely added to meals, it's way easier to stay lean.
- api 3y ago
  Sugar is the big one and it being added to everything is the most likely source of the modern obesity epidemic. Seriously. Just try to find packaged or restaurant foods without added sugar. You pretty much have to make all your own food. We got a bread machine to reduce sugar in our diet, among other things.
  - tekla 3y ago
    The obesity epidemic is because people eat too much. Calories are stupid cheap. You can eat nothing but sugar and still lose weight if you burn more than you eat (See McD and Twinkies experiment)
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      Of course sugar doesn’t magically make one fat. The problem is that the body doesn’t register how many calories it’s eaten with sugar (and “processed” food in general), and so you can’t rely on that natural mechanism to know how much to eat. I think it’s crazy that the default outcome in our current modern environment if you follow your natural instincts is obesity. Clearly we need some regulation around how processed food must produce satiety and not just flavor, the current setup is not working.
      - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago
        It's also crazy addictive. People don't think it be a drug, but it do.
      - SoftTalker 3y ago
        It's not just that sugar doesn't satiate hunger, the body actually craves it. In pre-agricultural times, calories were scarce and sugar (glucose or fructose) was an easy way to get a lot of calories quickly. The palate evolved to favor things like honey, fruit, berries, and other sources of sugar. The few thousand years since food has not been univerally scarce have not changed that.
      - loeg 3y ago
        > I think it’s crazy that the default outcome in our current modern environment if you follow your natural instincts is obesity. Clearly we need some regulation around how processed food must produce satiety and not just flavor, the current setup is not working. I kind of agree, but people are irrationally attached to unhealthy, high caloric-density foods. If you tried to regulate away or even just tax ice cream, soda, and chips, people would riot in the streets. Regulating unhealthy food is extremely unpopular.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  Calcium restricts faecal fat loss, so the water of todays mains potable water supplies which is typically hard water not only uses limescale to plug holes in the pipework but also contributes to todays obesity levels. Manganese isnt as widespread in todays diet, and yet high fat diets deplete the body of Mn and its useful for oxidising dopamine, preventing outbursts in people who might be considered autistic or just an A-hole. In fact Manganese carbonate rivals Mn Super Oxide Dismutase (MnSOD) at reducing free radicals, Manganese Carbonate could be considered double bubble, in that the Mn contributes to MnSOD but can equally reduce Oxygen Reactive Species in its own right which makes it arguably the perfect Mn supplement if it wasnt classed as not fit for human consumption. Our exposure to manganese will be greatest bathing/surfing in coastal waters or eating fish from coastal waters which is also part of the Mediterranean diet. It also involved picking wild plants and herbs which are far higher in things like vitamin K1 than what you would find in the supermarkets, which helped the skeleton form properly, but also aided the maintenance of the body through its interactions with the carboxylation processes and we all produce alot of carbon dioxide. Plants will on average preferentially absorb more manganese than other metals like copper, zinc or lead when grown in "contaminated" soil, but how many people eat enough vegetables, let along vegetables with contaminants like metals? Manganese isnt used in livestock feed because it produces lean healthy livestock, thats not conducive to the economics of farming, thats why TV chefs are used to push meat cuts that are marbleised with fat. Milk is now typically homogenised because it hides the fat removal at Xmas time when used for creams, but it produces a greatly enhanced taste as the fat is consistent throughout the drink straight from the bottle or as a milkshake. Malnutrition and obesity is good for the economy and helps the ego's of politicians who just throw money around at their pet projects or ideologies, whilst trade organisations exist to protect their members own income, which isnt always conducive to great human health.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bsder 3y ago
  When your default state is starvation, staying lean is easy. If you look at statistical measures of height, the average height of most human beings continued to increase until the mid 1980s whereupon it plateaued in many countries. What this tells you is that vast majority of people, even in the "First World" were nutritionally deprived until the mid 1980s. Which, gee, would you look at that, is considered to be the start of the "obesity epidemic". As such, the answer to the obesity epidemic is obvious: simply starve people again.
mdgrech23 3y ago
I just got back from Rome and took multiple tours with very informative guides. The one guide said they were designed to look like the Gods. I don't think many people had this physique. We have all muscles, it wouldn't of been that hard for a sculptor to look at their own muscles and simply make them bigger as such I don't think it's any indication that ancient Romans were jacked per se.
- coffeebeqn 3y ago
  I mean they certainly had athletes and warriors and manual laborers working with very heavy things who ate a good diet to look at
  - 1-more 3y ago
    Any one of these Cameroonian sand miners could be a model for a statue of Hercules for instance https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6602363/Cameroons-muscle-bound-miners-Photos-incredible-sculpted-physique-workers.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6602363/Cameroons-m... working a tough job with not a ton of food can get you pretty far.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Historians consistently underestimate the strength and sheer "badass-itude" of premodern peoples. It's a reminder that historical volk are alien creatures, with a bewitching external similarity that belies their internal lives, outlook, and abilities. The example fresh in my mind was the old "official" military historian estimate for the upper bounds of the English longbow draw weight, which was ballparked in the hundred-something range maximum. Archeology later showed that the actual English bows had draw weights well over two hundred pounds, more than twice the earlier maximum possible estimate. We've seen similar things with muscle-powered weapons in the ancient world. Historians earlier posited that bladed weapons would have been largely ineffective against Parthian armor, then archeology shows how some ungodly Roman beast shoved his gladius through 4mm of bronze/iron composite. What's the reason for the consistent overestimation? In my opinion, we operate from the standpoint of an extremely long-lived and risk-averse civilization. Therefore, changing our bodies - through training, scarring, and other means - is largely seen as neurotic if it damages overall health. This would have been an alien outlook to many premodern peoples - permanently impinging the usage of one's thumbs would have been a small cost for being a solider able to swing through plate, or fire an arrow with killing power at three hundred yards. We need to remember that what we see as important is not always what the human species has seen as important. Indeed, you can see this today, even among different polities of the same country.
- djtango 3y ago
  I agree and I think of it another way. The day to day life and focus of many modern day olympians / world champions was probably close to the norm for many of the fighter-class. People training day in day out to hone their skills and fitness, putting their lives on the line for glory and survival. Sure we eat better and train smarter but most of us no longer dedicate ourselves to a singular purpose that involves our bodies so the realities of that are so foreign to us that the notion of marching a marathon carrying 40kg is seen as superhuman rather than the bare minimum.
- taeric 3y ago
  People, myself included, also seem to underestimate the force animals can apply to things. Frustrating, as when it is corrected, it often times leads to silly "imagine if we fully exerted ourselves" discussions.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> It speaks a lot to just how effective frequent, high volume stress is at producing muscle mass even in cases where people were (most likely) eating very plain diets which a lot of people today would categorize as "insufficient". > EDIT: I mistakenly thought that 'selected specifically' and 'some' would be sufficiently adequate at emphasizing that I meant that these people existed; I'm not suggesting that the average Roman citizen was built like a young Arnold. My apologies. Spot the discrepancy. “Most likely” versus “some”. Most people subsisting on peasant diets doesn’t mean that there were not some people that had better diets.
- fredrikholm 3y ago
  Thank you for explaining. I'm not a native speaker and am finding it hard with how many qualifiers one needs to put into English sentences as to avoid looking like one is making sweeping absolute statements. Is this also necessary for verbal communication? To fully pad out what I meant with that sentence: ... where I assume that most people doing that type of heavy physical labor were, on average, quite likely to have had very plain diets when compared to what a lot of laymen in modern days would deem/assume sufficient for developing such a physique in modern times.
  - svnt 3y ago
    > I'm not a native speaker and am finding it hard with how many qualifiers one needs to put into English sentences as to avoid looking like one is making sweeping absolute statements. Is this also necessary for verbal communication? I would recommend you don’t extrapolate too much from HN conversation. The prevalence of skimming combined with detail fixation here means that often times you are receiving feedback from the most argumentative people who can also respond more quickly because they didn’t fully consider your position.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      Notice how the commenter here skillfully talks in general instead of asserting that the original replier did anything in particular. This is how to write a good HN comment.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
Remember this is before xenoestrogens, BPA, seed oils, pollutants, hormones in cattle and milk, sedentary office jobs, High fructose corn syrup, etc.

erfgh 3y ago

I don't understand why you are projecting the build of a few individuals onto a whole society.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
They specifically said "some people" unless that was added afterwards.
joshribakoff 3y ago
The parent comment specifically calls out they’re not, ergo “some people”.

manmal 3y ago

I guess when: - you live in the mediterranean area (plenty of olive oil and sea food), - red meat is not a daily staple, - fruit is not available all year, - fasting is done as part of religious practice, and - sugar is only rarely added to meals, it's way easier to stay lean.

api 3y ago
Sugar is the big one and it being added to everything is the most likely source of the modern obesity epidemic. Seriously. Just try to find packaged or restaurant foods without added sugar. You pretty much have to make all your own food. We got a bread machine to reduce sugar in our diet, among other things.
- tekla 3y ago
  The obesity epidemic is because people eat too much. Calories are stupid cheap. You can eat nothing but sugar and still lose weight if you burn more than you eat (See McD and Twinkies experiment)
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Of course sugar doesn’t magically make one fat. The problem is that the body doesn’t register how many calories it’s eaten with sugar (and “processed” food in general), and so you can’t rely on that natural mechanism to know how much to eat. I think it’s crazy that the default outcome in our current modern environment if you follow your natural instincts is obesity. Clearly we need some regulation around how processed food must produce satiety and not just flavor, the current setup is not working.
    - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago
      It's also crazy addictive. People don't think it be a drug, but it do.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      It's not just that sugar doesn't satiate hunger, the body actually craves it. In pre-agricultural times, calories were scarce and sugar (glucose or fructose) was an easy way to get a lot of calories quickly. The palate evolved to favor things like honey, fruit, berries, and other sources of sugar. The few thousand years since food has not been univerally scarce have not changed that.
    - loeg 3y ago
      > I think it’s crazy that the default outcome in our current modern environment if you follow your natural instincts is obesity. Clearly we need some regulation around how processed food must produce satiety and not just flavor, the current setup is not working. I kind of agree, but people are irrationally attached to unhealthy, high caloric-density foods. If you tried to regulate away or even just tax ice cream, soda, and chips, people would riot in the streets. Regulating unhealthy food is extremely unpopular.
darkclouds 3y ago
Calcium restricts faecal fat loss, so the water of todays mains potable water supplies which is typically hard water not only uses limescale to plug holes in the pipework but also contributes to todays obesity levels. Manganese isnt as widespread in todays diet, and yet high fat diets deplete the body of Mn and its useful for oxidising dopamine, preventing outbursts in people who might be considered autistic or just an A-hole. In fact Manganese carbonate rivals Mn Super Oxide Dismutase (MnSOD) at reducing free radicals, Manganese Carbonate could be considered double bubble, in that the Mn contributes to MnSOD but can equally reduce Oxygen Reactive Species in its own right which makes it arguably the perfect Mn supplement if it wasnt classed as not fit for human consumption. Our exposure to manganese will be greatest bathing/surfing in coastal waters or eating fish from coastal waters which is also part of the Mediterranean diet. It also involved picking wild plants and herbs which are far higher in things like vitamin K1 than what you would find in the supermarkets, which helped the skeleton form properly, but also aided the maintenance of the body through its interactions with the carboxylation processes and we all produce alot of carbon dioxide. Plants will on average preferentially absorb more manganese than other metals like copper, zinc or lead when grown in "contaminated" soil, but how many people eat enough vegetables, let along vegetables with contaminants like metals? Manganese isnt used in livestock feed because it produces lean healthy livestock, thats not conducive to the economics of farming, thats why TV chefs are used to push meat cuts that are marbleised with fat. Milk is now typically homogenised because it hides the fat removal at Xmas time when used for creams, but it produces a greatly enhanced taste as the fat is consistent throughout the drink straight from the bottle or as a milkshake. Malnutrition and obesity is good for the economy and helps the ego's of politicians who just throw money around at their pet projects or ideologies, whilst trade organisations exist to protect their members own income, which isnt always conducive to great human health.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bsder 3y ago
When your default state is starvation, staying lean is easy. If you look at statistical measures of height, the average height of most human beings continued to increase until the mid 1980s whereupon it plateaued in many countries. What this tells you is that vast majority of people, even in the "First World" were nutritionally deprived until the mid 1980s. Which, gee, would you look at that, is considered to be the start of the "obesity epidemic". As such, the answer to the obesity epidemic is obvious: simply starve people again.

mdgrech23 3y ago

I just got back from Rome and took multiple tours with very informative guides. The one guide said they were designed to look like the Gods. I don't think many people had this physique. We have all muscles, it wouldn't of been that hard for a sculptor to look at their own muscles and simply make them bigger as such I don't think it's any indication that ancient Romans were jacked per se.

coffeebeqn 3y ago
I mean they certainly had athletes and warriors and manual laborers working with very heavy things who ate a good diet to look at
- 1-more 3y ago
  Any one of these Cameroonian sand miners could be a model for a statue of Hercules for instance https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6602363/Cameroons-muscle-bound-miners-Photos-incredible-sculpted-physique-workers.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6602363/Cameroons-m... working a tough job with not a ton of food can get you pretty far.

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

Historians consistently underestimate the strength and sheer "badass-itude" of premodern peoples. It's a reminder that historical volk are alien creatures, with a bewitching external similarity that belies their internal lives, outlook, and abilities. The example fresh in my mind was the old "official" military historian estimate for the upper bounds of the English longbow draw weight, which was ballparked in the hundred-something range maximum. Archeology later showed that the actual English bows had draw weights well over two hundred pounds, more than twice the earlier maximum possible estimate. We've seen similar things with muscle-powered weapons in the ancient world. Historians earlier posited that bladed weapons would have been largely ineffective against Parthian armor, then archeology shows how some ungodly Roman beast shoved his gladius through 4mm of bronze/iron composite. What's the reason for the consistent overestimation? In my opinion, we operate from the standpoint of an extremely long-lived and risk-averse civilization. Therefore, changing our bodies - through training, scarring, and other means - is largely seen as neurotic if it damages overall health. This would have been an alien outlook to many premodern peoples - permanently impinging the usage of one's thumbs would have been a small cost for being a solider able to swing through plate, or fire an arrow with killing power at three hundred yards. We need to remember that what we see as important is not always what the human species has seen as important. Indeed, you can see this today, even among different polities of the same country.

djtango 3y ago
I agree and I think of it another way. The day to day life and focus of many modern day olympians / world champions was probably close to the norm for many of the fighter-class. People training day in day out to hone their skills and fitness, putting their lives on the line for glory and survival. Sure we eat better and train smarter but most of us no longer dedicate ourselves to a singular purpose that involves our bodies so the realities of that are so foreign to us that the notion of marching a marathon carrying 40kg is seen as superhuman rather than the bare minimum.
taeric 3y ago
People, myself included, also seem to underestimate the force animals can apply to things. Frustrating, as when it is corrected, it often times leads to silly "imagine if we fully exerted ourselves" discussions.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> It speaks a lot to just how effective frequent, high volume stress is at producing muscle mass even in cases where people were (most likely) eating very plain diets which a lot of people today would categorize as "insufficient". > EDIT: I mistakenly thought that 'selected specifically' and 'some' would be sufficiently adequate at emphasizing that I meant that these people existed; I'm not suggesting that the average Roman citizen was built like a young Arnold. My apologies. Spot the discrepancy. “Most likely” versus “some”. Most people subsisting on peasant diets doesn’t mean that there were not some people that had better diets.

fredrikholm 3y ago
Thank you for explaining. I'm not a native speaker and am finding it hard with how many qualifiers one needs to put into English sentences as to avoid looking like one is making sweeping absolute statements. Is this also necessary for verbal communication? To fully pad out what I meant with that sentence: ... where I assume that most people doing that type of heavy physical labor were, on average, quite likely to have had very plain diets when compared to what a lot of laymen in modern days would deem/assume sufficient for developing such a physique in modern times.
- svnt 3y ago
  > I'm not a native speaker and am finding it hard with how many qualifiers one needs to put into English sentences as to avoid looking like one is making sweeping absolute statements. Is this also necessary for verbal communication? I would recommend you don’t extrapolate too much from HN conversation. The prevalence of skimming combined with detail fixation here means that often times you are receiving feedback from the most argumentative people who can also respond more quickly because they didn’t fully consider your position.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Notice how the commenter here skillfully talks in general instead of asserting that the original replier did anything in particular. This is how to write a good HN comment.

atleastoptimal 3y ago

Remember this is before xenoestrogens, BPA, seed oils, pollutants, hormones in cattle and milk, sedentary office jobs, High fructose corn syrup, etc.