I watch a lot of YouTube videos and that exposes me to even more preview images of videos I don’t watch. One of the things that I very frequently see in previews of historical works is that men with no upper clothing have fantastic, well-developed, very visible abdominal and pectoral muscles. That’s shown with all cultures, races, and ages: ancient Africans, Norsemen (aka “Vikings”), American Indians, and even very early humans, including Neanderthals, to name a few.

I have more or less assumed that to have a “ripped” body like that requires extensive dedicated effort and doesn’t just naturally occur due to lack of body fat and living a rugged—even harsh—lifestyle. As I recall, photos of real modern men who are in very fit, good condition such as active duty Marines in Vietnam don’t commonly show such visible muscular development.

So, that’s my question: Am I right? Are such depictions of ancient or “primitive” men who didn’t have a continuous supply of protein supplements or even steroids and the time, opportunity, and facilities to constantly work to develop such musculature likely to be accurate?

I believe I probably know the answer, but it is a serious question, and I don’t like to answer my own questions. What say the authorities?

My son looks like the guys you describe. He is a personal trainer and spends a couple hours a day on his own workouts. Lots of gym time and targeted exercises. He could look a lot bigger and better, but he has always been steroid free.
He eats clean for the most part and exercises a lot. Most of it is specific exercises to develop specific muscles or muscle groups.
In that note, he has to look good, he’s a personal trainer and owns a gym. Who wants a PT that’s out of shape?

I am certainly no authority, but I’m pretty sure that everyone has some muscle structure, and no matter what that structure, it’s only visible if you have very low body fat. Probably an unhealthy or at least not ideal low level of body fat.

So this explains very fit people, ie marines, that don’t look like that. But it also means that primitive people may have looked like that; they had to be fit to survive, and most likely didn’t have the constant availability of calories to maintain much body fat. Just my educated guess.

Think about our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, the Chimpanzees and the Gorillas, they live in environments where they have no modern conveniences, and, at least at times, less food than they'd like, very much as our ancestors did. They are far more "in shape" than even the most elite athletes, and they certainly don't look "ripped."

It is window dressing, akin to applying lipstick and rouge.

I think that in ages past, people were in far better shape and far less sedentary than we are today, and thus were more muscular and less fat. But I think that what you are seeing, though, is a myth. It is what we would either imagine them to be or what we'd like them to be, so that is the way they are portrayed. And, a ripped Alley Oop looks/sells better than a fat Grog walking out of a cave.

Much like the peace loving Indians who were at one with nature, only killed what they could eat, and were good stewards of Mother Earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but people like to believe it so that is how they are portrayed.

I am not an expert on such things as 'ripped bodies' but I have dabbled in some forms of fitness to know some things for sure... for instance, it seems clear to me that the physiques in question are, plainly stated, an unnatural extreme. In order to achieve that goal one has to be extremely dedicated to both strict dietary intake (both in type and amount) and specific exercise styles.

Clearly it is possible, both with and without 'chemical assistance', but it certainly isn't a natural human state... I think that is evidenced by the unnatural methods needed to get there and those methods are largely, I think, only possible because are current society allows so much latitude and ease in the way we can survive.

To speak to the original question more pointedly, I think non-modern humans would more realistically (on average) be built like modern people who eat whole food based diets and have physically demanding jobs that keep them moving a lot... perhaps on the 'small' end would be someone who walks all day as part of their job (mail carrier with a walking route?) and on the strong/thick side perhaps someone like a roofer?

At the end, I don't think the portrayals you are talking about are accurate at all. To get there just takes way too much work and dedication and time... something I think is made possible by modern lifestyles and technology.

IMHO those images mostly have been embellished and probably quite a bit. It takes a very lean body to show such and to have such and maintain is no fun an maybe not even healthy for the long term plus it makes it more challenging to grow muscle from strength training due to risk of calorie deficit.

The Farnese Hercules clearly depicts a heavy weight strength athlete. The vasculature etc is too close to be imagined, and the muscles look like a heavy weight vs someone who is just lean.

I can't get an image to post, but I thought about the statue of David by Michelangelo, finished in 1504, and he's pretty ripped.

Sigfreund, as a young man I was a Peace Corps volunteer, one of the first group to ever be stationed in the country of Mauritania, on the coast of West Africa. You may be aware that Mauritania is probably the last country in the world to outlaw slavery, I think in the 1990's; but I'm sure it still goes on.
Anyway, my PC buddy and I worked in a tiny tent encampment building an earth dam. The bosses were scrawny Moors, a mixture of Arab and Berber stock. The workers--slaves, actually, were black Africans. They all had ripped bodies; enjoyed demonstrating their strength by lifting up a heavy sledge hammer by the end of the handle.
The Moors of course had guns, and the blacks did not.
Back to your question: these workers/slaves were pretty well nourished; while their muscles were very well developed just from hard labor, they did not have the kind of "definition" that bodybuilders have, because they didn't work to get their body fat down to 3%.

OK another experience in a different culture: we lived in Hawaii. Photos of Hawaiian fishermen from the end of the 19th century and early 20th show wiry bodies with not much muscle mass, but also notably no obesity.

Photos of American soldiers in WW II mostly show the same, I think: these draftees came from all walks of life. Some lumberjacks, some from the city. Their photos mostly show wiry type musculature rather than bulky or "ripped" muscles.

I conclude that the contemporary image of "manly men" as being transferred to men in the past is mostly false; BUT since until the advent of the Industrial Revolution much labor had to be done by hand (or by animals of course in many cases), there were likely classes of men--think sailors in the Royal Navy--who were forced to do very heavy work.

Another example comes to mind: have you been to Civil War museums? The uniforms were made to fit men who were quite slender.

Finally, we know that in countries like Sweden which have maintained records of height and weight of men for potential military service for centuries, men in the pre-modern era were probably very undernourished, and their height and weight quite a bit below that of modern Swedes.

Modern depictions exaggerate for effect; real historical figures were probably fit but not bodybuilder-level ripped.

Good comments so far, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
David by Michelangelo

I thought about classical art, and although men are usually depicted as being fit and muscular, even David doesn’t look like the images I see practically every day on the ’net. David’s physique would be the envy of most men these days, but probably not that of a truly dedicated “bodybuilder.”





And of course there have always been individuals who were exceptional in some way from most of their contemporaries, but I’m referring to depictions in which every single man matches the common definitions of “ripped” that I have found on the Internet. (I would post a picture of what I am referring to, but a brief search did not locate any images that might not infringe on a copyright.)

We live in a world of surplus food.

Today, save for people from the third world, you either have to want to look like that, or not want to eat more than 2,000 calories per day while having a non-sedentary life.

Compare that to pictures of just American men in WWII. Those guys were leeeeean, and compared to today, physically much smaller (shorter, with lower body weights). Why? Inadequate food growing up in the Great Depression.

To get ripped abs, or a ripped body in general take three things:

1. Hard work, be it dedicated in the gym or done under a broiling sun in the fields

2. Careful dietary habits, watching not only what you eat but how much you eat, all the time.

3. The one you can't control is genetics. If your genes are not for that kind of body, it matters not what you eat or how hard you work.

Besides just ultra-low body fat, another factor in the modern overexaggerated "bodybuilder" physique is serious dehydration.

Bobybuilders preparing for a competition, as well as actors preparing to shoot a shirtless scene where they want to appear ultra-ripped on screen, will dehydrate themselves for the days beforehand. Often with the aid of chemical diuretics.

It's reportedly miserable, to the point of hallucination and near-collapse.


There's also the fact that a large number of the biggest bodybuilders and "ripped" actors are using steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs, which wouldn't have been available back in ancient times.

"Six-pack abs" and other aspects of bodybuilding are for looks, not actual strength or stamina. Boxers and especially weightlifters don't have them, not to that extent.

Also I am sure a fair number of them are enhanced by Lightroom/Photoshop or just plain well applied makeup when done in a studio. Cameras and videos do not show depth very well and can be manipulated relatively easily.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
"Six-pack abs" and other aspects of bodybuilding are for looks, not actual strength or stamina. Boxers and especially weightlifters don't have them, not to that extent.

Bodybuilders, all oiled up and posing, are like show dogs at Westminster. They look good,but you won't see a working field dog or farm dog all foo-foo'd up like that.

Somebody here mentioned that the REAL strong men, like on the world's strongest man competitions, are stocky with VERY strong and thick middles. A bodybuilder sure looks strong, but a competitive strong man will out lift him any day. . .

Sure, a body builder has great definition, but is NOT representing peak human strength. Its like a racehorse (lean, pretty, fast) vs a draft horse (stocky and strong).

The really strong men like weightlifters and those in physically strenuous work are also hearty eaters.

I enjoy studying old photographs and have been shocked and impressed by many physiques I've seen in historical pictures. Lots of the old timers were flat ripped... mainly laborers from back in the day. I think it's always varied in humans based on activity level and calorie availability. Plenty of fat people throughout history.

NHLer Bobby Hull said he got fit working the family farm. Pretty ripped, but probably healthy VS those ridiculous looking models and such used today.
https://next-level-athletics.c...lden-jet-got-jacked/