Have women’s figures changed over the last 50 years?

[Anonymous]

Kind of apples to oranges -you’re comparing a few starlets to the general public.

[Anonymous]

People smoked more and died quicker. One of my mom's friends had a thin figure like that, I actually never saw her eat anything but coffee and maybe a sandwich occasionally. She didn't get enough minerals and her bones were so bad as she aged she was in agony and bent over like a pretzel. It was tough to watch.

The women in my family were "sturdy" looking through the generations we have pictures for.

[Anonymous]

Don’t underestimate the power of caloric deficit (or malnutrition, for that matter) during childhood to produce smaller frames.

We forget amidst all the chaos of 2020 that we actually live in the best time our species has ever enjoyed. And that’s a global reality: GMO, for all we turn our noses up at it when in Whole Foods, basically did away with famine in parts of Asia that regularly starved up through the 60s.

[Anonymous]

Studies indicate that increased antibiotic exposure may alter the gut microbiota, which increases the absorption of certain nutrients that can lead to obesity. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5571496/. See also https://www.gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/changes-in-the-microbiota-due-to-prolonged-antibiotic-treatment-may-lead-to-weight-gain/#:~:text=%EF%84%85-,As%20we%20explained%20in%20a%20previous%20post%2C%20many%20studies%20have,may%20lead%20to%20weight%20gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We walked/biked more. There were fewer fast food places; we didn’t eat out as much. No supersized sodas.

Oh, yeah, not as much screen time.

Frappuccinos and sodas are not the reason I have a 25-26 inch waist and not a 24 inch waist. It’s bone structure and muscle mass. 24 inches would require a particularly narrow frame which I just don’t have. I was wondering if this was somehow more common before.

Maybe malnutrition from folks growing up in the 30s.

[Anonymous]

We can’t ignore that the waif look of the 60s and any fashion standards assumed exclusively white women. How often did you see women of color and their figures featured in any media back then? Not even just Hollywood, even day to day life. Things were still very segregated and the images you see pretty much featured white women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have read that the coveted hourglass shape is not common, now or back then. Maybe only 10% of women. I am 33-25.5-35 and 5’7. Also don’t have any belly fat to lose. I am starting to lift weights but even do, I don’t think I’ll ever get a bigger bust or booty or smaller waist. I’d settle for nice guns and a 6-pack.

Exactly me at 25-30, weighed 120-125. I couldn’t gain weight no matter what I ate. Almost 60 and 137, 35-29-39. Hungry all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can’t ignore that the waif look of the 60s and any fashion standards assumed exclusively white women. How often did you see women of color and their figures featured in any media back then? Not even just Hollywood, even day to day life. Things were still very segregated and the images you see pretty much featured white women.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. There were lots of black women models in the 1960s.

[Anonymous]

Women in those days with no fat to lose and 26 inch waists hoped to “train” their waists smaller.

[Anonymous]

OP, if you look at magazines now, you’d never know the average American woman wasn’t a size 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you look at magazines now, you’d never know the average American woman wasn’t a size 2.

What are talking about? Plus sizes, or curvy sizes, whatever you call them, are everywhere.

It's a bigger problem that clothes that supposedly fit size 18 is shown on 6'0 tall models, but no one is talking about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. We’ve gotten fat AF.

But your body shape, which is what OP refers to, isn't dependent on your weight. OP is talking about proportions, not overall size. One of my friends is pretty heavy but her waist is much narrower and her hips much wider. This would be the case regardless of her weight. I'm average sized and my waist is only slightly narrower than my hips. There are athletic, fit women who are almost completely straight up and down, and they'd be that shape no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i think it might've been b/c we are also taller and have access to better nutrition at a young age so our bones grow bigger. Like Audrey Hepbournes' svelte form was b/c of starvation through the war.

We think that everyone was eating meat, veg & mash everyday but roast chicken/beef was a Sunday dinner thing. even if people did eat meat everyday, it was a very small portion or maybe a stew. Lunch would be a cheese sandwich and an apple an a glass of milk when you were a kid with maybe a cookie or graham cracker. Maybe a slice of baloney and 1 slice of lettuce. being able to eat to bursting at every meal all year around became available to the baby boomers when the war production machine switched to producing food for americans. Baby Boomers aren't particularly thin. Before WW2 most of the population was rural. Also, this is something people don't realize but I have lived with live in help- when you have help, gardener, maid, driver etc . . the menu is planned and you get a set meal at a set time and teh rest gets eaten usually by the helpers or whoever comes round to do something that day, like my grandmothers house has terrible plumbing so the extra slice of dessert we didn't eat at tea would get served to him. Whenever I was at my grandmothers' homes I would always lose weight even though wed get a proper fried breakfast, lunch, tea and a very late dinner. So even wealthy americans wouldn't be able to just eat 'at will' but would have to eat at the appointed times. A lot of kids didn't get sufficient calories to grow to their full potential- just like europeans. They all thought the american soldiers were so tall but now all those nationalities are much taller than the average American is.

This. Obesity aside, poor nutrition in childhood can affect your frame, not just your weight -- people are smaller and shorter if they are not getting necessary nutrition in childhood. People ate less, and food insecurity was more common. It's not about human genes evolving (which is unlikely to happen in only 50 years), but about the conditions affecting whether or not people reached their full growth potential.

Also, women in the early to mid-20th century wore very restrictive undergarments to achieve that figure -- corsets, girdles, etc. Their waists were tiny, in part, because they restricted them every day. Women in the 19th century actually warped their ribcages by tight corseting.

Also, historically speaking, women would tend to be wider in the hips and bust. Tiny frames and skinny bodies are not optimal for surviving childbirth, or for surviving in conditions where there isn't a regular supply of nutritious food. It's only recently that our ideal of beauty has been very thin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. We’ve gotten fat AF.

But your body shape, which is what OP refers to, isn't dependent on your weight. OP is talking about proportions, not overall size. One of my friends is pretty heavy but her waist is much narrower and her hips much wider. This would be the case regardless of her weight. I'm average sized and my waist is only slightly narrower than my hips. There are athletic, fit women who are almost completely straight up and down, and they'd be that shape no matter what.

I've never had a defined waist, from adolescence on, regardless of my weight. Even when I was on the underweight side of normal in my 20s, I did not have a defined waist. Some women have an hourglass figure, and barring real obesity, they will be an hourglass because that's how they carry their weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t underestimate the power of caloric deficit (or malnutrition, for that matter) during childhood to produce smaller frames.

We forget amidst all the chaos of 2020 that we actually live in the best time our species has ever enjoyed. And that’s a global reality: GMO, for all we turn our noses up at it when in Whole Foods, basically did away with famine in parts of Asia that regularly starved up through the 60s.

This. A lot of it was due to poor nutrition.