Medeival India superhuman strength

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

There is a misconception about the life expectancy of inuit when they consumed their traditional diet (i.e. free of grains, high in fats). 

 

Go and read the first study of those Inuits who were free from the Western food, and they lived up to 100 years without any cancer or other diseases. Mortality came mostly from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. 

Stop spreading lies. Every society had people living up to 100 years in tiny, tiny numbers. 

Didn't suffer from cancer ? LOL. Yes, its easy to say they didn't suffer from something that wasn't known back then. i guess nobody suffered from cancer 200 years ago because nobody knew of it ! 

 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

This first study was done by the Russians between 1822 to 1836 and it truly reflects the Inuits life expectancy before they came in contact with the western food, mainly the grains (carbohydrates). 

 

The combination of high protein (meat) diet with high carbohydrates (grains) is worse. They should not be eaten at same time while it causes digestive problems. Since that time, inuits have lot of health problems, while they also lack the neutral group of green Salads and wild herbs, which are also very essential for health (food combing chart). 

Again, just propaganda. 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

As far as Lapps are concerned, then there was hardly any carbs in their traditional diet. There were no farming there (farming started only in 1950s). I don't know about any trade of grains with southern parts in earlier centuries, but I read only this in one study that even during 1950s bread was so costly that most of the Lapps often replaced it with fatty fish diet. We could safely consume that traditional Lapps diet was almost grains free and consisted of heavy protein and heavy animals fat, and animal blood. 

Lapps traded for grain, the same way mongols traded for grain. Had access to people who grew them. Inuits did not. 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And it is also said about Maasai that their diet was also low on carbs, but very heavy on raw milk, raw meat and blood.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet

Diet[edit source]

Traditionally, the Maasai diet consisted of raw meat, raw milk, and raw blood from cattle.  In the summer of 1935 Dr. Weston A. Price visited the Maasai and reported that according to Dr. Anderson from the local government hospital in Kenya most tribes were disease-free. Many had not a single tooth attacked by dental caries nor a single malformed dental arch. In particular the Maasai had a very low 0.4% of bone caries. He attributed that to their diet consisting of (in order of volume) raw milk, raw blood, raw meat and some vegetables and fruits, although in many villages they do not eat any fruit or vegetables at all. He noted that when available every growing child and every pregnant or lactating woman would receive a daily ration of raw blood. 

 

And Masai have lower life expectancy than omnivorous diets. 

[Rasgulla]

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

Remember, this was 800 years ago, a very very different time, there were no desk jockeys or machines, all work needed blood and sweat, so even though lifting 1000 pounds was not common but it got you in the army.

Also remember, all soldiers in those days had to put on the heavy armour for fighting, so imagine the strength you need to engage in an agile and smooth sword combat will all that heavy armour and heavy swords.

Please don't compare those juiced up folks in gym who do weights in air conditioned environment and mirrors with these warriors who fought invasions in harsh weather with all the heavy armour. It's a disrespect to them.

 

I don't care what science has to say, I'm a research student and I'm aware of what I'm talking. All research work is based on limited parameters and requires certain degree of hypothesis. Absolute answers are not possible.

 

I would more likely to believe in the words of local guide from Golconda than a pseudo scientist/historian who has never visited Golconda fort.

I have been there my friend lol 

 

Infact I was born in hyd. I was at this fort few months back. 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, MechEng said:

Remember, this was 800 years ago, a very very different time, there were no desk jockeys or machines, all work needed blood and sweat, so even though lifting 1000 pounds was not common but it got you in the army.

Also remember, all soldiers in those days had to put on the heavy armour for fighting, so imagine the strength you need to engage in an agile and smooth sword combat will all that heavy armour and heavy swords.

Modern day soldiers carry more weight in their backpacks than old time soldiers. Also, Indian soldiers never wore plate mail for the SAME reason Arabs and Iranians dont wear plate mail despite having the BEST iron-working in the world - you wear plate mail in India or Arabia and you die from heat stroke. Simple. 

3 hours ago, MechEng said:

Please don't compare those juiced up folks in gym who do weights in air conditioned environment and mirrors with these warriors who fought invasions in harsh weather with all the heavy armour. It's a disrespect to them.

I am comparing the simple fact that every single athletic record in Olympics has improved from 1800s to now. So is the fact that people are taller now than 500 years ago. So where is this fantasy of the past coming from ?!?

3 hours ago, MechEng said:

 

I don't care what science has to say, I'm a research student and I'm aware of what I'm talking. All research work is based on limited parameters and requires certain degree of hypothesis. Absolute answers are not possible.

 

Sure. limited parameters and hypothesis still wins over nonsense no parameter, no evidence beliefs. 

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Stop spreading lies. Every society had people living up to 100 years in tiny, tiny numbers. 

I wish you would have read the study in details before making such comments. 

 

It was made clear there that  Mortality came mostly from very high infant mortality, accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. 

 

Inuits had the worse medical system. They had almost no herbs against any infection, or any disease or any injury. 

Then came the harsh conditions which caused a lot of accidents, ending up mostly in deaths.

 

Please also remember that infant mortality rate was also higher in the European Countries in the 18th century and life expectancy was around 50 years too, despite the fact that Europeans were consuming the grains. 

 

And due to these harsh conditions, even today the life expectancy of inuits have not increased much, although they are consuming today the same diet as the rest of the westerners. 

 

The study showed clearly that Excluding infant mortality (and deaths due to the harsh conditions and non-availability of medical facilities), still about 25% of their population lived past 60. If we include the infant mortality, then even this number will increase much more from this 25%. 

 

And people living up to 100 years also proves that one could live up to 100 years even on high protein/fats diet without carbs. 

 

Quote

Didn't suffer from cancer ? LOL. Yes, its easy to say they didn't suffer from something that wasn't known back then. i guess nobody suffered from cancer 200 years ago because nobody knew of it ! 

It was not only 200 years ago, but also the studies in the last century showed that Inuits suffered much less from the chronic diseases, but it started to change gradually as Inuits started to eat more and more like the Westerners. 

 

For example this study making it clear: 

 

https://openheart.bmj.com/content/3/2/e000444.full

 

In one study from the late 1940s cited by DiNicolantonio, Eskimos in Greenland had a rate of heart disease that was four times lower than a comparable group in Finland. Other studies showed that carbohydrate consumption increased from a minuscule proportion of 2-8% in the traditional diet to 40% by the 1970s. Several other studies also recorded very large amounts of carbohydrates in the Eskimo population as the more modern diet became prevalent. It is these changes, argues DiNicolantonio, that explains the observed high rate of heart disease in modern Eskimos. “The rise in sugar intake paralleled the rise in heart disease in the Greenland Eskimo,”

 

In a short paper published in Open Heart James DiNicolantonio argues that there has been a large shift away from the traditional Eskimo diet containing high amounts of fatty fish and toward a modern western diet containing far more refined carbohydrates and sugar. This shift, he argues, explains the more recent reports showing higher rates of heart disease than had been earlier reported.

  

Quote

And Masai have lower life expectancy than omnivorous diets. 

Short life expectancy among Maasai is not due to carnivorous diet, but due to hight infant mortality and infections from parasites in that area and Maasai are used to constantly take herbal medicines in order to fight them. 

 

Today Maasai are not eating their traditional diet, but eating like Westerners, with diet full of maize and grains and vegetables (while meat has become rare and they could not afford to eat meat as staple food). 

 

But despite this modern westerner diet, still their current life expectancy is in 40s. 

 

There are no older detailed studies present about Maasai. Nevertheless, still scientists in last century found out that Maasai people also didn't suffer earlier with chronic diseases with their traditional diet. 

 

 

Today Maasai have less infant mortality rate, better medical conditions, but still their life expectancy has not increased, except this that they are today also suffering more and more with chronic diseases from the western diet of grains. 

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I wish you would have read the study in details before making such comments. 

 

It was made clear there that  Mortality came mostly from very high infant mortality, accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. 

I wish you'd try to keep your religious views out of science. The study from 1830s DID NOT KNOW OF CANCER. So you, like someone pushing an ideology, inserted 'they didn't have cancer'.

LIAR.

Cancer is one of the OLDEST diseases of mankind and ALL animal kingdom. Its a disease that affects the ELDERLY far more than the younger population in ALL animal kingdom too. So yes, obviously with human lifespan on average exceeding 60 years for the first time EVER in human history that we know of, Cancer has exploded. DUH. 

 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Inuits had the worse medical system. They had almost no herbs against any infection, or any disease or any injury. 

Same with Lapps, Mongols, people on middle of nowhere islands, etc. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Then came the harsh conditions which caused a lot of accidents, ending up mostly in deaths.

Same with plenty of other harsh climate inhabitants too. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Please also remember that infant mortality rate was also higher in the European Countries in the 18th century and life expectancy was around 50 years too, despite the fact that Europeans were consuming the grains. 

Sure. But their lifespan was longer than that of people forced into the unnatural meat-heavy diet. That too is a fact. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And due to these harsh conditions, even today the life expectancy of inuits have not increased much, although they are consuming today the same diet as the rest of the westerners. 

The life expectancy of Inuits have improved massively due to access to modern medicine. Don't talk trash about people from my country that you have no idea about. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

The study showed clearly that Excluding infant mortality (and deaths due to the harsh conditions and non-availability of medical facilities), still about 25% of their population lived past 60. If we include the infant mortality, then even this number will increase much more from this 25%. 

 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And people living up to 100 years also proves that one could live up to 100 years even on high protein/fats diet without carbs. 

Sure. Some people can live just as long in sub-optimal environment. Its those some people who have stronger genes. Doesn't change the fact that carbs is how humans EVOLVED. We are predominant fruit & nut eaters through history. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

It was not only 200 years ago, but also the studies in the last century showed that Inuits suffered much less from the chronic diseases, but it started to change gradually as Inuits started to eat more and more like the Westerners. 

They suffer less from chronic diseases because they live less longer due to higher pressures from climate. DUH. Chronic diseases go up exponentially with age. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

For example this study making it clear: 

 

https://openheart.bmj.com/content/3/2/e000444.full

 

In one study from the late 1940s cited by DiNicolantonio, Eskimos in Greenland had a rate of heart disease that was four times lower than a comparable group in Finland. Other studies showed that carbohydrate consumption increased from a minuscule proportion of 2-8% in the traditional diet to 40% by the 1970s. Several other studies also recorded very large amounts of carbohydrates in the Eskimo population as the more modern diet became prevalent. It is these changes, argues DiNicolantonio, that explains the observed high rate of heart disease in modern Eskimos. “The rise in sugar intake paralleled the rise in heart disease in the Greenland Eskimo,”

 

 

In a short paper published in Open Heart James DiNicolantonio argues that there has been a large shift away from the traditional Eskimo diet containing high amounts of fatty fish and toward a modern western diet containing far more refined carbohydrates and sugar. This shift, he argues, explains the more recent reports showing higher rates of heart disease than had been earlier reported.

  

Yes. meaningless correlation. I can just as easily say that higher rate of cardiovascular disease in ALL population, including inuits is because we are NOT supposed to be a sedentary species and we've turned into one in the last 100 years. Also just as scientifically valid correlation i can quote scientific papers on. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Short life expectancy among Maasai is not due to carnivorous diet, but due to hight infant mortality and infections from parasites in that area and Maasai are used to constantly take herbal medicines in order to fight them. 

No. They have a shorter life expectancy than similar tribes who are omnivores with same struggles with infant mortality and disease. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Today Maasai are not eating their traditional diet, but eating like Westerners, with diet full of maize and grains and vegetables (while meat has become rare and they could not afford to eat meat as staple food). 

 

But despite this modern westerner diet, still their current life expectancy is in 40s. 

modern western diet is trash. DUH. Omnivore diet that is far more optimal are asiatic diets. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

There are no older detailed studies present about Maasai. Nevertheless, still scientists in last century found out that Maasai people also didn't suffer earlier with chronic diseases with their traditional diet. 

Yea coz populations that die young and do not sit around all day do not care about chronic diseases. 

24 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Today Maasai have less infant mortality rate, better medical conditions, but still their life expectancy has not increased, except this that they are today also suffering more and more with chronic diseases from the western diet of grains. 

 

False. Their life expectancy HAS increased due to access to better healthcare. Again, stop spreading lies to support your BS about carnivorous diet. 

Species homo sapiens is an omnivore who is able to eat virtually all meats but we evolved eating fruits and nuts as our PRIMARY source of nutrition. Hunter gatherers were 90% gatherer of berries and fruits and 10% hunters by consumed calories. I can literally throw the anthropology citation book you on this, so stop peddling lies about carnivor-ism because its your fad.

 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 The study from 1830s DID NOT KNOW OF CANCER. So you, like someone pushing an ideology, inserted 'they didn't have cancer'.

You become absolutely mad and it becomes totally impossible to discuss with you any thing. 

I already told you that it was not the study of 1830 which claims about cancer, but these are the much modern studies which pointed out that Inuits suffered less with the cancer and the cardiac and other chronic diseases, while the study of 1830 was about the life expectancy. That is why I wished once you come out of your silly attitude of yelling upon the others without even understanding what they are telling you.  

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Same with Lapps, Mongols, people on middle of nowhere islands, etc. 

If Lapps and Mongols could trade grains, why do you think they were unable to trade the herbs and medicines which are much more important than the grains? Please think before you write and start making lame excuses. 

And we were comparing life expectancy of earlier Inuits with the earlier westerners, and it was not much a difference while earlier westerners also had average of about 40 despite having access to many herbs and medicines and much less harsher conditions. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. But their lifespan was longer than that of people forced into the unnatural meat-heavy diet. That too is a fact. 

Don't take the facts out of your own pockets. Please provide the proofs. 

In 1830 study of Inuits, the average age (despite harsher conditions and lack of herbs and medicines) was above 43 years  (and it would increase if infant mortality rate is also counted in it). 

But in Europe the life expectancy was hardly 40 years in 1800 (link1 and Link 2 for scientific study). 

Actually this shows that Inuits of earlier centuries were living longer than the Europeans. This shows that their high Fat/Protein carb free diet was much optimal than the grain based diet of the Europeans. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

The life expectancy of Inuits have improved massively due to access to modern medicine. Don't talk trash about people from my country that you have no idea about. 

You are showing comprehension problems here. I was talking about increase of life expectancy as compared to the Westerners, and it is a fact that life expectancy of the Inuits has not increased so much as the westerners despite consuming the same diet as the westerners and having close to the same medical facilities as the westerners. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

They suffer less from chronic diseases because they live less longer due to higher pressures from climate. DUH. Chronic diseases go up exponentially with age. 

You are again making up things at your own and neglecting the clear studies by the Professors who were comparing the studies of 1940 and 1970 and coming to this conclusion that increase in the chronic diseases and 4 times more cardiac problems is due to the reason of shifting diet from traditional to western. 

I would rather believe in the scientific studies and their findings than your self made up claims. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

No. They have a shorter life expectancy than similar tribes who are omnivores with same struggles with infant mortality and disease. 

Any Proof of scientific study regarding this claim that other people in same areas are living longer than Maasai?

 

There is no proper studies of age expectancy of Maasai in 18th or earlier centuries. And sadly, continual development encroaching on their semi-arid grazing lands, poor supplies of clean water, lack of sanitation, non-existent medical care and high levels of waterborne disease all take their toll and compelling them for a westerner diet. 

 

And even we accept that other people in the same areas are living longer, still question remains why does the life expectancy of modern Inuit of today didn't increase, while even they are using grains and farmed vegetables. Do you have any answer to this? 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

modern western diet is trash. DUH. Omnivore diet that is far more optimal are asiatic diets. 

Strange. According to you, this same modern western diet (which consists of carbs from grains and farmed vegetables) increased the life expectancy in the west for many years. But when this same diet fails to increase the life expectancy of modern Maasai, then you start abusing the westerner diet and jumps to the asiatic diet. But why? You should first answer it why life expectancy of the modern Maasai not increasing as it increased int eh westerners. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Species homo sapiens is an omnivore who is able to eat virtually all meats but we evolved eating fruits and nuts as our PRIMARY source of nutrition. Hunter gatherers were 90% gatherer of berries and fruits and 10% hunters by consumed calories. I can literally throw the anthropology citation book you on this, so stop peddling lies about carnivor-ism because its your fad.

You seems not to be able to differentiate between Nuts/Fruits and Grains. 

Nuts/Fruits/Honey are totally Paleo and no problem with them, and even Inuits consuming them. 

But these are the carbs from Grains which started only 10,000 years ago with the cultivation, and we didn't evolve with them. 

[Muloghonto]

44 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

You become absolutely mad and it becomes totally impossible to discuss with you any thing. 

I already told you that it was not the study of 1830 which claims about cancer, but these are the much modern studies which pointed out that Inuits suffered less with the cancer and the cardiac and other chronic diseases, while the study of 1830 was about the life expectancy. That is why I wished once you come out of your silly attitude of yelling upon the others without even understanding what they are telling you.  

Yes because they have lower life-expectancy than rest of humanity and cancer affects the old people way more, so they have less cancer. How is this simple point lost on you ?!?

Quote

If Lapps and Mongols could trade grains, why do you think they were unable to trade the herbs and medicines which are much more important than the grains? Please think before you write and start making lame excuses. 

Yes. grains last forever compared to herbs and medicines. Natives here too had herbs and medicine. All humanity had herbs and medicine. What the natives of north america DID NOT have, is access to grains and root vegetables (farming). Ones in Eurasia did. 

Quote

And we were comparing life expectancy of earlier Inuits with the earlier westerners, and it was not much a difference while earlier westerners also had average of about 40 despite having access to many herbs and medicines and much less harsher conditions. 

No, the average westerner had a higher life expectancy in the 1830s than Inuits. Again, stop making stuff up. 

Quote

Don't take the facts out of your own pockets. Please provide the proofs. 

In 1830 study of Inuits, the average age (despite harsher conditions and lack of herbs and medicines) was above 43 years  (and it would increase if infant mortality rate is also counted in it). 

But in Europe the life expectancy was hardly 40 years in 1800 (link1 and Link 2 for scientific study). 

Europe also had way more wars, pestilence, disease etc too than bunch of people stuck on frozen tundra. 

Quote

Actually this shows that Inuits of earlier centuries were living longer than the Europeans. This shows that their high Fat/Protein carb free diet was much optimal than the grain based diet of the Europeans. 

False. It shows that higher fat & carb free diet is LESS optimal than omnivorous diet because Inuits are comparable to Lapps. 
You wanna compare them to people who had way more warfare, way more diseases etc. and not to a group that is pretty much exactly the same in every social behaviour - because they are all stuck on the same frozen tundra - with the only difference is, if a Lapp went 400 kms south, he could trade for grains, for Inuits they had to go 5,000 km south. DUH. 

 

Quote

You are showing comprehension problems here. I was talking about increase of life expectancy as compared to the Westerners, and it is a fact that life expectancy of the Inuits has not increased so much as the westerners despite consuming the same diet as the westerners and having close to the same medical facilities as the westerners. 

Because they live in far harsher climate, their life-expectancy is lower. And no, they DO NOT have access to the same medical facilities as westerners. Stop spreading lies. There is not a single cancer ward, heart surgery unit in entire Nunavut. They have to go to Alberta or Manitoba to access those. Most of the inuit community relies on airlift over 100s of kms for medical attention. Most of rest of Canada relies on 10 minute ambulance ride. 

Quote

You are again making up things at your own and neglecting the clear studies by the Professors who were comparing the studies of 1940 and 1970 and coming to this conclusion that increase in the chronic diseases and 4 times more cardiac problems is due to the reason of shifting diet from traditional to western. 

They have provided correlation. Not causation. I can also quote professors who think that heart disease has exploded due to sendentary lifestyle exploding. If you want evidence, feel free to ask. 

Quote

I would rather believe in the scientific studies and their findings than your self made up claims. 

Would you like scientific peer reviewed articles that blame our sedentary lifestyle as prime cause of explosion of heart disease and diet as secondary cause ? 

Quote

Any Proof of scientific study regarding this claim that other people in same areas are living longer than Maasai?

Yep. The lifespan of several amazonian hunter-gatherer tribes who are omnivorous is higher. Same with the omnivorous hutner-gathererers in neighboring Congo or Mozambique. 

Quote

There is no proper studies of age expectancy of Maasai in 18th or earlier centuries. And sadly, continual development encroaching on their semi-arid grazing lands, poor supplies of clean water, lack of sanitation, non-existent medical care and high levels of waterborne disease all take their toll and compelling them for a westerner diet. 

 

And even we accept that other people in the same areas are living longer, still question remains why does the life expectancy of modern Inuit of today didn't increase, while even they are using grains and farmed vegetables. Do you have any answer to this? 

The lifespan of modern inuits DID increase over their 1800s lifespan despite accounting for child mortality rate 

Quote

 

Strange. According to you, this same modern western diet (which consists of carbs from grains and farmed vegetables) increased the life expectancy in the west for many years.

Modern western diet is not same as what western people ate for tens of thousands of years till 100-200 years ago due to INDUSTRIAL FARMING. 
The average westerner eats more meat today than any of his ancestors ever did, by several orders of magnitude. 

Quote

But when this same diet fails to increase the life expectancy of modern Maasai, then you start abusing the westerner diet and jumps to the asiatic diet. But why? You should first answer it why life expectancy of the modern Maasai not increasing as it increased int eh westerners. 

How can you say it has not increased for the Masai in the same post you say that we have no data on masai life expectancy from 100 years ago ? 

Quote

 

You seems not to be able to differentiate between Nuts/Fruits and Grains. 

Nuts/Fruits/Honey are totally Paleo and no problem with them, and even Inuits consuming them. 

But these are the carbs from Grains which started only 10,000 years ago with the cultivation, and we didn't evolve with them. 

Sure. It doesn't change the fact that carbohydrates form the majority of human diet for 99% of our existence and meat was a side-dish, occasionally eaten, even by hunter gatherers. Reason i say MODERN western diet is inadmissible, is because its ONLY in modern western diet that mankind eats more meat than any other food item - for just around 100-150 years. So therefore, NOT our natural diet. And the effect is rise of cardiovascular diseases. 

ALL the traditional diet populations that live the LONGEST are omnivorous diets- such as Rhode islanders, etc. who eat mostly vegetables, fruits, nuts and grains and a minority consumption of meat. 

We as creatures are meant to eat meat sporadically and in minority quantity.That is our evolutionary history and no amount of meat propaganda will change that.

 

Stop lying again about the inuit diet. Inuits hardly eat any fruit and nuts and honey in their TRADITIONAL DIET. THey cannot grow them and nobody within 2000 km radius who grows them. 

 

This is the traditional inuit diet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine

 

Hardly ANY fruit and nuts in them, nevermind DOMINANT fruit and nut composition like our ancestors.

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

Peer reviewed scholarly article that proves major cause of chronic disease is lack of exercise:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4241367/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857522/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5788838/

 

 

So meat-fanatic's claim that its because of eating less meat = BS. Case closed.

 

[CSK Fan]

On 12/17/2018 at 10:33 PM, MechEng said:

He has a sixth sense embedded in his brain where he can detect facts by just looking at the image.

 

And it's not about Indian heritage here, the average soldier all over the world in 1300 must have had enough strength to deadlift 1000 pounds and it's believable. I shared this because I found it cool.

Ghanta. Human beings have only got taller, stronger. Living longer lives and being more healthy as time has progressed. From our food to nutrition everything has just got better

 

Some random tall tale doesn't prove anything. It's RIDICULOUS and laughable 

[rkt.india]

Hanuman had lifted a Mountain worth thousands of tons on his single hand, so why can medieval humans not lift just a ton of weight.

Edited December 24, 2018 by rkt.india

[Alam_dar]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Stop lying again about the inuit diet. Inuits hardly eat any fruit and nuts and honey in their TRADITIONAL DIET. THey cannot grow them and nobody within 2000 km radius who grows them. 

 

This is the traditional inuit diet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine

 

Hardly ANY fruit and nuts in them, nevermind DOMINANT fruit and nut composition like our ancestors.

 

In the summer season inuits people indeed gathered a plant foods such as berries (fruit), grasses, tubers, roots, stems, and seaweeds, but no grains. While Maasai did eat honey and nuts and fruits too. 

And despite your claims against the heavily meat based western diet, the people who have longest life expectancy are the westerners themselves, where Switzerland, Australia, Iceland, Sweden etc. coming in the first 10 positions, while Japan is no. 1 who are eating a lot of meat/fish too. 

 

[Muloghonto]

45 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

In the summer season inuits people indeed gathered a plant foods such as berries (fruit), grasses, tubers, roots, stems, and seaweeds, but no grains. While Maasai did eat honey and nuts and fruits too. 

Yes, in smaller quantities than the normal human diet. I repeat, the normal human diet is PREDOMINANTLY fruits and vegetables with MINORITY and OCCASIONAL meat consumption ( more fish for coastal people). Subsequently, when compared to similar populations who eat the more NORMAL diet- like amazonian rainforest tribes or Lapps, they have an INFERIOR life-expectancy. 

Quote

And despite your claims against the heavily meat based western diet, the people who have longest life expectancy are the westerners themselves, where Switzerland, Australia, Iceland, Sweden etc. coming in the first 10 positions, while Japan is no. 1 who are eating a lot of meat/fish too. 

 

Stop spreading nonsense lies out of your religious belief for meat. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Japan, South Korea and Singapore are 1,2 and 3 in Health-adjusted Life expectancy rating (ie, accounting for # of years of life spent without any chronic illnesses or with a health related disability). 
Israel is sitting at 5th. Thats 3 out of 5 Asian countries with little or no western food influences and the 4th being predominantly Asiatic cuisine with some European influence to it (as standard Israeli and Palestinian/Levantine arab cuisine is the same, with eastern european influences due to eastern european Ashkenazi jewish immigration to Israel, which is ironically much more starch heavy than western european diet). 

Clearly, Asian diet is superior. And it is because we are closer to our evolutionary diet. 

Also stop spreading lies about Japan being heavy meat eaters. They are not. 
Japanese actually eat very little meat in their regular diet. This i know, because i live in a city that is one of the best Japanese cuisines outside of Japan and there is hardly much meat there. 

Japan actually eats less meat than some sub-saharan countries and their meat consumption per capita is not even in the top 50 in the WORLD:

 

The average Japanese eats almost 3 times less meat per year than the average American. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption

Yes, they do consume a good chunk of fish, but not as much as you'd think either: while they consume 2.5x the fish Americans do on average, Japanese consume 53.7 kilos of fish per annum vs Americans who consume 21.7 kilos per annum.

https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/fish-consumption-per-capita/

 

As we can see, the Japanese on average consume about 50-75 kilos less meat than western diet but only consume about 20-40 kilos more fish per year than most western nations. 

The western nations also consume significantly more diary than Japan does, since Japan does not really do cheeses at all and milk plays a minimal part in their regular diet. 

 

here are milk figures:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/535806/consumption-of-fluid-milk-per-capita-worldwide-country/ 

 

This figure includes cheese, as the consumption is measured straightaway from the milk consumed IN the economy itself ( total milk production - export + import). 

 

Same story with South Korea - the #2 nation in healthy living. Not in top 50 either of meat consumption and while they consume slightly more fish & meat than Japanese, they are just +/- 3 kilos per head to the Japanese average. 

Oh and guess what ? THEY ALSO DONT DO CHEESE! 

So they fall even further behind European diet in animal protien consumption.

 

 

Sorry, the data is decisive. Humans who eat less meat than western diet and humans who make meat a small part of the diet are healthiest. This makes sense, because species homo sapiens, which we know for sure has existed for last 300,000 years or so, has spent 99.9% of its evolutionary history eating less meat than non-meat items by a significant margin. 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Ranvir]

The Japanese and Mediterranean diets may be healthy but these people are signicantly smaller than Northern Europeans.

[Rasgulla]

On 12/16/2018 at 7:46 AM, MechEng said:

Also it seems that soldiers were fed a diet of 2kg of rice and 1 kg mutton everyday to achieve such strength.

1kg mutton everyday to how many soldiers ??? 

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, in smaller quantities than the normal human diet. I repeat, the normal human diet is PREDOMINANTLY fruits and vegetables with MINORITY and OCCASIONAL meat consumption ( more fish for coastal people). Subsequently, when compared to similar populations who eat the more NORMAL diet- like amazonian rainforest tribes or Lapps, they have an INFERIOR life-expectancy. 

Stop spreading nonsense lies out of your religious belief for meat. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Japan, South Korea and Singapore are 1,2 and 3 in Health-adjusted Life expectancy rating (ie, accounting for # of years of life spent without any chronic illnesses or with a health related disability). 
Israel is sitting at 5th. Thats 3 out of 5 Asian countries with little or no western food influences and the 4th being predominantly Asiatic cuisine with some European influence to it (as standard Israeli and Palestinian/Levantine arab cuisine is the same, with eastern european influences due to eastern european Ashkenazi jewish immigration to Israel, which is ironically much more starch heavy than western european diet). 

Clearly, Asian diet is superior. And it is because we are closer to our evolutionary diet. 

Also stop spreading lies about Japan being heavy meat eaters. They are not. 
Japanese actually eat very little meat in their regular diet. This i know, because i live in a city that is one of the best Japanese cuisines outside of Japan and there is hardly much meat there. 

Japan actually eats less meat than some sub-saharan countries and their meat consumption per capita is not even in the top 50 in the WORLD:

 

The average Japanese eats almost 3 times less meat per year than the average American. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption

Yes, they do consume a good chunk of fish, but not as much as you'd think either: while they consume 2.5x the fish Americans do on average, Japanese consume 53.7 kilos of fish per annum vs Americans who consume 21.7 kilos per annum.

https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/fish-consumption-per-capita/

 

As we can see, the Japanese on average consume about 50-75 kilos less meat than western diet but only consume about 20-40 kilos more fish per year than most western nations. 

The western nations also consume significantly more diary than Japan does, since Japan does not really do cheeses at all and milk plays a minimal part in their regular diet. 

 

here are milk figures:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/535806/consumption-of-fluid-milk-per-capita-worldwide-country/ 

 

This figure includes cheese, as the consumption is measured straightaway from the milk consumed IN the economy itself ( total milk production - export + import). 

 

Same story with South Korea - the #2 nation in healthy living. Not in top 50 either of meat consumption and while they consume slightly more fish & meat than Japanese, they are just +/- 3 kilos per head to the Japanese average. 

Oh and guess what ? THEY ALSO DONT DO CHEESE! 

So they fall even further behind European diet in animal protien consumption.

 

 

Sorry, the data is decisive. Humans who eat less meat than western diet and humans who make meat a small part of the diet are healthiest. This makes sense, because species homo sapiens, which we know for sure has existed for last 300,000 years or so, has spent 99.9% of its evolutionary history eating less meat than non-meat items by a significant margin. 

 

 

I don't know which Tables you are reading and how you are reading. 

 

Japanese eat 46 kg of Meat and 57 kg (link) of Fish per year per capita. It makes over 103 kg of meat/fish per year, which means about 285 grams of meat/fish per day. 

 

Do you call this consumption of 285 grams per day "OCCASIONAL" and "Minimal"? In which world is so much meat/fish per day is counted as minimal and occasional?

 

Your tactics is to compare it with America and then then declare that Japanese are eating meat/fish only occasionally and minimally. 

 

Same is about South Korea and Singapore who are consuming 100 kgs of meat/fish per year per capita. 

 

Same is about Israel which is consuming about 100 kg of meat only per capita per year, plus 178 litres of milk. I don't know how much fish they consume. This is in no way minimal or occasional. 

 

And then your other tactics were to totally neglect the European Countries which also have very long life expectancy. These are:

(1) Iceland (with 86 kg of meat+ 88 kg of of fish, and 223 litres of milk),

(2) Switzerland (75 kg of meat+18 kg of fish, plus lot of milk and milk products which accounts to 315 Litres of milk per year per capita),

(3) Australia (with 111 kg of meat, and 26 kg of fish, 230 litres of milk). 

(4) Spain (97 kg of meat, 46 kg of fish, 178 litres of milk)

(5) Italy (91 kg of meat, 25 kg of fish, 256 litres of milk)

Same is about Sweden and France and Canada too. 

 

I wonder why you intentionally neglected these countries and their figures of high consumption of meat and fish. All of them are about first 10 when it comes to the life expectancy, and none of them are occasionally or minimally consuming meat/fish. 

[MechEng]

Alam dar and muloghonto would make excellent test match cricketers.

 

Alam dar trying to get muloghonto out and muloghonto not giving his wicket.

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I don't know which Tables you are reading and how you are reading. 

 

Japanese eat 46 kg of Meat and 57 kg (link) of Fish per year per capita. It makes over 103 kg of meat/fish per year, which means about 285 grams of meat/fish per day. 

 

Do you call this consumption of 285 grams per day "OCCASIONAL" and "Minimal"? In which world is so much meat/fish per day is counted as minimal and occasional?

 

It is outside the top FIFTY per capita meat+ fish+ milk consumption in the world. So it decisively proves your quote ' Japanese eat a lot of meat and fish' as WRONG. 

And yes, 285 grams a day is MINORITY diet in terms of mass and calorie intake.

 

 

Quote

Your tactics is to compare it with America and then then declare that Japanese are eating meat/fish only occasionally and minimally. 

They have #1 life-span in the world and their meat + fish consumption is outside the top 50 nations in the world. Gabon eats more meat and fish than Japan. 

Quote

Same is about South Korea and Singapore who are consuming 100 kgs of meat/fish per year per capita. 

 

Same is about Israel which is consuming about 100 kg of meat only per capita per year, plus 178 litres of milk. I don't know how much fish they consume. This is in no way minimal or occasional. 

 

And then your other tactics were to totally neglect the European Countries which also have very long life expectancy. These are:

(1) Iceland (with 86 kg of meat+ 88 kg of of fish, and 223 litres of milk),

(2) Switzerland (75 kg of meat+18 kg of fish, plus lot of milk and milk products which accounts to 315 Litres of milk per year per capita),

(3) Australia (with 111 kg of meat, and 26 kg of fish, 230 litres of milk). 

(4) Spain (97 kg of meat, 46 kg of fish, 178 litres of milk)

(5) Italy (91 kg of meat, 25 kg of fish, 256 litres of milk)

Same is about Sweden and France and Canada too. 

 

I wonder why you intentionally neglected these countries and their figures of high consumption of meat and fish. All of them are about first 10 when it comes to the life expectancy, and none of them are occasionally or minimally consuming meat/fish. 

I am pointing out the superiority of the Asian diet. This is why nations that are moderate consumers of meat and fish - outside the top 50 in the world - are way ahead of any european country in HALE life expectancy rating - which is directly your argument - the average lifespan of a person factoring in chronic illnesses and disabilities. 

 

Face it, we are not meant to eat more meat than fruits & veggies. Thats simple fact of our evolution that no amount of meat propaganda will override.

Yes, developed countries will have higher life expectancy than non-developed countries due to healthcare. As such, top 10,20 etc will all be developed countries. But facts show, the countries with the HIGHEST healthy living are the ones following the natural diet for humans - eating less meat and fish than fruits veggies and grains.  Your euro nation's diets are inferior - case closed. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, MechEng said:

Alam dar and muloghonto would make excellent test match cricketers.

 

Alam dar trying to get muloghonto out and muloghonto not giving his wicket.

Its funny you say that, because when i played cricket in my youth, i was the guy who was the high-school Jason Gillespie - fancied myself as a fast bowler but my blocking game was on par with the openers. or i was the 'blockathon wicketkeeper'. 15* in 55 balls kinda dude. Too bad i never learnt how to actually hit the ball except just swipe it in the way caribbean people say 'cane-cutter' to square leg. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Rasgulla said:

1kg mutton everyday to how many soldiers ??? 

this is why India has no sheep. Golconda soldiers ate it all in 3 months. 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Ranvir said:

The Japanese and Mediterranean diets may be healthy but these people are signicantly smaller than Northern Europeans.

And that is a bad thing because ?!? 

Tall people have far higher hip & knee problems than short people. Plus short people don't care about economy class cramped space in airlines. Tall people become big babies on 4 hr flights.