Earlier i was thinking about how many people tend to exercise their upper body while somewhat neglecting the lower body. I hypothesised that this is due to the arm being nearer in location to the eyes than the legs, and due to the arm's finer motor ability (coordination, etc.), thus most people are more aware of what the arms are doing than what the legs are. (I notice grabbing a glass of water and lifting it to my mouth more than i do walking to get it.) This is where my question comes in. Are the legs more primitive in design than the arms, or are they just as advanced as the arms for their respective intended fucntions? If this is confusing, please consider some examples. As i understand it, the spine is poorly desinged as its shape makes it quite prone to injury. On the other hand, the inner ear is very advanced (the most advanced part of the human body after the CNS.) I realize that there are some people that do not believe in/agree with evolution. For those of you who feel that way, do you think that the arms and legs are both very adept at their functions? Any input is greatly appreciated, dan L
function. legs do exactly what they are designed to do, which is walk. arms on the other hand (heh) are designed to do a whole lot more- picking things up, moving objects, hunting, fine motor skills, all these things are essential for humans to survive and over the years we have become very, very good at it. while the legs have only ever had one real purpose, and that is to walk or run.
Exactly. While the legs could do with some improvements (e.g. strengthen the ankles, or even switch the joint around so they bend backwards), nature can only improve on a current design, not make a new one. They are very efficient at what they do... ask any animator/robot mechanic/physiologist how finely the legs are tuned and you'd be surprised. The point a lot of people miss with evolution is that anything in your body is only designed to get you to reproduce, which in evolutionary/animal terms for humans is anytime from about 14 to 25. Once you have babies, your body doesn't matter from an evolutionary point of view, so it doesn't matter if it breaks down immediately afterward. The human body is designed to reach its peak at 25 so you can breed as much as possible. After that, nature doesn't care how quickly your parts wear out.
Arms look prettier. Legs are hairy and covered by pants. You work your legs out, most people won't look, either because you are wearing pants, or because they are scared that you are flashing them. But you can take your shirt off and show off your chest and back and arms without a problem most of the time. PL
It totally depends on what you do with them, I used to be a competitive cyclist so my legs are huge, far bigger than my arms, a boxer on the other hand would have huge arms but there legs often look disproportionately small.
The original post is weird. Where did you grab hold of the idea that different parts of the body are evolved to greater or lesser extents?
in fact they very well may be, since IF humans were actually simian creatures in the previous evolutionary steps, then simian legs evolved to become human legs, while simian arms didn't have to change that much to become human arms.
There once was a girl that was born with out arms. She could use her legs for fine task such as, writing or even driving. I think it is use that determines how well you use your digits. I think as babies, people learn to use their arms much more efficiently than legs and they never bother training their legs.
Because upper bodily physique is mostly women look for in a partner (bicep, shoulders, chest, abs etc) Notice in the gym, women spend a lot more time (as a very broad generalisation, and at the risk of sounding sexist) on the lower body than men, and notice what is attractive about women (thighs, butt and hips) (breasts aren't muscle, so aren't worked so much in the gym) A lot of people workout for aesthetics aswell as health, not for evolutionary function. Our legs are intended to hold our weight, and keep us balanced (even during tree climbing). They do this very well, and much, much more I'd say the human brain and opposable thumbs are pretty much our most advanced features. Arms and legs are very, very adept, we just don't train them enough. Look at all the possibilities we have, from climbing a rockface to swimming deep under water, to drawing and painting with any limb. Checkout freerunning for an idea of what our limbs can do http://www.urbanfreeflow.co.uk/ not to mention we can procreate in far more positions than any other creature
i saw one time on tv this woman with no arms who does everything with her legs, from combing her daughter to driving. and i think babies develop more their arms because since they arent born with the ability to walk, their legs become mere "things that are there", IMO they move them trying to see if they're like the arms, that's why when on their backs they always move both arms and legs equally, but since hands and arms can achieve more things they stick with them, and eventually the legs grow stronger and they learn to walk.
I got this idea from my human develpoment professor, though i must admit he did not state that directly, so i could have misunderstood. As he said, we humans have parts that are "left over" from previous evolutionary stages (atleast that is what some theories suggest.) Some things thought to be left over include the apendix and the gill slits that we have in prebirth stages of development. Other suggested left overs are the shape of the spine and the design of the upper respiratory system (sinuses, nose, throat, and mouth) -both of which he said lost their effectiveness once we discontinued walking on all fours. He said (please keep in mind that i may have misunderstood) that the sinuses and such were designed so that the mucus would all drain out of the nose and mouth rather than down the throat as it tends to now. I think it is true that people make due with what they have, and the lack of arms can greatly increase the legs' range of abilities. If a person emphasises their legs' functionality, arms or no arms, they can also adapt. I also thank some of you for pointing out that appearance does play a big role in some peoples' workouts. I had not previously given that aspect much thought, but it is true nonetheless.
I think it very probable that you've misunderstood. Evolution simply doesn't work like that and has nothing to do with the scientific construction of a program of physical exercise.
