Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People have gotten heavier and taller over time though weight has increased MUCH faster than height.
It's obvious that as a population we need to lose weight but it doesn't apply to every person. In general, I think that "fit and healthy" people today are much beefier than "fit and healthy" people were in 1951, 1961, 1971 or 1981. Just looking at old pics, you see a lot of relatively lean men with less muscular development in their lower body but they'll appear relatively strong in the upper body.
Today, there are more overweight people but the fit among us appear to be more balanced. I'd say this is especially noticeable with women. The healthy women today appear to be more active in weight training, cardio etc....instead of just being lean and petite due to modest caloric consumption. Fit ladies now actually have noticeable development of lats, traps, delts and glutes.
Just my opinion but I think the women into fitness now just look more masculine. The women who aren't into fitness also look masculine because weight distribution has changed. Overweight women are carrying fat in their upper bodies; arms, backs & belly. They are the same shape as fat men. I'm in a group for historical photography & when I see the overweight women of the 1950s & before; they look like bigger women. Still very feminine, in their dresses with a waist. Even post-menopausal women had waists! This tells me that something hormonal is going on.
Quote:
Most of the issue IS NOT related to discipline. It's about what we're exposed to in our environment.
As a Millenial.....men of my generation have less testosterone than our Baby Boomer fathers, and our fathers have less testosterone than our grandfathers and great-grandfathers. We're exposed to more estrogen through plastics and other items. Part of the reason that even 'in-shape' women are more curvaceous up top and bottom than their grandmothers while men today probably workout more yet have a harder time keeping their weight down versus previous generations. Obviously we could stand to eat less, but......alas.
Then you have guys like Jaheim Oatis. He was recruited by Alabama as a 14-year old (think he's a junior in H.S. now) a couple of years ago. I don't think they made kids like this in the 50's....and this is not really uncommon anymore.
And don't forget the antidepressants & anti anxiety medication that everyone pops like candy now. Also our wheat ... Wheat for American consumption is the "soft" wheat treated with pesticides & glycophosphate; not the healthy, preservative free, hard red wheat consumed in Europe. In fact, American wheat is considered not fit for consumption in Europe.
Plus - there are not a lot of calories in cigarettes
Yes, yes, yes. Haven't searched for this, but it would be interesting to see if there is a scientific correlation between the attack on smoking/smokers and the increase in weight of Americans. Are other countries not obese, because their citizens smoke more? The hypothesis being that humans have always had some sort of oral fixation/need for stimulation and in the US we replaced cigarettes with eating - add in the widespread availability and low cost of empty calorie foods and you get rapid weight increase.
Ideal weight for a woman 108-132, no way. I am 5'5" and when I weighed 108 I was only skin and bones and my doc asked me if I wanted to die. My best weight is 140.
Mine is 5'10" and 140 lbs. Total beanpole. I used to work out a lot. I could lift things he couldn't. I've tried to teach him bodyweight squats. He can squat but he can't get back up.
Mine is a beanpole too. But he can squat like a bushman. I always preferred a "huskier" guy like someone said, but hey! "You can't always get what you want". He has the perfect personality, we get along great, and he can't help it if he is genetically skinny. 6' and 135 lbs----yikes! I outweigh him by a few lbs. but as long as he doesn't have to carry me somewhere, we should be OK. I do fear that occasionally, but there's always someone else around....
Not a deal-breaker, though before I met him, I would have said it was.
It's interesting that everyone here is "chunky" or plump, but virtually NO one is really obese, like you see commonly in the U.S. They (women) all wear clingy clothes that show off their rolls too, LOL. Looks like many/most of them are 170 lbs. but they are shorter, too.
I don't think anyone said 108-132 was the ideal weight for every woman (??). 114-144 lbs. is the suggested healthy range for a woman who is 5'5".
Quote:
I am 5'5" and when I weighed 108 I was only skin and bones and my doc asked me if I wanted to die. My best weight is 140.
140 lbs is within the healthy range for your height, if that matters to you, and 108 is definitely underweight, so I'm not surprised your doctor suggested putting on a few pounds.
Just my opinion but I think the women into fitness now just look more masculine. The women who aren't into fitness also look masculine because weight distribution has changed. Overweight women are carrying fat in their upper bodies; arms, backs & belly. They are the same shape as fat men. I'm in a group for historical photography & when I see the overweight women of the 1950s & before; they look like bigger women. Still very feminine, in their dresses with a waist. Even post-menopausal women had waists! This tells me that something hormonal is going on.
And don't forget the antidepressants & anti anxiety medication that everyone pops like candy now. Also our wheat ... Wheat for American consumption is the "soft" wheat treated with pesticides & glycophosphate; not the healthy, preservative free, hard red wheat consumed in Europe. In fact, American wheat is considered not fit for consumption in Europe.
I don't know about hormonal. It's just how extra weight falls and it isn't selective. I think many wouldn't mind being overweight if their waist remained cinched. When I was obese, the weight got distributed everywhere after awhile. I'm naturally an hourglass, but that disappeared when I started to pack on more than thirty pounds.
I'm somewhat into fitness, and I lift weights. I'd rather lift weights all day every day than cardio. I don't look masculine at all. That's actually part of the misconception people have about weight training and women. They think they're gonna look like those beefed up women in the magazines. So you have more and more women refusing to lift anything more than 10 lb dumbbells....in fear of "getting big". My biceps never got "big"...what they are are defined, with small, rounded peaks when I flex. I have defined deltoids and traps and lats. That's about as much definition I'll get as a regular, everyday woman unless I take supplements or whatever.
I'm in a group for historical photography & when I see the overweight women of the 1950s & before; they look like bigger women. Still very feminine, in their dresses with a waist. Even post-menopausal women had waists! This tells me that something hormonal is going on.
Or maybe it is that shaped dresses, girdles, and bullet bras encouraged a different figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
Wheat for American consumption is the "soft" wheat treated with pesticides & glycophosphate; not the healthy, preservative free, hard red wheat consumed in Europe. In fact, American wheat is considered not fit for consumption in Europe.
The EU imports over 1.1 million tons of American wheat per year.
About 60% of American wheat is the hard red variety and 25% of the soft red. The remainder is comprised of a few other varieties with specialized uses such as pasta, pastry flour, etc. Source
The EU imports over a million tons of American wheat per year, and they also produce some of their own hard red wheat the same variety in addition to their more typical soft red. The main reasons for the disparity is soil conditions and climate. Most wheat growing areas in Europe are amenable to hard red wheat (and durum) which are low protein, so they can't grow enough soft red for their prefered blend of flours, hence the imports.
Also, I don't know where you got the idea that European wheat is not treated with pesticides. While it is true that the EU has banned glyphosate, that is a very recent development, and European farmers are simply using alternative chemicals. On the other hand, you are correct that European breads use far fewer preservatives than American breads, but that is a function of the baking process and has nothing to do with the source grains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
