Why’s the Old Man Smilin’? Cuz he can eat whatever
he damn well pleases. And…so can you. Read on…
[From the upcoming book Unleaded Conditioning:
Old School Principles for the Modern Warrior.]
Brace yourselves, we Modern Ones, this one is
gonna bruise egos a bit and leave no quarter for excuses.
Part 1 of this series can be read here: https://indigenousability.blogspot.com/2025/02/were-they-tougher-in-old-days-work-rate.html
For a podcast version of Part 1: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2fTpfVp2wi232k4y5EakVv?si=8eeDrVaRQGSXdWn4FcAJnw
The Men and Women that pushed across the
American Continent braved harsh environments, tumbling seas in what we would
now consider subpar craft were giants.
Take a visit to any historical museum, be it
one of New England Whalers, or the Baltimore Social Dress Display and one is
struck by how, well, tiny the preserved clothing is.
The clothes from the stays on women’s skirts
to the pants sizes of men from Founding Fathers to working cowboys shows a far
smaller human.
The reason why, usually takes one of two
courses.
Course One: “Of course, they were smaller then, Mark, we have access
to far better nutrition. We grow far more robust due to our better fare.”
Course Two: “Of course, they were smaller then, Mark, we have
access to far more calorie dense food and we are gluttons.”
Both courses are versions of the same
argument—nutritional intake.
One in the positive sense—we have access to more
and better food.
The other--we are “sinful” gluttons with
access to too much food, poor quality at that.
But… Are either of these similar “answers” true?
Stay with me.
The Average Height of the US Male Today
69” inches, that is, 5’ 7” tall.
The Average Female Today
63.8 inches.
That is, around 5’ 3”.
Average Height for the Tiny Ones of the 1800s?
Men: 5’6” tall.
Women: 5’3” to 5’4”
Wha?
So, as far as stature goes, when we look to
the mean height, the comparative average of both populations [the 1800s vs. the
2000s] we see a gain of an approximate mere inch for men and for women, well,
not much change, if any at all.
I repeat, in the realm of height we see
either zero to minuscule change.
So, why is it that the clothing of our
ancestors appears so, well, childlike?
Let’s Look to Weight
The Average US Male Weight in the 2000s
The average weight for men aged 20 and over
was almost 190 pounds between 1999 and 2002.
By the late 2000s and early 2010s, this
average continued to increase, reaching approximately 197.9 pounds in
2015-2016.
Here’s a more detailed look at this upward
trend.
- 1999-2000: 189.4 pounds
- 2001-2002: 191.2 pounds
- 2003-2004: 193.3 pounds
- 2005-2006: 195.7 pounds
- 2015-2016: 197.9 pounds
The Weight of the Average US Female in 1999-2000?
163.8 lbs.
We see the same upward tic in the female trendline
for each measured two-year increment.
Now let’s compare these weights to our
counterparts in the 1800s.
The Average Male Weight Was…
140 pounds.
Pre-1840 the average weight was 139 lbs.
Weight stays stable around 140 until we start
getting deeper into the 20th century.
So, a fairly stable ballpark of 5’7” and 140
pounds for the male of the species.
BTW—I wager some are “reasoning” ahead and
thinking, “See? I told you we’re fatter now. We simply eat too much.”
Stick with me, the story is more surprising
than that.
The Average Female Weight in the 1800s
112 pounds.
So, howzabout a little math.
Our 1800s Ancestors clocked in at the same
average height distribution—male and female [more so in the female.]
But when it comes to weight…
Men run an approximate 57 pounds heavier.
Women an approximate 51 pounds heavier.
57 pounds and 51 pounds heavier respectively.
That is approximate to grafting an entire
8-year-old human to your body.
When we realize that height is relatively unchanged
but the weight is markedly changed we often steer our explanation back to the
two prior explanations…
For review, they were…
Course One: “Of course, they were smaller then,
Mark, we have access to far better nutrition. We grow far more robust due to
our better fare.”
Course Two: “Of course, they were smaller then,
Mark, we have access to far more calorie dense food and we are gluttons.”
Same argument, both feel truthy. They sound
Like a Good Explanation But…
Is that mere assertion or perhaps, just
perhaps, neither of these explanations are correct.
Gosh, if there was only some way to discover
why we are so much, well, shall we say “beefier” today?
Here’s where many of us think this goes…
Calories
Do we eat more today than our 1800 forebears?
And if is so, one must assume it is
significantly so to pack on an additional 50+ pounds.
Average Daily Caloric Intake for the 21st-Century
American?
Well, according to the CDC and other bodies
that track such things, the US man and woman have been consuming the following caloric
intake.
Men: 2,500 calories per day.
Women: 1,771 calories per day.
These same research bodies that track such
things advise us that that intake has remained somewhat stable for the past 30
years—in other words no massive trend upward in calories over time-period
measured—yet the weight still trends upward.
I repeat-- bodyweight for both sexes trended
upward markedly in that same time period so, obviously, it is indeed a sign
that this caloric intake is simply too damn high.
Or…is it?
It’d be nice if we could compare caloric
intake with our cadre from the 1800s.
If only there were historical anthropologists
who did such things.
Oh, wait, there are.
And here’s what we know.
In the 1800s, calorie intake varied depending
on factors like occupation, region, and socioeconomic status.
However, and wait for it…
The guestimate average intake for both sexes
ranged between…
2,400 and 4,500 calories per day.
That is both genders combined to give us that
range.
Even with the combination we see the low-end
[in most cases the female end of the distribution] coming in at a mere 100
calories less than the average for today’s men.
I repeat if we ONLY use the low-end of the
1800 range of 2,400 we are seeing a mere 100 calorie change between men of both
centuries and a 629 calorie difference compared to today’s women—with today’s
women eating the fewer calories in comparison.
And keep in mind, these caloric differences are
at the low-end.
BTW- Just how much is 100 calories?
Glad
you asked, 100 calories is approximately…
·
1
cup of red seedless grapes or
·
1
large apple or
·
1
large hard-boiled egg
·
Or
1 banana or
·
4
walnuts.
·
So,
keep that in mind.
·
That
sound like that’s gonna pack on an additional 50+ pounds?
We can also minus out the old calorie count
being skewed as some early workingman diets were measured [navvies, railroad
workers, etc.] and often these folks were consuming 5,000 or more calories per
day but…
These high-count diets were excised from the measurement
plot to see what the average human was eating.
Now, here’s the explanation I am sure is
ready on many a lip.
“You know what it is, Mark? It’s all those
complex carbs. Carbs make ya fat.”
Let’s address that in two ways.
·
The
average American diet in the 1800s was carb heavy.
·
Mucho
gravy and biscuits, potatoes, grains and all that skeery stuff.
·
It
was also high in fat, particularly saturated fat.
To which I still hear this faint echo, “Yeah,
but our carbs now are, um, worse or something. And we have no control.”
So, broadly we consume fewer calories than
our 1800 forebears, forebears who were chowing down on all the Keto, Atkins,
and sundry diet-breaking no-no’s and we are over 50 pounds fatter because a bag
of Doritos has stronger juju than 2 plates of gravy and biscuits with 3 fried
eggs, a rasher of bacon, a side of sausage, dolloped with home preserves and washed
down with buttermilk?
Also consider this…The same research bodies that
track calorie counts for today’s humans also track macro-nutrients.
Not only are we eating FEWER calories than
these slimmer ones of the 1800s we are more diligent about “Eating smart!”
Consider this straight from the CDC source…
“While total calorie intake was relatively
stable, there were shifts in macronutrient sources. Carbohydrate
intake DECREASED for both men and women, while protein intake INCREASED.”
WTF!
You mean we eat less calories and eat “smarter”
macronutrient proportions according to state-of-the-art dietary science and yet
both genders are 50+ pounds heavier?
So, fewer calories and thanks to the proliferation
about dietary no-no’s people have become more cognizant and have leaned into
this “smart” info and eating far “wiser” than these slim ones from over 100
years ago.
I repeat, we eat fewer carbs today.
So, carbs make ya fat just like it made the
carb-gobbling folk of the 1800s.
Protesting Echo #3
“Their food was purer then. All our
additives today, you see what they do to us is…”
Hold your horses RFK Jr.
We’ve addressed the “adulterated” food issue
in a podcast episode.
But in short, for those who have not read
Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle and other exposes of food then and food now…
In the 1800s, food purity was significantly LOWER
than it is now, with widespread food adulteration and a lack of
regulations.
“Slice the green rotten stinky part off the
bacon left out on the porch, son, it’s still good.”
Foods were often adulterated with harmful
substances for profit, while modern regulations, such as the Pure Food and Drug
Act, ensure safer and more regulated food production.
The 19th century was largely unregulated when
it came to food, leading to widespread adulteration for profit.
Common Adulterants:
- Milk adulterated with formaldehyde or chalk.
- Meat “preserved” with salicylic acid or borax.
- Coffee containing ground bones and lead.
Today we sweat Red Dye #3.
Whereas food dyes in the 1800s often
contained…
·
Mercury
·
Lead
·
Copper
·
Arsenic
·
Vitrio
aka sulfuric acid.
So, I ask…does it seem possible that we are
on average 50+ pounds fatter because we eat fewer calories, are more cognizant
of micronutrients, and eat far far purer food?
Does this make any sense at all according to
the current take on how the calories-in/calories-out model postulates?
Do the facts jibe at all with the “Tweak
carbs/fats/proteins this way or that and all is solved” hypotheses?
Does this account for a full 50+ pounds
difference?
If diet is not the driver, and these numbers
seem to tell a different tale…
Is there something else occurring that would account
for the difference, something equally counter initiative?
Well, yes, yes there is.
We’ll tackle that in Part 3.
Subscribe to our free newsletter or blog to
see Part 3 upon release.
You can do so here.
Resources for Livin’ the Warrior Life
The Black Box Store
https://www.extremeselfprotection.com/
The Indigenous Ability Blog
https://indigenousability.blogspot.com/
The Rough ‘n’ Tumble Raconteur Podcast
Comments
Post a Comment