Astronauts vs Cavemen. Who wins?

[Al B. Sure!]

KH:

Early agricultural humans tended to suffer from greater long-term malnutrition than hunter-gatherers, who occasionally underwent famines.

take out the early... early agriculturalists (Neolithic Mesopotamia) still had a varied diet as they hunted gazelle which used to live in the Middle East. It was urban living from 2500 BC onwards that caused a decline in human physical condition because people (in the cities and the fields) survived on bread alone. Pastoralists (don't forget them) probably were somewhat in the middle, with a diet higher in protein but not a particularily difficult life.

The farmer probably had more upper body strength than his hunter-gather predeccesors, though. All that hand-plowing and digging up the ground gave them muscular arms, chests, and shoulders. I'd pick the farmer in a boxing match but not in an all-out fight.

[Al B. Sure!]

then again, all this talk about the shortness of civilized man... I have read (though I dont recall where) that Roman legionarries had to be at least 5'10" to join the army and Tacitus and other Roman historians described the Celts and Germans as being several inches taller than Romans, probably putting them around 6'2" to the 5'10" Roman legionarries. All agricultural peoples who survived on bread primarily yet heights comparable to or even exceeding modern heights.

[Al B. Sure!]

and honestly, i don't see what is this big advantage that paleolithic people would have over us moderns... like somebody said, our bodies are just dormant. Give an average guy six months of reasonable exercise to shed off a layer of fat and build some muscle and he'll be a match for the mulnourished caveman... yeah, cavemen had diets high in protein but their diets were NOT balanced, they did NOT get all necessary vitamins and minerals, and they did NOT have three square meals a day (they likely went days without eating anything substantial).

the only advantage i can see the cavemen having is that their bones are probably sturdier from greater exertion... in fact, that is the only thing archaelogists are sure about concerning the physical strength of cavemen. They possessed thicker and oval-shaped bones which were stronger than the rounded bones of modern skeletons.

then again, we moderns consume far more calcium than cavemen did (they didn't even drink milk after childhood) so our bones are still probably stronger...

I think that that banana that you might have had today or that cup of milk or that sandwich complete with lettuce, tomato, meat, and bread... i think those things go a long way to giving us moderns a superior diet that makes our bodies ultimately stronger (if not well-used) than a caveman's. we're softer but probably ultimately a lot stronger.

[KrazyHorse]

probably putting them around 6'2" to the 5'10" Roman legionarries

Bull****.

[Al B. Sure!]

Tacitus lied?!

[RGBVideo]

Bull****.

I echo, 183 cm (6') is over the present average male height in Italy. Perhaps you're confusing "army" with the praetorian guard? Or perhaps what you remember as "5'10"" was actually 4'10"?

[KrazyHorse]

The Roman Army was supposed to keep you out if you were less than 5'10

I'm simply calling bull**** on the idea that the German tribesmen averaged 6'2

[Al B. Sure!]

i haven't finished reading it but...

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/wwl/koepke_baten_twomillennia.pdf

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm simply calling bull**** on the idea that the German tribesmen averaged 6'2

i'll look for the quote from Tacitus...

[KrazyHorse]

Tacitus is full of **** on a number of points. Use some ****ing critical judgment.

[Al B. Sure!]

well... what i've gotten from that link i put up so far is that mediterrenean peoples were shorter than Northern Europeans but all were quite short regardless (averaging around 168-170 cm for men) but oddly enough, reaching well past 170 cm during the 6th century...

[Al B. Sure!]

Comparison of Mediterrenean and Northern European regressions:
Med first, N. European second (height in cm)

Male Constant: 168.85 168.75
Centuries:
1 -.55 .59
3 -1.20 1.51
4 .46 -.95
5 -.38 1.76
6 1.30 2.88

so, according to their research, 6th century Northern European males averaged 172 cm. Still only ~5'8". but what about the Roman army 5'10" requirement? According to their data, Roman males of the 3rd century averaged 5'6".

[Al B. Sure!]

i should qualify the above information. their findings for those centuries have very high p-values.

[KrazyHorse]

First off, I'm sure there was some cheating whenever the Legions needed men. Secondly, 4 inches above mean is not that abnormal. Especially when you consider that men who were raised in households better off than average were probably fed a much richer diet, leading to an overclass significantly taller than the truly destitute.

[yin26]

The problem is, by the time the cavemen have waited around long enough to fight, they've gone soft. The guy on the left orders the roast duck with mango salsa, I believe.



Yep! : http://www.awfulcommercials.com/geico01.php