Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Say the Future Looks Bleak For Our Bones

HughPickens.com writes Nicholas St. Fluer reports at The Atlantic that according to researchers, our convenient, sedentary way of life is making our bones weak foretelling a future with increasing fractures, breaks, and osteoporosis. For thousands of years, hunter-gatherers trekked on strenuous ventures for food with dense skeletons supporting their movements and a new study pinpoints the origin of weaker bones at the beginning of the Holocene epoch roughly 12,000 years ago, when humans began adopting agriculture. "Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter—more fragile, if you like—bodies. It started when we adopted agriculture. Our diets changed. Our levels of activity changed," says Habiba Chirchir. A second study attributes joint bone weakness to different levels of physical activity in ancient human societies, also related to hunting versus farming.

The team scanned circular cross-sections of seven bones in the upper and lower limb joints in chimpanzees, Bornean orangutans and baboons. They also scanned the same bones in modern and early modern humans as well as Neanderthals, Paranthropus robustus, Australopithecus africanus and other Australopithecines. They then measured the amount of white bone in the scans against the total area to find the trabecular bone density. Crunching the numbers confirmed their visual suspicions. Modern humans had 50 to 75 percent less dense trabecular bone than chimpanzees, and some hominins had bones that were twice as dense compared to those in modern humans. Both studies have implications for modern human health and the importance of physical activity to bone strength. "The lightly-built skeleton of modern humans has a direct and important impact on bone strength and stiffness," says Tim Ryan. That's because lightness can translate to weakness—more broken bones and a higher incidence of osteoporosis and age-related bone loss. The researchers warn that with the deskbound lives that many people lead today, our bones may have become even more brittle than ever before. "We are not challenging our bones with enough loading," says Colin Shaw, "predisposing us to have weaker bones so that, as we age, situations arise where bones are breaking when, previously, they would not have."

74 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Lazy farmer by twitnutttt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, because being a farmer is such a cushy gig.

    1. Re:Lazy farmer by McGruber · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, because being a farmer is such a cushy gig.

      Modern farm tractors are equipped with air-conditioned cabs and stereo systems -- Farming (in the first world) is a lot cushier than it used to be!

    2. Re: Lazy farmer by MemeRot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "pinpoints the origin of weaker bones at the beginning of the Holocene epoch roughly 12,000 years ago, when humans began adopting agriculture". This doesn't have anything to do with tractor farming.

    3. Re: Lazy farmer by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But it does raise a serious issue - they're studying changes that don't necessarily reflect the selective pressures of present-day life.

      Think about it: what are the leading causes of death for people in the prime breeding age (15-34)? Car accidents - by a good margin. So isn't this significant selective pressure to beef up the neck against whiplash, the skull against forehead impact, survival during significant blood loss, etc?

      #2 is suicide. I don't know how this rate has changed over time or whether the methods modern humans choose for attempts are more effective than would have been chosen in the past. For example, while men commonly turn to firearms, which are a very effective way to commit suicide, women more often turn to prescription medication overdoses as a method, which overwhelmingly fails.

      #3 is poisoning. While humans have always been around poisons, the sheer number that we keep in our houses, most of types that we didn't evolve to, suggests that this may be a stronger selective factor now than it was during our agrarian days, perhaps comparable to that when we were hunter-gatherers or worse.

      #4 is homicide. We've definitely gotten a lot better at that, a person is far more likely to die from an intentional gunshot wound than a beating or stabbing. Selective pressures: surviving blood loss, mainly. Stronger, thicker bones may help in against low velocity penetrations.

      #5 is other injuries. Again, we're not as likely to suffer from, say "crushed by a mastodon" as an injury, but we've developed plenty of new ways to get killed or maimed in our modern lives.

      Then it gets more complicated on the basis that the issue isn't just about survival of the individual, but their social group as a whole, so even nonbreeding members can have a major impact...

      --
      I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
    4. Re: Lazy farmer by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      This would only work if everyone was constantly subjected to whiplash. The vast majority of people will never experience head trauma. And in increasingly lower numbers as cars get safer. In the 10,000 or so years for natural selection to show up, it will make no difference.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re: Lazy farmer by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Actually here are the real numbers. GP is pretty close, though.

      It lumps all accidents together, I couldn't find a breakdown of them. But I am willing to be that car accidents are the vast majority of them.

      1. Accidents (over 37% of all deaths in this range)
      2. Suicide
      3. Homicide
      4. Cancer
      5. Heart Disease
      (HIV is #6 for the 25-34 group)

      Cancer and Heart Disease are #1 and #2 overall. Those will tend to get almost everyone in the end. If you manage not to die young.

      Now, comparing with the 2002 data, a large drop in accident deaths in the 15-24 group, while 25-34 group went up. The total for both groups is lower, though. I am going to go out on a limb here and say this is due to cars getting safer, and not teenagers getting smarter. :)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re: Lazy farmer by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not every hunter-gatherer got crushed by a mastodon either - that doesn't mean it wasn't a selective factor in tribes that hunted them.

      --
      I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
    7. Re:Lazy farmer by memnock · · Score: 2

      The article does not say that the farmer or farming itself causes weaker bones. The article implicates the societal impact of farming, i.e. food being more available and thus no need for the vigorous activity associated with hunting and capturing food, led to more people being more sedentary than before and thus loosing bone density in subsequent generations.

    8. Re:Lazy farmer by lightbounce · · Score: 1

      The abstract says "Thus, the low trabecular density of the recent modern human skeleton evolved late in our evolutionary history, potentially resulting from increased sedentism and reliance on technological and cultural innovations."

      The authors obviously know nothing about the history of agriculture. It wasn't until about 150 years ago that technology finally improved farming to the point where the dawn to dusk drudgery was reduced. Until then farmers easily walked as far as hunter-gatherers everyday, and probably butchered more animals (another task requiring great strength). Until the late 19th century almost everybody worked on a farm, so there wasn't nearly enough time for evolutionary changes to occur.

    9. Re:Lazy farmer by lightbounce · · Score: 1

      Yes, farmers today spend some time in modern farm equipment. But most of that is only during the few weeks of planting in the spring and harvesting in the fall. The rest of the time it's still a very physical, demanding job. Try doing a major overhaul on a tractor or rounding up cattle for branding and vaccination if you think modern technology makes farming life easy.

      But all the changes of modern agriculture happened too recently to have any evolutionary effect. Even with an ox or horse pulled plow, it still takes a great deal of strength to plow a field, and you walk just as far. Harvesting with sickles is still physically demanding. And at least 90% of people lived on farms until at least the middle of the 19th century.

    10. Re: Lazy farmer by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Presumably, it was enough of a selective factor among mastodon hunters that they tended to breed people tough enough to be stepped on by a mastodon and live to tell the tale?

      Thought not.

      Not enough people get into auto accidents, much less die of them, to have much impact on whatever traits are being selected for via natural selection.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re: Lazy farmer by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Selective pressure is pressure if someone fails to breed as a result of the selective pressure.

      For example, in the bacteria experiment it took them 3 different mutations in combination and tens of thousands of generations but they still eventually developed new beneficial abilities.

      Bottom line, Everyone doesn't have to be constantly subjected to whiplash.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:Lazy farmer by nobodie · · Score: 1

      And, the "farmer" no longer sits on the tractor, it is an immigrant laborer. The farmer sits in his office and deals with numbers while, according to this, his bones weaken. THe immigrant workers are on their feet all day, in and out of the tractor etc, etc.

      Not at all like the old days. I remember (excuse the ramblings of an old man) working on a woman's house when one of my men stopped us and said he could hear someone calling for help. We honed in on the call and saw a tractor that looked parked in a field a quater mile away. Running over there we found an old man (in his 70s) who had been pulling a stump with his tractor when the stump pulled and the tractor big wheel ran up his leg and knocked him down. It was still in gear and he was holding it from running over him completely just by sitting up. We got it off and him out, he got up, shook himself off and got back on the tractor to get back to work with a "thanks for the hand!"

      Not too many farmers like that left today.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. Evolutionary tradeoffs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... what we get in weaker bones, we get in more refined minds (aka sitting and reading, researching, etc). Now some may laugh at this idea in the modern era, but you have to remember you only have so much time and energy as an organism. It'd be interesting to know whether bones needing lower maintenance/energy has some pro's instead of just cons.

  3. Somewhere, ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... something went terribly wrong.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Re:just do strength training by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Funny

    Use multi-joint barbell exercises like squats and deadlifts. They build bone density and stave off the effects of osteoporosis.

    Seriously? You are suggesting weight training to Slashdotters? Well, I suppose they could order the weights on-line and have them delivered to the basement, but could mom carry them down the stairs?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  5. 3D printers to the rescue by marciot · · Score: 2

    3D printed replacement skeletons to the rescue! Installation is a bitch, but you only have to do it once.

    1. Re:3D printers to the rescue by hitmark · · Score: 2

      Exoskeleton, no need to install anything.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:3D printers to the rescue by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Nanite deposited titanium weave?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    3. Re:3D printers to the rescue by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      you only have to do it once.

      Tell that to Miles Vorkosigan. You can't replace a skeleton all at once; you have to do it piecemeal. They'll have to do it *lots* of times, a few bones at a time.

    4. Re:3D printers to the rescue by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The problem is the lack of printed bone marrow

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Re:just do strength training by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you have stereotypes that may not stand up to reality. Plenty of slashdotters and IT geeks exercise. Even more important than the weight training is cardiovascular health: power walk, jog, run, or swim, etc.

  7. Obesity by Frans+Faase · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe the added weigh of obesity, will cause more force on our bones and compensate for the lack of it by moving less.

  8. No, I refuse to believe this nonsense by jonfr · · Score: 1

    I refuse to believe this nonsense. Since this type of doom and fear mongering has been going on now for many years now. It never comes true and it never is going to come true. If doom is going to happen, it is going to happen and nothing can be done about it and I am not sure if scientist are going to be the first one to know about or figure out what to do about it once the time comes, if it ever comes to start with. Since the human race has the chance of surviving as a species for the next 500 million years (with minor evolutionary changes in the process).

    1. Re:No, I refuse to believe this nonsense by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are completely right. It is complete nonsense. I doubt a 'scientist' is behind it, more likely an idiotic reporter. Like the idiots who proclaim every few decades that red heads will die out because the gene is recessive.
      The same logic could be applied to cows or any cattle ... poor beasts no longer hunted by predators, no longer towing wagons ... their bones must be in an utter mess!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re: No, I refuse to believe this nonsense by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      "It never comes true and it never is going to come true.". It apparently happened 12,000 years ago

    3. Re: No, I refuse to believe this nonsense by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the article claims the bones becoming weaker and weaker into the future to the point where you'll break your bones when you try to play golf for the first time. about.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  9. Age prior to dyine by jraff2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX. The new humans live to 70 - 100 so there is pleanty of time for the new humans to break or splinter the old bones. The older humans didn't live long enough or stress the older bones nearly as much.

    1. Re:Age prior to dyine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Humans regularly lived to their 50s and 60s as far back as the paleolithic. Average life expectancy numbers are misleading because the high rate of infant mortality and death during childhood. A hunter-gatherer who can survive long enough to be a teenager is quite likely to live to old age, but it's getting that far that's the tricky part.

    2. Re:Age prior to dyine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is not how averages work. Yes, the average age was 20-30 years but that includes lots of children, newborns, and possibly war deaths (depending on which statistics you are looking at). Generally speaking if you lived to puberty then you had a reasonable chance to hit 60+ just like modern humans.

      Also consider the introduction and increasing consumption of alcohol. It has significant calcium reducing properties.

    3. Re:Age prior to dyine by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is nonsense. The upper edge of mankinds life span did not change at all the last 40,000 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Age prior to dyine by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX.

      Bull. The Bible itself tells us the full span of a man's years is "threescore and ten". That's from the Book of Psalms, and was probably written around 700 BC.

    5. Re:Age prior to dyine by John+Bokma · · Score: 2

      If we look again at the estimated maximum life expectancy for prehistoric humans, which is 35 years, we can see that this does not mean that the average person living at this time died at the age of 35. Rather, it means that for every child that died in infancy, another person might have lived to be 70. The life expectancy statistic is, therefore, a deeply flawed way to think about the quality of life of our ancient ancestors.

      source: http://www.ancient-origins.net...

    6. Re:Age prior to dyine by jma05 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any statistics on this?; like life expectancy at puberty through history?

    7. Re:Age prior to dyine by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Informative

      The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX.

      Bull. The Bible itself tells us the full span of a man's years is "threescore and ten". That's from the Book of Psalms, and was probably written around 700 BC.

      Not that I agree with the GP's 20-30 numbers, but I think he refers to humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago, not in relatively recent biblical times. You deleted his point that humans who lived more recently (which I parse to mean starting around biblical times) lived up to 70-100 years. I think those larger numbers are likely true of earlier humans too, but the premature mortality of those times cuts the average down.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Age prior to dyine by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

      This isn't much, but it does have U.S. in 1850.... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/...

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    9. Re:Age prior to dyine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX. The new humans live to 70 - 100 so there is pleanty of time for the new humans to break or splinter the old bones.
      The older humans didn't live long enough or stress the older bones nearly as much.

      That is incorrect. Older Humans tended to die young due to disease, miscarriage, war, etc. Typically if they lived passed 20 they lived to 70-100 too.

  10. Solution: adamantium by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1, Funny

    If we infuse our bones with adamantium, we get stronger bones *and* neato claws.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:Solution: adamantium by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Wolverine had the bony claws and regeneration first (even as a child). They were covered with adamantium much later.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. Re: just do strength training by fldc · · Score: 1

    Right! Half the people in my club are somewhat geeks, bodybuilding is as important to me as coding and electronics. ;-)

  12. NOT a problem with VIAGRA by Bob_Who · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....Oh, oops, I thought it said BONERS.

  13. Our Forefathers were Idiots by ichabod801 · · Score: 2

    What were they thinking, trading slightly more fragile bones for longer life spans, less dangerous lifestyles, philosophy, sanitation, modern medicine, equal rights, going to the moon, labor saving devices, the internet, quantum physics, cell phones, the internal combustion engine, and digital watches?

    1. Re:Our Forefathers were Idiots by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      What were they thinking, trading slightly more fragile bones for longer life spans, less dangerous lifestyles, philosophy, sanitation, modern medicine, equal rights, going to the moon, labor saving devices, the internet, quantum physics, cell phones, the internal combustion engine, and digital watches?

      You forgot to mention laying the groundwork which would enable facebook. What were they thinking, indeed...

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  14. Challenging my bones by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    We are not challenging our bones with enough loading,

    I do. That's why I still use a Compaq Portable for my "laptop". It weighs about 28 lbs. (Joking aside, I actually had one of these - or something really, really similar - at the first company I worked for in the late 1980s.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Challenging my bones by hoborg1 · · Score: 1

      Makes me wanna start lugging around my Osborne 1 again.

  15. Density vs fractures by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is amazing how researchers are able to ignore results from other fields. We know that bone density is not a good predictor for fractures. On the other hand, we know that dairy product consumption is correlated with higher density and fractures.

    There is no consensus on how to explain that, but one interesting theory is that dairy products promote bone metabolism (hence the higher density) up to renewal exhaustion (hence the fractures).

    1. Re:Density vs fractures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Squishy things flex, stiff things crack. It's not rocket science how bone density and fractures correlate.

    2. Re:Density vs fractures by phantomfive · · Score: 3

      we know that dairy product consumption is correlated with higher density and fractures. There is no consensus on how to explain that,

      If you're talking about this study, there is no consensus that milk causes fractures other than "looks interesting, more study needed." Even the authors say that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Density vs fractures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What fields claim that bone density doesn't predict risk of fractures? There's a reason we do bone densitometry studies for people at risk of osteoporosis. Obviously they won't tell an individual whether or not they're going to have a bone break in the next 6 months, but for a population they're great for picking out who needs to pay more attention to their step and gait, and who could benefit from a bit of a bisphosphonate to sturdy up dem bones.

      Read any reputable meta-analysis since the 80's and you'll find evidence supporting this. I found a few studies correlating fractures with decreased trabecular bone as well, especially with spinal compression fx's. About the only controversy you'll find on this point is on which groups should have densitometry performed.

      Anyway, looking at the study results, if our trabecular bone really is weak and pasty compared to our ancestors', then yea, we're probably likely to suffer more breaks. Lots of possible confounders, as others have pointed out.

      Some references, though I'm not at work so I can't access the premium shit.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8634613
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02554913
      http://www.cof.org.cn/pdf/2009/1/International%20Society%20for%20Clinical%20Densitometry%202007%20Adult.PDF (potentially biased guideline article)

  16. Re: just do strength training by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Classic nerds vs. geeks. Nerds are happy to be sacks of goo because exercise is not interesting to them. For geeks, everything is an optimization problem - the meatsuit gets no pass.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  17. Re:Flight by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter—more fragile, if you like—bodies.

    Sweet! Maybe we will also start evolving wings and finally be able to fly without manufactured air foils! I for one intend to sit on the couch more and make this happen faster!

    If humans could fly, we'd consider it exercise and never do it.
    -- origin unknown

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  18. Re:So.... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    ...those 16oz wrist curls and refrigerator door pulls (to get 1 nacho at a time) I've described before will soon take effect. It's all about intensity.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  19. Re:NASA to the rescue by redwraith94 · · Score: 2

    As I understand it the lessened gravity is what causes bone density loss. The mechanism I saw argued once is supposedly that the apatite crystals in bone are somewhat piezoelectric, and that mechanical stress is 'detected' by the cells via the slight amounts of electricity that are generated in the bone during stress. This triggers the cells to increase bone density, and strength. It would explain why electrical stimulation of bone works, and apparently ultrasonic stimulation also works.

    So it really doesn't come down to exercise, rather we can just sit in an ultrasonic recliner (maybe a bath?), and take some calcium pills.

    --
    I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  20. Weaker bones and refined minds are not related by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... what we get in weaker bones, we get in more refined minds ...

    There are a lot of evolutionary trade offs, but weaker bones and refined minds are the two things that do not trade off against each others

    A refined mind (for example, such as the one in Homo Sapiens Sapiens) consumes 20% - 25% of the total energy intake of the individual

    To obtain a more refined mind one does not need to make one's bone "weaker" --- on the other hand, supercharging the intake process, for example, eating meat instead of digesting straws --- can supply the additional "energy consumption" that a refined mind needs

    If there is one trade off for weaker bones is that we humans are becoming better swimmers

    As our bones become weaker, our bones become lighter, and lighter folks can float/swim more easily in the water

    It is thus no surprise that the vast majority of those who have won Olympic swimming gold medal are mostly from the Caucasoid tribe --- for the Caucasoids have (relatively speaking) the lightest bones among all the humans

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Weaker bones and refined minds are not related by itzly · · Score: 1

      Thinner skull bones leave more room for the brain. And stronger bones take more energy, not just in building/maintenance of the bone itself, but also as additional weight you have to move around all the time, so there's definitely an energy related trade-off between bigger bones or a bigger brain.

    2. Re:Weaker bones and refined minds are not related by itzly · · Score: 1

      Thinner skull bones only mean one thing - earlier death !

      Everything is a matter of balance. You can die from blows to the head, or you can die from being too slow to outrun an enemy/predator because your head is overly heavy. Depending on the lifestyle, you get a different optimum skull size. Also, the invention of helmets and other protective gear has allowed humans to survive better with thinner skulls.

      The skull can expand outward, and has already expanded through the evolutionary process

      Exactly, and for that reason, human childbirth is a slow and painful process with a high death rate. It also required human babies to be born earlier in the gestation, resulting in relatively helpless infants who take a year before they can walk. It is obvious that bigger and thicker skulls would cause even more problems.

    3. Re:Weaker bones and refined minds are not related by khallow · · Score: 1

      There's no real correlation between skull thickness and gestation. Infants have soft spots (fontanelles) between the bones of the skull that allow the brain to grow faster than bone after birth, precisely because humans need a relatively thick skull protecting a large brain. Child birth would be impossible otherwise.

      A "soft spot" increases risk of head injuries. If there's no "real" correlation, then why did you observe that child birth would be impossible without this risky adaptation?

      There would be no advantage in a thinner skull.

      Except making child birth even more possible and less dangerous.

    4. Re:Weaker bones and refined minds are not related by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, enjoy having the intellect of a dog or cat I guess.

      My point was the obvious. The previous poster had ignored that there were tradeoffs to greater intelligence. Just because humanity has evolved a means for reducing the harm from a particular problem of the human body, doesn't mean the problem never existed. Instead, it indicates the opposite, that the problem was significant enough to create selection pressure for the means to evolve.

  21. Study Written by a non-farmer by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    Clearly this study was written by someone who doesn't actually do agriculture in traditional ways as it has been done for the past tens of thousands of years. Farming, be it planting or herding, is not a cushy job. It's hard, vigorous work. I farm. I have dense bones as shown by X-rays I've had. I've also broken a lot of bones. Farming is hard, vigorous work and sometimes we break bones, just like we did doing hunting and gathering too. And what may be really surprising to those sitting in the ivory towers is we don't need to go see a doctor for a mere broken bone. It heals. Old skeletons show this, not just human or even primate but even T-Rex.

    1. Re: Study Written by a non-farmer by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      What you fail to comprehend is that they are claiming that the farming was easier on the body than the lifestyle it replaced. It does not say that farming was easy, just that it was easier.

    2. Re: Study Written by a non-farmer by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Oh, I understand but I disagree having experience with both.

    3. Re: Study Written by a non-farmer by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Unless you've lived as a hunter-gatherer I'm not sure why you're saying you've lived as both. Working in Ag is about the hardest job we still have as a human being but it's still an awful lot easier on the body than being a hunter-gatherer.

    4. Re: Study Written by a non-farmer by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      You still don't get it. Nobody is saying that farming is not hard work or that it's even less hard work than the hunter/gatherer. Bone gets more dense from specific physical activity and not from all, for example running (which hunters do more than farmers) gives denser bone than walking (which farmers do more) and that is even if you walk for hours upon hours carrying heavy equipment vs running just a few hours.

      What you also obviously miss completely is that it's a well established fact that the bones got less dense when man begun to farm those 12000 years ago, it's measured objective facts, not just logical deductions.

      To make another analogy, if you weight train in a way that exposes your bones with compression power like squats and deadlifts then you also get denser bone than the pecs and biceps boy next to you that performed two bazillion sets to failure and thus exercises a hell of a lot more than you did.

    5. Re: Study Written by a non-farmer by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      So you experienced both and measured your bone density after each and determined that the physical activity from farming gave you denser bones than hunting animals with say a spear. Ok it was my bad that I wrote "easier on the body" when I really meant that farming puts less strain on the body of the type that promotes bone density than the type of strain that you get from being a hunter/&gathered 12000 years ago. It has nothing to do with which is harder or easier.

  22. Wishful thinking by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    The conclusion that bone density seemed to change about the time that the last ice age ended and humans became more adept at agriculture doesn't necessarily mean that there is a correlation and one caused the other. There could be many reasons or no reason at all. Not all changes are the result of environmental pressures, some are just random and if the change doesn't result in significant weakening of the ability to survive and reproduce then it might become widespread while not being an adaptive trait.

  23. Re:Entire study is retarded. It's FOOD, not activi by hazem · · Score: 1

    That was my thought too. I have trouble imagining that ancestral farming methods were any less strenuous and "bone-buliding" than even persistence hunting.

    I've been reading a lot these days about correlations between the rise of agriculture (and the resulting high consumption of grains and carbohydrates) and worsened dental and overall health as well as shorter stature in humans.

    I know that even with my own n=1 change in diet (from a "standard western diet" to a low-carb/high-fat) over the last year, my health, according to current "standard" markers" like BMI, A1C, fasting glucose, HDL/Triglyceride ratios, etc. has improved dramatically. The funny thing is, after this change in my diet, I'm just more energetic - I've never in my life had such a desire to just get out and be more active.

    It's strange to me, but in the US, the focus in health is so strongly oriented towards keeping the heart healthy. But if you think about it, the heart is a fairly simple organ, being a pump. We can easily transplant it and even make artificial ones. I've come to the conclusion that the focus in health should be on the liver - and that what keeps the liver healthy will keep the rest of me healthy. And liver health is most easily managed by what you put in your mouth.

  24. Re:just do strength training by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    Use multi-joint barbell exercises like squats and deadlifts. They build bone density and stave off the effects of osteoporosis.

    Or just drink some milk for the calcium and go for long walks when you're in your teenage years (especially for females), and of course later as well.
    You could add some wrist and ankle weights to enhance the effect, oh, and get some sun for the vitamin D.

    Our bones don't have to be as strong as our ancestors were, they just have to be strong enough to get us through our lifetimes without breaking down.

  25. Re:Not a problem by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "The strongest body-builder is not close to our ancestors, or to chimps, in strength."

    While you have some good points the above is false. The strongest humans are stronger than the strongest chimps and stronger than our strongest ancestors on record. With a population of over 7 billion individuals to pick from and extreme training we have now produced some extraordinary physical specimens.

    What chimps have is greater muscle density. If they were as large as our largest lifters and got the same training then they would probably be stronger. But they're not.

  26. That's another one for the Luddites by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    Superbugs, environmental destruction, weakening skeletons, and other assorted genetic 'artificial selection' weakening agents.

    For the sake of our short term comforts have we doomed the human species to a genetic inferiority and environmental destruction that could appear to conform to the idea that the candle which burns twice as bright only burns half as long?

    In the long term perspective, will the trades have been worth it?

    Or it doesn't matter because the universe is far too large to make finding another home practical while this one will have its' oceans boiled away in a billion years?

  27. Re:Flight by strikethree · · Score: 1

    If humans could fly, we'd consider it exercise and never do it.
    -- origin unknown

    Fuck that! If I could fly, I would be everywhere. Hercules would look like flabby sack of flesh compared to me. I would be doing loops, speed diving, flying to the tops of mountains, over volcanoes. I would have circled the planet itself a dozen times by now.

    Flying would be AWESOME. Who cares if it is exercise?

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  28. Re:Flight by strikethree · · Score: 1

    Wow it seems like you have given this a lot of thought. You are not a bird, grow up.

    Is there some aspect of my life that might be improved if I forgot my childhood dreams and flights of fancy? If so, I can not think of what might be improved. By all measures, I am quite successful at living life.

    On the other hand, one has to wonder what motivated you to try and be critical... perhaps you are jealous of my freedom?

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  29. Re:just do strength training by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    hits close to home is that my IT coworkers and myself are middle aged and we HAVE to exercise to avoid problems. In other departments there are near-cripples our age that can hardly get up or move around and their life is one of misery and pain. screw that.

  30. Re:just do strength training by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    The surfing, jiu-jitsu fighting, globetrotting etc. founder of my martial arts/crossfit club is a geek. The scoring system we use for competitions is something he cooked up in an afternoon. We also have an MMA fighter who's a banker and a surprisingly large amount of our members are university students. Psychology, medicine, and a couple of law students too.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  31. Re: just do strength training by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    I'm mostly into kettlebells and olympic lifting myself, but I'll definitely second the statement that the first couple of months are absolutely amazing. Your endorphin levels will be through the roof, it feels so good.

    I've been branching out into trying some yoga/mobility classes as well. That shit is tough.

    --
    Eat the rich.