(no title)
bradarner | 1 year ago
When I was in the US military, we all complained about the Body Mass Index standards. They were based on the WWII era "normal". Men were smaller. Less muscle mass. Shorter. If the average fit American young man tried to fit into a pilot's cockpit from the 1950's, it would feel quite cramped. Like it was built for much small people. It was.
We have certainly climbed the Kardashev scale since the 1950's. To what degree is a matter of contention. But, all would agree that we have moved up the scale.
Muscle atrophy has not been correlated with the growth. The opposite seems true. The average American, both male and female, has more muscle mass than in 1924. A 2024 person spends significantly more time on average in a gym pushing their muscles to hypertrophy than in 1924.
In addition, it is likely that the romantic picture of the average laborer "bodybuilding" is fictive and ignores how muscle atrophy and hypertrophy works. Most laborers are NOT doing activity that leads to hypertrophy. They are staying well within cardiovascular zones of muscle activation. Hence, bodybuilders as we know them are largely a modern phenomenon. And they are certainly WAY more muscular.
Seems the model that underlies this claim is built on seemingly demonstrably false premises.
loeg|1 year ago
This is true, but sort of a sleight of hand -- obese people that don't exercise have more muscle mass than non-obese people who don't exercise, just to carry around all of the fat. And obviously the average American, both male and female, is more overweight/obese than in 1924.
(I agree with basically everything else you say, though.)
bradarner|1 year ago
What I could have added was a caveat that sample non-obese people from each time would indicate that 2024 people have greater average muscle mass.
Personally, a more interesting question is whether growth along the Kardashev scale leads to a greater disparity in muscle mass vs body fat. The past 100 years would seem to indicate that it is possible. That being said, it could also be a uniquely American phenomenon. My hypothesis would be that avg muscle mass among French men has still grown over the past 100 years but I don't think obesity has grown to the extreme that it has in the USA.
pino999|1 year ago
And relative they are weaker in the sense that the ratio between strength and body mass is smaller than that of normal people.
And then we have the powerlifting community.
naveen99|1 year ago
voldacar|1 year ago
pitpatagain|1 year ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_of_Croton
tom_|1 year ago
tartoran|1 year ago
mhb|1 year ago
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/wendy-the-whippet-f...
antonygonsalves|1 year ago
And for another argument, from a psychological perspective, we know that a healthy body in a vital component of a healthy mind - even with the development of excellent mind-silicon interfaces, we are probably a very, very long way from keeping minds healthy without a correspondingly healthy body (including muscle mass).
nradov|1 year ago
bradarner|1 year ago
RankingMember|1 year ago
I don't necessarily disagree with your thesis, but I'd be genuinely interested in reading the source on this, unless you just mean because people are bigger overall they have more muscle as a function of weight.
bradarner|1 year ago
Dated but still relevant: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/evolution-bmi-values-us-adult...
This is particular relevant in the military because your fitness level is graded relative to you BMI. Hence, it is common trope one hears in the military. It is a practical question in the military. If the BMI is based on 1950's pilots and today's soldiers have a higher average BMI, then it can have an impact on promotions, fitness scores, health assessments, etc.
karaterobot|1 year ago
What is this focus on hypertrophy? The article isn't about having prominent muscles, it's clearly about being physically fit in the sense that farmers and manual laborers are fit, not in the sense that actors are fit.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
brodouevencode|1 year ago
Anecdotal: I helped my dad a few years ago do a lot of genealogy. He had pictures going back to the late 1800s for one branch of the family that just arrived from Ireland. Most of the men were shirtless and you could count every rib. There was very little muscle.
lmm|1 year ago
maxerickson|1 year ago
baranul|1 year ago
Another example, from the article, that backs up what you are saying. Arm wrestling, is not a clear overall indicator of total strength or fitness. It's as much about technique, rules, psychology (through sh*t talking or facial expressions), and very specific muscle development than anything else. Doesn't show how much a person could lift or squat. Strength in one area, doesn't mean strength in another or if people in the past were "stronger".
h0l0cube|1 year ago
HPsquared|1 year ago
begueradj|1 year ago
A cat soldier is the only one who can overcome all type of obstacles and is operational under all circumstances with high efficiency.
Spartan soldiers were too efficient are were known for eating little (not until they felt full).
portaouflop|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
potato3732842|1 year ago
Modern laborers aren't even allowed to. Just because you're jacked and can install semi truck tires by hand doesn't mean your boss wants to risk the insurance or OSHA dumpster fire that could arise if you throw out your back doing so.
datadeft|1 year ago
mharig|1 year ago
[deleted]