Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is a rare condition that appears in at least 1 in 5,000 people worldwide, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Genetics Home Reference.
More people became aware of the syndrome in October 2019 when famous singer-songwriter Sia revealed in a series of tweets that she has EDS. Others with EDS responded in droves online, often referring to those in their community as "zebras."
According to the international Ehlers-Danlos Society, the reference to zebras is borrowed from a common expression heard in medicine: "When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra."
In other words, medical professionals are typically taught to look out for more-common ailments rather than testing for ultrarare diagnoses. Due to this approach, people with EDS and related disorders can sometimes be left in the lurch, hunting for explanations about their health that few doctors can readily provide.
The EDS community adopted the zebra as its mascot because "sometimes when you hear hoofbeats, it really is a zebra." In this spirit, The Ehlers-Danlos Society includes patients, caregivers, health care professionals and supporters working "towards a time when a medical professional immediately recognizes someone with an Ehlers-Danlos syndrome."
https://www.livescience.com/ehlers-danlos-syndrome.html
A woman with a condition that makes her joints extra-stretchy has gone viral on YouTube after posting a video of herself stretching her fingers all the way back. Taryn, who is thought to be from the US, shows off her tricks to the camera as she explains that she lives with a condition called Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.
In the clip, she can bend her fingers right back over her knuckles, and then flatten them completely against her palm. During the video, Taryn explains that she feels no pain while showing off the tricks her joints can do.
But while some YouTube users were impressed with Taryn's flexibility, others issued her with stark warnings. One viewer wrote: "Even if it doesn't hurt now, you are doing irreparable damage to your joints by doing these tricks. I know it's fun to get the attention, I did this stuff a lot when I was younger too.
"I'm sorry to be such a downer, but I am 45 now and in pain ALL THE TIME." Another echoed the concerns, adding: "Things fall out of my hands and my fingers bend all the way back even when I do not want them to...ligaments and tendons are like rubber bands...with Ehlers, yours and mine are more stretchy than most people.
"But like everyone else... they wear out like over-stretched rubber bands."
According to the NHS, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is a collection of inheritable disorders of connective tissue.
Different types of EDS have different features but those with the condition may experience joint hypermobility, stretchy skin and fragile skin tissue.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-bizarre-joint-hypermobility-can-6839326
Never mind the shear numbers of Mongols and the fact of armor , seize weapons. Steel, swords , arrow heads. Not sure why this comparison ? The goals would have been very different.
The fact is the Comanche couldn’t have taken over the Blackfeet, the Iroquois confederacy..... many others just on this continent. The fact is the Comanche were fierce but lacked the numbers to conquer much more territory. It was the landscape itself that the Comanche used to create the space between them and their enemies!
Yes. They did not have the dominance of the Mongols and their aims were much smaller and less grandiose. Comanches were trash because they was always getting punked by the surrounding tribes by them like the Kiowa and Cheyennes. which is why they have the crappiest land to this day
Are you sure? I understand that the Comanches were one of the most formidable and feared tribes. vfc Archery Positive! I live in Oklahoma and they were the first to utilize horseback riding but then lost most of their wars with the weaker tribes around them. They were feared by farmers and settlers not other Tribes.
They were feared by Mexican army us army and Spaniard. And also this hurts I’m Comanche we were the strongest tribe. The 5 and 6 shot cylinder was invented to combat the comanche, the buffalo were pushed to near extinction by the military to starve out the comanche because the us army couldn't beat them in combat despite having superior numbers and technology.
The comanche pushed back the conquest of the Spanish into north America the Spanish who stood un opposed and had far greater numbers then the 600 Spanish who toppled the Aztecs Empire witch numbered 6 million vs the comanche who numbered 20 thousand.
This is attachly where the name comanche comes from because the Spanish named the comanche territory as comancheria and basically recognized as a no mans land and then years later the Mexican goverment would invite northern settlers into texas to basically create a buffer between them and the comanche witch this led to the texas revolution.
If there trash how did such a small number of people push back three different Empire and effect history so dramatically. The only disagreement I have with him, is I thought Joan of Arc fighting and defeating William the Conqueror was the most inaccurate and completely absurd episode.
@vfc Archery Be prepared for a heartburn. That episode is where I turned off the series and never watched it again. In fact I wanted write or text the episodes producers telling them how nutty they were.
You may be somewhat about bow strengths. However, the thing about the comanches were their tactics. They were impervious to most weather conditions, food and water, they were fast & elusive due the types of house they bred, they used guerilla style fighting and they were known to be prolific night raiders/fighters. Hence the term "Comanche Moon".
Plains Indian Bows could have draw weights that were incredible,some in Museums Today still have draw weights of over 170 pounds when They are strung and Plains Indians frequently had Sinew backed Bows and They also had Horn Bows.Your Information is inaccurate Sir.
Also,draw weight alone is not an indicator of power,it is a measurement of stored energy and nothing more,there is more to consider when Bow performance is to be gauged. @David Long That is true and why the horn/wood/sinew combination is unbeatable
@David Long You are wrong, the comanche did not have super high poundage bows Because there was no need for it / No cowboys wore armor / so without armor, high poundage bows aren't needed.
They hunted North American Bison. @David Long yes but only 60 - 70 pound bows were used for that and they would shoot the arrow from like 10 meter distance. @Abu Troll al cockroachistan Not just the white man, but also the other plains and desert Indians they fought.
@Cole Parker yes, however the no armor argument stands. The Eastern woodlands though did have very powerfull bows with heavy arrows that could potentially penetrate some forms of armor but I'm not sure.
@Abu Troll al cockroachistan I don't disagree they had some had some powerful bows. My only comment was that the Comanches enemies, both Anglo and Native, did not have body armor, although many of the plains tribe did have buffalo hide shields.
But let us not forget, the Spanish and Mexican lancers of the late 18th and early 19th century that face the Comanches did have metal cotton quilted breast protection. In fact on archaeological expedition one metal breast plate was found by a colleague of mine on the US side of the US and Mexican border.
The Comanche it is said were so quick they could loose four arrows before one hit the target while on horseback. That’s faster than a Samurai I bet. The Comanche was built like a Neanderthal. Short squat and powerful. Perfect for a horse.
So what are the components of that Turkish bow and where are they placed? I heard an Inuit would make a bow of whale rib bone. Another interesting comparison to Mongol. Indeed they were closest to the Bering Strait.
Horn bows were made of buffalo horn on the belly, maple hardwood on the inside and animal sinew facing the target. Extremely difficult to construct but the power and efficiency of this bow is worth it.
I kinda wish they had a show like forged in fire but for bows what with all the different types out there. The arrowhead would help as well in penetrating armor as the natives adopted steel arrowheads but mongols I’m sure had them by 1200s.
Well, those Mongolian eating those arrows are made to eat those arrows, i mean 4 layers of defense to anything from arrow to spears to swords and daggers, a shield plate chain and wet silk, incase arrow penetrated first 3 layers.
I mean wet silk can stop armor-penetrating arrows, and what are Comanche wearing, i'm sure its not enough to withstand bow with draw-strength of 160, hell Mongolian scouting force of 10-20k defeated European force of knights and archers and foot-sluggers, an army 5 to 10 times their size on their territory, im sure they wouldn't be so easily defeated by some people who likes fighting alone.
@vfc Archery the bow you displayed was very accurate of what a comanche/kiowa bow would have been like, comanches never sinew backed their bows, there is not a single sinew backed comanche bow in existance in museums anywhere, they were also the longest in the plains, northern plains bows werw 36-45 inches long generally while comanche bows were 46-55 inches long.
Thank you so much for posting this. I’m curious if there is much difference between a Mongol and a Turkish bow? Other than the size difference I would think that they would be really close but the Mongol bow might have had more impact on the target as longer draw and heavier arrows. But if I had the choice I would take the Turkish design over the Mongol due to size and maneuverability.
@vfc Archery you said in the video that the bows the comanche's used wouldn't be able to stress more then 70 pounds of draw weight / Does this mean that a short selfbow reaching 100 pounds or above Can't be made?
@vfc Archery that is definitely a Turkish design bow you pointed to. The Mongolian design compare to the Turkish design is different enough you should know the difference.
the Mongols mounted archery tactics was the most devastating tool they had. But you are right, their bows were he key to that tactic, not only the strength but the length. A flat bow would need to be very long to come near the strength of a composite bow, some old english long bows were in excess of 75lbs, but they were nearer six feet long, not something you can fire from horseback at a gallop.
The combined horsemanship and archery proficiency was phenominal, someone once likened it to every Mongol warrior being a trick rider and a trick archer, they often started riding when they could first walk and shooting a bow shortly afterwards.
There is no such thing as Osage Orange being "the best bow wood"...Read 'The Traditional Bowyers Bible' vols 1 - 4. It's all in the design (depending on available wood) that is proper for the species you are working.
There are other sources other than the Bowyers Bible. No other woods that I know of can heat bend like osage and for a 50 inch bow can be drawn to 28 inches. Not to mention it is rot resistant.
Try Sassafras,I have seen a Sassafras Bow 42 inches top to tip with a 25 inch draw length and I have Video to prove it and it is a Plains Indian Bow. I've heard the Mongol 140-160# pull thing before.
As an amateur Archer, I can't imagine this is accurate. Go to the gym, load a barbell with 160# total weight, and lift it of the ground with one hand using your shoulder and elbow muscle groups. 99.9% of you cannot do it.
Olive Juice's dog
The Mongols were amazing and very gifted archers, but they didn't win a war with 30,000-70,000 half-starved, pastoral nomads drawing 160# recurve bows hundreds of times an hour. It is not possible. I think Gengis Khan was a great war leader, and the Mongols were great horse archers, but they weren't Supermen.
Sorry, but you do not understand Comanche bows https://sites.google.com/site/comancheriadevelopment/designer-s-blog/comanchewarfarepart1weapons. Nine years a captive is an amazing account and a great story. He could hit a hat at 100 yards every time.
I think they reached 300. They had glue and used buffalo horn seed softened in water, wood also. Great story. They beat a large bluecoat force with howitzers. But the repeaters were too much. Still primitive.
Sure, the Mongols had incredible force, witness the battle of Mahi, and great experience, storming cities in China and slaughtering more people that the population of Europe, but I pulled a 40 pound bit as a weak US modern. The Comanches drove arrows entirely through a bison at full gallop. That’s a lot of force. They did use bone and glue.
https://sites.google.com/site/comancheriadevelopment/designer-s-blog/comanchewarfarepart1weapons
I have not heard of them using bone but sinew backed with hide glue they did use. They shot buffalo at point blank range and I assume that if there was no bone hit with a 60# bow it could go through the buffalo.
I agree with what you said, but their was a time period when Comanches used horn and sinew bows - Wow, awsome vid, informative yet short and to the point, i used to do alot of deer hunting with a compound bow but never found the time to master a recurve or stick bow.
I understand though that serious performance archers aren't made, their grown, hence all the old archeological finds of ancient archers with oversize backs and arms on one side, etc.
No, the native american warriors had composite bows made of horns of a big horn sheep and it was just as strong as the mongols the self bow was made by the tribesmen who lived in the east and north where they had the wood to do so and still it sometimes was covered with snake skin and animal sinew.
I'm curious to know how anyone knows what draw weight range of medieval Mongolian war bows was, since, to my knowledge, no known historical examples of them exist today. I'm skeptical that they'd have used bows with draw weights much over 100#.
Bows with those draw weights and higher become very difficult to use even for someone on foot and require constant training to wield effectively. Also, European bows don't appear to have been fashioned with those draw weights until the advent of full plate armour made of hardened steel made them necessary.
This sort of armour is something the Mongols didn't encounter during their 13th century conquests. I don't see why they'd have opted for such heavy bows when lighter ones that more people would realistically be capable of using would have sufficed.
Good question. I think that from my research the draw weights of Turkish bows was estimated between 90 and 130# based on about 50 bows examined from the museums by Adam Karpowicz . The average of all the war bows was 127#. I assume that the mongols were similar in draw weight.
@vfc Archery But those Turkish bows are from the late Medieval/Early Modern period, are they not? In the European context, there seems to have been a steady increase in draw weights of military bows through the medievel period (although evidence is somewhat sketchy).
There are 11th century Viking longbows that had draw weights in the 70# range, which was probably enough with the right arrow to penetrate the mail and gambeson type armour they would have faced.
Then by the 15th and 16th centuries, we see longbows with draw weights in the 150# range and crossbows with draw weights over 300#, which was almost certainly a response to hardened steel plate armour. In the 13th century, bows with such high draw weights would probably have been overkill whose costs outweighed any benefits they might have had.
You bring up an interesting point about the evolution of draw weights. One factor I think that supports your theory is that with the warming of Europe after 1000 AD, food supplies would have increased and the average persons strength would have increased as well.
One thing that we can't fully know is how far did the average archer draw their bow back or better stated how much could they pull? 100# @32 inches would be about 70#@ 28 inches with the same bow.
This. Forget what books say. Who is firing a 160# bow in any setting, much less hundreds of times an hour in battle. @Marmocet in early islamic era some arab try persian bow that could penetrate armor he said turkish bow were heavier.
I agree to a majority of what you are saying. The mongol composite bow is without doubt a more efficient and powerful bow in comparison to a simple Comanche self bow. However, one must take into account the properties of sinew. I’ve built a handful of sinew backed bows, and have had issues with moisture from rain or humidity.
Regardless of the great lengths you take to waterproof a sinew backed bow, a solid and torrential downpour over the course of an hour, with the bow exposed, would de-laminate the sinew from the wood. A well oiled self-bow will survive that, although losing cast. Once the sinew falls off, that wooden core with fail under tension rendering the bow useless.
A battle can occur at anytime, so rain could be a 50/50 problem. Also, a self bow can be built in a matter of hours (given the wood is cured) while a composite bow can take 30 plus man-hours. Not factoring in sinew drying time.
Also, it boils down to the skill of the archer. Both parties are infamous for their accuracy with a bow. A well placed arrow shooting out of a 50# bow will kill faster than a off-target arrow coming out of a 130# bow. Either way, I highly respect the composite bows. They are menacing and powerful, but are not without flaws.
He also said that the comanche's wouldn't be able to stress their bows more then 60 Pounds
Is that actually true?? / Can't one make a small self bow with like 120 pound at 22 Inches?
And regarding Oiling composite bows / The Mughals of India(Very humid place) used to add Laquer to their Composite Crab bows which protected these well. Personnaly i'd choose the small sinew backed selfbow - Power, compact and not that complex compared to a Horn composite.
So what your ssying is the Mongols needed a 75# plus bow to beat the Comanche with his 40# bow. That does not make them a better Warrior. I can and have killed coyote, deer and one Elk with my Plains Blackfeet bow, ( similar to Comanche).
Electric violinist Jo A Ram
I do agree that the show got it wrong and get things wrong all the time. It,s just that if they both used same wt of bows why do U say it was like Man vs Boy? U got that wrong. It seems they would be equal. I like your video but so much is missing here on what makes a better Warrior.
Russell Charles Means was an Oglala Lakota activist for the rights of American Indian people.
No what I was saying is that the mongol bow is superior to the Comanche bow and the Comanche warrior would not have got close enough to the mongols to use their bows. The mongol bows were between 100 and 160# and the distance of the bow shot would have been far greater than the Comanche bow. Nothing to do with the warrior versus warrior but instead bow versus bow.
Well, I missed that point then. Your talking only of the Bow here. Thanks for clearing this up. As I said. I like your vid on this. Plus I totally agree on the inaccuracy of certain things.
U see this video proves that asiatic composite bows are much stronger then NA plain bows. Yes it's true. But it doesn't mean that mongol warrior is individualy better then comanche warrior and would always win.
Commanche's had clubs while mongols had swords, id place my bet on the mongol winning. but didnt commanches also have muskets or lever action rifles? @George Rome the Mongols were a Disciplined army that was extremely organized and faught like a modern army would putting even the Romans to Shame.
Units of 10 men amongst 100 amongst a 1000 amongst 10 000. Commanche's faught like a band of raiders and never besieged fortified cities or stuff / the 2 are simply incomparable.
Having said that, i'd prefer the comanche bow / It's easier a quicker to make, it's not as vulnerable to water as the Complex Mongol Bow + Regarding power, can't one just make the bows stronger like 100 pounds at 22 inches in case you ever had to deal with armored opponents. As for long range bombardment I would actually Prefer a sling and Lead projectiles.
I have always had a problem with the results of this comparison. The Pains Indians and their Mongol cousins were both excellent horsemen, although I would give a slight edge to the Comanches shooting under the horses neck.
However, the Mongols had much superior weapons- self bows vs. horn bows and knives vs. swords. On an individual basis the edge would go to the Mongol. In an army, there would be no question. The Mongols were professional warriors, the Indians hunters who also fought.
Well put. It was hard to say what the show was comparing. Both groups were distinctly different making comparison almost impossible. I agree with you and in each circumstance if I was up against either of them I would not want it to be the Mongols who were my enemy.
This is silly. There is no comparison. Comanche bows are a stick and string. Same bow used in the stone age with next to no improvements. Eastern middle age archers such as the huns and Mongols used highly advanced composite bows. Shorter, faster, more powerful. better in every way.
Let's say if such short selfbows had like 100 pound at 20" draw - think that would be a great inprovement ??? since they shoot shorter Arrows, But one can increase the weight of that arrow by making it thicker.
Mordion Yes, minus the sinew factor. They were less durable in terms of the elements. No matter how much water proofing you do to the composite, a sinew backed bow will fall off after exposure to an hour of heavy rain. Other than that, superior archery technology.
https://sites.google.com/site/comancheriadevelopment/designer-s-blog/comanchewarfarepart1weapons
More research is needed here the Native Americans did have horn bows that were very powerful ,they were capable of penetrating Spanish chain mail armor at over 100 yards they also had bows that were capable of completely passing threw a horse end to end Tom Lucas does some replication of the old horn bows, Also Stu Murdock does some.
Yes I have read about those bows used by the southern tribes against the Spanish. Those however are not the horn bows made by Tom Lucas as they are northwestern in design. Still neither are a match for the Turkish war bow.
The difference between a laminate horn bow and a comanche wooden bow is you may be able to dodge an arrow from the wooden bow. No way you are dodging an arrow from the mongol bow. Also, whoever said the comanche could beat a mongol warrior is a fool.
Yes the technology of the bows was worlds apart, by the one thing that needs to be taken into account was the warrior himself. The mongols were a military fighting unit, the Comanche was a warrior who fought one to one and from close distance so his bow didn’t need to pull 160lb it only needed to pull about 45lb to be deadly. But when you are shooting from a large distance you need bows like the English longbow or the composite bow the mongols used.
And we could load, and release them extremely fast. @deidara true He also said that the comanche's wouldn't be able to stress their bows more then 60 Pounds.
Is that actually true?? / Can't one make a small self bow with like 120 pound at 22 Inches ??? Keep in mind , brother that these childrens bows regularly took down massive bison, 12 hundred to 2 thousand pounds.The Comanche and for that matter, the Kiowa were unmatched on horseback.But, yeah, their bows were stronger.
Thanks for the comment. I was referring to the draw weights of the Turkish bows below 70# being used by their children. The Comanche bow was NO child's bow as it could drop a man or buffalo before they knew what happened.
Actually watch my video on the 40 inch short osage bow as it could drop either of the above however at first glance a person would think it to be a kids bow.... BIG Mistake.
f
Some comanches used northern bows made from ram horn and sinew that held up to 115lbs. although not many had them there were tribes that had bows that powerful and legends of people having stronger ones. but i will say i by far am not an expert i just go by old tales and relics.
Yes the Comanche were a branch of the Shoshone. Probably from the Flatheads. Short squat and powerful people. Chief Washakie was a Flathead. And the Shoshone has horn bows. Tom Lucas learned from them how to make bighorn sheep bows in Wyoming.
The Comanche would have had their own version of the heavy bow. I'm sure they would have had a Sheepeater Horn bow since the Shoshone traded with them.
The Mongols easily won over the Europeans.Becourse they used powerfull bows and cavalry with guerrilla tactic,they also used 2-3 extra horses with them.Europeans used mostly footsoldiers ,and our cavalry was to heavy and to slow.
Mongols used much longer arrows ,its not so short bow (manchu bow) .And a long draw bow .used in long and short range. I used to have a real ,but sold it on auction ,over 120 years old ,with arrows. The natives used short bows(have 2 fully working with sinew strings at home) ,shorter arrows .And the native bow is a short draw bow .used in short range.
I also have a short Turkish bow(they r much shorter then a mongol bow) and the arrows r as long as we use today .Both the Mongol and Turkish bow r almost as a modern compound bow .
Very hard to draw ,but when you have draw it all the way is more easy to hold and aim .The native bow you have little time to aim .hard to draw all the way.
The native sinew bowstring when gets wet its extend ,so you need to twist it to be shorter .I love them all. But i think the Turkish are totally the best ,second the mongol bow. But in close combat the native bow r faster to use .becourse of its a powerfull shortdraw bow. Best regards from Sweden Have a nice day !!!
Let's say if a small Native's bow like used by the comanche were to have for example 100 pound draw weight at 20" draw. And were to shoot Shorter but thicker heavy arrows / Think that would increase armor penetrating capabilities. Cause a shorter eaqually heavy arrows is perhaps better then a longer one Or Am I wrong??
I think it would be a very rare Comanche that could pull 100# based on their drawing technique and release. However,if possible to draw I would think that it would be somewhat like a weaker cross bow but may penetrate armor.
That said the efficiency of a wood bow is not that of a horn bow so a pound for pound comparison is not relevant. For instance my 44# Turkish biocomposite bow shoots an arrow 180 fps but no wood bow I made can do that with the same arrow unless the draw weight is above 60#.
@vfc Archery Agreed, the composite bow made of natural materials is indeed one of the best bows after the Modern Compound one / it takes time to make and certain materials / But what I've always wondered is, how people would deal with the humidity and rain Problem.
Cause the Mughals of India (which is very rainy and Humid) used the Composite mughal Crab Bow which performed outstandingly and i've read they Used Just Laquer to protect it from water.
But weren't there more possibilities to increase it's waterproof ability and Certainly for the String, like using Snake or Shark skin / What's your thought on this?
I wish I knew more about waterproofing wood but they used leather and lacquer and this helped but as for the high humidity, you just cant keep that out.
The Mongol Empire was in the last stages before it shrunk back in on itself just leaving Khans in some of the places it had conquered before the North American Indian met a white man and acquired a horse, how do you compare the two reliably?
I believe the horse got free and available to the Indians in 1538. The Mongol bow was a war bow, by the time the white man started meeting Indians to document how they lived they were using the bow the plains Indians needed to kill buffalo and others to kill deer for which the 60lb was enough.
Also remember there is no evidence of American Indians having steel before the arrival of the invader whereas the Mongols did during their conquests. I'm very appreciative of your insightful video! To my mind, there is no comparison between the Mongol bow Vs Native American bow.
The Mongol bow was a sophisticated composite bow, made up of a hardwood core sandwiched between a layer of water buffalo sinew and water buffalo horn. In addition, the Mongol bows had siyahs and string bridges, all head together with a sophisticated glue made from salmon and herbs.
The glue itself was miraculous, as the west did not achieve a glue with that level of adhesion till the late 20th century. When I first saw the matchup, I was beyond livid. I could not imagine the so-called experts on the show, making a such a PROFOUND historical error.
The historical fact error was so bizarre, it leads me to think that how much more of the show was just made stuff up and just overall bullshited people!!
I could go on and on but history is riddled with misconceptions, ignorance and outright lies just like the news is today. I agree that this kind of an misrepresentation to mislead the public puts the whole show in jeopardy of being a Hollywood production. Thanks for your comment.
@vfc Archery I'd buy a sinew backed from you if you can make a 29 inch draw - Anthony, I currently do not sell bows as liability insurance is too$$$. I would recommend that for a long draw like yours that you are probably looking at a 55 to 60 inch ash or osage orange bow that is sinew backed.
The sinew backing would help with the issue of string follow. Sinew backing a bow longer that that would add too much weight to the bow. These lengths are based on shooting off the hand with no arrow shelf.
@vfc Archery well you do excellent work..I guess I'll just stick to fiberglass bows ..I can't find anyone that will make me a long sinew backed bow... But I will attempt one with a 62-in ash stave... Ash is almost extinct here due to the ash borer.
And what Finish do you put on your bows to make them look so nice and glossy? I use Outdoor spar urethane semi high gloss.
Regardless of the bows, the Mongols still should have won. They were better soldiers in every other aspect. An armored soldier with a sword would crush an unarmored one with a hatchet every single time.
NOW a Word from a Real Numunuu (Kawadii Comanche) - I couldn't but LOL when I read so many "Opinions" by the Anglo's ... Simply Talking Out Their ignorant Ass's.
Comanches do not need any NON-Indian "speaking on out behalf", or Sharing "Fake Information", because YOU are NOT One of the People. You DO NOT KNOW anything about The Southern Plains Tribes.
1. Along with other Plains Tribes, we were Nomadic, and our Historical Hunting grounds stretched from SE Colorado, East & NE New Mexico, Western Oklahoma, and the Northern 1/3 of Texas.
2. Hunting and Warfare - was and Is in our DNA. THESE Skill set's demand Great Accuracy, AND like all things that are Deadly ... You absolute have to have the HEART to Take the Battle. directly to your Enemies. Like inside a MMA Cage, you have the Real Fighters Inside ... and the Poser's outside ... Slapping high-5's.
3. Big Dog - the Spaniards introduced the Andalusian Horses, and they were cross-bred with the wild horses of the plains. IF & WHEN you go to our New Comanche Museum in Lawton, Oklahoma, you will see on a Northern panel a large plaque that describes a Special Paint Horse, that was created especially for War.
4. Bigger Dog - UNLESS you have been eye-to-eye with a 1800 to 2400 pound, Bull Male Buffalo (Bison), you don't WTF , you are talking about.
5. Warfare - like our brothers the Mongol's ... it's in our DNA, and the facts Speak for Themselves. WHY? Because dumb-ass, We made it our business to fight the US Government AND, the US Army (Calvary) F2F, and H2H.
6. Warfare II - we developed an array of WEAPONS, before being introduced to the Winchester. Therefore, we used different Bows & Arrows for different situations. Knifes, Tomahawks, Spears, Shields were the basic equipment. HAVE you ever held a War arrow with an Obsidian Arrow? My current array includes the above mentioned and much more.
7. Warfare III - Dog Soldier Society's are/were part of the Plains Tribes (Comanche, Kiowa, Southern Cheyenne, Southern Arapaho, Tonkawa, Wichita, and 2 Bands of the Apache, including Geromino's, well-known as the, Chiricahua's.
8. Warfare IV - Comanches, like other Plains & Iroquois Confederacy Tribes develop and implemented the Original Military Warfare Method, known as "Guerilla Warfare" - the use of a small attacking, mobile force against a large, unwieldy force. The guerrilla force is largely or entirely organized in small units that are dependent on the support of the local population.
Tactically, the guerrilla army makes the repetitive attacks far from the opponent's center of gravity with a view to keeping its own casualties to a minimum and imposing a constant debilitating strain on the enemy.
This may provoke the enemy into a brutal, excessively destructive response which will both anger their own supporters and increase support for the guerrillas, ultimately compelling the enemy to withdraw.
WHY? It's Simple ... our units were Out-numbered by the US Army (Calvary), and we had to deal with the war of attrition ... as far as Replacements; where the Army recruited Thousands of Immigrants, that were arriving 24/7, from Europe.
9. White Captives - The Numunuu is notoriously famous and well- known for taking White women & children, while Killing their men. The White Captives, were sold or traded or adopted into one of the 4 Bands of the Comanches. We are one of the few Indian Tribes to practice this type of Business enterprise.
10. The Stealth Rotary-wind Helo used in the Bin Laden raid was a later, improved version of the original Comanche Helo.
11. Over 540 Federally-recognized Tribes in the US - But, it was thru the Action's of a smaller number of Tribes ... that brought the US Government to Parley an assortment of devices called "Government-to-Government" Treaties.
AND, The Comanches were ONE of those tribes that made it happen. Some Tribes were in Agriculture, some raised Animals, some wrote part of the US Constitution, some were Shamans, some wrote their own alphabet, and some ... just Loved to Raid & Fight ... against their enemies, all Foreign and Domestic.
12. US Military - Comanches like other HISTORICAL Warring Tribes, have served in all 4 branches of of the US Military, with distinction ... We are an asset in every Unit ... and there fore well-known to be "Multipliers" to each squad, each platoon, each company, each division, each Unit, each branch.
One of the Dog Soldier Society's that I'm in, takes at least 10 to 15 years before you can be INDUCTED, starting from day one after your Sponsor has Nominated your name ... It's a Big Fucking Deal ... VERY Few People has ever being PRESENT & ACCOUNTED FOR THIS RITUAL.
I was not going to release this comment due to a couple derogatory slurs and no name given "Default Name" but its a free world and this individual took the time to write a lengthy interesting response.
There is more than one issue here and I can tell it is confused. In no way do I think that any warrior society is less than a Comanche warrior, and actually I put them in the top 10% which is right where the Mongols are as well.
My video was a contrast between the physical properties of the bows used in this Deadliest Warrior episode and those used by the Mongols in real battles. It is not based on opinion but on physical facts.
I make both these types of bows and am a student of history. One of the reasons the Comanche and other tribes were defeated was because of inferior weapon systems. This would have been the case whether is was the US cavalry or the Mongols.
This is a reflection of technological advancements as the result of the requirements in which these cultures lived. I hope that "Default Name" can separate the issues here from the statements made in their comment. I do appreciate the historical comments made and again in no way am talking about the valour or the great warrior nations in North America.
This was the best match-up in the three years of this show. Also I am not an American so not sure what I was supposed to reply to as a demonstration of patriotism?
You are just yelling Hyperbole and rhetoric and your logic is all over the map.Get off your politically correct high horse and try living in reality! The Mongol bow was a far more sophisticated weapon that the Commanche bow.
The Mongols were an organized disciplined fighting force. You are playing the role of professional victim and trying to derail academic FACTS!!!
My family has been in Kiowa County for generations Snyder/Mountain Park actually. I have so many cousins that are part either Comanche, Kiowa or Cherokee. I have heard all the stories, been thier reunions and hunted/fished with many of them.
Frank Porpherbetty? from Cache. I agree with your assessment of the Comanche tactics. I am US Army Combat Medic, USAMRIID @ Ft. Detrick, don't use you military experience as a qualification unless you are a tactical scholar of both cultures.
The Mongols needed that higher draw bow due to the opponents they most often faced wearing some sort of armor or protective clothing. And their battle tactics evolved as a direct result of the type of opponent they faced most.
They were incredibly accurate archers. But most of the time their target was not actively trying to dodge an arrow because that target expected their armor to protect them.
The Comanche were pretty much equal to the Mongols where accuracy was concerned. But they seldom if ever wore anything that even remotely resembled armor. And they knew that getting hit by an enemy arrow was not a good way to win a battle or score points.
The only real advantage the stronger bows might have given the Mongols would have been greater range. The power doesn't really matter the amount of damage caused by the arrow matters because comanches fought while being close to their rivals.
I agree. Also the Comanche has been referred to as the best riders in the world. I know Mongols were known as expert riders too. as for the bows- i have learnt that Comanche historically descents from Shoshoni. Shoshoni tribe is known for Horn bows.
@Bjorn Bjorn He also said that the comanche's wouldn't be able to stress their bows more then 60 Pounds - Is that actually true?? / Can't one make a small self bow with like 120 pound at 22 Inches ???THANK YOU SO MUCH for this video!
It bothered me for YEARS, the error they made in this episode!!! The Mongol guy brought a simple Hungarian beginner's bow that wasn't anything near the real thing, and because of that the Mongol warrior lost the fight in the simo to a Comanche warrior who was equipped with the Stone age type of bow! OMG, this is great!!! Finally you put my mind at ease, otherwise, I thought the world gone crazy. I am so glad I run across this video! Thank you, thank you!
Could you do a segment on the Steppe bow vs. the English longbow? I no longer have my English longbow however I can tell you that there is not much of a comparison as the horn bow id like a Ferrari and the English Long bow like a Chrysler.
I saw on another video that the English long bow ENTRY level was 70 lb draw weight, but could more than double that based on samples from the Mary Rose. So what was the most deadly bow in the ancient world? I'm not clear--for the top bow, is 44 lbs. the draw weight or the actual weight of the bow? I would have to believe the former, for horseback.
Yes it is the draw weight of the bow. Due to the design it shoots like a self bow with about 10# more of draw weight. SO it is highly efficient. Most horn bows physical weight is about 1 pound or 400-500 grams.
Mongols used a thumb ring for protection. Their bows had such a draw weight that you could not use three fingers easily. You had to use a full fist grip as the thumb is the strongest digit.
Then, why did English longbow use three fingers? The longbow was famous for having draw weights as high as 100 to 150 lbs draw weight.
Yes your wright the Mongol Turk tartar bow was the most dangerous weapon made and throw the horse in it's a lethal cocktail that's why the Mongols and Turks etc had dominated the known world it's a good video u made straight up.
Totally agreed with you u can't just compared a bow that was primarily to hunt with a bow that was made for war just can't. Capt. Samuel Walker of the Texas rangers, who is remembered for his input on the design of the Walker Colt, was also a historian, he relates eye witness accounts of Comanches riding up alongside of running buffalo and shooting arrows completely through the animal with their "composite" bows.
A number of American peoples used composite bows. Like so many good ideas, they spontaneously occur at widely diversified locations. The earliest preserved specimen was found in a tomb in Egypt, and was dated at around 3500years, and believed to have been of Hittite origin.
In the comparison between the Mongols and the Comanches perhaps a better indicator would have been who were the more proficient horsemen.
Sinew backed elk horn bow with out the draw length it can not even compare to Mongolian horse bow im sorry. Mind you the more common composite bows where simple self bows that were sinew backed still giving it more power then the average selfbow but still nothing in comparison to the stored energy of Mongolian.
Even in this video is full of misleading informations. Mongol bows were not as powerful as Turkish or Korean bows. Please see Mongolian documentaries on their archery tradition.
I had several sources estimate the average poundage of the Mongolian bows to be between 100 and 160 pounds. The History of the Mongols by Ben Hill stated the bows to be 160 pounds.
Adam Karpowicz in his book Ottoman Turkish bows manufacture and design second edition states the average Turkish bow was between 90 and 130 pounds. Korean bows were less in poundage.
howard hill built 100 lbs bows out of osage orange, so if the native americans had felt the need for a heavier bow they would have built one. However not all bows of equal draw weight shoot equally in feet per second. No osage or yew bow can stand up to a horn bow due to the physical properties of the materials involved.
Lmao horn bows are useless if they get wet a simple longbow is better almost as effective - Yes but what about the longbow string when it got wet? and what about shooting it off a horse?
Longbow strings are waterproofed with beeswax - just as they were in England, 700 years ago. I've shot a yew longbow, with a linen string, on a day when it never really stopped raining - and the string gave me no trouble at all.
PS , VFC - if you don't know that yew longbows as used by English archers in the 14th century could penetrate plate armour, then you need to brush up on your history.
As for shooting it off a horse - a few years back, a group of English archers made a video history of archery; in one sequence, they filmed an archer shooting a full-sized longbow, whilst riding a horse at a gallop.
Quang Than Le
Howard Hill, using the steel tools he had, surely built nice big long bows, good luck shooting that from horse back. The Comanches didn't use longbows. This was a Comanche vs Mongol fight. I'm all for 'Merica, but it really wouldn't have been much of a fight for the Mongol.
Beyond completely wrong!!!!!!!!!! Howard Hill was building laminated bows. Native Americans were building unbacked bows, with primitive tools in a non-workshop setting!!
Native Americans built low poundage bow as heavier weighted bows would have cracked and the bowstrings would have snapped!! Ok, clue me in, how do you actually know what Native Americans were thinking?? You have the reasoning skills of a 12-year-old!!! Ever built a bow, touched a tool???
Desade1776 actually, hill built many selfbows and bamboo-backed bows before his laminated ASL-style bows. Tradarcher300 and they were not 100#bows,Why do you think Hill built laminated fiberglass backed bows.
Jimmy Chaves wroooooong! Longbow's that are not polyurethaned and fiberglass backed loose cast.Longbow's are not capable of storing energy as horned composite bows.
@Tabourba If The Samurai shot with the Giant Ass Yumi from horse back / A english Longbow shouldn't be a problem. But it's armor penetrating capabilities are Questionable.
It has always been my belief that if the 1876 Sioux and Chyene who defeated Custer met in battle the 13th century Mongols the Sioux and Chyene would be wiped out to a man despite the fire arms they possesd. That goes the same for the Comanche.
That is despite the fierceness and personal courage that these north American tribes possesd. The Mongols were just an irresistible tactile military force. Mongols also used firearms, they introduced it to Europe.
But really it comes down to the archer us native americans especially of the comanche people was used most of their lifes just like most of us native americans in south america the use of bows not only for hunting but for warfare aswell but tue mingols used it for just war so would not atain that certain relationship with the bow and the arrow.
Uh.... no, the Mongols used the bow for everything. And much like Comanches, they learned to ride before they learned to walk, the difference was that Mongols literally worshiped horses as gods.
Stephanie Washack the Mongols were the best. The biggest problem they had was that there were just never enough Mongols. Mongol armies were tiny compared to the ones they beat. Almost impossible to defeat them on an open battlefield.
What your saying is like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forrest battle between Romans and Goths. The Native Americans didn't usually fight in a large disciplined battle field they were guerrilla ambush fighters who hid in the woods or mountain tops.
It's doubtful that it would be like what you saw in Braveheart. The Mongols were no doubt probably history's greatest horse mounted warriors, but I think they could be defeated if they had to fight on foot in a pitched battle man to man combat.
The natives Americans ancestors were on foot because remember.. they didn't have horses. @richard alvarado are you sure about that, have you checked the horse they bred, its not tall horse which is like a european horse, its short strong and has far more endurance than that "show horse" their horse is as warrior as their rider, not made for war, yes but more than enough to defend and repel any army, given right commander and terrain.
Hard to really compare. The mongols where more military orientated, they fought as an army, the Comanches where more gorilla fighters, each man for himself. Who was the better bowman, probably the mongol, but as a mounted bowman, probably the Comanche.
My reason for this was the mongols were primarily headers, they raised sheep, cattle and horses you just had to heard them to new grassing areas. However, when the plains tribes wanted to eat, they had to ride up next to a buffalo at full speed, fire the bow and turn the horse with their knees hopping the animal didn't turn and gore them. The Mongols also rode with a saddle and stirrups which could help you use more muscles to draw a bow.
Mongols are better in every aspect. Only an uneducated fool will argue otherwise. I saw that show and the episode your talking about. The comanche bower was a better shot than the mongol counterpart. In the demo on the show. I did kinda wonder about the bows though. The comanche bow is an impressive peace.
But I didn't think the mongol bow was properly reported in that show. Even sinew backed I don't think a Comanche bow could match the horn bow. In north America I think the only thing that comes close is the Cherokee long bows. I've heard they could reach over 80 pounds.
But then they weren't a horse bow I dont think. And thats kinda the point here. Is the power and mobility of the mounted archers vs each other. The horn bow would be the superior weapon in an open battle field were both sides are on the move and winging arrows back and fourth.
Yes the Mongol bow would have draw weights on average between 90-130# and the Comanche between 50 and 70#. That is also not to mention that the horn bow is much more efficient and even at the same draw weight would have a distinct advantage as it would shoot the arrow faster and further than the Comanche. I have a 44# Turkish biocomposite (so not full horn bow) and it out shoots a 65# yew and osage bow in fps.
Well another point is range. saw you have Comanche bow and a horn bow..both are 45 pounds. The horn bow benefits from a full draw saw 28 to 30 due to its material. were the comanche bow ,unless sinew backed, would be limited to a short draw..as a self bow can only draw half its overall length. So a 40 inch bow would only draw 20 inch. The horn bow would have more cast thus more distance....to my understanding that is.
Yes the sinew makes a big difference if applied correctly as in the horn bow. My experience with osage is to get at least 3 more inches in draw that the total divided by 2. So a 40 inch bow would draw 23 inches without breaking. It has to bend in the handle though and not have an arrow shelf.
There is a difference between a war bow and a hunting bow. there were different types of bows the Comanche used. I have seen a design from a book on naive Indian bows showing the Comanche bow that is a self bow and is kind of a pyramid shape and in 47 inches long with no recurves or setback in the handle.
I have just made one of these and it is quite powerful as the fades are 1 1/2 inches wide. There is a video from the Comanche museum on YouTube and its bows are quite interesting aa a different design is shown and the fades are much thinner.
You said Osage really weird - Yea probably because we don't have any of it growing naturally in Canada. sometimes its all down to the tactic that a warrior would use, if comanche warrior is better horseman than mongolian horseman (and its plausible given the sophisticated breed of horse that imported to american plain compared to the one that used by mongol, which is just turkoman ponies) and the mongol bow use much longer bow than a turkish bow.
I think its possible, because mongol could defeat and conquer many empire because they're master of logistic too, but in case of tactic some of culture would perform superior than mongolian tactic. I guess you forgot the European breeds that were introduced to the Comanches got shitted on by smaller mongol horses in the 1300s .
They already had horses and lmao little tiny mongolians horses are faster yeah right. Dude, the bow at the top is turkish, not mongolian. Hayk Amirbekyan dude, Turkish, the Mongols and Tatars all used the same bow. You don't know what are you talking about.
Good question. I have seen this done in the book called the Bowyer's Bible (not sure which volume). It would work but the arrow would have to go between the bows which would make it more cumbersome and you could not shoot off horseback.
The arrow would have to go down the middle between the 2 bows so the grip and a divider holding the bows together might take up more space than it would appear. The arrow would be slower to load as it would have to be inserted in the middle.
The other problem might be what if the two bows have different draw lengths and weights as this would be REALLY hard to get precisely the same. But the design would be an excellent infantry weapon and one to take on a low powered crossbow.
Turks originally central Asia nomads - northern parts are considered as europe but south eastern is a bit asiatic. the mongols and turks are pretty much cousins..so to say that one group is originally something just because some white people came and draw lines on the map is...funny in my opinion. whats more..my friend khan considers himself asian and not european.
not sure about Comanche bows but hear n Fla, the natives caused were a terror to the Conquistadors. They wore 15th century Armor and have stories where Fla Timacua , Ais , Calusa natives as well shot their arrows completely through armor . One test performed by a native prisoner under Spanish watch ,shot his arrow through a shirt of chainmail along with a plated chest piece.
A second almost went through with the Native saying " let me try again as my release was bad ,if I don't go completely through both pieces you can hang me with my bow string". They denied him this second chance. it was Their best Armour.
So no you can't show us up Native man😂Denied. Anyway they used Reed arrows as well,hardened by fire sometimes. Also with no points as well which splintered when shot at chainmail, causing multiple wounds.His bow would have to be very strong since his string was strong enough to hang a grown man suspended in the air.
The native people were also very adaptable to figure weakness. Who knows Comanche maybe Southern Indians had long bows but I don't know if they were any stronger than out West. I think Mongols wore silk under their armour which prevented full penetration of arrow points. that's what the rumour is anyway.
Yes the Mongols did wear silk under their armor. I have read that the natives did shoot through armor when they met the Spanish. Those bows were longer than the Comanche style bow as the east coast natives bows for war were about 65-70 inches long and made of osage orange or locust with draw weights of 70#. The shot would have in my opinion have been at point blank range which would be an unrealistic use of the bow.
Little bit of rumor and some reading about Mongolian troops, there were 2 groups, 1 is 2 line of heavy horse rider with 3-4 layers of armor and defense, from shield and plate armor to a drenched silk to deny arrow from penetrating and the horse was armored to, to second groups with light armor with chain mail and silk with lots of different type of arrows from arrows which made sound to signal the troops and armor-piercing arrow.
But mostly they just shot to unarmored parts, like eyes, and each general had 20.000 troops under his command at any given moment, any reason they lost is because of the terrain, not other people magical or mythical power, they bested war-elephants to armies 5 times their size with just scouting force, so like 10-20k soldiers.
The Indian force was estimated to be in excess of 700 strong and led by Isatai'i and Comanche Chief Quanah Parker, son of a captured white woman, Cynthia Ann Parker.
Their initial attack almost carried the day; the Indians were in close enough to pound on the doors and windows of the buildings with their rifle butts. The fight was in such close quarters that the hunters' long-range rifles were useless.
They were fighting with pistols and Henry and Winchester lever-action rifles in .44 rimfire. After the initial attack was repulsed, the hunters were able to keep the Indians at bay with their large-caliber, long-range Sharps rifles. Nine men were located in Hanrahan's Saloon—including Bat Masterson and Billy Dixon—11 in Meyer's & Leonard's Store and seven in Rath & Wright's Store.
The hunters suffered four fatalities, three on the first day: the two Shadler brothers asleep in a wagon were killed in the initial onslaught, and Billy Tyler was shot through the lungs as he entered the doorway of a building while retreating from the stockade.
On the fifth day William Olds accidentally shot himself in the head while descending a ladder at Rath's store. A search following the initial battle turned up the bodies of 15 Indians killed so close to the buildings that their bodies could not be retrieved by their fellow warriors.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008470757951
"By noon the Indians had ceased charging, and had stationed themselves in groups in different places, maintaining a more or less steady fire all day on the buildings", by 2 pm the Indians rode out of range at the foot of the hills, and by 4 pm the besieged started venturing out from the buildings to gather relics and bury the Shadlers.
The Indians stayed in the distance while deciding how to handle the situation, effectively laying siege to Adobe Walls. During the second day the besieged buried or dragged away the dead horses to "prevent the evil smell from reaching the buildings".
George Bellfield's outfit made it to the Walls, as did Jim and Bob Cator, while Henry Lease volunteered to ride to Dodge City, Kansas, while two hunters visited the surrounding camps to warn them that "the Indians were on the war path".
Study of the Second Battle of Adobe Walls, by Kim Douglas Wiggins - On the third day after the initial attack, 15 Indian warriors rode out on a bluff nearly a mile away to survey the situation.
At the behest of one of the hunters, William "Billy" Dixon, already renowned as a crack shot, took aim with a "Big Fifty" Sharps (it was either a .50-70 or -90, probably the latter) that he had borrowed from Hanrahan and cleanly dropped a warrior from atop his horse.
"I was admittedly a good marksman, yet this was what might be called a 'scratch' shot. Seeing their fellow warrior killed from such a distance apparently so discouraged the Indians that they decamped and gave up the fight.
Hang Én ('swift cave' in Vietnamese, named for the birds that nest in it, occasionally referred to as Én cave in English, is a cave in Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Én is the third largest cave in the world, after Hang Sơn Đoòng in the same national park, and Deer Cave in Malaysia.
The cave has its own jungle, waters, beach, and climate. There are three known entrances to Hang Én. The cave, which goes through a mountain for 1,645 metres (5,397 ft), has a maximum height around 100 metres (330 ft), and a maximum width of approximately 170 metres (560 ft) is a feeder to Hang Sơn Đoòng, 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) away.
The only ways to reach the cave are by helicopter, or an approximately four-hour jungle trek from the nearest road. Both Én and Sơn Đoòng were featured in footage aired on the television program Good Morning America in May 2015, dubbed one of "the top 10 cultural events of the year" in Vietnam by Viet Nam News. Hang Én was selected by the US-based Warner Bros. as a shooting location for the 2015 film
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_%C3%89n
Daily Message of Grace: Your power is not about force or aggression, neither is it measured by status or job. Those are all fear based responses that focus on your differences. Your true POWER is LOVE where we're all equally worthy, special and capable.
So remember, no one can take your POWER away but you CAN give it away by seeing someone else as your source of happiness, love, or any good. You are enough, you are powerful, just being you! We love you, your Angels
https://www.facebook.com/annataylormusicangel/
When it comes to coffee, there’s something everyone’s talking about and nobody is talking about: caffeine. For people who drink and enjoy coffee, caffeine is on the mind and a wonderful tasting cup is a big bonus.
For the folks who work in the coffee industry, we tend to want to think we’re in the deliciousness business and a part of a beautiful value chain, not that we’re administering legal drugs in liquid form.
Of course, great coffee can be both things, but as is so often true about the common and ubiquitous, very little is known about the science of caffeine consumption, and there are many misconceptions around it.
Juliet Han has been pulling double-duty as the head roaster at Blue Bottle while also continuing her studies at Peralta Colleges in Oakland with a focus on science, and naturally she researches coffee whenever she can.
In her just-published research paper Correlation Between Caffeine and Roast Levels Using HPLC she took on the question, “Does dark roast have more caffeine than light roast?”
This is one of the most common misconceptions around coffee, and while it is something that’s been studied in the past, Han’s 15 years of varied industry experience give her a practical lens to see the question through.
Han started by considering the question and pulling it apart: Does dark roast have more caffeine than light roast? As with most questions about coffee, it depends. Even if you assume the brewing is performed consistently, when you say “more caffeine,” you’re talking about more… in what?
In the cup? In the beans? In the grounds? How are you measuring the coffee? Each answer yields a different approach to the question, different scientific variables, and ultimately, different conclusions.
In her research lab, among the various tools and instruments, Han had access to an HPLC (high pressure liquid chromatography) machine, which is a common scientific tool that takes a sample and analyses it for what components are in there and in what quantities.
The details of her methodology and data are in the research paper, but let’s summarize what she learned and why it matters, categorized by how we might frame the caffeine/roast question.
One way to think about this question is: Do caffeine levels change inside the beans during roasting? On this, the science is clear: caffeine is very stable through the roasting process. You’d have to roast it past turning it into charcoal before caffeine would chemically change, beyond even the darkest of dark roasts you could find.
Point is, even though the individual beans go through physical and chemical changes while it’s roasted, the amount of caffeine a bean starts with is generally the amount it ends up with. If you’re talking about individual beans, the caffeine level is the same whether it is light or dark roasted.
Of course, while this may be interesting as a bit of trivia, it’s not that relevant to our day to day coffee lives, unless you’re a coffeebeanophage, which means “person who eats whole bean coffee” and is also a word I just made up.
By the cup and weighing the grounds - Han wanted to take the variables of brewing out of the picture, so she brewed the coffee by “decoction,” which means brewing coffee by actually boiling the coffee in water.
She brewed the living hell outta the coffee, extracting pretty much all the coffee that’s soluble. Boiling it for 15 minutes (as she did) is a lot, and the coffee surely tasted gross and bitter.
Coffee nerds like to weigh the coffee grounds we brew. Mass is a constant, and scoops or tablespoons give you a variable that’s imprecise and inaccurate. (Sorry, scoop lovers.) Different coffees can have very different physical characteristics, so it’s a bit misguided to think that there’s a magic brewing recipe that works all the time.
What Juliet found was that when she weighed the coffee grounds and based her calculations on that, the darker roast did in fact yield more caffeine than the lighter roast.
By the cup and by the scoop - But what if you just can’t put down that spoon or scoop? Not everyone has or wants a scale, and however imprecise scoops and spoons may be, it’s still the most common way most home coffee brewers measure their grounds.
Measuring this way introduces the density of the coffee grounds into the calculations, and Han also did the calculations to see what the results were if someone used tablespoons or scoops.
Turns out that even when using volume to measure the coffee, the darker roasts still resulted in more caffeine than lighter roast. I’ve gotta tell you, I love Han’s research paper. There’s a lot to love about it, but what I love most is that it inspires so many more questions and possibilities for future research.
According to this research, dark roast does in fact yield more caffeine than light roast. This is consistently what Han found across experiments, and it makes sense, though not for the reasons one might think. A darker roasted coffee is less dense, so by the bean, it has lower mass than a light roasted coffee.
All other things being equal, if you grind and weigh out a certain number of grams of coffee, there are more beans involved when using dark roast. It’s no different than if we ate a pound of fresh grapes versus a pound of dried raisins—far more sugar is consumed in the dried, condensed raisin equation.
So it’s not necessarily that “dark roast has more caffeine”—caffeine is stable across roasts—but rather, dark roast is less dense. Since the caffeine is so stable, the difference mostly boils down to density.
What I think it’s interesting to note is that when you look at Han’s data, the caffeine difference between the lightest and darkest coffees was around 9% when you measured by the scoop, but about 32% when she measured by weight.
That’s a big margin! While it’s the density difference between the dark and light roast coffee that gives us the difference in caffeine content, the fact that a scoop of dark roast has less mass than a scoop of light roast actually reduces the net caffeine difference in the scoops-and-spoons scenario.
So while darker roast does have more caffeine, that difference is more pronounced when you measure by weight than if you’re scooper. 32% is a fairly meaningful difference. It means that 16 ounces of Han’s light roast brew would have about as much caffeine as 12 ounces of the dark roast.
But when you’re thinking about how this applies to your coffee consumption, keep in mind that Juliet Han is a scientist professionally controlling her variables.
Once you leave the lab and get out into the world of coffeeshops and home coffeemakers (not to mention different coffees and roasters and brewing waters and brewing variables), you’re faced with the unfathomable number of factors that affect caffeine content beyond just roast level.
All in all, it appears that dark roasted coffee has more caffeine, but not for the reasons you think. That is a great bit of trivia to pull out the next time somebody brings this up at a party.
“You know, dark roasted coffee has more caffeine, but not for the reasons you think!” I can’t wait to see what other research Han and other coffee-knowledgable scientists come up with next. Go science!
https://sprudge.com/does-dark-roast-coffee-really-have-more-caffeine-142095.html
...
There hath no trial or temptation or trouble taken you but such as is common to all men; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to suffer, to be tempted above that you're able, but will with the temptation or the trial also make a way to escape.
Corinthians 10:13
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.