Author Topic: Aryan Hearts  (Read 201 times)


  • Guest
Aryan Hearts
« on: July 17, 2020, 08:16:01 pm »
Human Hearts Streamlined for Stamina by Neolithic Revolution

Farming caused the human heart to evolve less “ape-like” and be better for endurance and stamina.

New research suggests human hearts significantly changed when we dropped hunting and began leading more consistent lives as farmers, and now they are longer, thinner, and more flexible-walled hearts than chimpanzees.

The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was led by Dr. Aaron Baggish, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cardiovascular Performance Program. Analyzing the differences between our hearts, and those of apes, they found the human heart has evolved over thousands of years to better suit modern life.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

Dr. Baggish and his team investigated, measured, and compared the functionality of hearts in 40 semi-wild chimpanzees and five gorillas with the hearts of over 160 people. Assembled in four test groups the heart structures of American football players, elite runners, and indigenous Mexican subsistence farmers were studied alongside those from people who rarely leave their armchairs.

The researchers found that human hearts appear to have evolved to be better at handling endurance type activity as opposed to short intense bouts and if a heart is “particularly good” at one function it’s “conversely poor” at the opposite. The new findings suggest that while the human heart was at one time designed for short bursts to assist the demands of hunting and gathering, it became steadily more efficient at sustaining endurance tasks over increasingly longer periods of time.

Conclusion: Aryan genetics are superior genetics especially when it comes to human hearts.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8770
    • View Profile
Re: Aryan Hearts
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2020, 12:14:09 am »

I have been saying this about stamina long before the research was done. The "longer and thinner" cardial geometry is new to me, but it fits the familiar pattern of Aryan physique. I would furthermore venture that the elongated heart would be coherent with evolution of a narrower ribcage that is also familiar to us.


Examples of pronounced mesomorphic, ectomorphic, and endo-morphic somatotypes are shown in Figure 7.6, along with an intermediate, or average, type of physique. Images of this kind, back-posed to avoid the distraction of facial cues and standardized for height and posture, have been used in cross-cultural studies to measure female preferences for masculine physique
mesomorphic and average somatotypes received the highest ratings for sexual attractiveness, whilst the endomorphic physique was least preferred. The ectomorph did not receive the highest ratings in any of the populations studied, but this image did receive proportionately higher scores in China (Figure 7.7) and in Sri Lanka than in some other countries. Thus, some cultural variations probably exist in female preferences. As a second example of such differences, a mesomorphic somatotype was rated as significantly more attractive than an average male physique in UK, whereas the reverse was true in China.

Slightly more Aryan blood memory in China and Sri Lanka (though still nowhere near enough)?


"What I would really like to know is what the correlation looks like between the somatotype that women prefer in men and the respective women's own somatotype. I would idealistically hope, of course, that ectomorphic women are more likely to prefer ectomorphic men, but my anecdotal observation over the years leads me to suspect otherwise....."

Perhaps there is hope:

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.
Genetic assortative mating is well studied and documented. In 1903 Pearson and colleagues reported strong correlations in height, span of arms, and the length of the left forearm between husband and wife in 1000 couples.[11] Assortative mating with regards to appearance does not end there. Males prefer female faces that resemble their own when provided images of three women, with one image modified to resemble their own. However, the same result does not apply to females selecting male faces.[12]

(As to why it says females do not prefer similar faces in males, perhaps that is only because it is citing a single study? If we replicated this experiment perhaps results would differ?)