men vs. women in weight loss

On 27 Aug 2004 03:06:53 GMT, Ignoramus24885
wrote:

Very few women of your age can boast being at the same weight as they
were in college! This is an incredible accomplishment...

Well, thanks :-). I'm really about exactly what I was then. I was in
the low 140s all through college. I started going up in grad school,
and was never that low again until now.

Chris
262/141/ (145-150)

"Boemsi" wrote in message
news
Logical: women need the fat if they want to reproduce. It's been shown
that both too high and too low body fat percentages can interfere with
ovulation.

And ovulation is blocked, because low levels of body fat would not allow
both the woman and the baby to survive starvation. It's all very logical.
Another interresting issue is that men are mostly attracted to hourglass
body shape : big breasts, (reasonnably) big butt, but small waist - just
look at the classical pin-up. And it's not only western men - the figures in
Japanese mangas look the same. Even prehistoric venus retain the same
characteristics, they have grossly exagerated butts and breasts, but the
waist remains reasonnable in proportion. Women with a big belly are often
considered unattractive. But so are women with no butt or not breasts. Some
studies have shown that the hourglass body shape is the optimal one : fat
stored in healthy locations only and best fertility rate. They have shown
the highest concentration of progesterone and estradiol compared to other
body shapes, this is both a feature of big breasts and small waist (big
butt), which is estimated to translate into triple the average fertility
rate.
It's actually interresting that the men moved away from the classical pin-up
figure to the more "modern" anorexic body type (Twiggy, Kate Moss...) right
at the time when contraception because widespread.

http://202.221.217.59/print/features...20040513rh.htm

"Boemsi" wrote in message
news
Logical: women need the fat if they want to reproduce. It's been shown
that both too high and too low body fat percentages can interfere with
ovulation.

And ovulation is blocked, because low levels of body fat would not allow
both the woman and the baby to survive starvation. It's all very logical.
Another interresting issue is that men are mostly attracted to hourglass
body shape : big breasts, (reasonnably) big butt, but small waist - just
look at the classical pin-up. And it's not only western men - the figures in
Japanese mangas look the same. Even prehistoric venus retain the same
characteristics, they have grossly exagerated butts and breasts, but the
waist remains reasonnable in proportion. Women with a big belly are often
considered unattractive. But so are women with no butt or not breasts. Some
studies have shown that the hourglass body shape is the optimal one : fat
stored in healthy locations only and best fertility rate. They have shown
the highest concentration of progesterone and estradiol compared to other
body shapes, this is both a feature of big breasts and small waist (big
butt), which is estimated to translate into triple the average fertility
rate.
It's actually interresting that the men moved away from the classical pin-up
figure to the more "modern" anorexic body type (Twiggy, Kate Moss...) right
at the time when contraception because widespread.

http://202.221.217.59/print/features...20040513rh.htm

On 8/26/2004 10:58 PM, Chris Braun wrote:
Now I'm back to weighing what I did in college,
and I have a slightly more average figure than I did then in terms of
weight distribution -- a little more in the middle and a little less
in the hips and bust than I did then. But the difference isn't all
that great.

Chris,

Could some of this change be attributed to the type of exercise that you
are doing now versus then? I know that when I was a runner in
HS/college I looked like a runner. Now that I am biking a lot, I am
built more like a cyclist. I mean, I have muscles for cycling now as
opposed to running. Also, when a "runner" comes to spin class, you can
definitely notice that they are a runner from how his/her weight is
distributed.

--
jmk in NC

On 8/26/2004 10:58 PM, Chris Braun wrote:
Now I'm back to weighing what I did in college,
and I have a slightly more average figure than I did then in terms of
weight distribution -- a little more in the middle and a little less
in the hips and bust than I did then. But the difference isn't all
that great.

Chris,

Could some of this change be attributed to the type of exercise that you
are doing now versus then? I know that when I was a runner in
HS/college I looked like a runner. Now that I am biking a lot, I am
built more like a cyclist. I mean, I have muscles for cycling now as
opposed to running. Also, when a "runner" comes to spin class, you can
definitely notice that they are a runner from how his/her weight is
distributed.

--
jmk in NC

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:10:27 -0400, jmk wrote:

On 8/26/2004 10:58 PM, Chris Braun wrote:
Now I'm back to weighing what I did in college,
and I have a slightly more average figure than I did then in terms of
weight distribution -- a little more in the middle and a little less
in the hips and bust than I did then. But the difference isn't all
that great.

Chris,

Could some of this change be attributed to the type of exercise that you
are doing now versus then? I know that when I was a runner in
HS/college I looked like a runner. Now that I am biking a lot, I am
built more like a cyclist. I mean, I have muscles for cycling now as
opposed to running. Also, when a "runner" comes to spin class, you can
definitely notice that they are a runner from how his/her weight is
distributed.

I think that's probably true -- I have weight lifting muscles :-).
Although I'm doing some running, I doubt I'll ever look like a runner.
I probably look more like a cycler, actually, given my quad
development.

When I was in college at the same weight I expect I had a higher BF%
than I do now. I wasn't flabby then -- and I was relatively active --
but I didn't do any weight training (nor did any other woman I'd ever
heard of in those days) and didn't have the strength I do now.

But I do think menopause accounts for differences in fat distribution,
as well.

Chris
262/141/ (145-150)

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:10:27 -0400, jmk wrote:

On 8/26/2004 10:58 PM, Chris Braun wrote:
Now I'm back to weighing what I did in college,
and I have a slightly more average figure than I did then in terms of
weight distribution -- a little more in the middle and a little less
in the hips and bust than I did then. But the difference isn't all
that great.

Chris,

Could some of this change be attributed to the type of exercise that you
are doing now versus then? I know that when I was a runner in
HS/college I looked like a runner. Now that I am biking a lot, I am
built more like a cyclist. I mean, I have muscles for cycling now as
opposed to running. Also, when a "runner" comes to spin class, you can
definitely notice that they are a runner from how his/her weight is
distributed.

I think that's probably true -- I have weight lifting muscles :-).
Although I'm doing some running, I doubt I'll ever look like a runner.
I probably look more like a cycler, actually, given my quad
development.

When I was in college at the same weight I expect I had a higher BF%
than I do now. I wasn't flabby then -- and I was relatively active --
but I didn't do any weight training (nor did any other woman I'd ever
heard of in those days) and didn't have the strength I do now.

But I do think menopause accounts for differences in fat distribution,
as well.

Chris
262/141/ (145-150)

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:15:56 +0200, Lictor wrote:

It's actually interresting that the men moved away from the classical pin-up
figure to the more "modern" anorexic body type (Twiggy, Kate Moss...) right
at the time when contraception because widespread.

Fascinating, never thought of that. But I do know I really don't want to
be that thin, I hate it and much prefer my intrinsic hourglass shape
And so would my DH..

--
-- Boemsi
207 - 191 - 180