Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:32:48 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
It is the same reasoning used by Art Devany in his excellent essay
too http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/RevisedEssay.pdf
On 26 Jan 2007, at 15:13, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Cynthia > If humans had to work hard physically to get their food,
> perhaps we would not be so inclined to overeat.
>
> I really like this thought and agree with it wholeheartedly. But I
> believe that oftentimes we overestimate the amount of effort it
> took to get food. Remembering that men usually did the hunting and
> women, old men, and children the gathering, hunting was not a daily
> event generally. It seems to me that hunters would target big
> game, but that post olduwan tools it wasn't always extremely
> difficult to find and kill that game. But the combination of the
> hunt and getting the meat back to camp would involve intense but
> infrequent exercise, maybe two or three times a week.
>
> Gathering, on the other hand, involved repetitive and usually daily
> activity.
>
> This is the reasoning I've used to justify my two to three times a
> week of intense activity. My workouts consist of an intense one
> mile run followed by weight training two days a week and a 2 mile
> run with no weights on the third day. I always allow at least 48
> hours between workouts. Weekly time spent exercising for me is
> less than two hours.
>
> Jim
|
|
|