Article: 'Resizing the Big Men' (Andrew Mullinder)

DW every time you seem to move forward in thinking you take several steps back....I recommend study. OK for doubters I grew poor in a large family and Lima beans with some pork were normal Staples....we also had livestock we ate, fresh eggs etc...I am an avid survivalist and outdoorsman...
I was a survival instructor in the Army....eating well means rounded meals which back in those days were not available because they could not get fresh fruits and veggies out of season...you cannot grow food all year round and different foods require different climates....canning foods were.common but canned food loses its nutritional value when preservatives are added since they kill necessary enzymes if no prervatives are added enzymes break food down and essentially rot. Unless people had artificial climates to grow foods or travelled to those areas they did without....as far as fat people re read my earlier response.

If an athlete today has a nutritionist he can eat every nutrient they need for whatever purpose. Also remember people were not educated on the science and biology was hardly known then and until the government produced the food pyramid for the public nutrition was not understood by most except for traditional meals.....it is easy today to understand it but then people didn't know it was still a mystery. FDA was a fairly new agency that was still figuring out the science. Anyone who thinks you can eat as you please year round in a 4 season climate as they did then is delusional.

 

All of this means nothing in relation to my post. People today are still uneducated about nutrition. Like I said, the usa is the most obese country in the world. That fact hasn't change and clearly people are not getting the proper nutrition.

Nobody goes by the food pyramid. I never once ate according to that growing up. The FDA wasn't even needed back in the early 20th century because farmers weren't pumping the animals full of steroids and what not. You could trust your local farmer or grocer.

The problem with your argument is it assume that everyone today eats the proper nutrients. That's very far from the truth and I pointed out evidence.

Marciano and Louis grew up in the city in industrialized America. They had access to whatever foods they needed year round.

Sullivan and Johnson grew up in pre industrialized America. Its highly unlikely that Sullivan was malnourished as a youngster because he weighed about 200 lbs in his pro debut according to boxrec.

 

This content is protected

 

This thread is right up my ally, but it's after 1 a.m. and I'm too tired for a thoroughgoing response.

Three really quick points:

1) We should distinguish between malnourished and undernourished. Undernourishment refers to a raw insufficiency of calories and malnourished refers to lack of specific nutrients, as in B-12 or folic acid deficiency.

2) I can think of no clear reason, other than limited winter time access to fresh produce, that a nineteenth century American's diet would be even ever-so-slightly less well rounded than an average modern one.

3) I've read a lot of classic literature, and this often describes what daily life was like at the time the author was writing - including meals of course - and I've never been struck by how poorly people of the past are described as eating (unless of course the characters are poor). For instance in _Don Quixote_ there's a passage where Don and Sancho Panza have what is described as an unsatisfactorily *modest* breakfast of bread, cheese, onion (apparently onions were eaten raw like apples in the seventeenth century?) and apples. In _Crime and Punishment_ Raskolnikov has bread and meat even when wearing tattered clothes and living in a hovel, and when a female character is described as being six feet tall, there is no indication that this is considered extraordinary.

There is an amusing scene in _Vanity Fair_ where an upper class English family is served a pineapple (I do say!) for dessert after dinner, and it's pretty clear this is viewed as an exotic delicacy.
(There's also a bare knuckle match of sorts, but it's between two kids.)

 

The 20 sentence paragraphs written in green aren't helping dude.

I always ate whatever tf I wanted in public school. Never once had a fruit or vegetable. They are required by law to serve it but I wasn't required to eat it. The rotten apple they gave us always went straight into the dump. So you're wrong there, just because I went to ps, doesn't mean I ate according to the food pyramid. Even if I did, one meal a day wouldn't change much.

"Sullivan being 200lbs means nothing it has nothing to do with the original topic of genetic potential and proper diet.....not starving does not mean you are getting all your nutrition....again a little slower......in the old days they had no knowledge of nutrition, biology or genetics and the athletes had no way of knowing how to advance their strength and size because they had no way to know"

What nutrition are you saying Sullivan didn't get? Are you saying he didn't eat any apples or fruits and vegetables? He didn't eat enough fish? It doesn't really matter whether he did or not. Let me break it down for you real simple like. You are saying that back then they didn't eat the proper nutrients because they didn't know about them. You are saying that today people do eat the proper nutrients because they know about them. What I am saying is people today still eat like sh*t. That's an irrefutable fact. Kids today are eating cocoa puffs for breakfast and no salad at all with dinner. Rarely do they eat a salad. It's not that common. At school the diet is even worse. They serve hot dogs (processed meat) and some disgusting side that never gets eaten. Whatever picture of a perfect diet that goes on at school, that you have, is false.

The rest isn't anything I didn't already say. You are literally just stealing from my previous posts. I said that animals today are being fed crap. If we go by your logic then people today are underdeveloped because they are still malnourished.

Please write in paragraphs grouped together by topic. It's incredibly annoying to have to that much read green text with very poor grammar.

 

North koreans are on average significantly shorter than south koreans so i think its fair to say that nutrition has a measurable impact on adult height

 

The author is a fool, you can't change the skeletal structure of people for the heck of it.
And adding weight doesn't make a fighter better, it has to be the right type of muscle weight, not fat.
For example, Ali at 212-215 was much better than Ali at 225 pounds.

 

The rest isn't anything I didn't already say. You are literally just stealing from my previous posts. I said that animals today are being fed crap. If we go by your logic then people today are underdeveloped because they are still malnourished.

Please write in paragraphs grouped together by topic. It's incredibly annoying to have to that much read green text with very poor grammar.[/QUOTE]

Ok DW you are now on the annoying halfwit pest category like you are with everyone else.....

You sound like a kid and typical response with others who have nothing to add. This is a boxing board not a college class proper grammar does not apply the content is the point.

You seemed like someone with the potential for reasoning but your responses are like a 15 yr old kids reasoning sorely lacking knowledge.

 

Ok Mendoza I thought you were better read than that......the human body is not spontaneous it requires water, protein, calcium and other minerals as it grows. If it is denied everything it needs or some of the nutrients while the skeleton is growing do you suppose the skeleton just grows the same without them? The brain and nervous system requires certain things....muscles require certain things to grow and function if they are denied will the grow as strong as they could be?
Certainly you understand what happens to the body without water or a protein heavy diet causing gallstones or rickets being caused by deficiencies or blindness or anything that is deformed is normally caused by a denial of key nutrients? How can the growth system work without food...ever heard of beri beri....

 

Now you aren't even putting together an argument. You're just talking sh*t. Before this gets out of hand lets just note that you are the one who is going off on this tangent, not me.

You have no facts to back up your claims so you just resort to personal degradation. That's a clear sign you have been disproved. I don't care so much about what you say but how you say it. Writing 20 sentences about 5 different ideas is extremely annoying especially when written in green.

You're the only one here who has me on some "annoying pest half wit category", maybe one or two other posters too but posting opinions will do that because not everyone has the same opinion and some folks just can't handle that.

You're posts are played out. Don't bother responding, this conversation is done.

 

Are you saying Louis, Marciano, and other smaller heavyweights are they way they are because they did not drink enough water or eat enough protein?

 

Only because their crazed leader is jealous of anyone taller than him. Look--I get it a malnourished person isn't going to grow as tall, but I don't see any heavyweight champion starving as children and this author is adding 4" to pretty much anyone born pre 1950.

 

You know that was not what I was saying Mendoza.....don't nitpick my response and twist it.

What I said and have always said is the science is solid the authors adding 4" in height to these particular athletes is not reasonable.....but the idea of maybe an 1" maybe thicker bones heavier tendons and muscles is expected.

There are cases of identical twins as you know they have identical DNA raised separately but different results from different diets and circumstances......a slight difference in defects, heights etc....identical genetic clones raised together are closer to equal in such things.

 

"Are you being stupid on purpose?" you could have stopped there..but trust me hes half troll half dummy( no offense Dago)

 

Who you callin' a Dago?