Ancient people were healthy people - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pai mei · 04-19-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Then there's the secretive Tarahumara tribe, the best long-distance runners in the world. These are a people who live in basic conditions in Mexico, often in caves without running water, and run with only strips of old tyre or leather thongs strapped to the bottom of their feet. They are virtually barefoot.

Come race day, the Tarahumara don't train. They don't stretch or warm up. They just stroll to the starting line, laughing and bantering, and then go for it, ultra-running for two full days, sometimes covering over 300 miles, non-stop. For the fun of it. One of them recently came first in a prestigious 100-mile race wearing nothing but a toga and sandals. He was 57 years old.

When it comes to preparation, the Tarahumara prefer more of a Mardi Gras approach. In terms of diet, lifestyle and training technique, they're a track coach's nightmare. They drink like New Year's Eve is a weekly event, tossing back enough corn-based beer and homemade tequila brewed from rattlesnake corpses to floor an army.

Unlike their Western counterparts, the Tarahumara don't replenish their bodies with electrolyte-rich sports drinks. They don't rebuild between workouts with protein bars; in fact, they barely eat any protein at all, living on little more than ground corn spiced up by their favourite delicacy, barbecued mouse.

How come they're not crippled?

The painful truth about trainers: Are expensive running shoes a waste of money? | Mail Online
For those who say that the hunters gatherers of 150 years ago had hard lives, diseases and stuff like that. No they did not. Had none of the disease that appear because of our sedentary life style or our overcrowding, and our poisonous modern environment.

Something from George Orwell:

Quote:

"He must be cut off from the past. . . because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising."
--George Orwell, 1984

The_Jazz · 04-19-2009, 05:58 PM

Barbequed mouse, by definition, is going to be packed with lots and lots of protein. There is literally no possible way to live this kind of lifestyle without plenty of protein. Oh, and you forgot the fact that they are tremendous bean farmers - beans are one of nature's best sources of protein.

If you look at the best distance runners in the world they come from poor conditions, usually in the mountains with great distances between settlements. The effective training age of an Ethopean, Kenyan or Tarahumara is typically about 5 years younger than their actual age. That's because, culturally, they start running sooner.

So, really, what I get from this article is that you have virtually no idea what you're talking about when it comes to distance running and that you've somehow confused what little you know with some sort of idea that people didn't die of disease before 150 years ago, which is laughable.

PonyPotato · 04-19-2009, 06:12 PM

The_Jazz: If you read the article, you'll see that it's not about how people didn't die from disease before 150 years ago, it's about how athletic shoes aren't actually good for you. They actually weaken the foot, increasing the chance of injury, and don't decrease the chance of injury overall even though they're super technological.

pai_mei: I saw this article on reddit earlier today and was considering posting it here. You took a different twist on it than I would have, but it's the same article nonetheless.

pai mei · 04-19-2009, 10:27 PM

It's not about running it's about lifestyle. People living in what we call "nature" and moving around all day are healthy people. They can live long, not die at 20 years after a very hard life, like everyone imagines. Yes life was hard, for one of us if you teleport yourself among them you will find it very hard.

dippin · 04-19-2009, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

It's not about running it's about lifestyle. People living in what we call "nature" and moving around all day are healthy people. They can live long, not die at 20 years after a very hard life, like everyone imagines. Yes life was hard, for one of us if you teleport yourself among them you will find it very hard.

While progress is not linear, and we, individually, are not necessarily smarter or more civilized than people in the past, we know the life expectancy of people in the past and it was much shorter than today.

In 1900 average life expectancy was 31 years.

Even in a developed nation, like the US, life expectancy in 1900 was 47 years.

Life expectancy in the Roman empire was 25 years.

Sanitation and vaccines have had a huge impact on people's health. Whatever negative impact of a sedentary life-style in modern times, it is more than overcome by the spread of sanitation and vaccines.

Cynosure · 04-19-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Then there's the secretive Tarahumara tribe, the best long-distance runners in the world. These are a people who live in basic conditions in Mexico, often in caves without running water, and run with only strips of old tyre or leather thongs strapped to the bottom of their feet. They are virtually barefoot.

Come race day, the Tarahumara don't train. They don't stretch or warm up. They just stroll to the starting line, laughing and bantering, and then go for it, ultra-running for two full days, sometimes covering over 300 miles, non-stop. For the fun of it. One of them recently came first in a prestigious 100-mile race wearing nothing but a toga and sandals. He was 57 years old.

When it comes to preparation, the Tarahumara prefer more of a Mardi Gras approach. In terms of diet, lifestyle and training technique, they're a track coach's nightmare. They drink like New Year's Eve is a weekly event, tossing back enough corn-based beer and homemade tequila brewed from rattlesnake corpses to floor an army.

Unlike their Western counterparts, the Tarahumara don't replenish their bodies with electrolyte-rich sports drinks. They don't rebuild between workouts with protein bars; in fact, they barely eat any protein at all, living on little more than ground corn spiced up by their favourite delicacy, barbecued mouse.

How come they're not crippled?

Um, can a great part of the reason be, they're genetically a tough people? But allow these "ancient" tribe of people to breed with modern-day people (most of whom have some kind of severe allergies, among other genetic weaknesses), and their grandchildren will probably be needing those running shoes and protein bars and electrolyte-rich sports drinks, like the rest of us.

pai mei · 04-19-2009, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

While progress is not linear, and we, individually, are not necessarily smarter or more civilized than people in the past, we know the life expectancy of people in the past and it was much shorter than today.

In 1900 average life expectancy was 31 years.

Even in a developed nation, like the US, life expectancy in 1900 was 47 years.

Life expectancy in the Roman empire was 25 years.

Sanitation and vaccines have had a huge impact on people's health. Whatever negative impact of a sedentary life-style in modern times, it is more than overcome by the spread of sanitation and vaccines.

In 1900 in the "modern" world maybe, where people worked in miserable conditions. The Roman empire was also a modern civilization : crowded cities, hard work, slaves.

I am talking about hunter gatherers

dippin · 04-20-2009, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

In 1900 in the "modern" world maybe, where people worked in miserable conditions. The Roman empire was also a modern civilization : crowded cities, hard work, slaves.

I am talking about hunter gatherers

Life expectancy of pre Columbian Texas natives was about 24 years. Life expectancy in the Neolithic period was about 20 years.
Life expectancies were similar in Western Europe and in Pre-Columbian indians.

None had life expectancies longer than even early 20th century citizens of developed nations.

In fact, the more "modern" a nation, the more life expectancy has increased.

Hunter gatherers were only marginally healthier than their city dwelling contemporaries, and even then only because infectious diseases spread faster in large cities without sanitation. The health of any hunter gatherer group of any period in time does not compare to that of the modern individual in a developed nation today (and that is mostly because of sanitation and vaccines. Sanitation by itself has increased life expectancy more than any development in any medical field).

thingstodo · 04-20-2009, 02:44 AM

I think our current lives are filled with chemicals and a terrible atmoshpere and we sit around too much these days. We prolong our lives through great medical care. We also prolong our lives because we don't have to live each moment to survive.

The_Jazz · 04-20-2009, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyPotato

The_Jazz: If you read the article, you'll see that it's not about how people didn't die from disease before 150 years ago, it's about how athletic shoes aren't actually good for you. They actually weaken the foot, increasing the chance of injury, and don't decrease the chance of injury overall even though they're super technological.

pai_mei: I saw this article on reddit earlier today and was considering posting it here. You took a different twist on it than I would have, but it's the same article nonetheless.

I actually did read the article. Honestly, it was nothing new. It's been a very well known fact that runners who grow up running barefoot are able to run barefoot over most surfaces with a minimal amount of injuries and that they aren't as prone to lots of foot injuries, like plantars facitis. This is 40 year-old science, and probably older. After all, Abebe Bikila won the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 with no shoes.

But if you're not going to wear shoes when you run, you need to start doing that before adolesence. When your feet grow, connective tissue changes, growing denser in spots where it's needs and slimming out where it's not. Given the option, I would have run barefoot in every race I ever ran (I tried it in 2 with mixed results) to save the weight, but it wasn't an option.

But I also read the OP and think that using this article to try to argue a societal return to the hunter/gatherer model is ridiculous. Especially when the reporter who wrote the story linked in the OP is a complete fucking moron who doesn't know what is and isn't protein. So, if Pai Mei's starting point is going to be with an incredibly flawed article written by someone who has some basic facts right but flunks on many of the details, it doesn't help the following argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

It's not about running it's about lifestyle. People living in what we call "nature" and moving around all day are healthy people. They can live long, not die at 20 years after a very hard life, like everyone imagines. Yes life was hard, for one of us if you teleport yourself among them you will find it very hard.

Well, there were certainly people who lived longer than 20 years but not the so-called "average person". Infant mortality was much, much higher and those that survived to adulthood did not live very long past that. And of course life was hard - it continues to be hard for all of the hunter-gatherers left in the world. That is, by definition, a very hard lifestyle that cuts life short.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thingstodo

I think our current lives are filled with chemicals and a terrible atmoshpere and we sit around too much these days. We prolong our lives through great medical care. We also prolong our lives because we don't have to live each moment to survive.

Ding, ding, ding.

Cynosure · 04-20-2009, 08:06 AM

BTW, walking/running shoes are for providing arch support and shock absorption while walking/running on hard and flat surfaces such as concrete or asphalt, which is where modern-day people do the vast majority of their walking/running. Even the toughest of soles on human feet wouldn't provide that. So, yes, we do indeed need such shoes. (Whether a $150 pair of Nike walking/running shoes are better than a much cheaper brand's, is another discussion entirely.)

But if we were able to do most if not all of our walking and running on relatively soft and uneven ground, then, yes, we wouldn't really need shoes. Provided we developed tough soles from years of walking barefoot. Also provided there were no bits of refuse metal or glass lying on that ground for us to stumble upon, which has become more and more the case in the modern-day world.

The_Jazz · 04-20-2009, 08:35 AM

[QUOTE=Cynosure;2626289]BTW, walking/running shoes are for providing arch support and shock absorption while walking/running on hard and flat surfaces such as concrete or asphalt, which is where modern-day people do the vast majority of their walking/running. So, yes, we do indeed need such shoes. (Whether a $150 pair of Nike walking/running shoes are better than a much cheaper brand's, is another discussion entirely.)
QUOTE]

That's actually incorrect. Zola Budd broke the women's 5k record twice and didn't wear shoes in competition OR training. Haile Gebreselassie didn't wear shoes in training until he was 16 and already one of the most feared runners on the junior circuit.

Given that the Kenyan national team (of which they all were or are a part) trains partially on paved roads in the mountains outside of Eldoret, what makes it bizarre is that the national team is sponsored by Nike.

And Abebe Bikela, the great Ethopian, didn't wear shoes in Rome or in Tokyo.

So, if you grow up running with no shoes, you can keep doing that, regardless of surface. Until the shoe companies, who provide the majority of the funding, pay you to wear their shoes, which you'll gladly do since you almost certainly grew up too poor to afford shoes in the first place. The author of the linked piece is correct that runners don't necessarily need shoes. But his rationale for that sucks.

Iliftrocks · 04-20-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynosure

Um, can a great part of the reason be, they're genetically a tough people? But allow these "ancient" tribe of people to breed with modern-day people (most of whom have some kind of severe allergies, among other genetic weaknesses), and their grandchildren will probably be needing those running shoes and protein bars and electrolyte-rich sports drinks, like the rest of us.

It could be that the weak went ahead and died as infants, unlike today's people.

If I remember correctly from anthropology class, the largest influence on life expectancy was surviving birth. If you made it to about the age of 10, then you were fairly certain to make it to 40. After that the immune system again gets weak and you are more likely to die from sickness. Although very old people were not unheard of in ancient civilizations.

There are some very good arguments about returning to a subset/aspects of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle, such as a more protein lower refined carb diet. You would have to be an idiot to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of the positives that have come from modern life, such as medicine, which, sorry to tell Jenny McCarthur, included vaccines.

Willravel · 04-20-2009, 09:00 AM

Since the thread is heading this way, I'll go ahead and beat everyone there:
Vibram Five Fingers: Discover the Barefooting Alternative

FuglyStick · 04-20-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Since the thread is heading this way, I'll go ahead and beat everyone there:
Vibram Five Fingers: Discover the Barefooting Alternative

MONKEY TOES!!!!

Seaver · 04-20-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

If I remember correctly from anthropology class, the largest influence on life expectancy was surviving birth. If you made it to about the age of 10, then you were fairly certain to make it to 40. After that the immune system again gets weak and you are more likely to die from sickness. Although very old people were not unheard of in ancient civilizations.

Correct. A History Prof pointed this out, that rulers living into their 70s was not out of the norm so long as they didn't A: Die before 20 (fratricide) or B: Die in battle. So long as they made it out of the dangerous early years, their immune system proved to be good enough to last a very long time. Just because the average expectancy was 25 does not mean the average adult lived to 25. The reality was most lived to their early 50s, a few died at 0-10yr old, and many fewer would die in battle at low 20s.

That being said... this article is pseudo-science. It takes aspects which are partially correct, ignore conflicting evidence, and puts it in a corrolation proves I'm right aspect and dawns an ugly bow.

dippin · 04-20-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Just because the average expectancy was 25 does not mean the average adult lived to 25. The reality was most lived to their early 50s, a few died at 0-10yr old, and many fewer would die in battle at low 20s.

Of course not. Life expectancy at birth is conceptually different than life expectancy at age X.

In ancient Rome, for example, life expectancy at birth was 25, meaning the average person died at 25, but life expectancy at 5 years old was 38, which means that the average person that reached 5 alive on average died at 43.
But up until the beginning of the 20th century,, life expectancy at even 60 was lower than life expectancy at birth in modern developed nations.

Meaning that even the healthiest people in ancient times are not as healthy as the average person in developed nations.

04-19-2009, 05:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Barbequed mouse, by definition, is going to be packed with lots and lots of protein. There is literally no possible way to live this kind of lifestyle without plenty of protein. Oh, and you forgot the fact that they are tremendous bean farmers - beans are one of nature's best sources of protein. If you look at the best distance runners in the world they come from poor conditions, usually in the mountains with great distances between settlements. The effective training age of an Ethopean, Kenyan or Tarahumara is typically about 5 years younger than their actual age. That's because, culturally, they start running sooner. So, really, what I get from this article is that you have virtually no idea what you're talking about when it comes to distance running and that you've somehow confused what little you know with some sort of idea that people didn't die of disease before 150 years ago, which is laughable. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-19-2009, 06:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
PonyPotato Soaring Location: Ohio!	The_Jazz: If you read the article, you'll see that it's not about how people didn't die from disease before 150 years ago, it's about how athletic shoes aren't actually good for you. They actually weaken the foot, increasing the chance of injury, and don't decrease the chance of injury overall even though they're super technological. pai_mei: I saw this article on reddit earlier today and was considering posting it here. You took a different twist on it than I would have, but it's the same article nonetheless. __________________ "Without passion man is a mere latent force and possibility, like the flint which awaits the shock of the iron before it can give forth its spark." — Henri-Frédéric Amiel

04-19-2009, 10:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	It's not about running it's about lifestyle. People living in what we call "nature" and moving around all day are healthy people. They can live long, not die at 20 years after a very hard life, like everyone imagines. Yes life was hard, for one of us if you teleport yourself among them you will find it very hard. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"

04-20-2009, 02:44 AM	#9 (permalink)
thingstodo A Storm Is Coming Location: The Great White North	I think our current lives are filled with chemicals and a terrible atmoshpere and we sit around too much these days. We prolong our lives through great medical care. We also prolong our lives because we don't have to live each moment to survive. __________________ If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves. Stangers have the best candy.

04-20-2009, 08:06 AM	#11 (permalink)
Cynosure Psycho Location: the center of the multiverse	BTW, walking/running shoes are for providing arch support and shock absorption while walking/running on hard and flat surfaces such as concrete or asphalt, which is where modern-day people do the vast majority of their walking/running. Even the toughest of soles on human feet wouldn't provide that. So, yes, we do indeed need such shoes. (Whether a $150 pair of Nike walking/running shoes are better than a much cheaper brand's, is another discussion entirely.) But if we were able to do most if not all of our walking and running on relatively soft and uneven ground, then, yes, we wouldn't really need shoes. Provided we developed tough soles from years of walking barefoot. Also provided there were no bits of refuse metal or glass lying on that ground for us to stumble upon, which has become more and more the case in the modern-day world. Last edited by Cynosure; 04-20-2009 at 08:16 AM..

04-20-2009, 08:35 AM	#12 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	[QUOTE=Cynosure;2626289]BTW, walking/running shoes are for providing arch support and shock absorption while walking/running on hard and flat surfaces such as concrete or asphalt, which is where modern-day people do the vast majority of their walking/running. So, yes, we do indeed need such shoes. (Whether a $150 pair of Nike walking/running shoes are better than a much cheaper brand's, is another discussion entirely.) QUOTE] That's actually incorrect. Zola Budd broke the women's 5k record twice and didn't wear shoes in competition OR training. Haile Gebreselassie didn't wear shoes in training until he was 16 and already one of the most feared runners on the junior circuit. Given that the Kenyan national team (of which they all were or are a part) trains partially on paved roads in the mountains outside of Eldoret, what makes it bizarre is that the national team is sponsored by Nike. And Abebe Bikela, the great Ethopian, didn't wear shoes in Rome or in Tokyo. So, if you grow up running with no shoes, you can keep doing that, regardless of surface. Until the shoe companies, who provide the majority of the funding, pay you to wear their shoes, which you'll gladly do since you almost certainly grew up too poor to afford shoes in the first place. The author of the linked piece is correct that runners don't necessarily need shoes. But his rationale for that sucks. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-20-2009, 09:00 AM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Since the thread is heading this way, I'll go ahead and beat everyone there: Vibram Five Fingers: Discover the Barefooting Alternative