If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Effects of weight cycling on the resting energy expenditure and body composition of obese women. | NR | General Discussion | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:31 AM |
Effects of weight cycling caused by intermittent dieting on metabolic rate and body composition in obese women. | NR | Weightwatchers | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 04:55 PM |
Water: the key to weight loss | Philip Miranda | Weightwatchers | 6 | April 18th, 2004 10:22 AM |
Medscape on dieting | Tabi Kasanari | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | March 3rd, 2004 12:53 PM |