"... when it was necessary or rewarding. Necessary physical activities included getting food and doing other things to survive. Rewarding activities included playing, dancing or training to have fun or to develop skills. But no one in the stone age ever went for a five-mile jog to stave off decrepitude, or lifted weights whose sole purpose was to be lifted."
६ टिप्पण्या:
Wilbur writes:
I'm 67 years of age, weigh 20 lbs less than when I retired two years ago and feel great.
I studiously avoid what I call "useless exercise", like running or lifting weights, useless in the sense that you are accomplishing nothing else. I sweat a gallon everyday just working outside on my house and lawn, and doing golf stuff.
I played varsity sports at the high school and junior college level, and running was always used as punishment. It really turned me against it, justifiably or not.
John writes:
This duplicates the fallacy that comedian Greg Giraldo identified: "If I had to stalk a gallon of Haagen Daaz across a grassland for a week, I'd be pretty skinny too."
"Pre-industrial humans didn't exercise." Yeah, pre-industrial humans didn't have the option of sitting on our asses for 23+ hours a day.
https://www.facebook.com/standup/videos/2652587101434316
Cubanbob writes:
"The article is common sense. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen ripped and washboard abs on primitive peoples today. Fit, yes. Ripped, no. Probably the only people who would be considered ripped by today's standard would have been ancient soldiers. They had to carry and fight with heavy weapons along carrying their rations. Lifting stones for ballistas and trebuchets and fighting with heavy swords along with marching everywhere will do that for you."
Two-eyed Jack writes:
Evolutionary Cuisine:
You may think Hollandaise is normal, but it’s a very modern addition to meals. Instead, for millions of years, humans seasoned food for only two reasons, to increase salt intake and to cover the taste of rotting meat.
ALP writes:
assumed this article would enrage me - was expecting a scholarly excuse for not exercising. Pleasantly surprised at the content, especially since the author gives walking the respect it deserves. Like many people I have my challenges, but exercising is not one of them. Always loved to move. Still do and I cannot imagine ever changing. Three days of inactivity is all it takes for me to feel like absolute shit, a condition I call "crunchy". I think if a person has experienced a high level of fitness in the past, they are more likely to view loosing fitness as a negative condition that needs addressing. Once upon a time, I could run 6 miles over hilly trails and deadlift nearly 3x my body weight. It felt fantastic and was well worth the effort.
One issue I do have with this article: I suspect there is a quite a lot of information and detail behind the statement: "Necessary physical activities included getting food and doing other things to survive." I can imagine a significant amount of exertion there that the author glosses over. Would really like some more detail there. "Surviving" could mean carrying weight on your back and hiking 15 miles in the mountains because your whole tribe had to pull up stakes and move! I also don't see mention of the very common ailment of chronic back pain - a condition often fixed with some targeted exercise.
Now is the perfect time to move on to today's exercise activity: hiking all the hills in my local park at a pace that pushes the limits of my cardio abilities.
Dwight writes:
I started reading his book "Exercised" last week. At some point I figured I needed to know how old he is. Flip to pic on book jacket and I figure he's about my age so look him up - he turned 57 on that day (June 3).
So he's 12 days older than me and Courtney Cox. Good to go.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा