It's not a perfect analogy though because in this case it's more like automated driving - you should still learn to drive because the autodriver isn't perfect and you need to be ready to take the wheel, but that means deliberate, separate practice at learning to drive.
I think that's a bit of a myth. The Greeks and Romans had weightlifting and boxing gyms, but no forklifts. Many of the most renowned Romans in the original form of the Olympics and in Boxing were Roman Senators with the wealth and free time to lift weights and box and wrestle. One of the things that we know about the famous philosopher Plato was that Plato was essentially a nickname from wrestling (meaning "Broad") as a first career (somewhat like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, which adds a fun twist to reading Socratic Dialogs or thinking about relationships as "platonic").
Arguably the "meritocratic ideal" of the Gladiator arena was that even "blue collar" Romans could compete and maybe survive. But even the stories that survive of that, few did.
There may be a lesson in that myth, too, that the people that succeed in some sports often aren't the people doing physical labor because they must do physical labor (for a job), they are the ones intentionally practicing it in the ways to do well in sports.
They don’t go to the gym, they don’t have the energy; the job shapes you. More or less the same for the farmers in the family.
Perhaps this was less so in the industrial era because of poor nutrition (source: Bill Bryson, hopefully well researched). Hunter gatherer cultures that we still study today have tremendous fitness (Daniel Lieberman).
We may not have any evidence that they had forklifts but we also can't rule out the possibility entirely :)
Why do you think that? It's definitely true. You can observe it today if you want to visit a country where peasants are still common.
From Bret Devereaux's recent series on Greek hoplites:
> Now traditionally, the zeugitai were regarded as the ‘hoplite class’ and that is sometimes supposed to be the source of their name
> but what van Wees is working out is that although the zeugitai are supposed to be the core of the citizen polity (the thetes have limited political participation) there simply cannot be that many of them because the minimum farm necessary to produce 200 medimnoi of grain is going to be around 7.5 ha or roughly 18 acres which is – by peasant standards – an enormous farm, well into ‘rich peasant’ territory.
> Of course with such large farms there can’t be all that many zeugitai and indeed there don’t seem to have been. In van Wees’ model, the zeugitai-and-up classes never supply even half of the number of hoplites we see Athens deploy
> Instead, under most conditions the majority of hoplites are thetes, pulled from the wealthiest stratum of that class (van Wees figures these fellows probably have farms in the range of ~3 ha or so, so c. 7.5 acres). Those thetes make up the majority of hoplites on the field but do not enjoy the political privileges of the ‘hoplite class.’
> And pushing against the ‘polis-of-rentier-elites’ model, we often also find Greek sources remarking that these fellows, “wiry and sunburnt” (Plato Republic 556cd, trans. van Wees), make the best soldiers because they’re more physically fit and more inured to hardship – because unlike the wealthy hoplites they actually have to work.
( https://acoup.blog/2026/01/09/collections-hoplite-wars-part-... )
---
> Many of the most renowned Romans in the original form of the Olympics and in Boxing were Roman Senators
In the original form of the Olympics, a Roman senator would have been ineligible to compete, since the Olympics was open only to Greeks.
> In the original form of the Olympics, a Roman senator would have been ineligible to compete, since the Olympics was open only to Greeks.
I did debate how to word that mixing of Greek and Roman things in the same sentence. I had emotional context I wanted to convey and considered a word like Decathlon there as more technically correct, but then fought the modern context that of the people that even know what the Decathlon is they know it in the context of it being a smaller event in the modern Olympics, from which perspective Olympics remains more technically correct as the modern English word for both.
As to the text you are quoting, I think it as much supports my claims as you think it doesn't. Ignoring the subject change from "weightlifting" (and sports more generally) to farming and soldiering, it mostly describes the general state of armies and feudalism in general through much of time: you have the rank and file from blue collar classes, and you have the officer corps from white collar classes. The wealthier class is fewer, but given more charge and importance. The lower class does more of the grunt work. The Romans had rich Officers and blue collar "enlisted".
The myth that I was referring to was that weightlifting is somehow a new invention because no one labors physically anymore. There have always been leisure classes that needed to lift weights as a hobby to get good at sports (and that class was also more often awarded medals in sports or important commands in armies, if we want to also connect to the blog post you quoted). As far as I'm aware there was never a period in recorded history where "everyone" was equally fit from physical labor and there was no such thing as training and gyms and needing leisure time to do that.
[Further tangent: Even "pre-history" and the modern (mis)conception of the "paleo ideal" idea of tribes of equally buff hunter-gatherers starts to fall apart when you ask questions about family units or what they think the "gatherer" side of the equation meant (and manage to divorce it from modern ideas of agriculture being highly intense labor) or what those societies would look like if more people lived to old age or how those societies survived things like the Ice Age (fattier and more hibernatory, because we are a mammalian species, we cannot escape that).]
> The ability of skinny old ladies to carry huge loads is phenomenal. Studies have shown that an ant can carry one hundred times its own weight, but there is no known limit to the lifting power of the average tiny eighty-year-old Spanish peasant grandmother.
My favorite historic example of typical modern hypertrophy-specific training is the training of Milo of Croton [1]. By legend, his father gifted him with the calf and asked daily "what is your calf, how does it do? bring it here to look at him" which Milo did. As calf's weight grew, so did Milo's strength.
This is application of external resistance (calf) and progressive overload (growing calf) principles at work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_of_Croton
Milo lived before Archimedes.
Alexander Zass (Iron Samson) also trained each day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Zass
"He was taken as a prisoner of war four times, but managed to escape each time. As a prisoner, he pushed and pulled his cell bars as part of strength training, which was cited as an example of the effectiveness of isometrics. At least one of his escapes involved him 'breaking chains and bending bars'."
Rest days are overrated. ;)
... it's a calf, dad, just like yesterday
People used to get strong because they had to survive. They stopped needing strength to survive, so it became optional.
So what does this mean about intelligence? Do we no longer need it to survive so it's optional? Yes/No informs on how much young and developing minds should be exposed to AI.
Like many educational tests the outcome is not the point - doing the work to get there is. If you're asked to code fizz buzz it's not because the teacher needs you to solve fizz buzz for them, it's because you will learn things while you make it. Ai, copying stack overflow, using someone's code from last year, it all solves the problem while missing the purpose of the exercise. You're not learning - and presumably that is your goal.
