I understand the current view of neanderthal man is that he was 5'6", at least three times as strong as a modern human, with robust bones that were much denser and thicker than ours.
And yet, the given average weight is 150 pds.
Huh?
My mother is 5'7" and weighs 135 pounds. She is skinny, almost waifish....and she's a female homo sapien sapien!
Why are scientific journals so conservative on weight estimates? At 6'3 my suggested weight is something like 170 or 180 pds. If I weighed only 180, I would look anorexic.
>I understand the current view of neanderthal man is that he was 5'6", > at least three times as strong as a modern human, with robust bones > that were much denser and thicker than ours.
> And yet, the given average weight is 150 pds.
> Huh?
> My mother is 5'7" and weighs 135 pounds. She is skinny, almost > waifish....and she's a female homo sapien sapien!
> Why are scientific journals so conservative on weight estimates? > At 6'3 my suggested weight is something like 170 or 180 pds. If I > weighed only 180, I would look anorexic.
Hint: look up the word "gracile" in reference to hominids.
I'm not sure of the exact weight of an adult chimp (c. 120 lb?) but if it took agin' ya', it could easily tear you limb from limb. Size is not the only criterion of strength.
Do you have a reference for the data you supply about Neandertals?
> Hint: look up the word "gracile" in reference to hominids.
Yes- we are more gracile than neanderthal, so neanderthal should weigh more.
> Do you have a reference for the data you supply about Neandertals?
The Height is from Walking w/ Prehistoric Beasts BBC Weight at 140 pounds from Walking With Cavemen in the same series. Can't remember where I saw 150, but it was a recent article, and I've seen it estimated around that number in several places. Wikipedia says 5'4", but no weight.
I'm sure I've never seen them estimate neandertal at 5'6" and around 200, which I think would be more like it.
>> Hint: look up the word "gracile" in reference to hominids.
> Yes- we are more gracile than neanderthal, so neanderthal should weigh > more.
I think the combination of a poor diet and rough living had the effect of optimizing their body potential. Think of a Pit Bull Terrier or Rottweiler near the low end of typical size and weight, or this little fellow:
I think the scientists are just wrong. They always underestimate weight, even in modern populations. Like I said before, given my bone structure, if I were the suggested weight of 180 pounds I might blow away in the wind.
"J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Height is from Walking w/ Prehistoric Beasts BBC > Weight at 140 pounds from Walking With Cavemen in > the same series.
However, I have also found cites that placed the average weight at just under 190 pounds.
Apparently there's plenty of room for speculation...
Then again, if you think that's bad then check out the varying estimates for something like the T-Rex. I've seen estimates range from four to eight tons.
On 7 Aug, 22:32, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hint: look up the word "gracile" in reference to hominids.
> Yes- we are more gracile than neanderthal, so neanderthal should weigh > more.
> > Do you have a reference for the data you supply about Neandertals?
> The Height is from Walking w/ Prehistoric Beasts BBC > Weight at 140 pounds from Walking With Cavemen in the same series.
That explains it! The BBC are rather bad at getting size and weight estimates right. As a consequence I am bombarded with emails telling me that Liopleurodon weight 150 tons and was 25 meters long.
> Can't remember where I saw 150, but it was a recent article, and I've > seen it estimated around that number in several places. > Wikipedia says 5'4", but no weight.
> I'm sure I've never seen them estimate neandertal at 5'6" and around > 200, which I think would be more like it.
On Aug 7, 3:04 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand the current view of neanderthal man is that he was 5'6", > at least three times as strong as a modern human, with robust bones > that were much denser and thicker than ours.
> And yet, the given average weight is 150 pds.
> Huh?
> My mother is 5'7" and weighs 135 pounds. She is skinny, almost > waifish....and she's a female homo sapien sapien!
> Why are scientific journals so conservative on weight estimates? > At 6'3 my suggested weight is something like 170 or 180 pds. If I > weighed only 180, I would look anorexic.
I'm 6'1", my suggested weight is around 165 lbs., and for the few months I was actually at that weight, I was trim but not at all skinny. I actually had some decent muscle mass to boot. We Merkins have a fantastically distorted view of what a "healthy" weight is.
150 lbs. for a 5'6" hunter-gatherer is not a conservative weight estimate *at all*, IMO.
J.LyonLayden <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand the current view of neanderthal man is that he was 5'6", > at least three times as strong as a modern human, with robust bones > that were much denser and thicker than ours.
> And yet, the given average weight is 150 pds.
> Huh?
> My mother is 5'7" and weighs 135 pounds. She is skinny, almost > waifish....and she's a female homo sapien sapien!
150 lbs is 68 kg, says my converter. My sister happens to be about 5'6" (1.65m), and when she was playing hockey at the national level, she weighed about 65 kg (less than 150 lbs), most of it muscle.
Doesn't sound like an unrealistic weight for someone in good shape.
I doubt my sister is three times as strong as a modern human, but if I'm not mistaken, chimps are much stronger than humans without being very heavy, so I suspect strength is more a matter of anatomy than of simple mass. (But I could be wrong.)
> Why are scientific journals so conservative on weight estimates? > At 6'3 my suggested weight is something like 170 or 180 pds. If I > weighed only 180, I would look anorexic.
I'm also 6'3" (1.90m), and while I currently weigh almost 90kg (198 lbs), there was a day when I weighted 72kg (159 lbs) without being anorexic (although I was pretty skinny). Currently I consider myself overweight, although that's because I have a very thin frame. All the extra weight over those original 72 kgs has settled on my belly.
mcv. -- Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool. A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
>> Do you have a reference for the data you supply about Neandertals?
> The Height is from Walking w/ Prehistoric Beasts BBC > Weight at 140 pounds from Walking With Cavemen in the same series. > Can't remember where I saw 150, but it was a recent article, and I've > seen it estimated around that number in several places. > Wikipedia says 5'4", but no weight.
> I'm sure I've never seen them estimate neandertal at 5'6" and around > 200, which I think would be more like it.
200 lbs is 90 kg. A 5'6" (1.67m) hominid would be quite fat at that weight, and probably not a good long distance runner, and thus not a good hunter. Maybe 160 lbs or 72 kg would be a better weight for a strong, touch, muscular hunter of that height.
mcv. -- Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool. A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
On Aug 7, 1:04 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand the current view of neanderthal man > is that he was 5'6", at least three times as > strong as a modern human, with robust bones that > were much denser and thicker than ours.
I'm pretty sure my reading agrees with yours.
> And yet, the given average weight is 150 pds.
That looks pretty "power packed" to me, I reached my adult height of 6 foot 1.5 inch at age 14, weighing 145 pounds, (187 cm, 66kg) and didn't gain much weight beyond that until in my 30s, yet had a grip strength in either hand of 100 pounds. Now, at 180 pounds, I feel and look paunchy.[ At age 63, that's a bit permitted, though.]
Your Neandertal was much stockier that I was, would have really hurt me in a handshake.
> Huh?
A chimpanze is much smaller, and yet estimated to be _four_ times as strong as a human.
The issue in strength isn't merely body mass, as you are understanding it to be, but more how that mass is put together in the tradeoff between strength and speed. The ligament attachments to the bones of chimps are placed at distances from the pivot points of the joints in a way catering more for power, in contrast to the similar ligament attachments in humans which are placed in a way catering more for speed.
Yes, the chimp could tear you limb from limb, but if you got a running start, he'd never catch you to do so.
Presumably, the Neandertal arrangement was a bit closer to the chimp arrangement, giving power type leverage instead of speed type leverage.
> >> Do you have a reference for the data you supply about Neandertals?
> > The Height is from Walking w/ Prehistoric Beasts BBC > > Weight at 140 pounds from Walking With Cavemen in the same series. > > Can't remember where I saw 150, but it was a recent article, and I've > > seen it estimated around that number in several places. > > Wikipedia says 5'4", but no weight.
> > I'm sure I've never seen them estimate neandertal at 5'6" and around > > 200, which I think would be more like it.
> 200 lbs is 90 kg. A 5'6" (1.67m) hominid would be quite fat at that > weight, and probably not a good long distance runner, and thus not > a good hunter. Maybe 160 lbs or 72 kg would be a better weight for > a strong, touch, muscular hunter of that height.
For homo sap sap, sure. But the neanderthal was adapted tot he cold,a nd had a visibly heavier skeleton. I don't have references, but I saw a paleontologist say that an analysis of neanderthal skeletons showed a dense right arm, with a pattern of spiral stress in their right forearm bones consistent with throwing a heavy spear. He suggested they were ambush hunters.
Think of a smilodon compared to a modern lion or leopard.
> mcv. > -- > Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool. > A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which > could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all > of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
(I'm also 6'3" (1.90m), and while I currently weigh almost 90kg (198 lbs), there was a day when I weighted 72kg (159 lbs) without being anorexic (although I was pretty skinny). Currently I consider myself overweight, although that's because I have a very thin frame. All the extra weight over those original 72 kgs has settled on my belly.)
I weigh 210 at 6'3 right now at the age of 35.
At the age of 18 I was the same exact weight and had a very athletic build, being then a bodybuilder and football player.
I most likely have a more "robust" skeletal structure than you. And neandertal had a MUCH more robust skeletal make-up than me.
Since muscle weighs more than fat, if a neanderthal could "pick up an NLF linebacker and throw him through the gole post from the 10 yard line," then a neanderthal of the same size as a modern human would weigh much more.
A recent Playboy Playmate was 5,6 and 130 pounds. You're telling me that strongest, most massive hominid who ever lived had only 20 pounds more muscle than a female model?
(200 lbs is 90 kg. A 5'6" (1.67m) hominid would be quite fat at that weight, and probably not a good long distance runner, and thus not a good hunter. Maybe 160 lbs or 72 kg would be a better weight for a strong, touch, muscular hunter of that height.)
I don't think so. You have to have muscle to have strength. Neanderthal had much broader shoulders and much thicker, denser bones. I've seen playboy playmates around 5'6 or 5'7 who were listed at 125- 130 pounds.
(I'm also 6'3" (1.90m), and while I currently weigh almost 90kg (198 lbs), there was a day when I weighted 72kg (159 lbs) without being anorexic (although I was pretty skinny). Currently I consider myself overweight, although that's because I have a very thin frame. All the extra weight over those original 72 kgs has settled on my belly.)
I'm 6'3 and 210, same height as I was in highschool.
In highschool I was a bodybuilder and football player, with a very low body fat percentage. Since then I've lost muscle and gained fat, but I still look slim, and muscle weighs more than fat.
I probably have a thicker bone structure than you have...and neandertal had a thicker bone structure than me.
Also, Eskimos and Ennuits have more fat to keep the cold off, and presumeably so would neanderthal.
So we have a creature with bones considerably heavier than ours, who is much more muscular even than our strenth training athletes, and who would have needed some blubber to survive the cold....and yet he only weighed only 30 pounds more than the FEMALE version of our species?
I understand that leverage has to do with strength as well, but wouldn't neanderthal have had to be more muscular than homo sap sap just due to the fact that his bones were heavier, and he needed to be able to lift them?
> (I'm also 6'3" (1.90m), and while I currently weigh almost 90kg > (198 lbs), there was a day when I weighted 72kg (159 lbs) without > being anorexic (although I was pretty skinny). Currently I > consider myself overweight, although that's because I have a very > thin frame. All the extra weight over those original 72 kgs has > settled on my belly.)
> I weigh 210 at 6'3 right now at the age of 35.
> At the age of 18 I was the same exact weight and had a very athletic > build, being then a bodybuilder and football player.
> I most likely have a more "robust" skeletal structure than you. > And neandertal had a MUCH more robust skeletal make-up than me.
> Since muscle weighs more than fat, if a neanderthal could "pick up an > NLF linebacker and throw him through the gole post from the 10 yard > line," then a neanderthal of the same size as a modern human would > weigh much more.
> A recent Playboy Playmate was 5,6 and 130 pounds. You're telling me > that strongest, most massive hominid who ever lived had only 20 pounds > more muscle than a female model?
To whom are you speaking? I agree with you on this; at 5'4" I weigh 160 and I'm not especially fat. I couldn't weigh less than 150 without losing significant muscle mass. But my workout partner in the university was 6'5" at 180 pounds, and he wasn't frail - he was built like a basketball player, not a wrestler.
Sorry kermit I was just speaking in general, I tend to repond to a thread as a whole rather than to an individual even when I'm quoting an individual. Just a quirk I have. Thanks for the link!
J.LyonLayden <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, Eskimos and Ennuits have more fat to keep the cold off, and > presumeably so would neanderthal.
> So we have a creature with bones considerably heavier than ours, who > is much more muscular even than our strenth training athletes,
Was he? Chimps are much stronger than humans, but they're not particularly muscular, are they? I don't think a Neanderthal would have the kind of exaggerated muscles that a strength training athlete would have. He's a hunter, not a weightlifter. Someone else pointed out that he probably simply had a skeletal structure that gave him more leverage.
> and who > would have needed some blubber to survive the cold....
Would he? In modern humans, men tend to have hair instead of fat as insulation, because hair weighs less. Women tend to have fat rather than hair because fat can get them through a famine. If Neanderthal had a similar division of roles, it's more likely that Neanderthal man was extremely hairy, whereas their women had the blubber. Just like ours.
> and yet he only > weighed only 30 pounds more than the FEMALE version of our species?
30 pounds is quite a lot. And does male or female really matter? I thought the only reason men are heavier than women (on average) is that men are taller (on average). I wouldn't be surprised if in a natural situation, women tend to be heavier than men of the same height. Women tend to have more fat than men, since the men (hunters) can't afford to weigh too much, whereas the population benefits more from women surviving famines.
> I understand that leverage has to do with strength as well, but > wouldn't neanderthal have had to be more muscular than homo sap sap > just due to the fact that his bones were heavier, and he needed to be > able to lift them?
I actually think it'd be the other way around: his bones need to be heavier in order to deal with the force from the extra leverage.
Note, by the way, that I'm not in the least an expert on any of this. I'm just applying some common sense to the few facts I know.
mcv. -- Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool. A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
> Was he? Chimps are much stronger than humans, but they're not particularly > muscular, are they?
I dunno they are pretty wiry looking to me. They are just short and long armed so you just don't notice so much. Consider gorillas and oranguatangs. They are huge and heavy for their height.
> I don't think a Neanderthal would have the kind of > exaggerated muscles that a strength training athlete would have. He's a > hunter, not a weightlifter. Someone else pointed out that he probably > simply had a skeletal structure that gave him more leverage.
The skeletal structure was alot heavier than ours too.
> > and who > > would have needed some blubber to survive the cold....
> Would he? In modern humans, men tend to have hair instead of fat as > insulation, because hair weighs less. Women tend to have fat rather > than hair because fat can get them through a famine. If Neanderthal > had a similar division of roles, it's more likely that Neanderthal > man was extremely hairy, whereas their women had the blubber. Just > like ours.
Well I've just heard that posited before, in consideration of how eskimos and ennuits have more blubber than other humans.
> > and yet he only > > weighed only 30 pounds more than the FEMALE version of our species?
> 30 pounds is quite a lot.
I dunno. I have fluctuated back and forth 30 pounds in my own weight several times in a year before. It doesn't seem like alot to me.
> And does male or female really matter? I > thought the only reason men are heavier than women (on average) is > that men are taller (on average). I wouldn't be surprised if in a > natural situation, women tend to be heavier than men of the same > height. Women tend to have more fat than men, since the men (hunters) > can't afford to weigh too much, whereas the population benefits more > from women surviving famines.
I don't think so. Muscle weighs more than fat, and men have considerably more muscle. The health charts have women weighing less at the same height.
> J.LyonLayden <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, Eskimos and Ennuits have more fat to keep the cold off, and > > presumeably so would neanderthal.
> > So we have a creature with bones considerably heavier than ours, who > > is much more muscular even than our strenth training athletes,
> Was he? Chimps are much stronger than humans, but they're not particularly > muscular, are they? I don't think a Neanderthal would have the kind of > exaggerated muscles that a strength training athlete would have. He's a > hunter, not a weightlifter. Someone else pointed out that he probably > simply had a skeletal structure that gave him more leverage.
That may be part of it, but strength can also come from: higher ratio of fast twitch to slow-twitch muscle fibers; greater innervation of the muscle; greater muscle mass.
These take constant NS tweaking to maintain, and come at a cost (we are a running species. But wrestlers can't run marathons well, and they need more food). Greater strength *is perfectly compatible with changes required for adaptation to the cold. I suspect that our neandercousins adapted to a heavy spear, ambush hunting style, combined with giving up jogging and getter rounder and more robust (less gracile).
> > and who > > would have needed some blubber to survive the cold....
> Would he? In modern humans, men tend to have hair instead of fat as > insulation, because hair weighs less.
Those folks who have lived in a cold climate for a while have adapted in several ways: shorter limbs, rounder body shapes, muscle and fat increase. Look at the Inuit compared to the Yanomamo.
> Women tend to have fat rather > than hair because fat can get them through a famine. If Neanderthal > had a similar division of roles, it's more likely that Neanderthal > man was extremely hairy, whereas their women had the blubber. Just > like ours.
> > and yet he only > > weighed only 30 pounds more than the FEMALE version of our species?
> 30 pounds is quite a lot. And does male or female really matter? I > thought the only reason men are heavier than women (on average) is > that men are taller (on average).
Men of the same height are much heavier (on the average!) if they are both reasonably fit. My wife is my height - 5'4". When we paired up back in the day I weighed 150 and she about 120.
My fit daughter is about 130 and two inches taller. These differences are typical. Numbers can be skewed now because on the average, women are less fit than men in western society and are fatter than they should be (specifically, on the average they are more overweight than their male counterparts).
> I wouldn't be surprised if in a > natural situation, women tend to be heavier than men of the same > height. Women tend to have more fat than men, since the men (hunters) > can't afford to weigh too much, whereas the population benefits more > from women surviving famines.
A fit male would normally be about 11-15% bodyfat. A fit female 16-20%, but still lighter than a male of the same height.
> > I understand that leverage has to do with strength as well, but > > wouldn't neanderthal have had to be more muscular than homo sap sap > > just due to the fact that his bones were heavier, and he needed to be > > able to lift them?
> I actually think it'd be the other way around: his bones need to be > heavier in order to deal with the force from the extra leverage.
Yes. This is how we know the neanderthal was much stronger then we. Not only are the bones denser and thicker, but the scars from the tendon attachments are bigger.
> Note, by the way, that I'm not in the least an expert on any of this. > I'm just applying some common sense to the few facts I know.
I am only an interested amateur. Any sports kinesiologists in the house?
> mcv. > -- > Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool. > A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which > could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all > of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
|
