How were WW2 soldiers so naturally?

In WW2 pic related along with the rest of the 506th PIR broke the world record land march, 120miles in 2 days. These guys were all accountants, factory workers, farm hands and carpenters before they joined the war. Literally went from civilians to soldiers and neck minute their speed marching 100miles in full gear, jumping off 30ft paratrooper towers onto dirt without breaking their legs and doing live exercises with zero safety nets.

This isn't something relegated to just US Airborne units but most combat units in general. Guys would turn up off civvy street with zero preparation and suddenly were puming out 10 chin ups, 60+ pushups and 1.5 mile runs with gear in 10 mins. How?

Now days every guy who rocks up are recruiting and wants to be a soldier has either read a shit load of books about miitary fitness, done some ex Navy Seals per-training fitness program and always used a shit load of supplements. And alot of them still fail basic training and or get injured.

There was no t-bol back in the 1940s, no protein shakes and no body had a gym membership or lifted weights or did any fitness specific training.

How is guys in the 40s who were born in the depression and didnt have all of the high speed advantages modern day young guys do, perform so goddamn well?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they picked all the reasonably fit people to begin with? If you were malnourished or otherwise stunted you didn't even have to serve

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If you were malnourished or otherwise stunted you didn't even have to serve

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >that one dude who is like 1.35m and his comrade making a joke about his height

        lmao
        rip kings

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        stunted is a much more severe condition than merely short.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >factory workers, farm hands and carpenters
    You think those don't involve lots of physical activity, moron?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dude lifting heavy things on a factory line or cutting timber all done doesnt mean you run 1.5miles in webbing in 10 mins. Being a labrouer means your body is conditioned to being a laborer. Not an elite Infantry soldier.

      people actually worked back then, grueling hours and long weeks

      >These guys were all factory workers, farm hands and carpenters before they joined the war.
      Well there you have your answer. They weren't game developers or Walmart cashiers.

      Comment related ^

      Show me a carpenter or a facory hand who has to speed march with webbing during his daily job.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Dude lifting heavy things on a factory line or cutting timber all done doesnt mean you run 1.5miles in webbing in 10 mins.
        Look up farming and factory work conditions in the 1930. Hell, even if you just drove a vehicle, there was no power steering, and you had to crank-start most cars.

        Not only that, but the military gear at the time was way simpler and outright lighter. Exception: the weapons.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >full gear
          Their full gear was likely 50 pounds lighter than current gear. Its easy to run 1.5 miles in 10 minutes without the extra 50 pounds.

          cant remember where i read it, but a "combat loadout" has not significantly changed weight since roman times. the main difference is indeed the weapons and armor getting lighter, and those weight/space savings getting filled up with newer technology

          even the shift from rifle cartridges to intermediate ones didn't mean "save weight overall" it meant "carry more ammo"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >has not significantly change weight
            Anon, please look up the loadout for the average infantry in WW2 and compare it to modern soldiers. Even a plate carrier/vest weighs about 10-20 pounds

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the wwii soldier's weapon is much larger and heavier, as is the ammo. his armor is made from steel rather than modern ceramics. the clothing is also significantly heavier both in materials and construction. the modern soldier carries more individual pieces but the wwii soldier's items are all individually heavy as frick

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >armor
                >steel
                Are you fricking moronic? WW2 soldiers never wore steel armor and the ones that wore any semblance of armor were pilots wearing flak jackets. The modern soldier has to carry more shit, especially in their backpacks. The shit they carry on their packs can be close to 100 pounds.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                its actually closer to 200 pounds, modern American Soldiers are the fittest force on earth and can carry enough ordnance to level afghanistan twice over they just dont because of p*liticians...

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >spats
                UOOOHHHHHH

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >$170 USD to kit a WW2 soldier
                I would bet this is still more than Iran/Russia/Norks spend to kit conscript morons

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The modern soldier has to carry more shit, especially in their backpacks.
                Utter bullshit.
                >In World War II, US soldiers carried equipment that weighed between 70–120 pounds, depending on the type of weapon system, mission, and role
                >It has been estimated that a personal load of a Roman Legionary would be 66 - 100 lbs (30 - 45 kgs). While the soldiers complained and nicknamed themselves "Marius' Mules"
                >A US soldier's load can weigh up to 120 pounds during combat, including equipment like a helmet, uniform, boots, armor, weapon, ammo, food, canteen, compass, and first aid kit.

                Its been 60-120 pounds for as long as there has been professional soldiers. In 200 years, if professional soldiers still exist, they will be going into combat with 60-120 pounds of gear strapped to them.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The cheapest outfitted soldier is the only one who actually won a war

                Really makes you think. Honestly conscript rushing with a competent artillery, air (including drones), and armor backup is probably the way forward.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                More like he's the only one who fought in a conventional declared war. Throwing bodies is not the way forward because the US military gets smaller everyday, and unless we have another sudden surge of patriotism we need to be carefully use the troops we do have because getting more isn't an actual guarantee anymore.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >170$ brand new M1 Garand

                Inflation has really fricked us.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>170$ brand new M1 Garand

                That infographic is full of shit.
                An M1 Garand alone cost about $85 in 1940, that is over $1,200 in 2006 and about $1,900 today.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >heavier clothing
                The clothing was either wool or cotton. Modern clothing is either nylon/cotton or a mixture of other blends depending if its flame resistant or not, but that makes up a small percentage of the weight the average soldier has to deal with.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're trolling.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i'm not and am willing to accept small increases in overall weight but im p sure even those are due to increases in the average person's height and strength and shifts in what's considered tolerable for the style of warfare in use

                for the most part, every time a piece of gear gets lighter, the soldier doesn't end up carrying less, they get issued more crap that makes up the difference. rifle is lighter and uses lighter ammo? carry more ammo and throw a dozen attachments on the rifle. radio is no longer a 900 pound backpack unit? issue more backup batteries and accessories for the handheld version. soldiers no longer carry a useless folding shovel that breaks instantly? issue them a useless multitool knife that breaks instantly and fill the handle with junk

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Alright, I'll take a crack on the off chance you aren't trolling.
                >his armor is made from steel rather than modern ceramics
                His armor didn't fricking exist. He wore a steel helmet at best.
                >the clothing is also significantly heavier
                How heavy do you think a cotton field jacket is? Do you think they rucked with their cold weather gear all the time (they didn't)
                >rifle is lighter and uses lighter ammo? carry more ammo and throw a dozen attachments on the rifle.
                >radio is no longer a 900 pound backpack unit? issue more backup batteries and accessories for the handheld version.
                Platoons still carry backpack radios on top of all the others. Heavier.
                >Soldiers no longer carry a useless folding shovel that breaks instantly?
                Soldiers carry e-tools in their rucks. Also, lol, "useless".
                > issue them a useless multitool knife
                Again, heavier. And again, lol, "useless".

                My ruck alone in Afghanistan was heavier than the entire load of my equivalent in WW2. They didn't even issue the Combat and Cargo packs until 1945 because they simply didn't need to. I mean ffs I carried an average of 40 pounds of linked ammunition alone.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                again
                >am willing to accept small increases in overall weight but im p sure even those are due to increases in the average person's height and strength and shifts in what's considered tolerable for the style of warfare in use
                >every time a piece of gear gets lighter, the soldier doesn't end up carrying less, they get issued more crap that makes up the difference.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So what the frick are you even saying?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the main difference is indeed the weapons and armor getting lighter, and those weight/space savings getting filled up with newer technology

                even the shift from rifle cartridges to intermediate ones didn't mean "save weight overall" it meant "carry more ammo"

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon are you actually mentally moronic or something?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He means
                Even though kit has become lighter, the overall load weight of a soldier has not decreased significantly, if at all. This is because the weight savings from improved kit are not utilized by armies to create lighter soldiers, but to pack soldiers more densely with kit.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, he was arguing that weight increases weren't real. Hence why I called him moronic. Learn to read reply chains.

                Quotes from tard anon: " a "combat loadout" has not significantly changed weight since roman times."

                "the wwii soldier's weapon is much larger and heavier, as is the ammo. his armor is made from steel rather than modern ceramics. the clothing is also significantly heavier both in materials and construction."

                He was contradicting himself while still arguing for some reason. Hence why I said "So what the frick are you even saying?" because he didn't seem to have anything approaching a cohesive thought or point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You also implied that carrying 40lbs of linked ammo is representative of the average soldier's combat load.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >cant remember where i read it, but a "combat loadout" has not significantly changed weight since roman times
            Thats an absolute crock of shit. Soldier now days do carry more than any soldier in history.Yes the individual pieces of gear are smaller and lighter but all that means is that a soldier can fit more in his pack.

            You didnt see Rangers, Alamo Scouts, SAS, Commandos or paratroops walking around with a jerry can of water on their back plus a bazooka in WW2.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Dude lifting heavy things on a factory line or cutting timber all done doesnt mean you run 1.5miles in webbing in 10 mins. Being a labrouer means your body is conditioned to being a laborer. Not an elite Infantry soldier.
        Many people work without break and they also walk miles before reaching their work place. They work and work and walk and walk.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moron zoomer.
        Men who were fighting in the 40's all grew up in the 30's - walking to school 5 miles up hill both ways (but unironically) and everything you have to do involves manual labor. Not even talking about their day job, just being alive & socially presentable required more effort.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This I grew up with no running drinking water and my chore was to carry the families water in a bucket from a well. When we were teenagers my brother and I could run red deer to exhaustion and did a few times.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did you frick those deer or what?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >elite infantry soldier
        Never served detected.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Show me a carpenter or a facory hand who has to speed march with webbing during his daily job.
        go to any jobsite and watch them run across ridge beams wearing leather toolbelts not far removed from WW2 webbing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most cattle farmers are far fitter and tougher generally than most SF. I've been around plenty of both

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Dude lifting heavy things on a factory line or cutting timber all done doesnt mean you run 1.5miles in webbing in 10 mins. Being a labrouer means your body is conditioned to being a laborer. Not an elite Infantry soldier.
        Arguably, physical labor is more demanding. As far as your heart and lungs are concerned a 12 hour workday of picking things up and putting them down isn't any different from a 12 hour march.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >As far as your heart and lungs are concerned a 12 hour workday of picking things up and putting them down isn't any different from a 12 hour march.

          You've never worked in a factory or done a 12-hour march. Factory laborers aren't fit. Most of them very fat like the rest of Americans.

          I'm in the military and I've worked at a factory before, they aren't comparable. What made guys in WW2 physically fit, was training. That's it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have no idea how good you got it from today's factory's. Back then was extremely labor intensive and harsh. Don't act like there was much workers rights back then for certain jobs.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              NTA, but one of my first jobs out of high school was doing construction, and most of the dudes who worked there both in the yard and in the field were either methhead skinny (probably because of the meth) or cornfed lards, there was no inbetween. As it turns out you need a lot of calories to haul pipe around for half a day and it showed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >has literally never spent a summer following around a tractor pulling a trailer while throwing 45lb hay bails increasingly higher on 150 acres. Only to finish up by throwing them all in the barn.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bruh, my FIL runs a small machining shop. He's not some kind of designated porter or ditch digger, he just has to lift a couple hundred of steel ring joints per day and put them onto a steel milling machine, put them down onto a pallette and drag it to a loading zone. He does not work out except playing volleyball, is almost 60 and looks like a fricking bear. He doesn't even eat that much and likes to get shitfaced on a weekend. Now imagine a 20 year old dude who has no car and works on a farm since being 13. Physical labour is an amazing thing (until your back gives out). Consider Roman legionnaires who carried all of their shit during march with much worse nutrition.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this tbh, if you today went into a gym, a fireman station or a police dep and pressed them into service you'd get similar results.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    people actually worked back then, grueling hours and long weeks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No ZOGfeed back then and also this

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >schizo ramblings
        Its just people work in harsh environments already.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People also have to remember, they were coming out of the Depression and there wasn't huge amounts of quiet office jobs and most of the western world was still semi-agrarian or worked in the country or cities in some form of active labour.
      Apart from not dressing like 30 year old moronic teenagers in shitty casual clothes there's also one thing people will notice
      >NO FAT c**tS
      Most people wouldn't have been hugely fit, some might be a little under/over weight but for the most part you're not going to see some fat c**t clogging up a side walk unless they had a medical condition or something. If you've ever been in the military and had to drag yourself through courses, you really don't want any extra weight, not on the gear, not on you because however its spun in the modern bullshit its not healthy to have a gut. There isn't really any jacked guys either, they're all sort of either a bit chubby-strong or wiry little bastards made out of hard work, wife beatings and frugal living. Sure they drank their arses off and probably smoked a bit of tobacco but that was also offset by the fact they'd still probably be up at 4am off to some shit job loading bricks, delivering milk, shovelling coal or milling timber.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >people who were just starving in a depression weren’t fat
        Thanks Captain Obvious.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well there wasn't any money to go spend to go gorging on doughnuts, icecream and other junk people shovel down their wiener holsters today like addicts. Even in places like the UK and Australia I look back at photos of my relatives from that era and I know they just didn't really have the spare money for it. Meat and 3 Veg motherfrickers all the way like

          to add to what [...] said. The British welfare system has its roots in the Anglo-Boer war. They conscripted a shitload of people and realized that they were not physically up to the task because of bad nutrition etc so they started making efforts to ensure that decent meals and healthcare became a thing so that, in turn, they would have a better recruit pool for the next big war.
          >Just because you can see a homies collar bones doesn't mean he's fit.

          >British welfare system
          Made the UK the healthiest it had ever been and practically has ever been since.
          People knew what they need to keep going and what kept them alive, nutrition wasn't as hugely blown out with the details it has now, but they knew about carbs, protein and fibre, how to balance it for a diet and sustainable life.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Great pic, even though you can’t see the builds due to dress (ie should pads) LOOK AT THEIR FACES. Just more square / angular, bold and deep in general. Just fricking LOOK at them and tell me you can’t see the difference.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Just more square / angular, bold and deep in general
          Yes. That is how underfed people look.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Were these boots "underfed" too?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They are getting three square a day, so no. Also, that's seemingly from the 60's or 50's.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >30 year old moronic teenagers

        Wut?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      to add to what

      https://i.imgur.com/si04gH5.jpeg

      People also have to remember, they were coming out of the Depression and there wasn't huge amounts of quiet office jobs and most of the western world was still semi-agrarian or worked in the country or cities in some form of active labour.
      Apart from not dressing like 30 year old moronic teenagers in shitty casual clothes there's also one thing people will notice
      >NO FAT c**tS
      Most people wouldn't have been hugely fit, some might be a little under/over weight but for the most part you're not going to see some fat c**t clogging up a side walk unless they had a medical condition or something. If you've ever been in the military and had to drag yourself through courses, you really don't want any extra weight, not on the gear, not on you because however its spun in the modern bullshit its not healthy to have a gut. There isn't really any jacked guys either, they're all sort of either a bit chubby-strong or wiry little bastards made out of hard work, wife beatings and frugal living. Sure they drank their arses off and probably smoked a bit of tobacco but that was also offset by the fact they'd still probably be up at 4am off to some shit job loading bricks, delivering milk, shovelling coal or milling timber.

      said. The British welfare system has its roots in the Anglo-Boer war. They conscripted a shitload of people and realized that they were not physically up to the task because of bad nutrition etc so they started making efforts to ensure that decent meals and healthcare became a thing so that, in turn, they would have a better recruit pool for the next big war.
      >Just because you can see a homies collar bones doesn't mean he's fit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >factory workers, farm hands and carpenters
      You think those don't involve lots of physical activity, moron?

      That's a less important point. Their diet wasn't so fricked back then.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >These guys were all factory workers, farm hands and carpenters before they joined the war.
    Well there you have your answer. They weren't game developers or Walmart cashiers.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't know about the others but farm work is fricking brutal, especially pastoral farming.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >factory workers, farm hands and carpenters
    >how were they fit
    They worked jobs that required them to do physical labor. Their cardiovascular systems were less fricked. They were shorter, most of them weren't exactly strong, but they were in decent cardio shape.
    They also didn't take people who were seriously malnourished in any meaningful number.

    >Guys would turn up off civvy street with zero preparation and suddenly were puming out 10 chin ups, 60+ pushups and 1.5 mile runs with gear in 10 mins. How?
    No, they weren't just showing up and doing that. This is BS. Dick Winters was the second fastest man ever recorded running Currahee before modern times, 6 miles in 44 minutes. That isn't particularly stunning for 3 miles up, 3 miles down. These guys were also the equivalent of Ranger Regiment today, they were some of the best of the best and had high standards compared to the rest of the military.

    I mean, 40 pushups on a fitness exam was considered a good score.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Running 6 miles up and down a mountain 44 mins isnt outstanding

      WTF? Thats insane. I guarantee you the best Olympic runners or NFL players atm couldnt do that and not be gassed at the end.

      Winter's was a college guy, he joined the Army to simply escape the draft so he wouldnt have to go to war. Yeah he played sports in college but he wasn't being force fed 4 meals of steroid laced chicken everyday with a whole team of sports scientists behind him making sure he downed all his post workout protein shakes.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >up and down a mountian
        Bit of an exaggeration there, it's about an 1000 foot ascent on the hardest route over 6 miles. The first two miles are easy, the last mile of the ascent kind of sucks, but it's downhill from there and you make up most of your time on the back end.

        I've ran it faster myself with my BN for a morale event and I've never touched gear in my life. You keep your pace under 7min/mile and you're fine.

        Civilians run the (harder) access paths at a faster pace than the 509th did during the Currahee 10k. I don't think you have much perspective on distance running.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I love how Americans are conditioned to see miles as units of measurement. A mile is 1.3kms. So 6 miles is almost 10kms. Thats a long way where Im from for a run. Double digits usually translate into marching distances. The fact is its a long way, even on flat ground. Especially for someone whos done zero preparation. If they said modern day soldiers had to run 10kms in 46mins 90% of people woudnt do it. Again these guys showed to to airborne school after basic and just did it. If you read memoirs about the 506th they used to do it for fun in the rare days they had off.

          This is Infantry with fitness standards rivaling modern day special operations. And again these guys didnt spend their later teen years following some ex special forces dude advice and focusing on the goal of being an elite soldier.

          Is modern day food and daily living really that detrimental to a person?

          >you must wait a while before making a post

          Seriously? Frick off. Fricking blue boards.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh kilometers, stupid americans
            >a 10k run is far where I'm from
            Black person I did a 10k race last week and fricking woman finished it in an hour, it's not hard

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again, 10km isn't far.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well you must be an athlete. Even when I was in the service if they said you had to run 10kms in 44mins Id be puking and I wouldnt make the time.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                are you from the States?
                Genuinely curious

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i regularly walk 10 kilometres in about 1:40h and i'm quite fat and would be winded after just a couple hundred meters of light jogging

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Again, 10km isn't far.

                10k is about 6.2 miles so doing it in 44 minutes is pretty fast, but certainly in the realm of possibility. The Ranger minimum standard today is 5 miles in 40 minutes, so a whole extra mile in 4 minutes would be a lot, but not crazy.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the hell it is. you must be actively running for saying shit like that.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >in a conversation about running, your opinion about running doesn't count because you run
                You people are disgusting, fat, unkempt greasy slobs. Go fricking run. 10 fricking kilometers isn't far, skinny ass 17 year olds in Basic Training can manage to do it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >go run a 6 miler
                how about frick. no. half a mile or a mile, sure.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >this Black person can't even run as far as an 18 year old girl
                SAD

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I love how Americans are conditioned to see miles as units of measurement.
            Are they not?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can jog 3km in 15 - 20min, doing 10km in 50min~ might be hard without short rests but if I consistently exercise probably not

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If they said modern day soldiers had to run 10kms in 46mins 90% of people woudnt do it.
            You are now aware that paratroopers are the 10% who could do it again.
            How is this difficult to understand? Para is not "average guy" he is the cream of the crop. All volunteers who wanted to do one of the most insane things in the military at that point.
            These will be exactly the people who would do Currahee again and again and again and again.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >mile is 1.3kms
            Its 1.6 tard

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What a moronic fricking post.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Fricking blue boards
            Post guns you massively moronic tourist homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I love how Americans are conditioned to see miles as units of measurement.
            This motherfricker was probably dropped miles on his head as a baby

            • 4 weeks ago
              Sage

              Imperial is objectively garbage for anything non-machining related.
              And the only reason it's good for machining is because it tends to make whole number fractions so it's easy for boomer dave to add 7/16ths to 3/4ths.
              Once you go past the realm of thous into the tens of thous, or you go up into the tens of feet, the measuring system shows its glaring inadequacies.
              Real men can speak Imperial and Metric, only a fool prides himself of his ignorance.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I ran 10k+ a day for all my 30s, these guys were younger so they had it easier, I only quit the daily running a couple of years ago to give my achilles tendons a break, I still do a 6k run every week or so to not completely lose all my cardio and I'm almost 50. When I was in top shape anything less than 8k felt too short.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There’s guys putting down 35 minute 10k’s with ease. It aint that crazy.

        See y’all at at the Air Force 10k in September.

        https://i.imgur.com/cRH1M2E.jpeg

        max. marching distance for transfers per day was 80 km for the german army.
        superhumans?
        or was it years of training from Hitlers youth, over Reichsarbeitsdienst to Wehrmacht infantry school ?
        btw. these kids walked to school, no busses.

        The walking part is underrated. Car centric municipal planning in the US has destroyed the (historically) easiest route to cardiovascular fitness.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Their cardiovascular systems were less fricked
      Actually, lots of them had some form of cardiovascular issues. But they still had a stronger cardiovascular system due to their work/hobbies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They also carried less gear in absolute weight back then. Everyone getting their knees blown out and ankles fricked is a modern problem. The height of fitness was lower but the baseline was definitely better back then. Fat kids were a rarity in the 40's. And those that were fat wouldn't be all that far by modern standards.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because they would walk every day to school and then run around and hit each other with sticks or whatever to pass time
    instead of sitting in bus and then sitting at home playing videogames

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      training at basic was more fitness oriented and life on the lines was just more conducive to staying fit

      also this, even if they werent going for daily runs in civilian life, most jobs and hobbies were more physical, cars were less prolific so people walked/biked around more, etc

      also people were probably nourished better, less food was made of plastic back then. even rations, while disgusting, were basically just cheap canned food

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >guys, I don't get it. Why were these men who never ate processed food, worked physical labor every day of their lives, and didn't own automobiles so fit?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How is bread or pasta not a processed food?I know it's a meaningless term for "things I don't like" but still

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I understand his sentiment in terms of not liking processed food (I know he really means "ultra processed food devoid of nutrient content") but yeah, the misuse of the term is goofy. It counts shit like "bread" as the heckin' devil, even though bread is an incredible source of carbohydrates for athletic performance.

        >inb4 keto gay reeees

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The time it took for the march was over 3 days. The length of time for training in WW2 was also around 38 weeks so they had plenty of time to get into shape. Huge emphasis on marching as well during training and it could up to 32 miles.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    3/4 americans are overweight with 1/4 being obese, an average contemporary american would have been a carnival sideshow in 1940

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Raw BMI isn't a good measure.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were all required to be circumcised in order to service (not kidding look it up).

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Old time good; new time bad, the thread

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean OP just wanted an "America bad" thread

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of threads these days amount to that

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You think that those randos could just "do" all that shit off the street moron?
    Paratroopers were drilled day and night with what is considered the most intense physical training in the American army at the time, according to multiple sources, these weren't random untrained chumps but elite troops

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >speed marching 100miles in full gear, jumping off 30ft paratrooper towers onto dirt without breaking their legs and doing live exercises with zero safety nets.

    people regularly died in training and the average grunt wasnt doing that shit. and moer advanced assaulters/paratroopers/etc do that shit and more now just to get into training. you're basically comparing what would pass for special ops then to desk workers today.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    max. marching distance for transfers per day was 80 km for the german army.
    superhumans?
    or was it years of training from Hitlers youth, over Reichsarbeitsdienst to Wehrmacht infantry school ?
    btw. these kids walked to school, no busses.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Meth helps

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >These guys were all accountants, factory workers, farm hands and carpenters before they joined the war.
    They were primarily farmers and factory/construction workers. You have to be lucky to get a cushion job at the time.
    >This isn't something relegated to just US Airborne units but most combat units in general.Guys would turn up off civvy street with zero preparation and suddenly were puming out 10 chin ups, 60+ pushups and 1.5 mile runs with gear in 10 mins. How?
    No, they did not. Even if they did, it likely stems from them working backbreaking hours in their jobs.
    >Now days every guy who rocks up are recruiting and wants to be a soldier has either read a shit load of books about miitary fitness, done some ex Navy Seals per-training fitness program and always used a shit load of supplements. And alot of them still fail basic training and or get injured.
    You think there weren't any washups during WW2, moron? Also, the military is primarily a cardio based organization. You need good cardio to pass most of their PT, being a muscle head that only lifts is no good.
    >There was no t-bol back in the 1940s, no protein shakes and no body had a gym membership or lifted weights or did any fitness specific training.
    They were doing physical labor. Majority of Americans were working in some blue collar field that requires good cardio itself.
    >How is guys in the 40s who were born in the depression and didnt have all of the high speed advantages modern day young guys do, perform so goddamn well?
    Cardio based work=passing military training. Its that simple.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i saw a video of an american line of men going to the recruitment office, that stretched around the block and all of them were skinny. There were no fat people. I guess fast food hadn't taken off yet and most people lead more active lives.
    >Now days every guy who rocks up are recruiting and wants to be a soldier has either read a shit load of books about miitary fitness, done some ex Navy Seals per-training fitness program and always used a shit load of supplements. And alot of them still fail basic training and or get injured.

    What i've learned about fitness, and this may as well be an esoteric truth is that you can't actually replicate real fitness. There are huge gym rats with utterly shit cardio. The guy who walks 9 miles to work every day actually has tremendously better health and fitness than 99% of people who work out. And i think the philosophy of most people who work out is moronic. Humans are meant to be cross country beast, and in the military thats also what they want. Instead everyone just wants to be Arnold and make themselves feel big.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There were no fat people
      Because there was the great depression and 60% of the population was underweight in some capacity

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The guy who walks 9 miles to work every day actually has tremendously better health and fitness than 99% of people who work out.
      this
      i am unironically in the worst shape of my life. the only difference is that i stopped biking to work and walking to my other places of business/pleasure. to be truly fit you have to have a generally active lifestyle

      I love how Americans are conditioned to see miles as units of measurement. A mile is 1.3kms. So 6 miles is almost 10kms. Thats a long way where Im from for a run. Double digits usually translate into marching distances. The fact is its a long way, even on flat ground. Especially for someone whos done zero preparation. If they said modern day soldiers had to run 10kms in 46mins 90% of people woudnt do it. Again these guys showed to to airborne school after basic and just did it. If you read memoirs about the 506th they used to do it for fun in the rare days they had off.

      This is Infantry with fitness standards rivaling modern day special operations. And again these guys didnt spend their later teen years following some ex special forces dude advice and focusing on the goal of being an elite soldier.

      Is modern day food and daily living really that detrimental to a person?

      >you must wait a while before making a post

      Seriously? Frick off. Fricking blue boards.

      >>you must wait a while before making a post
      this only happens on new IPs or if you have no PrepHole cookies stored. stop resetting you router

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    well for one reason, WW2 soldiers weren't expect to march/run those long distances with anywhere near the amount of gear modern day soldiers are. A WW2 grunts marching order was webbing, rifle, helmet, one canteen of water a day bag with a rain coat in it.

    A modern Infantryman has to wear body armour, carry a weapon and then have a 140ltr pack on his pack which is essentially a house; hoochie/poncho/tent, sleeping bag, liner, spare clothes, cold weather gear, 10litres of water, 3 days rations. And then theres the platoon gear; ammo, 66 LAW, 84mm, 66 and or 84mm rounds, claymores, ammo belts for the machine gunners, radios, batteries, antennas, night sights, Javelin missile, mortar base plate etc. And thats for line infantry.
    Any kind of recon unit and you can add a cam net, LRFs, a jerry can of water per man, med kit(a suitcase).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"let's frick up our soldiers' backs carrying up all this heavy shit without reason"
      people back then were not only healthier but also smarter

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how often do guys actually carry that pack tho

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not often unless the company commander hates them

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We carried them all the time in Australian Army as recently as 5 years ago when I was in. Even units that were "mech" or "motorized" always deployed on foot with full marching order.

        >elite infantry soldier
        Never served detected.

        >WW2 Airborne
        >Not elite

        Ok mate. They were practically SF in those days.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Literally all the time in any light infantry unit.

        >Dude lifting heavy things on a factory line or cutting timber all done doesnt mean you run 1.5miles in webbing in 10 mins. Being a labrouer means your body is conditioned to being a laborer. Not an elite Infantry soldier.
        Arguably, physical labor is more demanding. As far as your heart and lungs are concerned a 12 hour workday of picking things up and putting them down isn't any different from a 12 hour march.

        Yes, but there is more to endurance fitness than just heart and lung health. You can have incredible cardiovascular strength, but if your legs and joints aren't used to the actual motions you're doing (running or rucking, in this case), you're still not going to perform great. Certainly better than someone who is in terrible cardio shape, but it doesn't directly translate.

        "isn't any different from a 12 hour march." Well, I was a carpenter, and then joined the infantry. I certainly felt it was a different ordeal.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      100+ lbs of lightweight equipment.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      carrying this much heat looks moronic, is this really how we fight?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >66 LAW, 84mm, 66 and or 84mm rounds
      GTFO faker. You're a neverserved high school kid

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When I was a kid I worked at a McDonald's where the manager was from Kenya. He lived about 5 miles from the store and he would run back and forth to work everyday. It wasn't for exercise, that was normal commuting for him.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >full gear
    Their full gear was likely 50 pounds lighter than current gear. Its easy to run 1.5 miles in 10 minutes without the extra 50 pounds.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Large numbers of British recruits got rejected due to their poor health (usually malnourishment/stunted growth/sickliness) in both world wars, that’s how the NHS came to be.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >let's send all our fit, healthy men to die in the trenches
      >let's leave all the dysgenic degenerates behind to reproduce
      brilliant move.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Same thing here happened in the states. 70% of the population was suffering from malnutrition/being underweight. That lead to people getting rejected because they basically are too frail to even do basic military work.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          imagine how the west would look today if we didn't waste millions of young healthy men in two world wars and then have half of europe suffering under communism

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blame german imperialism for that

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The germans were morons themselves.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >There was no t-bol back in the 1940s
    Their test was naturally around 1k so they didn't need it.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the training and selection processes back then we're absolutely brutal. those guys were the best of already hardened men that grew up during the depression.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Transition from industrial economy to a predominantly service economy, plus your free time wasn't taken up by fricking around on phones or other devices. There was just a higher baseline for physical fitness in general, even if you did still get the occasional lardass.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they were a bunch of lanky manlets, also they didn't drive pick-up trucks to go fetch their mail in the morning

    >The average height of the inductees of World War II was 68.1 inches and their average weight was 150.5 pounds.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By means of PT, you fat b***h.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The police in my town are all pretty fit. I've never seen a fat officer here. It's a small town so it's a pretty small force but they must all have a PrepHole culture.

    Not all ww2 military were super fit. Just as long as they met military standards. You'll probably see the same in the modern US military.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Something happened to us since around gen X and which has gotten progressively worse. We’re different than we used to be. It’s not just obesity, but other clear physical changes. Look at an old photo of random young men and women from the past — they clearly look different. What stood out to me is how men especially had thick necks, wider shoulders in proportion and more square facial features. The immediate impression is that they were more fit and physically attractive — even skinny nerds and hippies were clearly more fit and attractive. Now compare with young men of today — skinnier necks, ie, narrower than the width of the head, more slender / tapered upper body / shoulders, facial features more round and soft. Once you notice it you can’t unnotice it. I have no idea what happened. Micro-plastics? Toxins? Genetic damage?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Micro-plastics? Toxins? Genetic damage?
      Sedentary lifestyle.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah. You can see the same structural differences in even very fit individuals today. Like these world bicycle champions which are going to be peak modern fitness. Notice how the necks are thinner than the heads? The slender upper bodies and tapered shoulders? The soft facial features? This is not a cherry pick I literally just googled bicycle championship and went for the first good body shot at the top of the results, literally for this post. Go try it yourself. We’ve changed.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That is a cherrypick, moron

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >picking people who need to be incredibly lean for their ultra endurance sport, with near zero upper body strength or mass
          >lol no I'm not cherry picking

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          MDVP is a literal ubermensch
          WVA is gigachad
          Pog has weird physionogamy for an athlete but he is an outlier

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah anon, these guys were the height of square jaws and thick necks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Like with the armband

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        israelite. Autocorrect protecting us from wrongthink.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Go suck start a shotgun, brainrotten homosexual.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        those teens would be PrepHole tards in the hallway talking about naruto nowadays

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The guy behind the MP in the middle looks like he is 12.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah it turns out, Hollywood fricked most people's perception of how 16-19 year olds look.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they weren't raised to adulthood eating processed industrial agslop

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No HFCS.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they probably ate more highly processed trash than we do today
      canned food was extremely popular starting in the 1900s
      all the highly processed fats, preservatives and sugars and shit were developed at the turn of the century
      it was viewed as a modern wonder to eat all that stuff, prioritizing natty foods and getting away from highly processed stuff didn't start until the 70s or so

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not to mention, and i've been holding this back the whole thread. Most peasant class people throughout all of histroy ate gruel. Water gruel, hard tacs. That was their junk food, their average daily food.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          shitloads of very poorly made beer too

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            not to mention, and i've been holding this back the whole thread. Most peasant class people throughout all of histroy ate gruel. Water gruel, hard tacs. That was their junk food, their average daily food.

            We ate a lot of red meat and potato and milk and cream and fruit. The food was better and there was more of it and you were much hungrier because of all the manual labour.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              homie
              no one ate meat, fruit, vegetables or lots of milk
              they ate FRICKLOADS of carbs, mostly bread

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >We ate a lot of red meat
              Lol no
              >and cream and fruit
              Lol no
              > The food was better and there was more of it
              Lol no

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Diet was awful and people got like 1500 calorie per day max. Everybody was hungry and living on one potatoes a day.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nah, tho i wonder why it's relatively low during the 50s and 60s

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that graph is fricked.
                >more food during the 20's and 30's than the 50's and 60's

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                how bout this one

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/WTon8is.png

                nah, tho i wonder why it's relatively low during the 50s and 60s

                >average of nearly 4000 calorie per person per day
                Dios mios

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                not surprising america got lardified during the last couple of decades. just watch any of those old videos showing regular students or people in general during the 70s-90s, you rarely see any fatasses at all.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Available*, not consumed. Average purchased per day is about 3500, but that doesn't factor in food waste. I think the reality is closer to high 2000s to low 3000s per day, which would put most adults in their age brackets about on par with the weights we see today. There are obviously outliers who are eating significantly more as well.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                its a misconception that people didn't eat much way back
                in medieval times people would eat like 3k cal, pretty much all from bread and beer.
                bread is fricking cheap and caloric dense and always has been.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >misconception
                yeah it's odd how people think early 20th century western nations survived on ~1500kcal for a prolongued amount of time when in reality those are barely above concentration camp stats lol.
                i hope this idea of a pre-hollywood america having it 100 times worse than nowadays eventually disappears

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nooooooooooooooooo
                not a heckin 1000 cal a day diet
                how will i get fricking fat???????

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >starvin' marvin thinks a 1000kcal a day is feasible

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                1,300 calories per day is enough to cradh your entire metabolism and make your body not functioning properly.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm far far far older than you can imagine and I was not referring to the 1930s although to be quite honest I never saw the poor in that time to be any better or worse off than they had been since the cities grew. I was not in the Americas then either. The food was better though from when I was young and people were far fitter and could run without becoming tired in a way they cannot now. This was true of common sheep and goat herders and cattle men and boys. Women could walk long distances every day, 20 miles and thought nothing over it but people also died much younger and often of quite small wounds or minor ailments, especially children.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                not true. People ate the same as now if not more. base metabolic rate and daily calorie expenditure was much higher . even for sedentary people and children.

                hyperthyroidism is the cause

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >we
              are you at least 70? Or are you a vampire from the 1600s?

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were all high on meth. Amphetamine use was rampant.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Less food that was of much higher quality and not processed slop, a much more active/less sedentary lifestyle by default.
    It used to be rich people who were fat. Now you're much more likely to be fat if you're poor.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, the nutritional value of meat, fruits and vegetables didn't drop, it fricking plummeted. You have to eat 3x of everything to gain the same amount of vitamins and minerals from your food. Like, i was reading some really old ass fighting and lifting manuals and, i kid you not, guys who fought for a living could go through the day on 1 or 2 meals. Supposedly, if you grab a calculator, they were only consuming MAYBE 1000 cal at max, but no. They were fine. Most of them, if we forget about sport related trauma, lived long enough to have grey hair. Overpopulation and dilution of food will kill this fricking planet.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is American problem, our food is fricking poison where literally everything has corn syrup in it because of government subsidized corn farming. Bread? Corn syrup and sugar additives, 30% more calories than european equivalents and mildly addictive. Small meal from a fast food joint or deli in a Walmart or publix? 1,000 calories and that’s assuming you hold the drink and sides. Literally any beverage that isn’t explicitly 0 calories has at least 150-300 calories of pure sugar in it as well and most of your 0 calorie drink will be terrible for your teeth or liver for other reasons like with energy drinks. Even plain fricking canned beans where the ingredients are 99% just beans will have sugar additives if you’re not careful

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everything is bad for your liver. You either have a liver that can take life, or you dont. Simple as.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You say that as if energy drinks aren’t terrible for you in multiple ways. Full disclosure that I’m a shameless caffeine junky though

          anyone who isn't a tub of lard and starts running for fitness on their own quickly realizes how all the shit about how hard military fitness standards are is bullshit and that most amateur competitors in endurance sports are beyond fitness required for special forces

          The initial hurdle of running is what puts people off because its extremely unpleasant for someone who’s tendons, muscles, and cardiovascular system aren’t adapted to it, doubly so if they have a body fat percentage above 15

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Unfortunately, i think this is a world-wide problem. We are growing too much food too fast.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You say that as if energy drinks aren’t terrible for you in multiple ways. Full disclosure that I’m a shameless caffeine junky though
        [...]
        The initial hurdle of running is what puts people off because its extremely unpleasant for someone who’s tendons, muscles, and cardiovascular system aren’t adapted to it, doubly so if they have a body fat percentage above 15

        >This is American problem, our food is fricking poison where literally everything has corn syrup in it because of government subsidized corn farming. Bread? Corn syrup and sugar additives, 30% more calories than european equivalents and mildly addictive.
        No food is poison unless it has heavy metals like lead. Also, everything is basically bad for your liver, if you take in excess, including protein. The liver is actually made to detoxify any impurities and the amount we eat is not that detrimental. It becomes a problem if you have high triglycerides from excess fat storage, which is caused by being overweight or obesity. Being under weight /undereating also causes liver damage. The main cause of liver damage is alcohol/smoking. Those are still the biggest cause of fatty liver

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >our food is fricking poison where literally everything has corn syrup in it because of government subsidized corn farming
        >GRRR CORN BAD!!!!
        Give an alternative

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          An alternative to corn syrup? Ever heard of sugar?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you know how jelly I am of you having places like Cosco and all the options you have for food? Our super markets are tiny in comparison and food selection is poor. Expensive too. What your issue is with processed food. The problem is that we used to make our own food from the ground up, but now we buy too much ultra processed food. Healthy food is available to you, you just need to buy whole foods instead.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Costco*
          Frick me and frick the chinks for making a Cosco ripoff shipping liner

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Costco*
          Frick me and frick the chinks for making a Cosco ripoff shipping liner

          Costco and sams club are pretty neat. You can get things in bulks that are cheaper per unit. They also have good pizza, but sadly its always backlogged with people.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How is guys in the 40s who were born in the depression and didnt have all of the high speed advantages modern day young guys do, perform so goddamn well?

    They trained for it. All the other shit is irrelevant.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People back then actually worked, nowadays nobody does shit but sit around and get fat, me included.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    anyone who isn't a tub of lard and starts running for fitness on their own quickly realizes how all the shit about how hard military fitness standards are is bullshit and that most amateur competitors in endurance sports are beyond fitness required for special forces

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No processed sugars
    No seed oils
    People spent 50-60% of their income on food

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh seed oil
      Stop with this meme, moron. Processed sugar is also a meme because someone lost weight by eating twix for a week. What matters is caloric surplus if you're talking about body fat.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not about weight, processed sugar makes your joints and muscles weaker.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It does not. Sugar is at best, neutral. The only bad thing is how addictive it is, which will cause people to eat in exess calories without realizing. However, joint/muscle issues are related to something else. Especially since muscled rely on sugar to function(regardless of how processed it is, its still glucose that can be used to fill up glycogen storage)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you working for them or what? Sugar is highly inflammatory. It can't be "neutral". We are not talking about fructose.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >highly inflammatory
              Inflammatory from sugar is inconclusive at best. There is no evidence to suggest it causes inflammation that will be harmful. Its already been accepted that sugar is neutral at best.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >highly inflammatory
              No? Unless you're unable to produce insulin, inflammation from sugar is at best there for a moment before your blood sugar stabilizes. Its a problem for diabetics, but not for people without the condition. If you're worried about spikes in blood sugar, eat some protein/fiber to reduce those spikes.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sugar is not inflammatory. Black person, your muscles quite literally function with glucose. You NEED glycogen storage. Even ketogays eventually quit because they don't want to die from ketoacidosis.

              >nooo you have to be a heckin' shill to point out I'm stupid

              Added sugars are bad because they create caloric excess. They are not bad because "glucose bad".

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >joints and muscles weaker
          It does not. Muscle LITERALLY relies on glucose to use as energy. Its exactly why diabetics get low blood sugar whenever they exercise, because the muscles is utilizing sugar.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        On the topic of calorie restriction, then yes, it will help against a bad diet. But all else being equal, you would be healthier by changing out seed oils with animal fat like ghee and tallow for high heat cooking, and butter for medium heat cooking. If you can get a quality avocado oil, then that too, though they are often rancid and oxidized. There is evidence that says seed oils enter our mitochondria and change our metabolism.

        Processed sugar and high fructose corn syrup has no business being consumed by any of us. Eat maple syrup and honey instead. I'm on animal based diet (meat and organs and lots of low toxic fruit + maple syrup and honey) and my digestion and energy has never been better.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >healthier
          Seed oil has proven to have more benefits than risks. Also, most studies for couldn't be replicated and the only way it can effect you is if you eat an insane amounts per day regardless. The same can be said for other oils. Its meme spread by gays who want to sell their snake oil to morons. As for sugar, consuming any type of sugar is fine as long as you don't eat in excess calories. Sugar's issue stems from being addictive. You can also eat sugar with protein/fibers to prevent spikes of insulin.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Less xenoestrogens, soi and microplastics

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you walk a lot walking becomes easier - doing 50 km a day is really no problem even for 10yr old kid if you train at all (15-20 km walk every second weekend).
    car killed walking efficiently,
    - but there still are amateurs that can do 100+ kilometers a day
    - few days in a row
    - in mountains....

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      where I live a car will kill you for walking efficiently

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, it turns out that Big sugar has a people posting on PrepHole of all places. TWO people are now pretending to be moronic.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW2 infantrymen tended to be scrawnier/shorter on average (counterintuitively). Since the US was drafting people, the branches requiring more aptitude (either physical or mental) would get first dibs on the chads. The line infantrymen were mainly leftovers after everybody else got their manpower.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of SOF training was not as hard as it is now. For example, Army Special Forces didn't even have a selection program until after the Vietnam War; before that Special Forces training was just regular infantry stuff with more emphasis on demolition because they were sabotage guys. Same with Navy SEAL, they used to not have Hell Week and didn't have to qualify on as many events.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Watch the very first episode's interviews. Winters describes how three different men in his hometown committed suicide because they were rejected for service and were too ashamed to live with it.

    506th PIR were the legitimate cream of the crop. For every character you see in Band of Brothers, there were probably 10 applicants who were rejected.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those dudes who killed themselves did so because they got rejected from the military as a whole, not the paratroopers. And the 506th wasn't "cream of the crop" at it's inception. It was an experiment to see if training a whole unit together from Initial Entry Training on up would work, rather than pulling random dudes from all over the Army to raise up a unit.

      One thing that helped make the paratroopers elite was that they were all volunteers. When they enlisted, they chose to be airborne rather than risk getting put with some random draftee in the leg infantry. Even the NCOs and the Officers all volunteered for it rather than get assigned. They didn't all even do it for noble reasons; in the book a lot of them did for the extra $100/mo (~$1900/mo in 2023 dollars). Their training however was excellent because of the high motivation and high morale, so they became an elite unit after spending 2+ years training together until the Normandy invasion.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >in the book a lot of them did for the extra $100/mo (~$1900/mo in 2023 dollars)
        one of them says this in the show as well. also i'm pretty sure those $100 extra per month could buy you way more shit back then than $1900 do today

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'd like to see it buy 'em a nvidia graphics card...

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Their childhood was (at best) "go out and play", manual labor (which'd leave then worn out husks by their fifties, but by 20 they were strong as hell), far less junk food, less travel by car, no TV... and a heavy dose of survivor bas.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP is a homosexual

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >would turn up off civvy street with zero preparation
    yeah let's not forget the months of training, tons of calisthenics, long marches with equipment, etc.
    paratroopers had about 9-10 months to complete the full airborne program, other took a couple of weeks/months less but after this basic program they weren't immediately dropped over france or the netherlands but would often wait for deployment and also continue training during that waiting period.
    your pic related enlisted on september first of 1942 and saw the first combat during overlord in june 1944, that's about 16-20 months worth of regular physical workout.
    also as others mentioned before, people had a good starting point back then, being athletic twinks from the get go they could be brought into form way faster and more efficient than today's chubby soid zoomers. half a year of pretty much daily physical training does wonders

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The gear they had was lighter.
    They were smaller making bodyweight exercises easier.
    People weren't as fat back then.

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no processed seed oils and modern plastics in food, also pre-Strontium-90 bodies

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    White men before Concentrated corn syrup, rampant Black persondom and commercialism of easily obtainable junk calories.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, its the systems fault you dont exercise or use discretion when fulling you gob.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    here is my theory on why people are looking less masculine these days in western nations and why testosterone is dropping (actual fact)

    people in western/developed nations are having kids at later and later ages, specifically demographics that work, pay taxes (whites, asians) Blacks do not see decrease in test in western nations, blacks have kids predominantly still at very young ages, 18-20
    Whites and Asians now on average have kids at 30 for the female, 32 for the male for their first kid

    the later in life the couple procreates, the shittier the kids hormone panel winds up being, the less test the kid will have
    I've seen studies that point to this (ones that show the later on in life a couple procreates, the shorter the kid is, or the lower the IQ is [test is linked with IQ positively believe it or not, at least in whites and asians], etc) but I've not found a study that outright looks at this, which is very bizarre as it seems very obvious once you look at supporting papers

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think hydrogenated seed oils were invented back then or at the very least weren't very common in their diets, also kids back then started working once they hit like 10 or whatever so they developed muscle from laboring on their parents farms or whatever else.
    In short child labor = le good and seed oils = le bad.
    Simple as, reject seed oils and reject the anti Christ.

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't carrying their own body weight in shit for one

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Americans weren't fricking fat then. If you wanted fast food your options were overpriced hot dogs or getting married, calling your wife from the plant on a shared telephone, and eating it when you got home which is when you had your normally scheduled dinner anyway.

  54. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How is guys in the 40s who were born in the depression and didnt have all of the high speed advantages modern day young guys do, perform so goddamn well?
    Meth. They were issued meth.

  55. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >120miles in 2 days
    you really believe that shit? everything about that war is a fricking lie and morons like yourself just lap it up.

  56. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jooz were locked up in camps instead of infesting every facet of our civilization as they do now.

  57. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    gear was light, heaviest thing you carried was your rifle

  58. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were not churning out 60+ push ups lol
    The standard for airborne was 30 something, not even a passing score on the APFT
    They could run like greyhounds though, that’s true

  59. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a huge part of it was that before the 1950's home automation was largely not a thing. No electric clothes machines, dish washers, unpowered lawnmowers, etc. The general level of caloric and physical need to live day to day was generally higher my a significant margin.

    Thats not counting the additional boons of more rural lifestyles and professions keeping people in better fitness, and the significant lack of "food grade" chemicals in everyone's fricking food.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *