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

Forum Index » Diet, Nutrition & Weight Loss

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]More calories / better nutrition = taller, thicker bones, more muscles. Yes, shapes have changed, and it's not just flab and fat.[/quote]

The facts don't support this. You have to lift weights to build muscle and improve bone density, not just consume more calories regardless of how "nutritious" those calories are.

We are way more sedentary than previous years.

Are you suggesting office workers have more muscle than the people who laid down the railroad tracks and built are railroad system? [/quote]

No, I'm saying for the same general tone, a woman who is 5'8 will have more muscle mass than a woman who is 5'0, simply because there is more bone to cover. I don't know why people keep clamoring obesity when the OP made it clear she was asking about whether the average shape of a slender/skinny woman today is taller and wider than the average slender/skinny woman in the past. That has everything to do with bone size and build, not Big Macs.[/quote]

Just for everybody's information, the average height of American women is now about one inch SHORTER, not taller, than it was in 1960.  It's no doubt due to changes in the ethnic makeup of the US population due to immigration reforms -- the percentage of South Asians and especially Central Americans (both of whom are considerably shorter, on average, than European and African Americans) has increased quite dramatically since then.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics