MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Muscles and Evolution
Author
Rating
Options

crazeeJZ

The lower body seems easy to figure out, but why do you guys think we have big potential for size, not comparable to our legs but still, in our lats and pecs?

Did early man really need to pull himself up that much, or push things forward or down(or himself up) that much? If so, for what actions do think repeatedly?
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

crazeeJZ wrote:
The lower body seems easy to figure out, but why do you guys think we have big potential for size, not comparable to our legs but still, in our lats and pecs?

Did early man really need to pull himself up that much, or push things forward or down(or himself up) that much? If so, for what actions do think repeatedly?


Interesting questions, hope to have more time to answer later. I posed some questions months back in Andrews thread; Andrews rational, and asked why are we the size we are, but the other night I thought I worked that one out, but as it was when I was trying to get to sleep, I have forgot it now ROL.

Another question after crazeeJZs one, I believe in evolution, but as its 200,000 years ago when the first primitive hominids were found, how long before that did they have to developed all those amassing things they had then, and we have now ??? Eyes to see, wow, brains that are astounding, bones and how they work, muscles and how they work, and thats just the start of the fantastic human body we have. Was there enough time for all these changes from microscopic live in water, to the quite fantastic human body.

Sorry I could have answered your question in that time, but will get back to it later.

HOLD ON, just thought of somthing as to why the upper body is so complex, ere not we on all fours limbs at first ???

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

ganyuehan

Some bodybuilders' genetics are nothing compared to what some Neanderthals had. Even with their strong structures, when hunting they would get injuries similar to what some rodeo bullrider have.

That is a bit unrelated, but your question just made me think of that.
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

I think that our lats are a direct result of climbing and swinging through trees as are our thumbs.

Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

Regardless of whether evolution is "real" or not, the question could be simplified to "why are we this way?" And to that end, the neanderthal is not off topic at all.

Neanderthals seem to have had skeletons's 50 to 70% more massive for the same sized individual. Regardless of their strength, the amount of damage they could take would have been considerably greater. This goes to how they hunted vs. how our ancestors hunted. Neanderthal sites contain only crude spear heads from spears far too large to have been thrown.

In essence, they had to kill their large mammalian prey hand to hand with large spears and rocks or clubs. They don't seem to have mastered spear throwing or archery. So they likely would have been more likely to be injured in their day to day activities.

Our frames are lighter as we could hunt with much less danger to ourselves with the ability to throw spears, shoot arrows and presumably maneuver prey into more advantageous positions for hunting.

So why the big arms and chest? Unknown, but interspecies combat (territory, mating rites, general settling of pecking order, etc.) are all possibilities. Also, not all hunts go as planned, so some ability to fight close in would still be beneficial if less so.

And men's propensity to judge themselves and each other based on arm size might be more genetic than we thing as well. Perhaps they are also partially ornamental?
Open User Options Menu

robinn3403

Waynes wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
The lower body seems easy to figure out, but why do you guys think we have big potential for size, not comparable to our legs but still, in our lats and pecs?

Did early man really need to pull himself up that much, or push things forward or down(or himself up) that much? If so, for what actions do think repeatedly?

Interesting questions, hope to have more time to answer later. I posed some questions months back in Andrews thread; Andrews rational, and asked why are we the size we are, but the other night I thought I worked that one out, but as it was when I was trying to get to sleep, I have forgot it now ROL.

Another question after crazeeJZs one,
I believe in evolution, but as its 200,000 years ago when the first primitive hominids were found, how long before that did they have to developed all those amassing things they had then, and we have now ???

Eyes to see, wow, brains that are astounding, bones and how they work, muscles and how they work, and thats just the start of the fantastic human body we have. Was there enough time for all these changes from microscopic live in water, to the quite fantastic human body.

Sorry I could have answered your question in that time, but will get back to it later.

HOLD ON, just thought of somthing as to why the upper body is so complex, ere not we on all fours limbs at first ???

Wayne



Wayne, how is it you 'know' anything about anything that happened 200,000 years ago?
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

HSDAD wrote:
Regardless of whether evolution is "real" or not, the question could be simplified to "why are we this way?" And to that end, the neanderthal is not off topic at all.

Neanderthals seem to have had skeletons's 50 to 70% more massive for the same sized individual. Regardless of their strength, the amount of damage they could take would have been considerably greater. This goes to how they hunted vs. how our ancestors hunted. Neanderthal sites contain only crude spear heads from spears far too large to have been thrown.

In essence, they had to kill their large mammalian prey hand to hand with large spears and rocks or clubs. They don't seem to have mastered spear throwing or archery. So they likely would have been more likely to be injured in their day to day activities.

Our frames are lighter as we could hunt with much less danger to ourselves with the ability to throw spears, shoot arrows and presumably maneuver prey into more advantageous positions for hunting.

So why the big arms and chest?


Not sure why you say that really, as you said before we had to hunt, fight, climb, run and many other things that takes/makes ALL the be involved. Remember going out as a kid playing, fighting climbing, running and many other things, but that at a certain age the very big % stop doing these things, but in those days you had to do it all your life, thus we evolved.

Or made it just had to be that way, as all the muscles are needed for the others to function, its all of nothing.

But reading between the lines you seem to be thinking the same as me.

HSDAD wrote:
Unknown, but interspecies combat (territory, mating rites, general settling of pecking order, etc.) are all possibilities. Also, not all hunts go as planned, so some ability to fight close in would still be beneficial if less so.

And men's propensity to judge themselves and each other based on arm size might be more genetic than we thing as well. Perhaps they are also partially ornamental?


Yep, the male would think hes better if bigger I suppose.

robinn3403 wrote:
Waynes wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
The lower body seems easy to figure out, but why do you guys think we have big potential for size, not comparable to our legs but still, in our lats and pecs?

Did early man really need to pull himself up that much, or push things forward or down(or himself up) that much? If so, for what actions do think repeatedly?

Interesting questions, hope to have more time to answer later. I posed some questions months back in Andrews thread; Andrews rational, and asked why are we the size we are, but the other night I thought I worked that one out, but as it was when I was trying to get to sleep, I have forgot it now ROL.

Another question after crazeeJZs one,
I believe in evolution, but as its 200,000 years ago when the first primitive hominids were found, how long before that did they have to developed all those amassing things they had then, and we have now ???

Eyes to see, wow, brains that are astounding, bones and how they work, muscles and how they work, and thats just the start of the fantastic human body we have. Was there enough time for all these changes from microscopic live in water, to the quite fantastic human body.

Sorry I could have answered your question in that time, but will get back to it later.

HOLD ON, just thought of somthing as to why the upper body is so complex, ere not we on all fours limbs at first ???

Wayne



Wayne, how is it you 'know' anything about anything that happened 200,000 years ago?


Because I am a time traveller !!! Actually we are all time travellers, as I have been travelling in time from 1961 to 2009 slow, but its time travel.

Lots of people know things about what happened years ago, fossils, human bones, huge boulders in southern Europe like UK, France and Holland, all from as far as northern Norway, but what in particular do you want to know what I know from the past, hey want last nights Euro lotto results ROL.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

physcult

HSDAD wrote:
This goes to how they hunted vs. how our ancestors hunted. Neanderthal sites contain only crude spear heads from spears far too large to have been thrown.

In essence, they had to kill their large mammalian prey hand to hand with large spears and rocks or clubs. They don't seem to have mastered spear throwing or archery. So they likely would have been more likely to be injured in their day to day activities.


I saw a theory on the history channel about this. They suggested because of climate change, the terrain changed from dense forest to open plain. The Neanderthals technology was suited to hunting in the forest, while our species developed weapons and strategies suitable for hunting on the open plains.
Open User Options Menu

physcult

crazeeJZ wrote:
The lower body seems easy to figure out, but why do you guys think we have big potential for size, not comparable to our legs but still, in our lats and pecs?


almost certainly because we have evolved from a species of ape.
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

physcult wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
The lower body seems easy to figure out, but why do you guys think we have big potential for size, not comparable to our legs but still, in our lats and pecs?


almost certainly because we have evolved from a species of ape.


I can't believe I didn't go back that far. That explains the big lats from swinging and pulling up, and the big chest from being on all fours more, using the fists on the ground to move.

Good thing I evolved from gorillas, not from apes, you girlie men. Lol, I wish.

Open User Options Menu

ganyuehan

One other thing, though-How do you explain the unequal distribution of good genetics for muscle mass; Mesomorphs as opposed to ectos and endos, or even ecto-endos(like me, yay!)
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

ganyuehan wrote:
One other thing, though-How do you explain the unequal distribution of good genetics for muscle mass; Mesomorphs as opposed to ectos and endos, or even ecto-endos(like me, yay!)


Easy, mesomorph ancestors went to failure.

Lol, yeah right.

Open User Options Menu

ganyuehan

crazeeJZ wrote:
Easy, mesomorph ancestors went to failure.

So that's it. I'll have a harsh word with my lazy ancestors. :D
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Wizard wrote:
I think that our lats are a direct result of climbing and swinging through trees as are our thumbs.



So we grew thumbs as a result of swinging through trees? How were we able to climb and swing through trees in the first place without thumbs?
Open User Options Menu

kurtvf

ganyuehan wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
Easy, mesomorph ancestors went to failure.

So that's it. I'll have a harsh word with my lazy ancestors. :D



Funny stuff. I'll bet or lazy modern lifestyles accentuate ectomorphic and endomorphic tendencies. There probably wern't many fat cave men. Wimps, sissies and metrosexuals probably didn't do too well either.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Wizard wrote:
I think that our lats are a direct result of climbing and swinging through trees as are our thumbs.



So we grew thumbs as a result of swinging through trees? How were we able to climb and swing through trees in the first place without thumbs?


Evolution says that at first we had no fingers either, just a hand.

Anyway, if this evolution thing is so clever, what I want to know is when the hell are we going to have x-ray eyes, as I often think, wonder what she looks like naked, ROL.

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

kurtvf wrote:
ganyuehan wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
Easy, mesomorph ancestors went to failure.

So that's it. I'll have a harsh word with my lazy ancestors. :D



Funny stuff. I'll bet or lazy modern lifestyles accentuate ectomorphic and endomorphic tendencies. There probably wern't many fat cave men. Wimps, sissies and metrosexuals probably didn't do too well either.


ROL, thats funny now I know what metrosexuals means, never much listen to the tele or read the newspaper, thus never heard of the word.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Wizard wrote:
I think that our lats are a direct result of climbing and swinging through trees as are our thumbs.



So we grew thumbs as a result of swinging through trees? How were we able to climb and swing through trees in the first place without thumbs?


last time I climbed a tree it was more fingers than thumbs until swinging and changing direction came into play.

As Jones pointed out; creatures that spend most of their lives climbing and living in trees don't have opposable thumbs - they grip and climb with fingers.

then you look at the creatures that swing and change direction - they have thumbs much like ours.

Your biceps as we know supinates the forearm, the thumb anchors the hand allowing this supination to translate into rotation - pretty handy if you are swinging and need to change direction without crashing to the ground.

Richard
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy