|
|
Post by Deuce Gunner on Mar 15, 2024 22:39:04 GMT
We've discussed about the Romans. Here is something about the Brits.
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,329 
|
Post by moxohol on Mar 15, 2024 23:11:55 GMT
Wankers. The lot of them.
|
|
brothersteve
Caneguru
He ain't heavy, he's my brother
Posts: 2,245
|
Post by brothersteve on Mar 16, 2024 1:56:43 GMT
They were smaller back then so all the cals and running would be easier. But moving a 110 kg if one weighed 110 lbs would be really tough, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilya on Mar 16, 2024 15:42:43 GMT
They were smaller back then so all the cals and running would be easier. But moving a 110 kg if one weighed 110 lbs would be really tough, IMO. 110lb for and adult man would have been really skinny even in the 19th century, but it would still be tough regardless.  |
|
lardy
Caneguru
Posts: 576
|
Post by lardy on Mar 16, 2024 21:31:24 GMT
They were smaller back then so all the cals and running would be easier. But moving a 110 kg if one weighed 110 lbs would be really tough, IMO. 110lb for and adult man would have been really skinny even in the 19th century, but it would still be tough regardless. The difference in body weight and body fat % between 1864 and 1946 is interesting, 1946 soldier was only an inch taller but 15lbs heavier and with 2.5% lower bodyfat, was there a widespread uptake in strength training or did the diets change that significantly? |
|
MBS
Caneguru
Lean, lithe and feral
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by MBS on Mar 17, 2024 3:52:03 GMT
110lb for and adult man would have been really skinny even in the 19th century, but it would still be tough regardless. The difference in body weight and body fat % between 1864 and 1946 is interesting, 1946 soldier was only an inch taller but 15lbs heavier and with 2.5% lower bodyfat, was there a widespread uptake in strength training or did the diets change that significantly? Good question. I’d think it was more the training, and more consistent food sources. In the 1860’s the world was a wilder place with more energy spent on just survival. |
|
lardy
Caneguru
Posts: 576
|
Post by lardy on Mar 17, 2024 7:55:21 GMT
The difference in body weight and body fat % between 1864 and 1946 is interesting, 1946 soldier was only an inch taller but 15lbs heavier and with 2.5% lower bodyfat, was there a widespread uptake in strength training or did the diets change that significantly? Good question. I’d think it was more the training, and more consistent food sources. In the 1860’s the world was a wilder place with more energy spent on just survival. I wonder if the shift from Meat and grain (primarily wheat) to Meat and potatoes had an effect? by 1864 the bread in the western world was predominantly bolted white bread, which lacks in fibre and amino acids, something the potato has plenty of and as far as i'm aware it was more common by the 1920s on wards to have meat and mash than it was to have meat and half a loaf of bread for a meal? |
|
brothersteve
Caneguru
He ain't heavy, he's my brother
Posts: 2,245
|
Post by brothersteve on Mar 17, 2024 13:56:16 GMT
They were smaller back then so all the cals and running would be easier. But moving a 110 kg if one weighed 110 lbs would be really tough, IMO. 110lb for and adult man would have been really skinny even in the 19th century, but it would still be tough regardless. My 110 was for the 1850's or so. I see what you posted but don't agree with the document, and that's ok. Most guys born in 1922 or so were about 6.5" at adult height from what I read (a 1940's post war Strength & Health cited olympic lifters Frank Spellman, Stan Stanczyk & another guy, all 66.5", as US average height for guys born in early 1920's) and, just having gone through the Great Depression and WWII, by 1946 did not weigh 155 - even at 68.4". My uncle and his buddies were born in 1927 and went to WWII. He was 125 at 18 years old and 69". Pic's of him and his buddies show all about the same. I had neighbors (4 Italia guys born between 1917 and 1924), all around 67" who said they were about 135 before the war and lost weight during. I'm sure there were some big guys who tilted the scales, but far and few. Take a look at the Atlas ads and EVERYONE wanted to put on weight. The US lads were so skinny Atlas made statements about it publicly at the time saying something like "why do we have to wait for a national emergency to realize how out of shape our young men are?". |
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
I do burpees, then I drink slurpees
Posts: 2,717
|
Post by pierinifitness on Mar 17, 2024 14:04:25 GMT
110lb for and adult man would have been really skinny even in the 19th century, but it would still be tough regardless. My 110 was for the 1850's or so. I see what you posted but don't agree with the document, and that's ok. Most guys born in 1922 or so were about 6.5" at adult height from what I read (a 1940's post war Strength & Health cited olympic lifters Frank Spellman, Stan Stanczyk & another guy, all 66.5", as US average height for guys born in early 1920's) and, just having gone through the Great Depression and WWII, by 1946 did not weigh 155 - even at 68.4". My uncle and his buddies were born in 1927 and went to WWII. He was 125 at 18 years old and 69". Pic's of him and his buddies show all about the same. I had neighbors (4 Italia guys born between 1917 and 1924), all around 67" who said they were about 135 before the war and lost weight during. I'm sure there were some big guys who tilted the scales, but far and few. Take a look at the Atlas ads and EVERYONE wanted to put on weight. The US lads were so skinny Atlas made statements about it publicly at the time saying something like "why do we have to wait for a national emergency to realize how out of shape our young men are?". My personal belief is that if you were fully-grown height wise when you graduated from high school, weren't a super fatso (gordo) or super skinny (flaco) kid, and not unusually heavily muscled from being on the high school football team, but just a normal high school active teenager, take that weight and add 10 percent to it and that should be your top weight as a middle-aged man. I use this math as my guide and, for me, seems about right. |
|
brothersteve
Caneguru
He ain't heavy, he's my brother
Posts: 2,245
|
Post by brothersteve on Mar 17, 2024 14:08:52 GMT
My 110 was for the 1850's or so. I see what you posted but don't agree with the document, and that's ok. Most guys born in 1922 or so were about 6.5" at adult height from what I read (a 1940's post war Strength & Health cited olympic lifters Frank Spellman, Stan Stanczyk & another guy, all 66.5", as US average height for guys born in early 1920's) and, just having gone through the Great Depression and WWII, by 1946 did not weigh 155 - even at 68.4". My uncle and his buddies were born in 1927 and went to WWII. He was 125 at 18 years old and 69". Pic's of him and his buddies show all about the same. I had neighbors (4 Italia guys born between 1917 and 1924), all around 67" who said they were about 135 before the war and lost weight during. I'm sure there were some big guys who tilted the scales, but far and few. Take a look at the Atlas ads and EVERYONE wanted to put on weight. The US lads were so skinny Atlas made statements about it publicly at the time saying something like "why do we have to wait for a national emergency to realize how out of shape our young men are?". My personal belief is that if you were fully-grown height wise when you graduated from high school, weren't a super fatso (gordo) or super skinny (flaco) kid, and not unusually heavily muscled from being on the high school football team, but just a normal high school active teenager, take that weight and add 10 percent to it and that should be your top weight as a middle-aged man. I use this math as my guide and, for me, seems about right. So, you mean 155 in 1946 at about 35-45 yrs old? I agree with that, but not that a soldier for that time and height just coming out of combat and the depression before would be 155 and on top of that at about 24 yrs old like the document says. |
|
