How ripped was the average man throughout history? Were there

>>2825999
Obesity was certainly less common in earlier times (even during the Cold War), but being"ripped" is also a matter of being dehydrated as well as muscular/lean.

not very
even industrial workers were generally lean
look at any picture of ww2 soldiers, most are slim to skinnyfat

You obviously need to define ripped.

With a low enough bodyfat %, you dont need much muscle to look "ripped"

>>2825999

There definitely have been ppl with abs showing in antiquity and even in pre history

given that all it takes to get "ripped" is a low body fat percentage and at least a little bit of muscle

I would say that you would fine more muscular people this generation than any other before. This is due to the rise of fitness culture amongst young men and the abudance of high quality food. Even nerds nowadays are strong (look at /fit/)

The average weight of an American soldier in WW2, a typical a fit young male at a time when Americans were nearly the tallest and richest people on Earth, was 144 pounds.

http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm

File: n2Lpz.jpg (28KB, 555x425px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 555x425px

>>2825999
Hunter gatherers were totally ripped

Varies wildly with context. Japanese peasants photographed in the XIX century were mostly thin varying from lean to skinny fat. That was most likely the build of the average medieval peasant since they both would have similar high-carbohydrate diets although I suspect europeans would have access to more game meat and pigs than fish so they would probably have some more muscle mass, but not that much. Europeans would probably have some gut too since ale.

Hunter gatherers would probably be more muscular, but they would have an imense variety too because of the variety of different places human beings have settled. If you look at ethnographic photography of the XIX century you get to see some big guys in the african jungle and some really really skinny dervishes.

>>2825999
Well iirc people did not lift in medieval europe, mostly because diets were hard to maintain, let alone bulking

This is just my opinion but l think that people would eat as much as they could, considering that there will be times when you won't eat anything at all and that work is pretty hard, the average person probably had their abs showing/a flat tummy, but nowhere near being ripped (by /fit/ standards of course)

>>2826039
Even better US soldiers in 'Nam since they often were shirtless on photos. They are skinny as fuck.

For most of history we were either hunter-gatherers or farmers, so I'm going to assume that people were pretty ripped until the advent of technology.

I mean, I've read somewhere that the average English farmer in the 1600s ate something like 6000 calories a day.

File: albo1.jpg (276KB, 1600x1072px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1600x1072px

>>2825999
Here's some naked people from not too long ago.
They were protected from american food because of the Cold War. The average man looks like how I imagine the average person looked throughout most of history.

File: albo2.png (1MB, 1160x750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1160x750px

>>2828416
Its albanians fleeing the Yugoslav war by the way.

>>2828411
Where did you read that?

>>2828422
Actually come to think about it, I didn't read it, some historian said it in a show called Tales from the Green Valley.

The show is on Youtube.

>>2828411
>6000 calories a day

/fit/ here, let's look at some stats

The average man needs 2000 calories on average everyday
The fatter you get the more you need, but even 600 lbs hambeast have maintenance levels of 3000~ calories, no more
Keep in mind that people wouldn't eat as much as us today due to the lack of food, and that calorie dense foods weren't really as common as today (i.e deep fried shit, junk food, soda, you name it)

Now let's look at fitness, running non stop for 1 hour burns ~850-1000 calories (depending on your weight), walking only burns 300-450/hour. Let's say you use up your 2000 calories and run for 2 hours a day (contrary to popular belief working manual labor doesn't make you lose weight or burn calories, unless you run laps around the farm and are exhausted 24/7, which wasn't the case with farmers) and burn 2000 more calories, you're still left with 2000 calories that are stocked as fat and muscle (mostly fat)

2000 calories stocked as fat for the most part every single day, you'd turn into a hambeast in a matter of weeks, even professional athletes don't eat that much anon, imo the average lower class english peasant would barely meet the 2000 calories/day (on average of course, there would obviously be days where they eat tons and tons of food, but nowhere near 3500+ calories), especially since food was hard to find at times

File: 1436383474408.png (374KB, 360x420px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 360x420px

>>2828474
>contrary to popular belief working manual labor doesn't make you lose weight or burn calories

>>2828411
>I mean, I've read somewhere that the average English farmer in the 1600s ate something like 6000 calories a day.

wew lad
if the calories you use for physical activity are more than the calories you use to be warm and awake, you will die. flat out dead if you do this more than a few days in a row.

>>2828474
manual labor is calories out, so it does help you lose weight
its just that manual labor is like minus 300 calories every other day, while a diet is like minus 600 calories every day, thats why dieting is better for weight lose than working out
its simply easier to not eat the energy, instead of burn it

>>2828490
He's right you know, manual labor doesn't make you burn that many calories, no need to count them in

>>2828474

"According to research published at Eastern Kentucky University, an average medieval person burned between 4,000 and 5,000 calories per day, as compared the USDA recommendation of 2,000 for modern Americans. A typical diet for peasants delivered between 3,500 and 4,500 calories, about or just under the need."

Just copied off the Google front page.

Lifting for an hour a day with rest periods is nothing like all day labor. I did 85 days of backpacking in the Andes once and lost 15lbs despite eating easily 4,000 calories a day.

Look at a guide book like Freedom of the Hills. If you're working all day in around freezing temperatures they recommend around 5,000 calories.

>>2828474
Well we're not talking about "burning calories" though. It's quite possible they did eat that much because it was the only way they could keep shoveling hay for 7 hours straight.

>>2828500
yeah, dieting is the most important part of losing weight, l doubt peasants did any form of cardio besides hiking sometimes in the 17th century

>>2828514
Cardio is an inefficient way of losing weight.
Doing cardio every day is the caloric equivalent of skipping a snack between lunch and dinner.

It is literally thermodynamics. You don't effectively lose weight exercising, you do it by dieting.
Exercising has other health benefits and you should do it (and I do do it), but its not a good way to lose weight.

>>2828509
>According to research published at Eastern Kentucky University
>Just copied off the Google front page.

He is wrong. I don't know what else to tell you.
Find his actual work, how he got these numbers, post it here and we'll figure it out, but he is flat out wrong.

>>2828474
>even professional athletes don't eat that much anon
Didn't Phelps eat like 12,000 calories?

>>2828500

Lol, yeah, if your cardio is 30 minutes light jogging.

Try carrying a 60 pound pack for 10 hours or or shoveling and clearing brush without power tools for an entire day on 2500 calories.


Seems like no one here has ever worked on a trail crew or outside in winter.

>>2828539
>Try carrying a 60 pound pack for 10 hours or or shoveling and clearing brush without power tools
Something every single person did every single day, I am sure.

An hour of jogging is 500 calories. You don't do it every day unless you want to injure yourself.
Skipping a meal is 600-900 calories. You can do it every day unless you are literally starving.
Do the simple, basic, elementary math.

>>2828509
>burned 4000 to 5000 calories a day
>peasants ate 3500 to 4500 calories a day

What the fuck did l just read, l know about manual labor l was raised on a huge farm, after high school l worked with my parents for an entire year and l don't recall us eating anymore than 3 meals a day, and that's roughly 2000-3000 calories/day if you count snacks, your source is extremely flawed, even professional athletes CANNOT burn that many calories

Also l'm pretty sure you didn't eat 4000 calories a day, stuffing your face with food destroys the purpose of weight loss, no human can possible burn more than 2000 calories a day every single day

>they recommend 5000 calories

What the fuck

>>2828550
Not all meals have to be 750-1000 calories

>>2828550
>Why did me and my parents with modern mechanised farming equipment not have to work as hard as medieval peasants
I wonder....

>>2828550

http://www.outdoors.org/articles/amc-outdoors/how-many-calories-do-you-burn-backpacking/

Yeah, 5,000 is what you need for mountaineering.

I think the UK article is talking about heavy labor days, which are not every day.

Lol @ everyone spewing /fit/ knowledge here and not knowing what it takes to do actual all day work.

With better technology Amish men are at around 3,000 a day. It's 4,000 seems high, but there is probably some nuance about rest days missing.

>>2828572
Did you read that article? They take some hobby magazine numbers, scale them horribly, and say "please come visit our hiking courses pls we need money you will lose fat i promise".

Go read a scientific journal, not an outdoors.com blogpost telling you to go outdoors for only $19.99

>>2828474
>(contrary to popular belief working manual labor doesn't make you lose weight or burn calories

So people who work manual labor just generate energy out of nothing, violating the laws of thermodynamics?

>>2828474
>professional athletes don't eat that much anon

Yes they do.

>>2828572
3 MRA's are 3x1300=3900 calories, and you are supposed to march all day with full gear on that.
I am sure a farmer removing weeds from his garden will burn more.

>>2828503

t. guy who never worked a day on a farm

>>2828580

That's the same amount NOLS and the military use though...

>>2828543
>An hour of jogging is 500 calories. You don't do it every day unless you want to injure yourself.

holy shit what kind of fat fuck are you? Literally thousands of people do this every day.

My brother used to be a rower and he'd train every single day, and he'd consume well over 6000 calories a day.

>>2828539
Carrying shit on your back while walking makes your legs work harder, not your heart.
Hell, you'll run slower which makes you lose less calories, this isn't broscience

>>2828558

If you eat 750-1000 calories meals you must be extremely fat

>>2828567
>had no power tools
>had to work the fields on my own
>still didn't loose any weight

I was bulking at 3500 calories/day during that period because l thought l would loose a shitton of weight due to manual labor.

>>2828584
Read>>2828503

Oh and

Athletes.Don't.Eat.6000.Calories.Every.Single.Day.

>>2828604
Why do people keep calling me fat for posting facts?
I actually worked about 2 years in a gym, as an instructor, and I've been fit and athletic for over a decade.

Go make this shit thread on /fit/ if you want to get laughed at some more.
7000 calories per day farmers, this is dumber than the Hitler penis threads.

>>2828611
>If you eat 750-1000 calories meals you must be extremely fat
Are you retarded? I'm saying that guys anecdotal argument holds no water because the amount of labor (and thus calories burned) and the amount of calories consumed isn't just a flat rate for all people doing farm labor.

>>2828589

You're generally driving as much as is feasible anon, and you can run a deficit on patrols then fill up later.

>>2828604
You complete dingus poop eating dumb face, running every single day will injure you no matter who you are, shows how little you know about the subject

>my brother ate 6000 calories

Yes and he was also flying with his lats right ?

>>2828611

>If you eat 750-1000 calories meals you must be extremely fat

This shows that you don't understand how calories work.

>Athletes.Don't.Eat.6000.Calories.Every.Single.Day.

I know for a fact that they do because my brother used to be a professional athlete.

>I was bulking at 3500 calories/day during that period because l thought l would loose a shitton of weight due to manual labor.

Oh now I get it, you're a fat fuck who can't manage to lose weight.

>>2828623
You are also generally buying a hotdog instead of eating dogshit MRA food.
The idea is that scientists did the math and decided that this amount of energy is sufficient for the worst case scenario.

>>2828633
>3 1000 cal meals a day = 3000 cal
>"you won't gain weight"

Back to tumblr

>>2828619

> Gym instructor
> Knowing shit about anything

Pls stop making noobs do all their exercises on bosu balls, it hurts me to watch.

>>2828619

All I need is a picture of you to add to the screencap and I can post this thread straight to the /fit/ humor thread.


>>2828631

Then how come so many people do it without injuring themselves?

>>2828633
>bulking means you're fat
>"my brother used to eat 6000 calories a day"
not to be that guy but you kinda sound butthurt, maybe you should get off the computer

>>2828652
They rest 1 day before running again, because they're not complete autists.

>>2828639

???
Your assumption that eating 3000 calories with make you gain weight once again confirms you don't understand how calories work. Besides that, I never said you had to eat 3 meals of that size a day. You know its possible to eat only 2 meals on a day? Well you probably dont know because you're a fat fuck.

>>2828653

bulking doesn't mean you're fat. This guy's inability to understand calories and then 'bulking' suggest he's probably fat.

>>2828664
Not everyone has a tdee of 3000, hambeast. Now go back to tumblr and tell them about how much you fought against the patriarchy on 4chan or something

>>2828673
I know how calories work, l've been lifting since the age of 16, met a lot of bodybuilders and professional athletes, l'm 25 now. This entire thread is just uneducated people pulling the most retarded statistics out of their asses and it's a shitfest at this point

>>2828657
No man, you don't understand, spartans ate 12000 calories per day because they ran with shields.

>>2828418
They weren't fleeing the Yugoslav war. They were Albanians emigrating from Albania because of state and economic collapse.

>>2828611
Most retarded person itt

"BRO THE PEASANTS ATE 10 BILLION CALORIES A DAY AND BURNED 11 BILLION TRUST ME BRO I SAW IT ON GOOGLE ALSO MY BROTHER EATS 6000 CALORIES A DAY HAHA JUST EAT MORE AND BURN MORE CALORIES"

the average middle ages man was skinnyfat at the highest bf%
/thread

>>2828676

but some people do. That's the whole point. You think you can make claims about weight gain based on caloric intake alone, which shows that you don't understand calories.

>>2828707
>some people do
400 lbs hambeast such as yourself do, not average humans.

The difference between being in a climate controlled environment all day versus working outside all day and sleeping in low temperatures is huge in terms of maintenance.

>Even today, it takes roughly 5,000-plus calories a day to feed a person doing outdoor work, Dr. Gavin Francis, who spent a year as the medical officer at the British Antarctic Survey's remote Halley Research Station, tells me. (He chronicles his time there in Empire Antarctica, a lyrical meditation on the continent.)

>Those involved in manhauling — i.e., pulling sleds across the ice and snow with their bodies — need more like 6,500 calories a day

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/07/259418586/think-youre-cold-and-hungry-try-eating-in-antarctica

>>2828706

dont cry now mate, its cool

>>2828713
They slept with so many blankets you couldn't carry them all when wet, and had an actual open fire heater in the house.
Have you even seen a fire? Do you know how hot it gets?

*grabs 23000 calories bread*
You see son
*uses the mega calorie burner super shovel to burn the 23000 calories he just ate*
Sometimes
*drinks 12000 calories soup*
You gotta plow big
*walks up and loses 13000 calories thanks to his peasant super ability*
To get big

>>2828712

You made the claim that someone who eats 3000 calories a day must gain weight. At no point did you specify that you were talking about average humans. Lots of people easily have a tdee of 3000+ for various reasons, some healthy, some not.

This thread should be moved to /fit/. There will be more fitness experts there that can shed light on this topic.

>>2828718
>talking about the average peasant in the 17th century
>"b-but muh u dont specify"
We're hitting levels of damage control that shouldn't even exist

>>2828706
>6000 kcalories

lol, do you people even know what that looks like on a table?

>>2828728
That's the joke anon

>>2828728
oops, meant to tag some other anon

>>2828418
Nope, that happened way before there was any fighting in Kosovo.

>>2828728
Read the thread senpai

>>2828722

>3 1000 cal meals a day = 3000 cal
>"you won't gain weight"

This is what you posted, just to remind you. You weren't talking about those peasants, but if you were you'd be even more wrong because peasants performing manual labor could easily sustain a 3000 calories diet without getting fat.

Also stop trying to meme your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

>>2828718
are you saying you won't gain weight on a 3000+ kcal diet even if you are physically active? wtf

>>2828728

How is that even relevant?

>>2828735
rather not go through all this dumb shit.

>>2828744
go to>>2828733

>>2828742

I'm saying that whether or not you gain weight on a 3000+ kcal diet depends entirely on the amount of energy you burn.

Are you unable to read or something?

>>2827824
wow thats crazy. I'm fit but by no means a huge guy and i'm almost 190. Weird to think about our fighting forces being that small in the greatest conflict ever

>>2828744
How are you this autistic holy shit 6000 calories is over 4 kilograms of chicken breasts

>>2828744
How do you think a medieval farmer eats 6000 calories?
Draw me a list. Because I think you will need to kill 50+ pigs pear year per family, when they each kept one if lucky.

>>2828751
>implying anyone will burn more than 3000+ kcal and at the same time eat less to keep maintenance

>>2828751
But we never talked about exercice, only dieting.
>damage control again
Just let me grab a 12 000 calories meal and burn it all off by working the fields for a few hours

>>2828755
>>2828756

Ah yes I forgot about the papal decree that stated that all peasants must only eat chicken breasts...

>>2828751
lol, wtf is this guy even trying to get at? btw, /fit/ is here to laugh at all this dumb shit

>6000 calories a day
>burned 5000 calories a day
>middle ages

HOW DOES ONE KILL THEMSELVES

>>2828770
Make a list of 6000 calories worth of medieval peasant food, nigger. Do it.

Protip: we have lists and cooking books of what people ate, and how much.
And grain, herbs and water porridge isn't 6000 calories.

>>2828717
Fuck this got me to kek

>>2828759

yes? Are you somehow disagreeing with the fact that weight gain depends not only on caloric intake but also on caloric expenditure?

>>2828764

again you're employing meaningless rhetorical devices instead of actually arguing with me.

>>2828770
wooooooosh

>>2828770
What's your point? That was just a comparison, you could also eat 2 .5 (7pounds~)kilograms of bread.

>>2828776

You go to /fit/ and make a thread with that post screencapped, and see how funny they think you are.

Do it faggot

>>2828781
restate your point because you are going back and forth. Stick to one side

>>2828778
>And grain, herbs and water porridge isn't 6000 calories.

? Same guy or another guy that doesn't understand calories?

>>2828787
there is already a thread on /fit/..... thats why we are here you dumb shit

>>2828788

Your inability to comprehend basic english is your fault mate, not mine.

>>2828787
Screencapping this thread and posting it in /fit/ humor would make /fit/ lose their shit at how retarded you are

>>2828790
You need to eat 12 kg of porridge to reach 6000 calories. Per day. Per person.
Even if that was something a sane human would do, a family can't grow that much grain.

>>2828781
Fucking kys how can one human being be this deluded

>>2828792
Your tenuous grasp of the English language to make an unambiguous point is your problem, not mine.
See, I can use the English language too.

>>2828791

hahahahaha you actually made a thread and got ONE reply

jesus christ mate

What did you expect tho? That /fit/ would disagree with 'calories in calories out'?

>>2828793

do it faggot. do it or stop posting

>>2828781
lol, get a load of this guy

>>2828798
Not the guy you're replying to but /fit/ would be laughing at the exaggerated numbers and autistic screeching

>>2828797

>See, I can use the English language too.

Reread your sentence, because you can't.

>>2828796

good post

File: 1458581028652.jpg (9KB, 449x497px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 449x497px

>>2828798
>6000kcal
>people ate this much

>>2828803

>would be

They ignored your thread mate, but PLEASE go ahead and post a screencap of this thread on /fit/.

>>2828808
Pretty sure some other anon is already doing exactly that

>>2828808
>implying /fit/ wants to argue with people not on /fit/ about fitness
>too afraid to take this idea to /fit/, have to stay here on /his/

>adult peasant male needed 2,900 calories (12,000 kJ) per day, and an adult female needed 2,150 calories (9,000 kJ).

Dyer, Christopher, Everyday life in medieval England, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000

This is also what physically active people eat today.

>>2828818
Post a fucking source
>3000 for men 2000 for women

I thought /his/ was full of intelligent people, this board is literally tumblr incarnate

>>2828756
Monks managed it. With bread mainly.

>>2828817

You think I'm afraid to take "this idea" to /fit/? 'calories in calories out' is the fucking cornerstone of that board. I'd be entirely redundant to make a thread about it on /fit/.

>>2828823
>Post a fucking source

Dyer, Christopher, Everyday life in medieval England, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000

>>2828818
>peasants
>has enough resources to eat more than most people today

>>2828825
Monks ate cream, butter, fruit, etc. Famously monks kept beehives, and put honey in their wine, that they drank heavily.

Also monks aren't an average medieval peasant, and monks were often fat.

>>2828831
People today can easily eat more than 3000 calories per day. We just choose not to.

>>2828828
>6000kcal in
>5000-5500kcal out

yeah, im sure that will fly well

>>2828825
>monks managed it with bread
See >>2828784

>>2828829
>post a source
>"do your own research"
this is satire right ?

>>2828831

>everyone was a starving wretch before the 20th century

>>2828836
do you know what 3000kcal looks like on a table? lol

>>2828838
The source is the book Everyday life in medieval England, by author Christopher Dyer, published by Continuum International Publishing Group in 2000.

What the fuck more do you want me to do, call you a taxi?

>>2828840
>6000 calories

>>2828837

Are you implying 'calories in calories out' no longer applies at higher levels of calories?

>>2828840
>peasants
>had enough food for whole family and ate more than 3 meals a day

>>2828841
Two Big Mac menus, with the fires and soda?

>>2828841

Do you know what 2 sheep and a book look like on table? lol

File: alexjonesgun.jpg (49KB, 474x354px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 474x354px

>>2828611
You're so fucking stupid.

>>2828845
You can't "calorie out" 6000 calories multiple days in a row, you'd die. That much sustained effort will kill you.

>>2828847
>implying people eat 3 orders of fast food per day

>>2828845
That's not what he said at all you mong, he literally made fun of you for thinking that people had access to that many calories every single day, let alone the getting rid of the calories part

>>2828754
Back in ancient Greece, a talent was a measurement for about the weight of a man, used for things like money. It referred to about 110 pounds.

>>2828850
>eating 2 sheep a day
>infinite resources to last life

>>2828846
>peasants
>had enough food for whole family

yes? Do you think everyone was just perpetually starving back then?

>>2828854
They don't, but they could. We just choose not to eat as much, not that we can't.

>>2828852
Great argument fatass :^)

>come to /his/ from /fit/
>get called fat by locals

No bully pls, I just want you to learn.

File: 1436764454973.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>2828845
........

>>2828864
>implying peasants also ate 3 fast food meals per day to save money

>>2828853

My brother managed to do it with one rest day a week. All over the world people do this. What exactly is your source for the claim that such sustained effort will kill you?

>>2828855

He most certainly didn't do that literally, considering he used two words and some meme arrows. You're assuming about his intention as much as I am.

>>2828863
>peasants
>3000kcal per person each day

I have no fucking words for this thread, 6000 calories a day . . .

>>2828693
Fucking Hoxa.

>>2828879
>my brother managed to burn 6000 calories per day six days per week

No, this is false. You are either lying, or stupid. Whichever it is, stop doing it.

I just drank 2 cartons of chocolate milk, easiest 1000 calories of my life.

>>2828879
>6000kcal in
>5000-5500kcal out

how much does he weigh?

>>2828894
He weighs 50 pounds :)

>>2828893
>MADMILK

>>2828893
You mean 10 000 right ?

>>2828898
>cant do math in head to back up my statement
>just troll to get him off my back

>>2828879
>6000kcal

lol, wtf

>>2828889

Go to google scholar, and type 'caloric intake rower/cyclist/marathon runner'. Pick one, and please report back with your results.

>>2828907
Go to a doctor, ask him what will happen if you run 5 hours per day every day for the next 50 years, and report back with the answer.

File: 220px-Bathurst_Island_men.jpg (9KB, 220x168px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x168px

>>2825999
Probably depended on how frequent their environment allowed them to consume food. Regardless, the toil of life would grant them strength from the work alone in relation to their amount of food/nutrient consumption.

Here's some ripped aboriginals(sp) from northern Australia.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7148534.stm
>Calories: 3,500 - 4,000
>Nearly two loaves of bread
>Three pints of ale

>>2828903

That's not me faggot. Either way I can't back up my statement because you are just going to say I'm lying if I say anything that supports my point.

>>2828911

Why would I do that? My post has relevance to our discussion, yours does not.

>>2828914
>2 loaves of bread and three pints of ale is 4000 calories

What is this horseshit?

>>2827838
Oh shit, same photo. But yeah, probably depended on how frequent they were permitted to eat in relation to daily work.

>>2828920
Because thats how you burn 6000 calories per day.

>>2828916
>still cant put up a number

lol

>>2828913
These people didn't eat 6000 calories per day holy fuck. If you hunt 6000 calories of meat per person daily for multiple generations you'd kill all the animals.

>>2828923

By running for 50 years? Stop shitposting you fucking loser.

I will no longer reply to you until you've read some papers on caloric intake of professional cyclist, rowers or marathon runners.

>>2828411
>>2828509
>>2828530
>>2828539
>>2828572
>>2828604
>>2828664
>>2828706
>>2828690
>>2828713
>>2828717
>>2828718
>>2828777
>>2828795
>>2828818

I have no words.

>>2828928

>all calories are meat

>>2828926

I did put up a number, you then asked for another number. If I put up this number, you'll ask for another number or say my previous number was wrong.

Stop shitposting

C13 English soldier got 3600 calories in their rations.
1.2 kilos of bread, 200 grams dried meat, 100 grams peas and a litre of beer.

>Warfare in Medieval Europe 400-1453

>>2828931
>im totally going to ignore the 5 hours per day part and just say how ridiculous it is to run 50 years straight to burn 6000 calories

>>2828931
You burn 6000 calories PER DAY by running 5 hours PER DAY.
And if you want to do that all your life, 50 years seems reasonable.

So no, you are retarded.

>>2828933
>i....i already said how much my brother weighed when he ate 6000kcal and burned it off

>>2828921
>I know better than a Medievalist how many calories are in a loaf of medieval bread

>>2828935
Finally something reasonable, still, bodybuilders bulk at 3000+ calories so l doubt this much bread was necessary

>>2828937
>>2828938

The 5 hour per day running metric is just as irrelevant as the 50 years. Its like that vegan infographic about fucking protein in broccoli.

Google scholar or fuck off.


btw shoutout on the thread on /fit/: 18 replies and 8 posters... pretty pathetic desu lads

>>2828937
You're fucking autistic there's no other way

>>2828949
I mean the thread wascreated just an hour ago, funny thing is you already got in and started crying

>>2828942
>medievalist

1. Its a blogpost.
2. Its citing a GP.
3. The numbers aren't sourced.
4. Its wrong.
5. You are retarded.

>>2828543
Mate, jogging for less than an hour shouldn't even raise a sweat on a properly fit person, obviously it's going to burn barely any calories. Try doing an actual hard run for an hour.

>>2828928
I'm not sure what you're saying. I never said they ate 6000 calories a day.

I'm saying your frequency of eating accompanied with physical work will dictate your physique. If your environment permitted you to eat enough, specifically protein rich foods and you had to bust your ass daily...your body will definitely reflect that.

>>2828951
>im still going to ignore how to lose 5000 calories

>>2828957
>500 calories of exercise daily
>3500 calories of weekly workout
>barely any

You are completely out of touch.

>>2828960
By running 6 hours a day everyday of your life?

Sure, let me work the fields for my lord for 10 hours, run 6 hours, sleep for the rest of the day and repeat for 40 years, surely my joints won't be annihilated in a matter of months.

Fucking autist

>>2828946
Body builders don't walk all day and fight battle at the end.

For reference we know a lot about the calorie intake of people in the Medieval period. Due to strict laws on the weights of bread and beer and being able to pull records from Monasteries and the rations given to Soldiers, we can also infer back from the known calorie intake of 18th agricultural workers.

6,000 is excessive, but around 4,000 is reasonable for a medieval farmer, mainly in bread.

>>2828965
holy shit did you miss the point completely

>>2828706
Wholy fuck calm down sailor

>>2828953

Point is that you gotta keep samefagging to even keep the thread going

>>2828717
>mega calorie burner super shovel

Fuck me, I laff'd

>>2828968
Farmers don't fight and working fields doesn't burn as many calories as the autists here say

3500-4000 calories/day is okay if you're gonna run and fight alot, otherwise not so much

>>2828972
>people should use a new IP everytime they post if they want to discuss

Alright big guy

File: 1457143092155.jpg (126KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x450px

6000kcal

Whats this medieval world coming to!?!

What the fuck is even going on in this thread?
Couple of things to clear up.

1. It's true that a full time professional athlete who's training multiple hours a day sometimes even multiple training sessions in a day, will require and insane amount of calories even as high as 10'000 or more. Nobody is sustaining this for a prolonged period though because you'd injure yourself eventually from fatigue and under-recovery.
2. Some kid who's still growing and in his mid or late teens, training hard and has good genetics and maybe some dbol from his trainer, can eat a massive amount of calories and most of it won't end up as fat. Although 6k might be and overestimation (because kids really like to do that) I believe it that he ate way more than most kids.
3. Your TDEE and additional energy exposure from anaerobic or aerobic training is massively affected by your height, bodyweight and moreso your lean bodyweight. Some Mr. Olympia roidhead requires probably over 5-10k a day just to remain the same size. Not as extreme examples, a 6'4 dude who's around 190lbs and not fat is going to require around 3k just for maintenance. It's pretty reasonable to assume he'd be burning 1k on a long hike up a mountain.
4. No way in hell did farmers eat that many calories. There were limited resources and you had to feed your children too. Them being way shorter on average also hugely effects their potential energy expenditure. Most of their calories probably came from whole grains/rice and beans which are all relatively low in calories compared to their volume, which makes it hard to eat a lot. Butter, meat and other tasty meat and dairy products might be high in calories but were reserved for special occasions, so you couldn't eat that shit everyday.

>>2828968
>Body builders don't walk all day and fight battle at the end.

Nor does the average medieval peasant EVERY FUCKING DAY.
6000 calories per day is disgustingly inaccurate. At least twice as much as reality, probably more than that.

>>2828984
>be me
>walking around in the market
>suddenly spot a thief
>try to stop him before he bites the piece of bread
>too late
>thief becomes a 10 ft 400 pounds muscle beast and takes over the kingdom

How do we stop this from happening

>>2828985
>will require and insane amount of calories even as high as 10'000 or more

On a select several days in any given year. Not daily.

>>2828985
>kids really like to do that
Excuse me what

>>2828977
Read the intro.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gj9p-hnfu3EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Food,+Energy+and+the+Creation+of+Industriousness:+Work+and+Material+Culture+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHsfHb2_nTAhUJIcAKHatXD4YQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Food%2C%20Energy%20and%20the%20Creation%20of%20Industriousness%3A%20Work%20and%20Material%20Culture%20...&f=false

Why are /fit/fags so retarded?

>>2828965
The joints of a body are only threatened when physical work is not done properly. Like you can't lift with your joints and expect to last over a week. Lazy people and old people are prone to this. Sedentary people only because they never had to adjust under the frequency of movements and old people because they're just old...everything about them is slowly deteriorating.

But if you're of obvious prime functioning age, you lift with your joints, you'll notice relatively early the discomfort and pain, but your body will 'almost' automatically adjust to to start moving and lifting with the muscles eventually to achieve optimization of movement. You'll figure out which techniques cause more pain vs the technique that causes less.

I'm just saying is all lol....joints don't necessarily go to shit just because you move a lot.

And I'm not responding in relation to the calroie talk, which is getting hilarious tbqh famalami salami's.

>>2828988
Reinforce the garrison with more men my lord. Allow our men to feast on 3+ sheep per day sire.

>>2828994
>fit won't make fun of me !!
>go ahead and make a tread cunt !
>W-Why is fit so retarded h-haha

Fuck off you absolute pussy.

>>2828990
>Nobody is sustaining this for a prolonged period though because you'd injure yourself eventually from fatigue and under-recovery.
Can you read?

>>2828992
They like to overestimate how much they eat. Kind of as a dick measuring contest or to show off.

>>2828985
>kids really like to eat 6000kcal

???

>>2828997
My son is already on a bulk to stop the madman, COME ON 120 000 CALORIES A DAY LEAVE FEUDALISM BEHIND

>>2829000
I mean, every thread about fitness in every board turns to shit in about 2 posts

>>2829005
Kids really like to say they eat 6000 calories.

>>2828995
>The joints of a body are only threatened when physical work is not done properly.
That is completely wrong. Over-usage is enough to injure joints and the main reason why most athletes injure themselves.

>>2829008
Kids really like to overestimate.

>>2828995
Tbh it depends on the exercice, running and jumping rope will always hurt your joints

>>2829006
We must inspire our blacksmiths to forge more armor and weapons for your son

>>2829008
>>2829012
oh i see. Just like how some anons are doing in this thread...

>>2829017
Its too late, my son ate them. The bulk must go on. He lives in the big tower, climbing the stairs is 50000 calories workout.

>>2829021
M-MY LORD, HE MUSTN'T DO ANY CARDIO, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT CARDIO KILLS GAINS ?

>>2829026
At his size, even farting is 5500 cal worth of cardio. It can't be helped.

>>2829021
There is only one way to stop this now. MADMILK

>>2829010
That's only when they deplete the energy of muscles, that's when the joints attempt to come to the rescue. But yeah, that's general over usage.

>>2829014
True, true.

>>2829036
didn't know energy had muscles

jesus /his/. I thought you guys were smart or some shit.

>>2829036
But thats wrong. Your joints are working even if you are just standing up.
Your bones aren't being held only by your muscles, they have contact with the joint, and pressure it.
When you jump or lift (thus increase your total weight on the joint) you pressure and hurt it.

Have you seen a drawing of a skeleton?

Man what the fuck

File: 2.jpg (263KB, 764x551px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 764x551px

>tfw to intelligent to lift

>>2829042
You mean muscles having energy?

Muscles store glucose and glycogen, which can be converted to energy no?

>>2829055
i am referring to >>2829036

nigga said you can deplete energy of muscles.

>>2829007
its because READ THE STICKY

>>2829049
Yeah, but when utilizing muscles in movement decreases the stress dramatically. You'll notice pain immediately when not doing physical work correctly or when all energy stores are depleted. That's when people start attempting to lift moreso with the joints.

>>2829053
Where are the ones where his brain is giving him a blowjob and the one where it's riding him?

>>2828639
>tfw my TDEE is estimated to be 3000 calories (at "lightly active" activity level
>tfw 200 lbs and skinny

>>2829059
You can deplete the sugar in the muscles, which causes the body to make more sugar from fat or whatever you are eating right now, so you hit the infamous "wall" while you shift from energy in the muscles, to getting new one there.

Its why you get very tired 20 minutes into the workout, then after 5-10 minutes you get a second wind.
You are switching from muscle energy (sugar in them) to supplying from the fat burner.

>>2829059
Energy of muscles, meaning the energy storage of muscles, which is glucose and glycogen. When that's depleted that's when shit can get dangerous.

>>2829065
Muscles reduce pressure, yes. But they don't reduce it to zero.
And if you workout for hours per day, every day, all your life, it will take about 5 days before your muscles are in no condition to do much support work and your joints will start getting fucked.

>>2829067
Sure thing, post body with timestamp fatass

File: 1458481512662.gif (339KB, 250x167px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 250x167px

>>2829071
>comprehension
>what is it?

>>2829075
dont you mean energy FROM muscles then?

>>2829067
>3000 calories burned from light activity
>200 pounds
>skinny

i need to see this.

>>2829067
>>2829090
Maybe he is an alien.

>>2829067
>ufc heavyweights are 205+ lbs.
>anon claims this is skinny

File: IMG_20170330_192231.jpg (2MB, 2610x4640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2610x4640px

>>2829077
>>2829077
No time stamp cause I'm at work and pretty much the only pictures I take off myself are for my GF, and I doubt you want to see a half naked pictures. This one was for /k/. I'm 6'7

>>2829084
Nuh' uh.

>>2829104
You aren't skinny, alien.

>>2829104
>6'7"

maybe mention that first.

>>2829076
Yeah but workouts aren't necessarily the same as physical work hunters and gathers had to do. One is more focused activity the other is less refined. I get what you're saying though and I agree. It's just joints will be fine, as long as you don't focus the stress directly onto them for any extended period of time.

>>2829104
I cant really judge from a clothed picture anon

>>2829129
Walking around picking shit from bushes and checking for broken grass and branches isn't 6000 calories worth of physical exertion.

>>2828717
im suing you for the market value of my sides

>>2829135
Thanks anon, that's good to know lol.

Woooow this thread is full of /fit/tier understanding of how the body processes food and uses energy. So many people not understanding how much energy physical labor requires. In this day of sedentary jobs and hobbies, it's not a big surprise. Lifting weights for an hour three times a week doesn't compare to needing to walk everywhere, constantly be on your feet, and carry your loads.

The only people close to being coherent are those who mention hiking for multiple days and dealing with outside work in cold weather.

>>2828716
Yes yes, all of them did that everywhere. For sure. Most definitely.

>>2828856
They were also shorter than the average person today. Not to mention it was normal not to feed your children very much in the poorer sectors of society in many cultures. Children weren't highly valued. Just look at the rates of infanticide. You can see a boom in height as children were fed more. You can even see this in modern times with immigrants.

>>2829468
I am sure that having a lot of wool around you when you sleep was more common than exercising away 6000 calories per day.

>>2829435
>6000 fucking thousands of calories burned every day

If the average peasant worked 8-10 hours a day wouldn't that mean that they'd need to be constantly running ?

>>2828865
Lol unlike you I actually have the self discipline to eat at a caloric deficit you fucking dumb nigger

>>2828754
I read in a USMC magazine that the average weight of an American soldier today is 180-ish, on the upper end of rhe of their weight-height standards. So our soldiers got 25% bigger in about a century. I wonder what soldiers back then would think.

(1/?)

Nutrition and the Early-Medieval Diet
Pearson, Kathy L.
Speculum, 1 January 1997, Vol.72(1), pp.1-32 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

The food supply of the temperate lands of early-medieval western Europe, and
the ways in which its peoples dealt with the central problem of feeding themselves,
has been subjected to a variety of interpretations in recent years.1 Vern Bullough
and Cameron Campbell's study of the medieval diet and female longevity con-
cluded that early-medieval women suffered from iron deficiencies triggered jointly
by poor nutrition and frequent childbearing and that these deficiencies contributed
substantially to their average early age of death.2 Ann Hagen's overview of Anglo-
Saxon patterns of food production and consumption suggested that most of the
early English population routinely lived at marginally adequate or outright sub-
standard levels of nutrition.3 Similar conclusions were reached by Renee Doehaerd
in her study of the early-medieval economy.4 Michel Rouche, on the other hand,
asserted that the typical Carolingian-including the peasants-had access to a
monotonous, but abundant, supply of foodstuffs and may have consumed an
average of 6,000-9,000 calories per day.5 Richard Hodges likewise decided that
Anglo-Saxon peasants were reasonably well fed, based on the heavy food rents
per hide demanded (and presumably collected) during the reign of the West Saxon
king Ina.6

(2/?)

Such disparate interpretations are created by the serious difficulties of recon-
structing the early-medieval diet. Different climates, soils, and terrains forced local
variation in the food supply. Social class and ethnic identity likewise shaped food
consumption patterns. The Romanized aristocrats of southern Gaul ate differently
from the Rhineland Franks living along the frontier. Regionalism resulting from
post-Roman changes in long-distance trade also altered or created new food pat-
terns. Population density determined both the nature of agriculture and the com-
munity's access to wild foodstuffs. The source materials themselves present a
number of difficulties. Estate surveys and capitularies reveal the demands made
upon their peasants by lords of large clerical and lay properties, but they tell us
almost nothing of private peasant resourcefulness in producing foods from their
exploitation of kitchen gardens and orchards or from the forests, meadows, and
streams adjoining the cultivated lands. Such records likewise tell us nothing about
populations living in more modest communities or in relatively isolated family
groups. Nor do the surveys and capitularies address distinctions between seden-
tary, grain-raising communities and those pastoral populations whose primary
dietary components would have been the meat and milk-based products of their
livestock.

(3/?)

state inventories, capitularies, law codes, chron-
icles, histories, and monastic rules all offer some clues to foodstuffs and con-
sumption patterns. Archaeology supplies us with plant, animal, and human re-
mains. Known yields from the later Middle Ages through the early nineteenth
century, used with caution, can suggest some upper limits for productivity. Twen-
tieth-century scholarship has established some broad outlines of early-medieval
agricultural practice. The use of all these sources collectively allows the recon-
struction of a hypothetical diet whose nutritional value can then be assessed
against modern standards. Specifically, this paper will address three problems:
which foods, and consequently nutrients, were theoretically available to people;
the accessibility of adequate amounts of those foods; and the implications of this
diet for the health of early-medieval populations living within the confines of
temperate western Europe.

>>2829941
>4 Michel Rouche, on the other hand,
>asserted that the typical Carolingian-including the peasants-had access to a
>monotonous, but abundant, supply of foodstuffs and may have consumed an
>average of 6,000-9,000 calories per day.

This is a stupidly large number, and I cannot imagine that person has any idea of nutrition.
I don't care how many doctor-engineer he puts in front of his name, he is wrong. I have experimented with caloric values, I have seen and proven to myself how much 1000 calorie is in terms of effort or food. He is wrong by a factor of 2 or 3.

(4/?)


The Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of Wraysbury in Berkshire cultivated bread wheat, six-
rowed barley, common barley (Hordeum), and oats. Emmer, spelt, and rye may
have been either cultivars or weeds growing among the preferred grains. Wrays-
bury also offers evidence of companion planting of wheat and barley, which were
always found associated in the excavated portions of the village. Wheat, the pre-
ferred grain, was somewhat more susceptible to climate variations, whereas the
sturdier barley might thrive even if the wheat crop failed.15 Eighth- and ninth-
century farmers at Dorestad planted rye, wheat, barley, and oats; the last-named
two were companion planted at a ratio of 5:1.16 Frankish estate records illustrate
that they, too, planted a variety of grains. The storehouses of Annapes contained
no rye, but spelt, barley, wheat, and oats were all present in varying amounts.17
Millet (Panicum miliaceum) and panic wheat (Panicum sp.) are also mentioned
in the capitulary De villis; archaeology thus far does not suggest that they were
major food grains throughout the temperate zone.18
The cultivation of diverse grains by various communities was only logical.
Wheats tended to yield a higher ratio of harvested grains for each seed sown, and
their gluten properties made them the best grains for baking bread. They are,
however, more demanding in their cultivation requirements than barley, rye, and
oats.19 No community could afford to plant only wheat and risk the loss of the
entire grain crop, and, in some communities, wheat seems to have been nearly
impossible to cultivate.20 A multitude of grains also allowed for more efficient use
of the fields. Rye and wheat could be sown as winter crops, whereas barley and
oats were more likely to be sown in summer or spring.2

>>2825999
Don't know about average people, but I read that soldiers through history had a similar profile to modern day joggers/long distance runners.

(5/?)

[...]
r. An average minimum level for most people, based on
the consumption of 500 grams of whole-grain bread and 100 grams of legumes
daily, was around 45-60 grams per day.138 Such levels could have contributed to
malnutrition among the elderly, the young, and pregnant and lactating women by
blocking proper absorption of micronutrients.139 Populations that favored pas-
toralism over arable agriculture may have lacked adequate intakes of the complex
carbohydrates found in grains, although their protein levels were probably more
than adequate. But did people routinely consume, on a daily basis, a balanced and
nutritious diet? Many impediments existed along the road to good nutrition.
The first serious problem was the nature of agricultural productivity. Monastic
rations for religious, their guests, and their servants do seemingly present a picture
of caloric abundance. The earliest guidelines were relatively modest. Benedict of
Nursia deemed 1 pound (the Roman pound of 327 grams) of bread per day per
monk adequate. Each monk was allowed two meals daily in summer, and one in
winter, and could choose from two cooked dishes plus an additional dish of sea-
sonal fruits or vegetables. The allotment of wine was approximately .5-1 liter.
Rations were increased if the heat or the workload justified it.140 By the early
Carolingian era such meager rations were found to be unacceptable in the cooler
northern climates. An Anglo-Saxon version of Chrodegang of Metz's rule allowed
1.5-2 kilograms per day of bread per monk as well as meat and vegetable
dishes.141 Rouche's dual analysis of a number of Carolingian rules and the various
food rents and dues collected by monasteries from their peasants led him to con-
clude that the average daily rations for eighth- and ninth-century religious were
extremely generous.

(6/?)

They included 1.78-2 kilograms of bread, 1.55 liters of beer
or wine, 90-110 grams of cheese, and 230 grams of legume puree per monk.
Nuns' rations allocated lesser amounts of all foodstuffs: 1.44 kilograms of bread,
1.38 liters of wine or beer, 70 grams of cheese, and 133 grams of pureed legumes.
Lay rations presented a greater diversity of appropriate amounts: 360-1,700
grams of bread, .570-1.45 liters of wine, .57-2.3 liters of beer, 35-102 grams
of cheese, 218-362 grams of legumes, and 102-410 grams of fat and/or meat.
The rations were increased for holidays.142 Could early-medieval agriculture
sustain these ration levels on a year-in, year-out basis? And if such levels were
sustainable, what is the likelihood that people actually consumed these amounts?

(7/7)

[...]
The majority of early-medieval people likely suffered some degree of malnutrition
resulting from the irregular availability of foods necessary to a balanced diet. The
best evidence of overall inadequacy can be seen in mortality statistics, which reveal
that infant death rates were appallingly high, that women routinely lived shorter
lives than men, and that overall average life expectancy for either sex rarely ex-
ceeded 35-40 years.
[...]
Did the early-medieval diet offer the potential for sound nutrition? Abundance
was theoretically possible, and is suggested by the evidence of monastic rations
calling for enormous daily calorie intake. But against this conclusion are the re-
alities reflected in other sources, which document the measures taken to protect a
community's food; in the appalling accounts of natural disasters; in the matter-
of-fact mention of shortages even on the better estates; and in the evidence offered
by the remains of early-medieval populations. On the whole, it seems that the
evidence favors a negative conclusion.

>>2828770
Kek'd anon :')

>>2828591
t. guy who never has gone down to a hick bar.

>>2829763

No. You're not accounting for the fact that today, even in the dead of winter, people are in 60+ degree rooms all day and dry.

Staying warm requires a lot of calories if you're always outside and sleep in 50 degree huts. You're having to heat up the entire volume of the air you breathe in a day for instance.

Look up winter exercise nutrition.

>>2829897
Well the entire population got 25% percent bigger probably. Its not like these are super soldiers compared to back then

>>2827733
One would argue that this is a direct backlash to the bashing and shaming of anything physical from the feminist establishment.

>>2830444
You have it backwards. The rise of physical fitness is due to the denigration of human dignity by postmodern philosophy and cultural Marxism. Men who exhibit confidence in the inherent genius of the human spirit are bashed and shamed with accusations that life is meaningless and humanity has no inherent worth.

>>2828584
Read>>2828503

Thats not a valid or scientific reason, its just nonsense you are spouting, please back up with proof.

>>2830444
>>2830910
You both have it wrong. We're just trying to get laid.

>>2830444
>i lift because of feminists

Said nobody ever.

>>2828986
Just going to throw this out there but the amount of work done in a day varied a lot based on time of year. It would not shock me if during say planting season they did eat that much. Most of the year it would be much lower.

>>2832911
They also got fat during those parts of the year, so they can starve without dying in winter.
This discussion was about averages, not spikes. I sometimes eat 3 pizzas with 3 liters of soda too.

>>2832829
Doesnt mean its not true

>>2828543
>An hour of jogging is 500 calories. You don't do it every day unless you want to injure yourself.
Explain how runners run at 10+ mph for over 4 hours a day in high altitude.
>>2828539
This is correct. People talking about dieting are wrong and calorie usage is drastically increased based on on what kind of work you do.
http://calorielab.com/burned/?mo=se&gr=11&ti=Occupation&wt=150&un=lb&kg=68
Farming is around 500 calories, while most jobs are sub-200. That is significant enough to note when analyzing the diets of peasants.

>>2832985
>Explain how runners run at 10+ mph for over 4 hours a day in high altitude.

Easy. They don't do it every single fucking day for their whole fucking life you fucking imbecile fucking kill yourself fucking moron fuck.

>>2825999
depends on life style
some british cunt described marsh arabs as fit to pose for greek gods statues , peasants in comparison are skinny manlets

File: wrong.jpg (61KB, 492x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 492x480px

>>2832985
>Farming is around 500 calories,

"vigorous effort" is just under 500, most farming isn't.
did you read your own source? the most intensive hour of your day, that you repeat a dozen times per year, is 500. most of the time you are sitting at less than half.

>>2833001
>every single fucking day for their whole fucking life (cut out the reee)
They do run every day though. They don't run for their whole life, but when the average lifespan is 35 years it is not unreasonable to expect folk to maintain equally energy intensive but more dispersed work through farming their whole lives.
>>2833007
Alright, I used the highest data point to prove that it can be very energy intensive. Crucify me. It's still intensive compared to non-manual labor

>>2833054
Being a warehouse worker is more intensive than being a farmer.

t. a farmer and a warehouse worker

Also, I don't own machines, and I don't need to eat as much as a family of four to maintain my garden or livestock.
You are just plain wrong, and in fact the numbers are so wrong that I can't help but wonder how the fuck that shit gets published.

That woman on the left is on a 6000-7000 calories diet, a decade or two of life-expectancy.
Without machines I can expect a hard day of work at the farm to make you lose what, 700?
These numbers seem way off.

File: 600lb.jpg (43KB, 490x368px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 490x368px

>>2833703

Lol the 8 dudes claiming to be farmers who don't use power tools are full of shit.

You're pushing the plow?

You're digging up rocks and hauling them with a rope.

You're chopping down and hauling trees when you build?

You're carrying all your water from a well or river that might be a good distance away.

You harvest wheat using a scythe?

Yeah fuckin right.

No one pushes plows or harvest by hand anymore.

>>2833759
I plow by spade, with the rest of my family. Its also how we get our potatoes when they are done, by spade, and by hand.
And big rocks are already out of my property, because rocks don't grow back every season you absolute urban imbecile.

>>2833811

> Family gardening is the same thing as being a farmer

>>2833830
>having a huge garden is different from being a farmer

Why am I arguing with an apartment dwelling couch potato?

>>2825999
Burgundians were described as being 7 foot tall by some historians in the very late Roman Empire, this was proof of how healthy their diet was next to the half starved Romans.

>>2833910
There has been no population on Earth, no matter the diet or genetic predisposition, where people have been 7 feet tall on average. Even being taller than 6'3 starts to impose very uncomfortable physiological limitations on what you can and can't do.

>>2828543
in what fucking world is a meal 600-900 calories? what do you eat -- nothing but fast food and hot home-cooked meals? a sandwich will only give me around 300 calories

Jesus Christ, this thread.

In reply to OP, people weren't very ripped through history. Just like today, some were probably more muscular than others due to proportions, skin thinness, muscle insertions, and overall size.

But again, Jesus Christ this thread. /fit/fags, stay out of /his/, please.