Goal amount for this month: 270 EUR, Received: 60 EUR (22%)
By donating, you not only support the continued existence of this site, you also improve this site in various ways, by making it affordable for ForumBiodiversity to upgrade the server with better hardware and licensed non-free proprietary software, but also motivating the staff to work harder. ABF will always be free of charge (gratis) to use. However, if everyone donates a small monthly amount, it makes a tremendous difference for the forum's overall quality in the long haul.
Ah hey, hope this is in the right section. I have been experimenting with weight lifting and other forms of resistance exercises to try and get stronger, i am coming to the conclusion that variety is the easiest way to develop a healthy body (so no just lifting heavy things up and down all the time).
The reason i think this, is because when comparing some of the people i look up to i can't see any major similarities, except for the fact that they had a lot of variety in the exercises they performed.
The Great Gama (the best name ever) was only 5'7 but was incredibly fit, he still holds the record i think for the longest wrestling match (he pinned a guy for 2 hours), his training involved thousands of daily push-ups and weighed squats as well as bear-hugging trees for extended periods of time (most strength training guides would advise against doing a thousand push-ups as it would be considered ineffective) . He was vegetarian though so most of his protein would have only come from milk and eggs i guess.
If you compare him to Bruce Lee or a modern strong-man there is not a lot in common, so i am guessing it is just the variety in what they do that stimulates their bodies.
This got me thinking though, some animals are incredibly strong without ever having to do anything extreme. Gorilla's are massive, i know they climb trees but it would not matter how many trees a human climbed i don't think he would get that strong, especially if he just lived on bananas or whatever Gorilla's eat, or would he?
Hormones, tendon length and thickness, fat between the cuticle and fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscles are all biologically different between humans.
Ever notice that the VAST majority of strongmen and strongmen winners are Viking-like, Cro-Magnoid guys with Northern European features? Simple human/hominid evolutionary differences. Black men (excluding East Africans) are often more toned and muscular thanks to naturally higher levels of testosterone. Black women tend to be more robust for that same reason.
Neanderthals were naturally much stronger than modern humans. Their strength has been exaggerated, but they could hold their own in an arm wrestling match. They had thicker, shorter bones, with thicker, shorter tendons, and they weren't exceptionally fast thanks to their super-robust builds, so it stands to reason that biologically Neanderthals were quite strong.
We pretty much are but our unconscious minds consider it harmful to our bodies to allow them to exist at their limits and so blocks the streangth. It shows up sometimes though (hocky mom flipping the car over etc).
Azvarohi said: Scandinavians are interesting. They are by nature curious of other cultures and other people (especially older generations and those who come from more rural areas), but they have a sense of superiority of moral, i.e. everything that is against their moral is viewed at as "primitive" or "degrading". They have no problem with people dating several times, not even with having several sex partners but the idea of polygamy is viewed at as "degrading towards women". They are too careful with their political opinions too, as they seem to go into cardiac arrest if they are called "homophobe", "racist" or "intolerant".