Astronauts vs Cavemen. Who wins?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Well, the Neanderthal at least would maul the astronaut . Damn those guys were strong...

I doubt that the average Neanderthal was stronger than the average modern man who does regular strength training. Neanderthals had thicker bones, but their diet would again be insufficient to maintain the kind of muscle mass that modern men can support.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Pastoralists???

What time are you referring to then?

The nazi and I were having a side discussion about the Celts in Roman times.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Well, the Neanderthal at least would maul the astronaut . Damn those guys were strong...

...for dwarves

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by VetLegion


...for dwarves

In the case of neanderthals even if they tended to be shorter than modern humans don't we know that they nearly always had a more muscular build than modern humans due to the size of the muscle scars on the bones that have been found? I figured if cave-neanderthals were substituted it would have been quite a different outcome.

[VetLegion]

Well, they were strongly built. But more so than modern humans? How would you compare that?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Well, they were strongly built. But more so than modern humans? How would you compare that?

the size of the attachment scars on the bones? I assume that the attachment scar would also be larger on the remains of an ex body builder than an ex couch potato. I wonder if that could be verified.

[VetLegion]

No, I meant how would you compare strength that is the result of their build and strength of homo sapiens. Total muscle weight? Muscle to weight ratio? Something else?

[Lancer]

Cavemen lived at a time when gravity was much less (prior to the Earth having dark matter materializing at its core from other dimentions) therefore they wouldn't have mustle density of the astronaut.

[Lancer]

More info needed. Is the astronaut circumcised?

[VetLegion]

Lancer

[Lancer]

[Lancer]

The reason I ask what to some may seem an odd question is that the lack of a foreskin would further unbalance the astronaut who is engaged in combat in a gravity considerably less than that of modern earth. Considering the size of his tallywhacker the added gravitational pull on the foreskin might spell the difference between victory or defeat in this contest. I am btw considering that the astronaut might be more used to weightlessness than most of us.

Did the circumcision occur before or after the astronauts most recent trip into space?

On such details are conflicts decided.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I doubt that the average Neanderthal was stronger than the average modern man who does regular strength training. Neanderthals had thicker bones, but their diet would again be insufficient to maintain the kind of muscle mass that modern men can support.

Anthropological evidence suggests otherwise.

Modern strength training at the really serious level is primarily about looks (body building) or athletic performance in particular sports. In the latter case, you have specific muscle groups and specific types of movement for which you are training. The consequences of failure are you train some more, you don't do as well, or maybe you don't make the pros and you have to read a book or two. For the "average" modern man, it's a hobby.

Striation marks on the skeletal remains of Neanderthal indicates they were heavily muscled and extremely powerful. Given that spears were contact weapons until at most 30,000 years ago, and they were light and fragile, a Neanderthal had to be able to get up close and personal with both predators and prey.

Fossil remains of adults typically show recovery from many severe injuries, and significant wear on joints from heavy use - scraping, cutting, thrusting, carrying. Neanderthals had no significant technology, and the consequences of failure were lethal.

That is a different world from some metrosexual gym rat who does a two hour routine after work then takes a nice shower and blowdries his hair to go out on the town afterwards.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


the size of the attachment scars on the bones? I assume that the attachment scar would also be larger on the remains of an ex body builder than an ex couch potato. I wonder if that could be verified.

It's not just attachment scars - there is also density of bone caps, arthritic indicia, bending and shortening of bones, evidence of wear in the cartilage.

Forensically and antropologically, you could tell a lot of things about the physical activities and strength of someone from skeletal remains or well preserved fossils.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by VetLegion
No, I meant how would you compare strength that is the result of their build and strength of homo sapiens. Total muscle weight? Muscle to weight ratio? Something else?

Raw strength isn't really of much scientific interest, but you could do either estimates of their ability to lift certain masses, or infer strength indirectly from indications of what type of prey they brought down and how (think mammoths and thrusting attacks with short spears). Power to weight ratio isn't really useful, because modern humans on average are very deconditioned, but other primates certainly show much higher power to weight ratios than do humans.