How ripped was the average man throughout history...

How ripped was the average man throughout history? Were there even enough calories to get ripped or was everyone just a skinny yet strong manlet?

Other urls found in this thread:

qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm
outdoors.org/articles/amc-outdoors/how-many-calories-do-you-burn-backpacking/
npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/07/259418586/think-youre-cold-and-hungry-try-eating-in-antarctica
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

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"

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 Veeky Forums)

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.

qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm

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.

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 Veeky Forums standards of course)

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.

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.

Its albanians fleeing the Yugoslav war by the way.

Where did you read that?

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.

>6000 calories a day

Veeky Forums 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 user, 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

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

>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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

>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.

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

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.

>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.

>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

Not all meals have to be 750-1000 calories

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

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 Veeky Forums 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.

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

>(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?

>professional athletes don't eat that much user

Yes they do.

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.

t. guy who never worked a day on a farm

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

>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.

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

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

>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.

ReadOh and

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

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 Veeky Forums if you want to get laughed at some more.
7000 calories per day farmers, this is dumber than the Hitler penis threads.

>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.

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

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 ?

>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.

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.

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

Back to tumblr

> Gym instructor
> Knowing shit about anything

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

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


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

>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

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

???
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.

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

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 Veeky Forums or something

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

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

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

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

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.

>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

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

dont cry now mate, its cool

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

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 Veeky Forums. There will be more fitness experts there that can shed light on this topic.

>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

>6000 kcalories

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

That's the joke user

oops, meant to tag some other user

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

Read the thread senpai

>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.

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

How is that even relevant?

rather not go through all this dumb shit.

go to

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

lol, wtf is this guy even trying to get at? btw, Veeky Forums 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

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.

Fuck this got me to kek

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

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

wooooooosh

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

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

Do it faggot

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

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

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

there is already a thread on Veeky Forums..... thats why we are here you dumb shit

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

Screencapping this thread and posting it in Veeky Forums humor would make Veeky Forums lose their shit at how retarded you are

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.

Fucking kys how can one human being be this deluded

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.