B
Story
How to carry more than your own bodyweight (2025)
This reminds me of a trip to Guilin when I was an athletic 22-year-old. We'd booked a hotel on top of a mountain that was only reachable by hiking up a trail. At the trailhead, a five-foot-tall grandma offered to carry my luggage to the top. I thought it was funny — and a bit insulting — so I refused. About a quarter of the way up, I gave up and let her take it. She carried it all the way up without breaking a sweat.
  • zkmon
  • ·
  • 8 minutes ago
  • ·
  • [ - ]
This is very common in Indian villages too. As small kids we used to carry 30-40 kgs of green grass bundles on our heads in the mornings. Girls definitely carried more than their body weight. People carried a stack of pots on their heads with full of water. Carrying two equal weights hung from the two ends of a bamboo bar (kaavidi) on your shoulder is extremely common. There was even a folk story of a boy who carried his two parents on a kaavidi wherever he went.

But none of that farm work was seen as something special. It's just a routine thing. Media and academic research makes things look special and interesting. Samething goes for romanticism, mystery, fiction as well.

Reminds me of slovakian mountain carriers https://regiontatry.sk/en/mountain-load-bearers/
  • c7b
  • ·
  • 46 minutes ago
  • ·
  • [ - ]
One thing I always found a bit of a puzzle: it's widely understood, and scientifically backed up afaik, that strength training is healthy and good for longevity. Yet, if you look at people whose everyday jobs look a lot like functional strength training, eg construction workers, my general impression is that their bodies (age 50+) are in worse condition than the average population (who's not in great shape already), and far worse than people with sedentary jobs who do fitness training.

I get that there can be too much of a good thing etc, but I still find it curious. If it's generally said to be good for you, shouldn't the effects be a bit more robust than that?

imo they don't get a chance to recover. i don't think you can compare a whole day of back breaking work where you have to push thru any minor issues vs like a 1-2 hr workout session every day at your discretion.
Well the answer here is: other factors. Safe, supervised strength training is great, but construction workers do not have that luxury, but instead heavy stuff to carry in (unhealthy)positions dictated by the task itself rather than your training regimen.

Then there are toxic chemicals on site they are exposed to, which attack lung, skin, bones, muscles. Then there is dust everywhere all the time, wood dust, stone dust, plastic particles, metal particles. All not great for your lungs, skin an eyes. So the strength training alone would be great, and many construction workers do have a lot of muscle mass, but the rest ist just poisoned.

  • q-base
  • ·
  • 39 minutes ago
  • ·
  • [ - ]
There is use and there is overuse. What you are also seeing is lifestyle and socioeconomic influences. Construction workers are not necessarily in the highest income bracket, may not have the same access to healthcare or have the mental, physical or economical bandwidth to take extra good care of their body.
> Yet, if you look at people whose everyday jobs look a lot like functional strength training, eg construction workers, my general impression is that their bodies are in worse condition than the average population (who's not in great shape already), and far worse than people with sedentary jobs who do fitness training.

Really? That's not my observation.

  • dijit
  • ·
  • 23 minutes ago
  • ·
  • [ - ]
I have the same observation, and I’ve often been curious about it.

I think truthfully, if we do anything for too long our bodies overoptimise for the task and we lose the benefits to fitness and other health issues also creep in.

Young construction workers are often extremely strong and fit, but nearly all the 40+ ones I know have a huge gut and sound like wheezing ICE engines.

There are a handful of exceptions of course, but as far as it goes the general rule is this.

It could also be that factors surrounding the culture of construction workers (lots of alcohol to wind down) are huge contributing factors in of themselves.

Too many variables.

Because their jobs are not "functional strength training" at all and you're discounting all the negatives that come from that kind of work. It's borderline insulting to their jobs to make that comparison, to be frank.
My father worked concrete construction and stayed relatively fit from all the activity, but his skin was trashed from all the UV and he smoked into his 50s. I've never met a person with more wrecked hands since. It was like shaking hands with 40grit paper.

Construction workers are not known for taking care of themselves, and it's a notoriously machismo culture. Sun screen? ok dandy.

After going bald I appreciated just how damn practical the sombrero is. Now I wear a wide brimmed hat (Tilly or Panama hat or big straw farmers hat or, if I’m feeling flamboyant, a sombrero) almost any time I’m outside. Goofy maybe, but I think my skin is better for it.

I really wish hats were normalised again.

I once carried a log that weighed about double my body weight and carried it 100ft. My back has never been the same, I really don't recommend it unless you know what you're doing.
The idea discussed in the article was one of progressive overload; slowly make your body adapt to an ever increasing workload. Don't go straight for the 200kg deadlift when you are new to the gym, in other words.
I concur. A lapse in training and one careless fess-up is all that's needed for a lifetime injury.
Thanks!
No, I don't think I will