[semi OT] Amish as healthy as people were over 150 years or so ago
unbroken
thread where people were saying that people were much bigger back in the
day.
Only 4% of the Amish were obese while we are 2/3 obese.
http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/79/96115.htm
Proof that we are just plain old lazy.
Isabella
H Duffy
"unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:X%CMb.144106$JW3...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
And for a balanced view, here's some information on Daniel Lambert...
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3550/18072
H
Trizia
<Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> scribbled:
They've got some of his clothes in the museum here ... scary big!
-----
Trizia
Still I stand, and still I'll not kneel. And still I have strength.
http:www.livejournal.com/users/trizia http:www.livejournal.com/users/thepoetryhaven
unbroken
"H Duffy" <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btv1qu$bmfr1$1...@ID-124468.news.uni-berlin.de...
And so this means that all of the population back then was that big? We
still have those people today, but the point is someone said people were
mostly bigger back then and there's my proof that they were incorrect. (I
believe you were one of them.)
Isabella
Ice Princess
>
> the point is someone said people were
> mostly bigger back then and there's my proof that they were incorrect
No.
People argued against *your* assertion that no one was fat before the
20th century. No one said "Everybody was bigger then." People said
that there were fat people in prior centuries, while you insisted that
nobody was fat until recently. There were fat people. There were thin
people. There was no "all" of either, and the only person who has
insisted on "all" at any point has been you.
Ice Princess
unbroken
"Ice Princess" <icp...@blarg.net> wrote in message
news:40032A17...@blarg.net...
Actually, I do have common sense and never said all. But someone said the
majority of people in the past were bigger (while I was arguing otherwise).
Which at the time I couldn't prove since I couldn't find exact proof (except
for portraits and such). But now I have so I figured I'd post it since the
thread doesn't seem to exist anymore (hasn't for the last few days, I
thought it'd never die).
Isabella
sanura
Could you please quote? I don't recall anyone saying that. However, I do
recall you saying:
dated, on my machine - fifth of Jan 2004 -
"Victorian women weren't big, nor were Edwardian women. And
I don't go to rennfaires (they are too commercialized, lame) but I still
dress in 16th century wear."
and then on the 6th of Jam 2004 -
"I'm big on the Tudor and Elizabethan era and having done tons of research
on
corsets women in the Victorian era weren't size 18's or 20's."
You then do later concede to the fact that there were both large and small
women in those times, as pretty much everyone else agreed to (that I have
read whilst scrolling through) which is great. However it doesn't change the
fact that you did at one time say all (though not to that specific wording).
Why are you continuing along the same vein of your 'corset.net' thread? For
someone who wants to make a new start, I really don't think that this is
exactly the right way to go about it. That's just my opinion though.
Sanura
unbroken
"sanura" <sanura...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:btvgl9$83l$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
I was simply making a point after someone pretty much put it that all people
were big in the past. I never said all were, I just went with majority
rules. So no, in fact I didn't at one time say all which you were unable to
quote. But following majority rules, yes in fact I was more correct than the
one who said most women were big. That's been true for more recent years,
but not 150 years ago let alone 400 years ago when there was even more
labor. I don't want a new start with anyone, I mean, you all have your idea
on me, which is completely off and judgmental but I came across that and
figured I'd post it for the woman who was really convinced most women were
big back in the Victorian era. There's nothing to argue, you can't argue
against fact.
I guess being big is probably easier now though since a damn small is too
big on me.
Isabella
H Duffy
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:btv1qu$bmfr1$1...@ID-124468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3550/18072
> >
> > H
> >
> >
>
> And so this means that all of the population back then was that big? We
> still have those people today, but the point is someone said people were
> mostly bigger back then and there's my proof that they were incorrect. (I
> believe you were one of them.)
No Whitney, no-one said that people were _mostly_ bigger back then.
You claimed that there were _no_ really big people back then, and several
people pointed out that you were wrong, that there were really big people
back then. This is evidence of that fact.
Several people also pointed out that at various times throughout history, it
has been fashionable to be plump.
I have no idea where you get the "people were mostly bigger" thing from; I
can only assume that either your reading comprehension skills have let you
down, or that you're misremembering; I'm sure it can't be that you're being
dishonest!
H
H Duffy
> For
> > someone who wants to make a new start, I really don't think that this is
> > exactly the right way to go about it. That's just my opinion though.
>
people
> were big in the past.
Who, Whitney? Who said that all people were big in the past? None of us can
remember anyone making any such assertion; can you put us right? COuld you
quote the post in which this assertion was made?
If not, do you think perhaps it's possible that you might be wrong?
> I never said all were, I just went with majority
> rules. So no, in fact I didn't at one time say all which you were unable
to
> quote.
No-one claimed you said "all"; you did, however, say that there were size
18-20's in the Victorian era. And does imply, doesn't it, and _all_ people
were smaller than that size?
> But following majority rules, yes in fact I was more correct than the
> one who said most women were big.
Since no-one actually said that, this would imply that you are more correct
than no-one. Well done.
> I came across that and
> figured I'd post it for the woman who was really convinced most women were
> big back in the Victorian era. There's nothing to argue, you can't argue
> against fact.
That post says that Amish people are healthier than non-amish people. Since
the Amish have always been a very small minority of the population, it seems
a bit daft to take that post as evidence about the population in general.
And if you had actually had any historical training at all, you'd know that.
H
Sporko .
Let's just cut to the chase. Someone conduct an AGF poll to see how many
in here are obese and what their EXCUSE is.
Me....
sanura
Well I apologise. When I read 'women in the Victorian era weren't size 18's
or 20's' and 'Victorian women weren't big, nor were edwardian women', I take
it to mean that there were no size 18's or 20's, and no big women. You don't
need to say 'all' in a sentence to mean all. Just like you don't have to say
'you are a bitch' to mean exactly that, for example. There have been a few
problems with interpretation with your posts when I read, it seems. Perhaps
'the majority of women in the Victorian era weren't size 18's or 20's' would
work better? Anyhow, just an idea. It might avoid further confusion, if you
were distinct in your writing (because obviously we are all taking it the
wrong way).
But following majority rules, yes in fact I was more correct than the
> one who said most women were big. That's been true for more recent years,
> but not 150 years ago let alone 400 years ago when there was even more
> labor. I don't want a new start with anyone, I mean, you all have your
idea
> on me, which is completely off and judgmental but I came across that and
> figured I'd post it for the woman who was really convinced most women were
> big back in the Victorian era. There's nothing to argue, you can't argue
> against fact.
Heh, you can argue against fact. People do all the time. Especially in the
matter of history. Eg, for this particular study I would argue that the
study is bias, as it was performed on a group that did farm, unlike some
other armish. Also, you might note that the comment about the '150 years
ago' is rather vague and more of a generalisation than 'known fact'. It also
says that their physical activity plays a role in how our ancestors would
have kept fit. Comparing one modern armish community with the Victorian Era
as a whole doesn't quite sit right with me, especially since the article
itself does not deal with that issue at all. If it said 'armish community
fitness compared with those of women in the victorian era' I would have sat
up and read, but personally I don't consider it conclusive evidence of
anything other than that one armish community in Ontario (one that farms,
which is not like all armish communities) took so many steps and ate such
and such foods and are generally as a group fit despite eating a high fat
high sugar diet. But hey, that's me... you think differently. If you didn't
want to start with anyone new, why didn't you put it back into the
corset.net thread? It is a general 'loose rule' that you don't just reply to
a question or a statement by starting up a new post. Unless of course, it is
entirely off the topic of the original thread. By putting your statements on
the matter here in a new post for everyone to see, it is almost certain to
cause some sort of fuss. Same goes for the other statement you put below.
> I guess being big is probably easier now though since a damn small is too
> big on me.
sanura
Lucy Bond
<Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> writes
>snip<
>I have no idea where you get the "people were mostly bigger" thing from; I
>can only assume that either your reading comprehension skills have let you
>down, or that you're misremembering; I'm sure it can't be that you're being
>dishonest!
Then again, she is quite good at misremembering. Like the time she
insulted me when I hadn't insulted her, then argued with people who
pointed out that she had done that, then stopped replying altogether
when the actual example was quoted. It doesn't inspire confidence in a
person's memory-skills, or research ability. Or their good grace &
manners, for that matter, which is another good reason not to keep
talking to them, in my personal opinion.
What is the use of having a reasonable conversation about historical
fashion, for instance, if you know from past examples that as soon as
you disagree with the person, you have a good chance of her proclaiming
that you are wrong, name-calling, & then getting the hump if she is
politely corrected or advised.
My opinion of the Amish is that as an isolated community with strict
rules of conduct, their diet is unlikely to be representative of America
at that time as a whole. Much as picking a commune instead of a broader
section of society would give you a non-representative result. Or doing
all your research by interviewing people in a health-food shop, or in
McDonalds.
Lucy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Bond : www.technokitty.com sells Dane cybery tops, dresses & bustiers,
glammy fake fur, Cybertart fun, glittery make-up, rubber spiky goodness & all
things futuristic! *New Sale section!*
Silvasurfa
Amish... they're the ones that don't like buttons or zippers eh?
Damn prideful clothes fastenings, making us fat... all clothes should
lace up or close with hooks and eyes, that's the solution to our woes.
unbroken
I didn't mean to put it that way, I pretty much meant it as that there
weren't as many then for it to be considered normal like it is today. I
meant the majority rules. Which is what I go by. But someone had pretty much
put it as "women were always bigger".
The thing is, they are more correct because it's only been more recent that
we got so lazy (which was what they were pretty much saying, we are lazy, so
we are fat, but 150 years opr so ago they didn't have what we had so they
obviously did a lot more than we did). In the Victorian era they didn't have
cars and TV's and all of that stuff so they had to walk to get wherever they
wanted and they obviously didn't have the same entertainment we do (I'm sure
if they sat on the couch all night after work that they would have been just
as fat as us you know?) I also said that thread has completely disappeared
for me. I don't know if its the way outlook works or my newsgroup server but
I haven't seen it since like a day after I last posted.
Isabella
unbroken
It's Isabella, once again I am not my sister. And I am not sure who since I
put that I haven't seen the thread in a while (since a day after I last
posted in it). I don't think I am wrong, I specifically remember her putting
it as people were always fatter.
I know I said there were size 18-20's but there wasn't nearly as many. The
majority of women were probably healthier (I never said emaciated thin). I
don't see how saying there was 18-20's is implying everyone is smaller? That
statement was just a tad confusing.
And someone did say that as I recall someone saying that women and men were
almost always bigger.
The Amish they studied (and the ones near me are the same) live a lot like
people did 150 years ago. That's pretty much enough proof. They do a lot of
labor, they don't have cars, they don't have TV's or electricity or any of
that. Which the whole point was people are fatter now because of our
laziness. And it doesn't take a history buff to know that if you were to
live like that, you'd end up losing a lot of weight. If you can exercise for
3 days a week for 30 minutes and still lose a good amount of weight then
what if you exercise daily for hours?
Isabella
unbroken
Once again, this is Isabella, not Whitney. But someone put it as women were
always bigger, it was the one who said that being fat was a sign of
"Royalty" which I didn't get since Queen Elizabeth wasn't really fat, Mary
Tudor was plump but not really fat (I use fat in terms of obese FYI) so I
didn't quite get that. And my claim was pretty much there weren't nearly as
many big people, of course there was fat people, always will be (and
probably mostly medical or genetic) but my point was that 2/3 American's are
obese (not just overweight) and that most people weren't nearly as big as we
are. And most people weren't big at all. Someone sent me a link to one fat
guy but I mean that's one guy out of the general population. Some people
have said it was fashionable but they had no written in stone fact to show
me so it's pretty unbelievable as royalty was never that fat (King Henry
VIII is definitely an exception as he just got bigger and bigger) and
fashion used to always follow what the royalty was wearing.
I got it from the lady who I mentioned in the beginning.
Isabella
unbroken
"Lucy Bond" <lu...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b6QabaBe...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk...
> In article <bu08er$bnc3h$1...@ID-124468.news.uni-berlin.de>, H Duffy
> <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >snip<
>
> My opinion of the Amish is that as an isolated community with strict
> rules of conduct, their diet is unlikely to be representative of America
> at that time as a whole. Much as picking a commune instead of a broader
> section of society would give you a non-representative result. Or doing
> all your research by interviewing people in a health-food shop, or in
> McDonalds.
>
> Lucy
The Amish are isolated due to their beliefs. They live the way they did in
the past due to the fact that they feel it's against God to use any modern
technology (even as a Catholic, I believe God gave man the ability to create
it). But there was a point in time when there were no TV's and electricity
and no McDonald's. So the point they were making was since the Amish do
indeed eat the high fat and high sugar diets of the past, they were still in
great shape, with only 4% (1/25) of the Amish population being obese as
opposed to 2/3 of ours. They were saying if we lived the way we used to we
would not have such a weight problem. It gives a pretty good overall idea on
how people have gotten fatter in recent years (due to mainly modern
technology, not even what we eat, as calories and fat is always able to be
burned off with enough exercise) and the general population wasn't always as
big as being 2/3 obese and not counting who's overweight in there.
Isabella
unbroken
"Silvasurfa" <eric...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4bf59f3.04011...@posting.google.com...
They don't like modern technology. Labor is the solution to your woes.
Isabella.
sanura
It may be that you didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. Which is
quite understandable. However, writing something is different from saying
something, especially when you are trying to address people from different
backgrounds/cultural beliefs/ideologies etc than yourself. You have to be
able to get a point across in a way which everyone will understand to be
what you mean. Eg, rather than 'women in the victorian and edwardian eras
were not fat' would be better stated 'the majority of women in the etc etc
etc', in order to stop the confusion. Majority rules is not a rule applied
to these sorts of topics - women then were not large is not a true
statement. If I put that in a history essay I would get the lowest marks for
it because it is not based in fact (unless of course I could back up the
assertions to the nth degree).
> The thing is, they are more correct because it's only been more recent
that
> we got so lazy (which was what they were pretty much saying, we are lazy,
so
> we are fat, but 150 years opr so ago they didn't have what we had so they
> obviously did a lot more than we did).
No, it's not saying that at all. It is saying that physical activity
increases fitness despite the fact that diet was high in both fats and
sugars, and therefore they were not obese. It said nothing about laziness. I
don't think a person who has to sit at a desk for 9 hours a day in order to
earn a living would believe themselves lazy. An assumption based on the
facts presented can lead us to believe certain things about the fitness of
people in an earlier era, but it is not proof of it, as you put it. It could
however, in conjunction with a few other bits and pieces give a good basis
for a conclusion about people who lived 150 years ago or so. We're not
asking for an essay, nor even any proof, an opinion is an opinion. However,
one study on one armish community in Ontario does not convince me of
anything to do with Victorian women. Besides, I think it's a pointless
argument, most people who have bothered to read the corset.net thread around
that area of argument said that there weren't as many fat people then as
there are today, but there were fat people.
In the Victorian era they didn't have
> cars and TV's and all of that stuff so they had to walk to get wherever
they
> wanted and they obviously didn't have the same entertainment we do (I'm
sure
> if they sat on the couch all night after work that they would have been
just
> as fat as us you know?) I also said that thread has completely disappeared
> for me. I don't know if its the way outlook works or my newsgroup server
but
> I haven't seen it since like a day after I last posted.
Then it is quite easy to look it up on google groups to find a particular
post or thread, in order to quote someone.
Sanura
sanura
> always bigger, it was the one who said that being fat was a sign of
> "Royalty" which I didn't get since Queen Elizabeth wasn't really fat, Mary
> Tudor was plump but not really fat (I use fat in terms of obese FYI) so I
> didn't quite get that.
Perhaps you have mis-interpreted what she meant then, much in the way you
claim everyone has misinterpreted you. I take that statement to mean that
there were always women who were larger, and that in the past being plump
has often been associated with royalty and well-offedness. But hey, that's
just me.
Sanura (sheesh, this doesn't sound like a regurgitation of the same debates
in the corset.net thread, does it now?)
sanura
Heh, sounds about right. Hey, I'm holding a rock, and it's a magic rock. It
keeps tigers away. You want proof that it works? Heh, no tigers! It must
work *grin*. I always knew that zippers would be our downfall. They make it
too easy to undo the top of my pants when I get full.
Sanura
Cavalorn
<unbr...@nycap.rr.com> writes
>It's Isabella, once again I am not my sister. And I am not sure who since I
>put that I haven't seen the thread in a while (since a day after I last
>posted in it).
Oh, for heaven's sake.
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=hairdyewhore
http://www.blurty.com/users/melicia
http://profiles.yahoo.com/unbroken5403
Cav
--
Give me a woman who's taken her knocks,
Who's tasted both gutter and stars.
Give me a lady with holes in her socks.
Give me a princess with scars.
unbroken
> No, it's not saying that at all. It is saying that physical activity
> increases fitness despite the fact that diet was high in both fats and
> sugars, and therefore they were not obese. It said nothing about laziness.
I
> don't think a person who has to sit at a desk for 9 hours a day in order
to
> earn a living would believe themselves lazy. An assumption based on the
> facts presented can lead us to believe certain things about the fitness of
> people in an earlier era, but it is not proof of it, as you put it. It
could
> however, in conjunction with a few other bits and pieces give a good basis
> for a conclusion about people who lived 150 years ago or so. We're not
> asking for an essay, nor even any proof, an opinion is an opinion.
However,
> one study on one armish community in Ontario does not convince me of
> anything to do with Victorian women. Besides, I think it's a pointless
> argument, most people who have bothered to read the corset.net thread
around
> that area of argument said that there weren't as many fat people then as
> there are today, but there were fat people.
I think the whole idea is proving we are lazy (you can't be lazy and
physically fit). People feel they can control their food intake to lose
weight but it isn't always the issue (and sometimes worse for health).
People who do sit and work for 8 hours a day (which I have done, and have
another job doing :o( ) IMO are fairly lazy unless they do physical activity
at other times, maybe not mentally lazy or stressful, but physically lazy.
Work in the past was labor, not sitting at a desk doing someone's financials
or answering a phone. It's not just Victorian women, men also, and people
all from the past. They did a lot of labor since there was no technology.
I've been told handwashing your clothes is enough work, let alone all the
stuff they had to do in a day (yes, cleaning is considered a physical
activity for the most part). That's why I had found it hard to believe the
woman who implied that women were always just as big as now. But I don't see
it as possible, I for one have seen bigger women decide to exercise and do
more labor and they lost weight. So how would they have stayed obese during
all that (unless they had medical problems or genetics)? That's just logical
thinking. Do more physical work, stay in better shape.
Hell, I'll admit I'm fairly out of shape, but since I'll lose weight or get
muscles if I exercise I avoid it (I run sometimes though, just for my heart
and lungs). I'm also lazy, and proud. I take advantage of my dishwasher,
washer & dryer, remote and car. lol.
Isabella
H Duffy
>
> "Lucy Bond" <lu...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b6QabaBe...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk...
> > rules of conduct, their diet is unlikely to be representative of America
> > at that time as a whole. Much as picking a commune instead of a broader
> > section of society would give you a non-representative result. Or doing
> > all your research by interviewing people in a health-food shop, or in
> > McDonalds.
>
> the past due to the fact that they feel it's against God to use any modern
> technology (even as a Catholic, I believe God gave man the ability to
create
> it).
Well, yes, but they don't live as people 150 years ago lived; they live as
people around 350 years ago lived; that's a fairly big difference! 150 years
ago, we lived in an industrial society, where there were plenty of people
who had desk jobs rather than physical ones. The Amish, even 150 years ago,
were quite unusual.
> But there was a point in time when there were no TV's and electricity
> and no McDonald's. So the point they were making was since the Amish do
> indeed eat the high fat and high sugar diets of the past, they were still
in
> great shape, with only 4% (1/25) of the Amish population being obese as
> opposed to 2/3 of ours. They were saying if we lived the way we used to we
> would not have such a weight problem.
To a great extent that's true, in that we would be eating much less
processed food, and doing more physical activity. On the other hand, our
life expectancy now is higher, and our general health better, than it was
150 years ago. We've more or less wiped out TB ( major killer then), we can
treat all sorts of bacterial infections thanks to the discovery of
antibiotics, many forms of cancer are curable...
I think personally, I'll stick with the modern era, for all the potential
weight problems...
H
H Duffy
Then you're wrong.
> (you can't be lazy and
> physically fit).
Not true.
> Work in the past was labor, not sitting at a desk doing someone's
financials
> or answering a phone.
*heh* because of course, in Victorian times, there were no accountants or
desk clerks... Haven't you read any Dickens?
> It's not just Victorian women, men also, and people
> all from the past. They did a lot of labor since there was no technology.
_Some_ of them did. Some didn't. There have _always_ been people who have
not had to do physical work in order to make a living; teachers, scientists,
musicians, politicians, money-lenders and bankers, scribes, accountants; all
the back to Classical times, there were people who did not have to labour,
despite the lack of technology.
> I've been told handwashing your clothes is enough work, let alone all the
> stuff they had to do in a day (yes, cleaning is considered a physical
> activity for the most part). That's why I had found it hard to believe the
> woman who implied that women were always just as big as now.
Not all women had to do their own cleaning, though; bear in mind that up
until the Second World War, it was standard practice for even reasonably
well-off households to have at least one servant, and in rich households,
_everything_ was done by servants; the very rich didn't even have to dress
themselves, they had a valet or a maid to do it for them.
H
H Duffy
your replies in a way which is readable; I've had to scroll up and down this
post in order to try and work out which bits of your reply relate to which
bits of the post you're replying to. It's not difficult, everyone else
manages it, so please, with you vast and much-boasted-of intelligence, could
you get with the program?
(The rest of my reply is below, and I've interleaved it the way it _should_
be. Please follow suit.)
"unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:WHTMb.73181$Dq1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bu08nt$c9hcv$1...@ID-124468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Who, Whitney? Who said that all people were big in the past? None of us
> can
> > remember anyone making any such assertion; can you put us right? COuld
you
> > quote the post in which this assertion was made?
> > If not, do you think perhaps it's possible that you might be wrong?
>
> It's Isabella, once again I am not my sister.
This is the sister who can't decide whether she's 16 or 18, and who uses
your name as a nickname, right?
> And I am not sure who since I
> put that I haven't seen the thread in a while (since a day after I last
> posted in it). I don't think I am wrong, I specifically remember her
putting
> it as people were always fatter.
Go to www.groups.google.com, click "advanced search" and dig out the post
you're referring to, please.
> > No-one claimed you said "all"; you did, however, say that there were
size
> > 18-20's in the Victorian era. And does imply, doesn't it, and _all_
people
> > were smaller than that size?
> I know I said there were size 18-20's but there wasn't nearly as many.
No, you didn't; you specifically said that women in Victorian and Edwardian
times _weren't_ size 18-20.
(My apologies, in my previous post I managed to miss out the word "no"; I
should have said "You did, however, say that there were _no_ size 18-20's";
my mistake.)
> The
> majority of women were probably healthier (I never said emaciated thin). I
> don't see how saying there was 18-20's is implying everyone is smaller?
That
> statement was just a tad confusing.
If there are no size 18-20's, then presumably everyone is smaller than a
size 18? Unless you mean that there were sizes up to 16, and then 22 and
upwards?
> And someone did say that as I recall someone saying that women and men
were
> almost always bigger.
Well, prove it, dig up the post on Google groups.
> > That post says that Amish people are healthier than non-amish people.
> Since
> > the Amish have always been a very small minority of the population, it
> seems
> > a bit daft to take that post as evidence about the population in
general.
> > And if you had actually had any historical training at all, you'd know
> that.
> The Amish they studied (and the ones near me are the same) live a lot like
> people did 150 years ago.
No, they don't. They live like people lived 350 years ago. They do not use
the technology which the Victorians used. Most Victorians did not live like
the Amish; they lived in towns, rode steam trains, used buttons, had gas
lights in their homes, and worked in factories or shops or offices.
> That's pretty much enough proof.
*heh* Please tell me you're not still claiming to have a degree in History?
Because with logic like that, you wouldn't even pass your first year.
> They do a lot of
> labor, they don't have cars, they don't have TV's or electricity or any of
> that. Which the whole point was people are fatter now because of our
> laziness. And it doesn't take a history buff to know that if you were to
> live like that, you'd end up losing a lot of weight. If you can exercise
for
> 3 days a week for 30 minutes and still lose a good amount of weight then
> what if you exercise daily for hours?
That's probably true, but it has nothing to do with the Victorians.
H
Vicky =^,,^= cat
> too easy to undo the top of my pants when I get full.
>
Or when the other half's keen... Oooo-err missus! I can't believe I just
wrote that ;-)
xx Victoria
H Duffy
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bu08er$bnc3h$1...@ID-124468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > You claimed that there were _no_ really big people back then, and
several
> > people pointed out that you were wrong, that there were really big
people
> > back then. This is evidence of that fact.
> >
> > Several people also pointed out that at various times throughout
history,
> it
> > has been fashionable to be plump.
> >
> > I have no idea where you get the "people were mostly bigger" thing from;
I
> > can only assume that either your reading comprehension skills have let
you
> > down, or that you're misremembering; I'm sure it can't be that you're
> being
> > dishonest!
> >
> > H
> >
> >
>
> Once again, this is Isabella, not Whitney.
Sweetheart, we've all seen your Yahoo profile (on which you say your name is
Whitney but that your nickname is Isabella), and your "Vain and Beautiful"
LJ (on which you say that your name is Whitney but you also use Isabella as
an alias); it's really a bit pointless to carry on the charade. I can see
how you might feel that you've backed yourself into a corner, and that to
admit now that you lied would make you look bad, but honestly, you can't
make yourself look any worse than you already have, and in fact, 'fessing up
might even win you backa few fragments of respect!
> But someone put it as women were
> always bigger,
Yes; that means "There have always been bigger women", not "All women used
to be bigger".
> it was the one who said that being fat was a sign of
> "Royalty" which I didn't get since Queen Elizabeth wasn't really fat, Mary
> Tudor was plump but not really fat (I use fat in terms of obese FYI) so I
> didn't quite get that.
But many other Royal and Noble women _were_ fat, and that was admired.
Finding one or two counter-examples doesn't disprove the general truth of
the statement.
> And my claim was pretty much there weren't nearly as
> many big people, of course there was fat people, always will be (and
> probably mostly medical or genetic) but my point was that 2/3 American's
are
> obese (not just overweight) and that most people weren't nearly as big as
we
> are.
Right. But that's not what you said; what you said was that there weren't
any fat people until recently, which is simply nonsense.
> And most people weren't big at all. Someone sent me a link to one fat
> guy but I mean that's one guy out of the general population.
That would be me; you do know that all usenet posts tell you who sent them,
right?
> Some people
> have said it was fashionable but they had no written in stone fact to show
> me
But there are plenty painted on canvas, and written on paper; in fact,
someone specifically quoted you some facts about Henry VIII's negotiations
to marry Anne of Cleves; He asked if she was nice and fat, and was told that
yes, indeed she was, and considered a great beauty for it.
> so it's pretty unbelievable as royalty was never that fat (King Henry
> VIII is definitely an exception as he just got bigger and bigger)
What about your illustrious ancestor, Queen Victoria?
> and
> fashion used to always follow what the royalty was wearing.
Thing is, if you actually thought about this, you'd see how silly you're
being. You've said yourself that people who labour don't get fat, right?
Well, if you're royal, do you want people to think that you have to do
_anything_ for yourself? Or do you want everyone to know that you're so rich
and powerful that you never have to lift a finger? Well, obviously, the
latter! And you want everyone to know that you can eat as much as you like
of whatever you like. SO being fat is naturally a status symbol.
Similarly, until the 20th century, having a tan was a sign that you had to
work outdoors, doing physical labour, so it was fashionable to be very
pale-skinned. Nowadays, poor people work indoors and eat junk, so being fat
and pale is no longer a status symbol, but rather the reverse; if the poor
can be fat and pale, the rich want to be thin and tanned; it proves they can
afford to sunbathe and go on foreign holidays, and to have dieticians and
personal trainers and plastic surgeons.
>
> I got it from the lady who I mentioned in the beginning.
Which one?
H
Liminity
>
> "unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:z_VMb.73958$Dq1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > "sanura" <sanura...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:bu142u$cfn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > Work in the past was labor, not sitting at a desk doing someone's
> financials
> > or answering a phone.
>
> *heh* because of course, in Victorian times, there were no accountants or
> desk clerks... Haven't you read any Dickens?
>
Heh I haven't read any dickens, (although i have the PickWick Papers still,
i think) but i've seen a muppets christmas carol enough times to know that
there Secretaries and Financial assistants.
Even Scrooge himself didn't labour. He worked with money, me thinks.
(am i right?)
Liminity
H Duffy
"Liminity" <myfebruary...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g_WMb.2$Fb...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bu1boe$ccatu$1...@ID-124468.news.uni-berlin.de...
or
> > desk clerks... Haven't you read any Dickens?
> >
>
> Heh I haven't read any dickens, (although i have the PickWick Papers
still,
> i think) but i've seen a muppets christmas carol enough times to know that
> there Secretaries and Financial assistants.
>
> Even Scrooge himself didn't labour. He worked with money, me thinks.
>
> (am i right?)
You are indeed; I don't have A Christmas Carol, but I have a feeling it's
never very clearly defined exactly how Scrooge makes his money. He is,
however, quite certainly the sedentary type, as is his poor clerk, Bob
Cratchett.
H
Lucy Bond
<unbr...@nycap.rr.com> writes
>snip<
> (I use fat in terms of obese FYI)
>snip<
Ohhh. So you meant to call me 'obese' when you said I was fat, with my
36" chest, 31" waist & 40" hips...
Lucy Bond
<unbr...@nycap.rr.com> writes
Ah, OK, I thought you were taking the Amish as representative of people
in the past, rather than studying them as a group....
Why would an Amish diet be high fat & high sugar?
I would expect that people in the past filled up on carbohydrates more
than fats & sugar. Anyone got any decent research on the subject?
Lucy Bond
cat <nos...@goaway.com> writes
Oh, I dunno, that is one way to burn calories ;)
unbroken
lady who implied everyone has always been fat).
*plonk*
Isabella
"unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:X%CMb.144106$JW3...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
unbroken
Isabella
unbroken
> Ah, OK, I thought you were taking the Amish as representative of people
> in the past, rather than studying them as a group....
>
> Why would an Amish diet be high fat & high sugar?
>
> I would expect that people in the past filled up on carbohydrates more
> than fats & sugar. Anyone got any decent research on the subject?
>
> Lucy
I'm not sure why they eat that way. I've never met an Amish person although
they seem far friendly than most! We have a few Amish towns around here.
Christian fundamentalists are closely related to the Amish people in the way
of life.
I've never researched it. I'm fine with my long john silver's lol. But I
think it'd be interesting.
As far as Elizabethan times go, there is this site which I linked to the
first food part, but has a whole thing on Elizabethan life, it's pretty
interesting.
http://renaissance.dm.net/compendium/19.html
Hey you know, they ate French toast back in the 1500's but 7th Heaven was on
a week ago and some lady said it was invented in Albany, NY which was a
mistake on their part, funny though.
Isabella
unbroken
> In article <pNTMb.73212$Dq1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, unbroken
> <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> writes
>
> >snip<
>
> > (I use fat in terms of obese FYI)
>
> >snip<
>
> Ohhh. So you meant to call me 'obese' when you said I was fat, with my
> 36" chest, 31" waist & 40" hips...
>
> Lucy
You have a small chest (mine is 35). I had similar measurements when I was
overweight, but not obese.
Isabella
unbroken
"H Duffy" <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bu1d1l$cmqk0$1...@ID-124468.news.uni-berlin.de...
Samantha w
[semi OT] Amish as healthy as people were over 150 years or so ago
Group: alt.gothic.fashion Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2004, 7:58pm (EST+5) From:
unbr...@nycap.rr.com (unbroken)
a thread where people were saying that people were much bigger back in
the day.
Only 4% of the Amish were obese while we are 2/3 obese.
http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/79/96115.htm
Proof that we are just plain old lazy.
Isabella
Damn are you retarted ? you are one stupid person as i can see from your
post ! Samantha
witch craft is not evil ! ' Grin ' but i am !
Lucy Bond
<unbr...@nycap.rr.com> writes
I'm a C or D cup, actually, which isn't particularly small, although I
used to be an A. THAT was a surprise!
The gym & doctor both said I wasn't actually overweight, although I
would prefer a slightly smaller waist, as not being very tall, I am in
danger of looking more tubular than I like to, at least in dresses.
When I can find a new gym in my area, I'll remedy that. They demolished
the only gym near my house.
But you are ignoring the point I am making. You make definitions.
You say that you mean 'over a size 10' as 'fat', then you say you only
mean 'obese' when you say 'fat', yet you call me 'fat', when I am not
'obese' by your standards.
I am saying that you say one thing, then deny you said it, then redefine
it. Please stop doing that. Or *plonk* me along with H. Duffy, I think
I'd enjoy the atmosphere in your killfile.
H Duffy
> buh bye *plonk*
*heh* Couldn't answer all those difficult questions, huh?
Why doesn't that surprise me?
H
unbroken
I'm 5'8" and I think my waist was an inch bigger when my doctor told me I
needed to lose weight.
I think over a size 10 in US is pretty plump (not a size I plan to ever be
again). But it should be obvious that a size 10 isn't obese.
Nah, you have intelligence, I actually like hearing what you have to say.
Isabella
unbroken
"Samantha w" <Laven...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21059-40...@asg-storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
That was quite hypocritical. May want to call doctor's stupid while you are
at it.
I think someone's a little insecure.
Isabella
Ronda
> Some people
> have said it was fashionable but they had no written in stone fact to show
> me so it's pretty unbelievable as royalty was never that fat
It would have been handy to know you needed your historical evidence
carved in stone instead of in history books. That makes for a pretty
air tight argument for your assertions being correct considering most
of us are not going to carve previously quoted reference material in
stone.
It all boils down to you have a bias against obese people and have
made it quite clear in previous posts that you find them "vomit
inducing" in a corset. You also stated that in your $1000 gown
business you won't be making garments that won't fit on your dress
form. It looks like from a post at another NG that you are still
looking for that skinny dress form. You don't have to find overweight
attractive or acceptable. Judging those who are and wanting everyone
to come around to your point of view is a lost cause. The historical
discussion on body types no matter how much proof is provided is not
likely to change that bias so further discussion seems pointless.
There is nothing wrong with standing by your convictions. Its claiming
you didn't say derogatory, inaccurate, and insulting comments that is
causing problems. You then decided to start a new thread because you
personally erased the corset.net thread. The problem is once you post
it...its out there on Google for anyone to look up and quote. Once
again if you stand by all your previous posts then not a problem. Its
trying to deny you didn't post them that causes problems especially
when another reader looks them up and re-posts them. So, you aren't
likely to escape the original comments unless you admit it was wrong
and own up to it or say you stand by your previous comments.
If you plan to open a clothing business on line I can see where you
might not want your customers to see derogatory comments about women
over size 12.
Most of the older women on this NG will tell you that young and thin
is only a small part of your entire life. If you have children you
will gain weight and its not always easy to get rid of weight not to
mention the stretch marks. Recovering after a surgery or an accident
can also pack on pounds. You stated you mother is overweight so
genetics and metabolism may also play a part later in life for you as
well. I struggle to keep constant at my ideal BMI number because of a
chronic illness and its gets harder every year as my metabolism slows
down. These are things you don't think about at 16,18 or 22. Your
posts to alt.suicide.methods as well as on agf show a lack of sympathy
and understanding for the human condition. A little humility goes a
long way.....
Ronda
Ivan Wine
> I think the whole idea is proving we are lazy (you can't be lazy and
> physically fit).
Sure, you can. I have known several people who were physicaly fit and lazy.
People feel they can control their food intake to lose
> weight but it isn't always the issue (and sometimes worse for health).
> People who do sit and work for 8 hours a day (which I have done, and have
> another job doing :o( ) IMO are fairly lazy unless they do physical
activity
> at other times, maybe not mentally lazy or stressful, but physically lazy.
We obviously have a different interpretation of the word lazy. You seem to
take lazy to mean a lack of physical activity, or even mental activity.
This does not agree with the popular definition of lazy. I would not think
that someone who enters data into a computer for 8 hours a day is lazy.
LAZY: (from Websters 1913 Dictionary)
Definition: \La"zy\, a. [Compar. {Lazier}; superl. {Laziest}.] [OE.
lasie, laesic, of uncertain origin; cf. F. las tired, L.
lassus, akin to E. late; or cf. LG. losig, lesig.]
1. Disinclined to action or exertion; averse to labor;
idle;
shirking work. --Bacon.
2. Inactive; slothful; slow; sluggish; as, a lazy stream.
"The night owl's lazy flight." --Shak.
3. Wicked; vicious. [Obs. or Prov. Eng.] --B. Jonson.
> Work in the past was labor, not sitting at a desk doing someone's
financials
> or answering a phone. It's not just Victorian women, men also, and people
> all from the past. They did a lot of labor since there was no technology.
Some people did a lot of labor, due to a certain lack of modern technology,
but there were still plenty of people that did not.
There was technology. A lever is technology. A plow is technology.
There were plenty of people who had jobs that did not require a lot of
physicaly intensive labor.
> I've been told handwashing your clothes is enough work, let alone all the
> stuff they had to do in a day (yes, cleaning is considered a physical
> activity for the most part). That's why I had found it hard to believe the
> woman who implied that women were always just as big as now.
> But I don't see
> it as possible, I for one have seen bigger women decide to exercise and do
> more labor and they lost weight. So how would they have stayed obese
during
> all that (unless they had medical problems or genetics)?
Perhaps they were lazy? Not everyone handwashed their clothing. Not
everyone's daily diet was less than or equal to the amount of calories they
burned in a day.
Perhaps you are thinking specifically of harder working groups in the
past, such as pioneers and farm laborers. Those do not represent a majority
of the people. Rural life has always been more difficult.
That is not to say that there were no fat pioneers or farmers, however.
I think the reason there are more obese people today has less to do with
the amount of labour done and more to do with the food we eat. Thats a
different topic. I haven't seen anything yet to lead me to believe that,
other than a few people with medical or genetic reasons, there were no fat
people.
-Ivan
Ivan Wine
"unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:3WTMb.73258
>
> The Amish are isolated due to their beliefs. They live the way they did in
> the past due to the fact that they feel it's against God to use any modern
> technology (even as a Catholic, I believe God gave man the ability to
create
> it). But there was a point in time when there were no TV's and electricity
> and no McDonald's. So the point they were making was since the Amish do
> indeed eat the high fat and high sugar diets of the past, they were still
in
> great shape, with only 4% (1/25) of the Amish population being obese as
> opposed to 2/3 of ours.
I am making an assumption here.
I would imagine that the high fat/high sugar diet of these Amish consists of
a different kind of sugar and fat than the rest of us eat.
One could enjoy electricity and television, and even the odd
quarter-pounder and be in great shape, if they avoided filling their pantry
with highly refined foods and foods that are full of empty calories. I
doubt it has so much to do with electricty making one fat as it has to do
with todays crap food making one fat.
-Ivan
Ice Princess
>
> Christian fundamentalists are closely related to the Amish people in the way
> of life.
::boggle::
Okay. I'm not going to argue here. I am, instead, going to use this as
an example of how you should be more precise in your writing.
The statement as written above is easily interpreted as "*All* Christian
fundamentalists are closely related to the Amish people in the way of
life." However, this is not true, and perhaps you did not mean to imply
that it is true. Perhaps you meant to say something more like, "Some
Christian fundamentalist sects live in a fashion that is very similar to
how the Amish live."
See? When you say something like that, it's much more clear that you
are not making ignorant, ill-thought blanket statements, and people have
much less reason to point out everything that is factually incorrect in
your posts.
Oh, and here's a suggestion: why don't you killfile everyone who has
disagreed with you. That way, you will find very little to read in this
newsgroup, and with any luck you will get bored and go away very quickly.
Ice Princess
unbroken
"Ivan Wine" <ebo...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:UeZMb.10226$881.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Actually I have to disagree. Knowing someone who is in great physical shape
and eats tons of junk food every day (I for one do, I haven't eaten
vegetables in months, and even though I'm not that in shape I'm still 5'8"
and am around 125 lbs). It's possible to eat McDonald's and pizza everyday
but still stay fit. Modern technology makes it easier for us to be lazy and
not do much. I'm not sure why but a lot of people think it's just about what
we eat when it really isn't. I made the resolution to gain some weight this
year but have lost around 5 pounds and alls I have eaten was pizza, double
cheeseburgers, and chicken nuggets along with regular soda's and high sugar
juices. So I have to disagree with you and agree with the people I see
around me and the doctors.
Isabella
unbroken
I find it odd that you say you know people who are physically in shape but
lazy even when you posted the definition which says "Disinclined to action
or exertion; averse to labor;
idle;". Please explain this to because in my mind that's contradicting.
By your posting of the definition we have the same definition. Lazy is
pretty much a physical term which brings me to the conclusion that people
who sit at a desk for 8 hours are indeed lazy since they don't move much.
The mind and body are two separate things. It doesn't take much to enter
data into a computer (having done it) and is also very boring (in my
opinion).
Maybe you don't understand the term labor. I meant overall exercise and
everything else. Someone had to pull that lever or push that plow which
obviously takes physical work.
If they didn't handwash their clothing then they must have just worn dirty
clothes all the time since the washing machine and dryer are newer
inventions.
And the amount of calories the body burns in a day plus the amount of work
and physical activity back then should have been near enough to keep their
bodies in good form. Especially since they didn't eat at Dunkin Donuts or
Pizza Hut ever.
Obesity is both food and exercise related. But mostly exercise, as I said in
another thread I know someone (and actually a few in the past) who ate junk
daily but did physical activity on a daily basis and stayed in great shape.
So my opinion is it has less to do with food and more with physical
activity. Hell, body builders eat upwards of 3000-4000 calories a day.
No one ever said there were no fat people, but it wasn't "normal" (normal
going by majority rules). The point of the story was to say that in recent
years we have become very out of shape which leads to obesity and that in
the past people did a lot more physical activity so they weren't nearly as
big as America is today. Regardless of food intake.
Isabella
Ivan Wine
So what you are saying is that nutritian isnt a factor at all. One should
eat all the crap that they want to and they will be healthy. Is weight the
only determening factor you use for health?
Your logic is flawed. It should be common sense that its not healthy to
eat only pizza, burgers, chicken nuggets and sodas. Your statement implies
the opposite.
For the record, I never said that it is ONLY what you eat. Its a balance,
like all else. I also never said it was IMPOSSIBLE to eat McDonalds and
pizza everyday and stay healthy. (though I imagine it would most likely
make it more difficult)
I am pretty sure I can find papers which will back up what I say. A diet of
over-proccessed highly refined food is not healthy for you, but you go ahead
and agree with all those people around you.
I also find it some-what funny that you expect from me, something that you
yourself are not willing to accept. You tell me that you and someone else
you know eat nothing but junk food and you are healthy, yet when someone
shows you a few fat people from the past, you say it doesn't prove anything.
Back up your statement with some facts. Show me some scientific proof of
what you say.
-Ivan
Ivan Wine
>>
> I find it odd that you say you know people who are physically in shape but
> lazy even when you posted the definition which says "Disinclined to action
> or exertion; averse to labor;
> idle;". Please explain this to because in my mind that's contradicting.
>
> By your posting of the definition we have the same definition. Lazy is
> pretty much a physical term which brings me to the conclusion that people
> who sit at a desk for 8 hours are indeed lazy since they don't move much.
> The mind and body are two separate things. It doesn't take much to enter
> data into a computer (having done it) and is also very boring (in my
> opinion).
>
the definition states laziness as disinclined from working, shirking ones
duties. One can sit at a desk all day long doing their work, and not be
lazy. One can also run sprints all day and be lazy, if their job is doing
something else.
It is VERY boring, which is why it DOES take a lot of effort for some people
to keep at it day after day.
> Maybe you don't understand the term labor. I meant overall exercise and
> everything else. Someone had to pull that lever or push that plow which
> obviously takes physical work.
Typing doesn't require pushing buttons? The point I was making with the
plow, was how inaccurate your statement of there being a lack of technology.
I believe I have a fine enough grasp of the term labor. Labor is productive
work. It may often be thought of as physically intense work, but if you are
getting paid to do it, you are being paid for labor.
Since you have such narrow definitions for words, perhaps you should supply
a definition each time you introduce a new term, to keep from confusing the
rest of us.
>
> If they didn't handwash their clothing then they must have just worn
dirty
> clothes all the time since the washing machine and dryer are newer
> inventions.
I guess its unfathomable to imagine that some people were paid to wash other
peoples clothes, eh?
>
> And the amount of calories the body burns in a day plus the amount of work
> and physical activity back then should have been near enough to keep their
> bodies in good form. Especially since they didn't eat at Dunkin Donuts or
> Pizza Hut ever.
yet in another post, you state that eating pizza has no ill effects on ones
health. Which is it, pray tell?
>
> Obesity is both food and exercise related. But mostly exercise, as I said
in
> another thread I know someone (and actually a few in the past) who ate
junk
> daily but did physical activity on a daily basis and stayed in great
shape.
> So my opinion is it has less to do with food and more with physical
> activity. Hell, body builders eat upwards of 3000-4000 calories a day.
They also burn that much. Its a balance, as I stated before. I also bet
those body builders do not get more than a small percentage of those
calories from empty sources.
>
> No one ever said there were no fat people, but it wasn't "normal" (normal
> going by majority rules). The point of the story was to say that in recent
> years we have become very out of shape which leads to obesity and that in
> the past people did a lot more physical activity so they weren't nearly as
> big as America is today. Regardless of food intake.
I dont want to dig though that many posts, so I will let you go on that
first statement.
Again, your statement is flawed. Being out of shape does not always lead
to obesity.
Being lazy does not always equal out of shape.
The fact is that some people in the past did more physical activity. Some
people do more physical activity now, and they pay a monthly fee. Not ALL
people did more physically then than now. The basis of your arguement is
flawed.
-Ivan
sanura
>
> "unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:uWZMb.74706$Dq1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >>
> > I find it odd that you say you know people who are physically in shape
but
> > lazy even when you posted the definition which says "Disinclined to
action
> > or exertion; averse to labor;
> > idle;". Please explain this to because in my mind that's contradicting.
Now 'hard labor' and 'physical/manual labor' would be different, I would
understand your meaning in the use of those terms. Labor by itself though
has many meanings, often you have to let us know which one you mean:
labor
\La"bor\, n. [OE. labour, OF. labour, laber, labur, F. labeur, L. labor; cf.
Gr. lamba`nein to take, Skr. labh to get, seize.] [Written also labour.]
1. Physical toil or bodily exertion, especially when fatiguing, irksome, or
unavoidable, in distinction from sportive exercise; hard, muscular effort
directed to some useful end, as agriculture, manufactures, and like; servile
toil; exertion; work.
God hath set Labor and rest, as day and night, to men Successive. --Milton.
2. Intellectual exertion; mental effort; as, the labor of compiling a
history.
3. That which requires hard work for its accomplishment; that which demands
effort.
Being a labor of so great a difficulty, the exact performance thereof we may
rather wish than look for. --Hooker.
4. Travail; the pangs and efforts of childbirth.
The queen's in labor, They say, in great extremity; and feared She'll with
the labor end. --Shak.
5. Any pang or distress. --Shak.
6. (Naut.) The pitching or tossing of a vessel which results in the
straining of timbers and rigging.
7. [Sp.] A measure of land in Mexico and Texas, equivalent to an area of
1771/7 acres. --Bartlett.
Syn: Work; toil; drudgery; task; exertion; effort; industry; painstaking.
See Toll.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
Only the first definition has to do with physical exertion. I think that we
are thinking of definition 2 and 3. Therefore labour is not only the
physical activity you make it out to be.
> >
> > By your posting of the definition we have the same definition. Lazy is
> > pretty much a physical term which brings me to the conclusion that
people
> > who sit at a desk for 8 hours are indeed lazy since they don't move
much.
> > The mind and body are two separate things. It doesn't take much to enter
> > data into a computer (having done it) and is also very boring (in my
> > opinion).
> >
>
> the definition states laziness as disinclined from working, shirking ones
> duties. One can sit at a desk all day long doing their work, and not be
> lazy. One can also run sprints all day and be lazy, if their job is doing
> something else.
>
> It is VERY boring, which is why it DOES take a lot of effort for some
people
> to keep at it day after day.
Mmm Hmm... As the definition of labour goes, the definition of laziness can
be thought of differently. Eg, 'adverse to intellectual exertion or that
which requires hard work for its accomplishment.' Even definitions aren't
set in stone, and I go for my interpretation first, because I do not see
laziness as a lack of physical activity. Lets give some other examples of
jobs which you would consider lazy then, because it does not include much
physical activity: accountant/bookkeeper, teacher, writer, artist, fashion
designer, many engineers, weather girl, many scientists, historians, bus
drivers, taxi drivers, politician, some factory workers, web designers,
secretaries, computer programmers, many business owners, quite a few
journalists, etc etc etc. I doubt they would all appreciate you calling them
lazy.
> > Maybe you don't understand the term labor. I meant overall exercise and
> > everything else. Someone had to pull that lever or push that plow which
> > obviously takes physical work.
>
> Typing doesn't require pushing buttons? The point I was making with the
> plow, was how inaccurate your statement of there being a lack of
technology.
>
> I believe I have a fine enough grasp of the term labor. Labor is
productive
> work.
And it seems, also a measure of land in both mexico and texas *grin*.
It may often be thought of as physically intense work, but if you are
> getting paid to do it, you are being paid for labor.
>
> Since you have such narrow definitions for words, perhaps you should
supply
> a definition each time you introduce a new term, to keep from confusing
the
> rest of us.
A definition each time would actually help, since it seems that most
people's definitions seem to vary from yours.
They're also eating different foods. You can't base an argument on half of
the information and omit the rest. They are eating high fat and high sugar
foods, but since I'm guessing most of it is derived from fresh produce, that
alone can make the difference. No processed foods. No preservatives, no
artificial flavours, everything made from scratch (much unlike the 'normal'
diet of the average american, I'm pretty sure). I'm sure that you've heard
of the different types of fats and sugars, how some are 'good' and some are
'bad'? Most 'good' sugars and fats are derived from fresh foods, such as
fruit, vegetables, nuts/beans/legumes, lean meat etc. So although they may
be consuming high sugar and high fat foods, they could also be consuming the
types that are 'good' for them at the same time. Without knowing the dietary
intake etc for these armish, you can't be sure that physical activity is
what mostly influences weight loss.
> I dont want to dig though that many posts, so I will let you go on that
> first statement.
> Again, your statement is flawed. Being out of shape does not always lead
> to obesity.
> Being lazy does not always equal out of shape.
> The fact is that some people in the past did more physical activity. Some
> people do more physical activity now, and they pay a monthly fee. Not ALL
> people did more physically then than now. The basis of your arguement is
> flawed.
Sanura
sanura
--
www.cafeshops.com/sanura_kitten - for alt.gothic.fashion merchandice.
"Lucy Bond" <lu...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4yoSZMB5...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk...
> In article <bu1cra$alabr$1...@ID-164556.news.uni-berlin.de>, Vicky =^,,^=
> cat <nos...@goaway.com> writes
> >
> >"sanura" <sanura...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:bu14l0$cnv$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >> www.cafeshops.com/sanura_kitten - for alt.gothic.fashion merchandice.
> > I always knew that zippers would be our downfall. They make it
> >> too easy to undo the top of my pants when I get full.
> >>
> >
> >Or when the other half's keen... Oooo-err missus! I can't believe I just
> >wrote that ;-)
LOL
> Oh, I dunno, that is one way to burn calories ;)
It certainly is ;) And often a quite enjoyable one too.
sanura (planning to do some 'exercise' this week *laughs*)
sanura
are
> at it.
What have doctors got to do with anything? (oh, I forgot. Doctors are also
on that list of 'lazy people'. Thought I'd add.)
Sanura
unbroken
I'm not going to argue. I suggest you speak to some doctor's before calling
my statement flawed, cause it may well be yours is, and according to the
ones I know, yours is.
Isabella
unbroken
"Ice Princess" <icp...@blarg.net> wrote in message
news:4004689B...@blarg.net...
Actually, you are wrong. Christian fundamentalists don't "believe" in any
modern technology.
Isabella
unbroken
Didn't bother to read this,. sure it says the same as the last post. Speak
to doctor's! They have at least 11 years of medical schooling on you. That's
where I get my info FYI.
Isabella
Crowmaiden
> I thought this would be of some interest to some people since there was a
> thread where people were saying that people were much bigger back in the
> day.
No one ever said people were much bigger in the past. You stated that there
were no fat people in Elizabethan or Victorian times. Several people pointed
out that this was complete bollocks. Yes, obesity is a big problem now, &
I'll grant you there were *less* fat people than today (though given how the
population has expanded, I wonder how that works out percentage-wise?
*curious*) but they did exist.
> Proof that we are just plain old lazy.
Speak for yourself.
Crowmaiden
sanura
Hmmm... that's why there is a "christian fundamentalist fantatics forums",
huh? Pretty weird for a group that doesn't believe in modern technology.
http://www.freejesus.net/forum/index.php
That's just one example. I could find more. Do I need more to disprove your
statement? Nope. Please debate the point, I really want to see what you say.
Sanura
unbroken
"Ronda" <Ro...@DragonflyDesignStudio.com> wrote in message
news:88a15775.04011...@posting.google.com...
History books, carved in stone, same thing, as long as it be non-fiction. I
never once saw anyone link me anywhere to a site that said all this, and I
won't be buying a book for it. It's pretty much all opinion, but when it
comes to health then it can be factual and those facts can be found
anywhere.
I don't have a bias against obese people. One of my best friends is very
overweight (but trying to lose weight due to depression) and we have been
best friends forever. But it's your assumption, just bad to do that,
especially since I have no problems with fat people friendship wise. I was
also looking for a 2nd dress form. "Judging those who are and wanting
everyone to come around to your point of view is a lost cause." Good point,
but I'm not the only one who is having that problem. It seems like many are
trying to get me to change my views to theirs. Once again, there was no
proof, and there is no bias, so yes it is pointless.
I never erased any thread, I haven't seen it in a while, it's happened to me
in other NG's too where I lost my threads, I can't help my newsreader so
please don't blame that on me. And I just posted the link for the woman who
implied that all women were always fatter. If I feel I said something wrong,
or if it wasn't worded right then I would correct it and have. I don't plan
to sell to people over a size 12/14 so that's ok. As it's more labor intense
and uses more fabric also embroidery and beading etc. It would just cost
them more anyways.
Having kids doesn't mean a life of being obese. People in my family have had
kids, including one of my sisters, and she is not big at all, she went
right back to a size 6, and barely any stretch marks (used cocoa butter). My
mom was also thin right after having us and has *no* stretch marks. My
mother is overweight due to depression. About 10 years ago she went through
a rough time with shit and packed on the pounds but hasn't bothered to lose
it since she always seems to have some issues. My father was stickly, super
fast metabolism, even when he was in his 40's, and my mother wouldn't be
overweight if she did something about it so I know genetics are ok (most on
my family aren't that big, the ones who are always have been, the ones who
never were still aren't). My grandmother was overweight, she went on a
healthy diet and is now the smallest I have ever seen her. The big people in
my family pretty much can lose it if they want to, and most of them are at
the moment. Also, I know how to take care of myself as well. Plus there is
always lipo lol. I don't think I could ever live with myself if I went over
a size US 6. A little humility goes a long way, but some people don't bother
to help the things that make people look and just feel depressed about it. I
was fat once, I was so unhappy, so I took myself off the pills that stopped
my metabolism and hit the gyms. I also had tons of pimples once, started on
birth control and using special stuff and people are jealous of my clear
skin (I don't wear make up!). A lot of things people get all upset over can
be helped, and I don't have sympathy for people who whine about weight, or
pimples, or any of that since I was there once and I know it can be helped.
Patience is a virtue.
Isabella
Ice Princess
>
> Actually, you are wrong. Christian fundamentalists don't "believe" in any
> modern technology.
I started to write a nice little rebuttal, and then I noticed that you
put "believe" in quotation marks.
All righty, dumpling, I'll bite. What's your definition of "believe" in
the above sentence? And how does it relate to the Amish approach to
modern technology?
Give me that, if you would. And then once you've done that, I'd like to
move this thread onto discussion the Biblical strictures against mixing
fibers, so that this can be at least remotely on topic for a.g.f. ;)
Ice Princess
unbroken
That wasn't too difficult of a statement so you should be able to figure it
out. Or else maybe I just spent too much time in Sunday School.
Isabella
unbroken
According to someone who studied religion for many years (an old enemy)
Christian Fundamentalists do not believe in modern technology (as it goes
against God). And I'm sticking with what he said because he knows a lot
about religions that I didn't even know existed (and probably a lot more
than you on Christianity). Not a man to debate with as he always is right,
somehow, and he proves it. Maybe they are fans of them or have the wrong
idea of it? As I said before, I'm Catholic, and I'm going by what the genius
of religions said which I'm sorry, no website is going to change my mind (I
mean, there are ones that say Wiccans are Satanists), because he has more
knowledge on religion than possibly anyone on this NG.
Isabella
unbroken
Actually, they do a lot of physical activity. It probably would be nice to
sit while you are doing a 4 hour surgery or trying to save someone's life.
Isabella
Ice Princess
>
> That wasn't too difficult of a statement so you should be able to figure it
> out.
I don't want to "figure it out" because that would require making
assumptions. I want you to tell me why, precisely, you put that one
word in quotation marks, because I don't want to make assumptions about
your intentions. You want people to not assume, so I'm not assuming.
I'm asking you to clarify. This is one of the things that happens when
you don't write clearly and precisely, which is why I posted to this
thread in the first place: you are not writing clearly and precisely,
and therefore you are being asked to clarify.
Did you write papers with such broad, unclear language in college?
Ice Princess
unbroken
"Crowmaiden" <crowmaiden@rockchick***.co.uk> wrote in message
news:941Nb.18465$3o.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> unbroken wrote:
>
> > I thought this would be of some interest to some people since there was
a
> > thread where people were saying that people were much bigger back in the
> > day.
>
> No one ever said people were much bigger in the past. You stated that
there
> were no fat people in Elizabethan or Victorian times. Several people
pointed
> out that this was complete bollocks. Yes, obesity is a big problem now, &
> I'll grant you there were *less* fat people than today (though given how
the
> population has expanded, I wonder how that works out percentage-wise?
> *curious*) but they did exist.
>
I never once said that but it seems you get joy out of twisting my thoughts
around. My belief is that you all managed to read that wrong somehow. But
there was a woman who simply implied that the majority of women have always
been overweight which is simply not true.
>
> > Proof that we are just plain old lazy.
>
> Speak for yourself.
I'm not the fat one here. :o)
Isabella
sanura
"unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
Nah, that's a surgeon. If most of your information comes from doctors, then
I am guessing they are GPs (and from my experience, they are usually sitting
when I go for my yearly check-up). And standing for four hours isn't
'exertive physical activity' by your own definition of labor. Mentally
exertive, yes, but you don't acknowledge that as labor.
Sanura
sanura
<sarcasm>Of course. People who claim to be fundamentalists, posting to a
forum about christian fundamental issues obviously don't believe in [using]
modern technology.<sarcasm> Since the site exists with such content, then at
least *some* christian fundamentalists believe in [using] modern technology
in one form or another (eg, computers and the internet). They are not fans
of them, they probably don't *all* have 'the wrong idea', they are self
proclaimed christian fundamentalists which post to an internet forum. I
don't claim to know anything about christianity - I do claim to know that if
a christian fundamentalist posts to a forum, then they probably use a
computer to post it, and a computer to me constitutes a piece of modern
technology.
Sanura
unbroken
They can say they are, doesn't mean they are. One thing my old enemy did say
was that people who claim they are of a certain religion a lot of the time
don't practice it that way.
So here goes, I'm Wiccan. See how easy?
Isabella
Proud to be Catholic.
unbroken
My language is fine, thank you.
Most people would comprehend that statement. So I don't know why you don't.
Usually when people say "believe" in religious terms it's going by what they
believe in. Simple? I think I knew that back in kindergarten.
Isabella
unbroken
Surgeons and such still do labor. My doctor walks around a lot and stands
more than sits (maybe different in UK). But I prefer to get knowledge from
people who specialize since they know a lot on one subject than a little on
all.
Isabella
sanura
But standing and walking around in a doctors office/surgery/hospital is not
*exertive* physical activity - which you have stated is your idea of labor.
Sanura
sanura
So if a person believes in god, and follows jewish ideals, prays regularly
and believes more than anything that they are jewish, celebrates and follows
every jewish holiday and etc etc, but eats bacon, does that mean that they
are not jewish? If it says in the bible that you shouldn't wear a blended
fabric (just an example), but you do, although everything else you do is
ferverently to the letter catholic, are you no longer a catholic? And, just
to continue it a little further, if a christian fundamentalist uses the
internet, are they no longer a christian fundamentalist, even though they
follow in the same belief system of the christian fundamentalists? Or, if
you holiday in Britain, does that suddenly make you brittish?
Sanura
L
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=hairdyewhore
"My name is Whitney but my stage name or alias is Melicia and I also use
Isabella. I was born on September 3rd. I live in Ballston Spa, NY and am
moving to Clifton Park, NY in June. Right now I am with Jeff... He's 22 and
an engineer and cute as hell... The nicest guy alive."
Looks like that's where she gets the "I'm 22" crap.
~L
Ronda
> > I got it from the lady who I mentioned in the beginning.
>
> Which one?
>
> H
LOL! I just keep wanting to do Jerry Lewis imitations..Oh
Lady....Lady.....
Apparently I am the mystery "lady" who posted quoted material that
challenged her assertion that obese couldn't possibly be considered a
beauty standard.
Ok..go to Google, agf, and then pull up the corset.net thread. In the
left hand column there is a sort by date feature. Makes it darn handy
on these several hundred post threads! :0 ) Starting January 6 is my
first post with follow ups.
Ronda
"The lady"
H Duffy
> > assumptions. I want you to tell me why, precisely, you put that one
> > word in quotation marks, because I don't want to make assumptions about
> > your intentions. You want people to not assume, so I'm not assuming.
> > I'm asking you to clarify. This is one of the things that happens when
> > you don't write clearly and precisely, which is why I posted to this
> > thread in the first place: you are not writing clearly and precisely,
> > and therefore you are being asked to clarify.
> >
> > Did you write papers with such broad, unclear language in college?
>
No, it's not; you have made a statement which is blatantly and provably
untrue. When challenged, you have put one word into quotation marks, which
suggests that you are somehow trying to mitigate it. If you want intelligent
discussion, try to discuss intelligently, and that means that when someone
perfectly politely asks you for clarification of something you've said,
saying "I don't need to clarify" is both rude, and unintelligent.
> Most people would comprehend that statement. So I don't know why you
don't.
> Usually when people say "believe" in religious terms it's going by what
they
> believe in. Simple? I think I knew that back in kindergarten.
Right. But the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists _do_ believe in
technology, and make use of it.
A Christian Fundamentalist is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the
son of God and that the only way to get to heaven is by following his word
as written in the Bible; they differ from many other Christian sects in that
they don't believe in many of the other trappings of religion, which have
grown up in the last 2000 years; for example, the whole hierarchical politic
al mess that is the Catholic Church, with its rules and laws and ceremony.
However, that does not mean that they don't believe in modern technology;
most Christian Fundamentalists live in normal mdern homes, drive cars, wear
nylon, and watch TV; in fact, a lot of them watch Christian Fundamentalist
TV (when they're not logging on to Christian Fundamentalist web sites).
There are a few sects which don't believe in modern technology (the Amish
are one, there are also Menonites, although I may have spelled that wrong,
and a couple of others), but they are not representative, and indeed they
tend not to refer to themselves as Fundamentalists.
Your old enemy may claim to be an expert on anything he likes, but if he
said what you claim he said (and it's entirely possible that you have
misunderstood what he was saying), then he is just plain wrong.
H
>
> Isabella
>
>
H Duffy
>
> "Ronda" <Ro...@DragonflyDesignStudio.com> wrote in message
> news:88a15775.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > > have said it was fashionable but they had no written in stone fact to
> show
> > > me so it's pretty unbelievable as royalty was never that fat
> >
> > It would have been handy to know you needed your historical evidence
> > carved in stone instead of in history books. That makes for a pretty
> > air tight argument for your assertions being correct considering most
> > of us are not going to carve previously quoted reference material in
> > stone.
>
I
> never once saw anyone link me anywhere to a site that said all this, and I
> won't be buying a book for it. It's pretty much all opinion, but when it
> comes to health then it can be factual and those facts can be found
> anywhere.
The reason you never saw the links is because you stopped reading any post
which was too long for your poor brain, or any post which disagreed with
you, or proved you wrong. The links were posted, although if you had
actually studied Mediaeval and Renaissance studies, you would already know
all this stuff anyway.
> > There is nothing wrong with standing by your convictions. Its claiming
> > you didn't say derogatory, inaccurate, and insulting comments that is
> > causing problems. You then decided to start a new thread because you
> > personally erased the corset.net thread. The problem is once you post
> > it...its out there on Google for anyone to look up and quote. Once
> > again if you stand by all your previous posts then not a problem. Its
> > trying to deny you didn't post them that causes problems especially
> > when another reader looks them up and re-posts them. So, you aren't
> > likely to escape the original comments unless you admit it was wrong
> > and own up to it or say you stand by your previous comments.
> > If you plan to open a clothing business on line I can see where you
> > might not want your customers to see derogatory comments about women
> > over size 12.
>
> I never erased any thread, I haven't seen it in a while, it's happened to
me
> in other NG's too where I lost my threads, I can't help my newsreader so
> please don't blame that on me.
You should be able to get it back, as it is unlikely to have expired on your
newsreader; I'm guessing you have your newsreader set to show you only
unread messages; you should be able to tell it to show you messages which
have already been read too. On Outlook Express, you do this by going to
"View", clicking "Current View" and selecting "Show all messages". Other
Newsreaders may vary, but it shouldn't be difficult.
H
(Of course, our Whitters might not see this as she had a little hissy-fit
and *plonk*ed me, so if someone would like to repost the useful bit, that
would be simply lovely... :-)
Silvasurfa
> "Silvasurfa" <eric...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4bf59f3.04011...@posting.google.com...> news:<X%CMb.144106$JW3...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > > I thought this would be of some interest to some people since there was
> a
> > > thread where people were saying that people were much bigger back in the
> > > day.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/79/96115.htm
> > >
> > > Proof that we are just plain old lazy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Amish... they're the ones that don't like buttons or zippers eh?
> >
> > Damn prideful clothes fastenings, making us fat... all clothes should
> > lace up or close with hooks and eyes, that's the solution to our woes.
>
> They don't like modern technology. Labor is the solution to your woes.
>
> Isabella.
Maybe it is... both times I've gone into labor I've ended up losing
about 12 pounds in 12 hours. Quickest weight loss ever short of
amputating a leg.
Binkey
> "Crowmaiden" <crowmaiden@rockchick***.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:941Nb.18465$3o.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > unbroken wrote:
<Snip>
> > > Proof that we are just plain old lazy.
> >
> > Speak for yourself.
>
> I'm not the fat one here. :o)
>
> Isabella
...but we're not the ones constantly obsessing over size/weight and
‘fat' people. You are the one who started both the corset.net thread
and this one - not us ‘Isabella' :o)
A thought did occur to me however – are/were you teased for being
skinny? Could your unfathomable targeting of the over-weight be a
coping mechanism for your own issues and insecurities? I guess we'll
never know…
Look kitten, the sooner you deal with the fact that throughout history
there has and *always* will be variation/changes in people's sizes the
better. The bottom line is that people and society will also continue
to shift and change long after we're dead and buried too for that
matter. If people are over-weight, so what? Don't let it ruin your
day.
~Binkey
++++
You know what they say about love and war - one involves a lot of
physical and psychological pain...and the other one is war.
++++
Vicky =^,,^= cat
> So if a person believes in god, and follows jewish ideals, prays regularly
> and believes more than anything that they are jewish, celebrates and
follows
> every jewish holiday and etc etc, but eats bacon, does that mean that they
> are not jewish? If it says in the bible that you shouldn't wear a blended
> fabric (just an example), but you do, although everything else you do is
> ferverently to the letter catholic, are you no longer a catholic? And,
just
> to continue it a little further, if a christian fundamentalist uses the
> internet, are they no longer a christian fundamentalist, even though they
> follow in the same belief system of the christian fundamentalists? Or, if
> you holiday in Britain, does that suddenly make you brittish?
>
pints down the local with his non-Muslim mates, my mortgage would be half
way paid!
xx Victoria
Silvasurfa
>
>
> > No, it's not saying that at all. It is saying that physical activity
> > increases fitness despite the fact that diet was high in both fats and
> > sugars, and therefore they were not obese. It said nothing about laziness.
> I
> > don't think a person who has to sit at a desk for 9 hours a day in order
> to
> > earn a living would believe themselves lazy. An assumption based on the
> > facts presented can lead us to believe certain things about the fitness of
> > people in an earlier era, but it is not proof of it, as you put it. It
> could
> > however, in conjunction with a few other bits and pieces give a good basis
> > for a conclusion about people who lived 150 years ago or so. We're not
> > asking for an essay, nor even any proof, an opinion is an opinion.
> However,
> > one study on one armish community in Ontario does not convince me of
> > anything to do with Victorian women. Besides, I think it's a pointless
> > argument, most people who have bothered to read the corset.net thread
> around
> > that area of argument said that there weren't as many fat people then as
> > there are today, but there were fat people.
>
> I think the whole idea is proving we are lazy (you can't be lazy and
> physically fit). People feel they can control their food intake to lose
> weight but it isn't always the issue (and sometimes worse for health).
> People who do sit and work for 8 hours a day (which I have done, and have
> another job doing :o( ) IMO are fairly lazy unless they do physical activity
> at other times, maybe not mentally lazy or stressful, but physically lazy.
> Work in the past was labor, not sitting at a desk doing someone's financials
> or answering a phone. It's not just Victorian women, men also, and people
> all from the past. They did a lot of labor since there was no technology.
> I've been told handwashing your clothes is enough work, let alone all the
> stuff they had to do in a day
Handwashing clothes for yourself is not enough work to keep you
slim.... I did it for 9 months and had to add further exercise to
maintain a BMI below my personal OMG gotta do something point, maybe
handwashing clothes for an entire Amish family would be enough?
I was 26, had shifted to another town to work and didn't want to buy a
washer or fridge as I wanted to shift back home. I washed my own
clothes, walked everywhere I had to go (half a mile to work and home
from work each day, extra for shopping) and ate a pretty healthy diet
consisting of fruit and veg which I bought every second day, and a
grilled steak and salad dinner most evenings. The occasional can of
baked beans in winter, and once every 28 days a 250 gramme block of
chocolate splurge due to cyclical cravings. A 125g block of smoked
cheese every couple of months when I craved it. On the whole a modest
diet, not spartan but by no means a diet of twinkies and TV. And still
I had to add brisk walks to the equation to stop my weight increase.
Of course depression was part of the problem, fuck I hated that town,
and when you are depressed your whole body tries to shut down, even
when you exercise your body you can tell it isn't burning calories
like it should.
sanura
news:88a15775.04011...@posting.google.com...
And just to make it even easier to find - here it is! Posted on the 9th of
the 1st 2004, by my time.
"unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<9G4Lb.64808$q55....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> Actually, I said that in comment to someone who said that being fat was a
> sign of royalty. And as paintings would show neither Mary Tudor nor Queen
> Elizabeth were at all fat. Even Queen Isabella wasn't fat, most Queens
> weren't.
That was my assertion that wealth and power in a historical context
were defined by excess and obesity. A passage from Buldging Through
History by Dawn Debeli.
" There are moments in history, such as we see in the works of Rubens,
or Renoir, when a bloated figure was seen as desirable. Yet unlike
today such mass was not seen as a sign of ill health. To the contrary,
in these times before the discovery of saturated fats, trans-fatty
acids and heart disease, such plumpness was seen as a sign of wealth
and good health."
This is one of my favorite passages from a Child's History of England
by Charles Dickens
"named ANNE OF CLEVES, who was beautiful, and would answer the purpose
admirably. The King said was she a large woman, because he must have a
fat wife? 'O yes,' said Cromwell; 'she was very large, just the
thing.' On hearing this the King sent over his famous painter, Hans
Holbein, to take her portrait. Hans made her out to be so good-looking
that the King was satisfied, and the marriage was arranged. But,
whether anybody had paid Hans to touch up the picture; or whether
Hans, like one or two other painters, flattered a princess in the
ordinary way of business, I cannot say: all I know is, that when Anne
came over and the King went to Rochester to meet her, and first saw
her without her seeing him, he swore she was 'a great Flanders mare,'
and said he would never marry her. Being obliged to do it now matters
had gone so far, he would not give her the presents he had prepared,
and would never notice her."
> I have a degree in medieval/renaissance studies which is why I believe
most
> of you are speaking a lot of horse crap. I also spent a lot of time before
> those 4 years studying a lot of historic costuming as well. (from about
the
> age of 13). My source of material is books, movies (surprisingly Elizabeth
> was correct except it spanned over 40 years and the costuming was pretty
> off), reading online, most importantly professors and school.
Elizabeth like many historical films was an incredibly romanticized
and not historically entirely accurate film. The writers took
liberties with history to make a better story. A search for reviews of
the film will show reviewers stating what was historically incorrect.
You can assert horse crap all you want and show your data as to why
women in history were not obese. That was your original claim. In
terms of discussing historical fashion you don't seem to be willing to
acknowledge documentation that obesity is not a new phenomena and that
it has been a desirable sign of fertility and attractiveness across
time and cultures.
>
> I also do not recall anyone backing up their opinions on anything. And I
put
> in another post that I would simply look something up if it really
mattered
> that much to you. And self education isn't bad, you can go over to your
> local library instead of hassling me during my busy day.
I have quoted source material in each of my posts only, you stated
you couldn't be bothered to read it. That is it in a nutshell isn't
it, you can't be bothered with a discussion of the actual historical
data?
No one expects you to be an expert on European history but, you made
claims to be one. My only problem with your statements about obesity
in history is that its not accurate. So, source material was given so
you might consider that no matter how "vomit inducing" you might find
women of size, they have been considered a beauty standard in the
past.
There was also a similar post, quoting material on the 6th - as follows
"unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<w2mKb.115093$JW3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> They weren't as big as most women now. As it's fact women keep getting
> fatter as years go by. We have sizes up to a size 30 something (!!!!!!!)
Since you stated earlier you have an extensive knowledge of fashion
history how is it that you don't t know that being overweight has been
a sign of wealth and success in many cultures past and present?
Historically obesity was a sign of wealth and thin a sign of poverty.
"Polynesian beauty was determined by a native standard: The women were
obese, more than 200 pounds with hair cropped in Afro style. It was
considered chic to bleach their hairline with lime or urine. Royals of
both sexes tattooed their bodies, faces and tongues." This is from The
First People of Hawaii by Billie Kawaiola Beamer.
The art work of of Sir Peter Paul Rubens made him the most successful
artist in 17th century. His most famous works included nude full
figured women.
"Fashion, as we usually use the term in the sense of meaning 'trendy'
or 'stylish' did not really emerge until the 1400's with the rise of a
wealthier middle class. To wear certain clothes communicated status if
not occupation. From the early 1400s to 1700 the female beauty ideal
in Western culture was a big breasted, plump, and somewhat maternal
looking figure." From Fashion by Michael Sones.
Also from the same book,
"In the 1890's the stage actress, Lillian Russell, was an ideal beauty
weighing in at a remarkable 200 pounds. Her first stage appearance had
been in a light opera in 1879 but she didn't achieve real stardom
until 1899 when she performed at Weber and Fields's Music Hall and
later with her own Lillian Russell Opera Company. This fashion icon of
the times was noted for both her flamboyant personality and her love
of jewelry."
It may not be your ideal of beauty. If you plan to keep making
statements regarding history and fashion please give the source of
your information.
Oh and for the record Marilyn Monroe like most women fluctuated in her
weight. An average was:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D
That would place her in US size 12 or 14 in most clothing lines at her
top weight. You can read more about Marilyn and the urban legends
surrounding her dress size with a Google search.
There was also a follow-up post on the 7th, after that post -
Its interesting that you have used portraits and re-enactments as
your source for historical accuracy. Both are open to interpretation
and as an art form and not entirely accurate for discerning
proportions. Royalty and the wealthy commissioned paintings and the
approval or disapproval of the painting subject played a large role in
how the artist painted the subject. Henry the eighth by historians
written accounts was a very large man who only became more obese as he
aged. Portraits don't show this, they show an idealized image of the
monarch. Disease and deeply pot marked skin that afflicted the upper
and lower classes are not portrayed either.
There are numerous garments still in museum and private collections to
be studied as an expert in the European Renaissance you must know
this. Study of the marble tombs, an entirely different area of
research, is another excellent resource for studying garment
construction. Life size effigies of the occupants with draping of
fabric carved in to the stone. Your argument that that their are tiny
little bodies engulfed in volumes of fabric in some cases is most
likely accurate. The young and the ill being prime examples. Since
these tombs and portraits however represent the wealthy and royal, the
chances of obese bodies is more likely. References to wealth, eating,
and drinking to excess can be found in literature of time. This
includes religious leaders during various eras of European history
railing against the excess of gluttony while poets extold the virtues
of banquets and mass quantities of food consumption.
On studying the commoner the complete bodies and garments of
unfortunate souls who wandered in to peat bogs have been unearthed. So
we do have existing garments to study from Europe representing both
classes. I was fortunate enough to watch a slide show of photo's taken
of two Elizabethan bodices back in the 1980s. The chest circumference
of the one bodices was over 45 inches after corseting. In my own
collection a wedding gown handed down on my husbands side circa 1890's
is not petite. The women were potato farm stock and with a corset, the
bust is over 40 inches and the waist 36. In later photo's of this
woman she is obviously over 170 pounds. Further evidence is the family
line that continues of very large busted women. The 1920s is another
time where fashion plates might lead one to think no one was obese. A
black silk drop waisted gown in my collection circa 1923 is a plus
size dress. It doesn't take too much looking on ebay to find that
clothing of overweight women from 3 different centuries come up for
auction.
Obesity praised or despised has been with women and men through out
history.
I would also like to add a snippet from
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Who-Is-Fat-Culture.htm
When Lean Was the Norm
Until recently, the furthest worry from most human hearts was too much body
to bear. Calories were scarce, physical labor was hard, and most people were
as lean as greyhounds.
"For the millions of years of our evolution, there wasn't much food around,
so our bodies are designed to keep from losing weight," said Dr. Fitzgibbon
at Northwestern. "When we start to lose weight, our metabolism slows and our
appetite increases - we burn less and we want more."
But the body is not nearly as efficient at shedding excess weight. Some
evolutionary biologists believe that the difficulty of getting enough
calories is one reason why humans have a preference for rich, fatty foods -
if there's a choice between a marbled hunk of fawn thigh or a handful of
rice, our sinewy ancestors did well to go for the meat.
That may be one reason some of the earliest depictions of human beings are
fabulously fat. A number of the famed Venus figurines, palm-size statuettes
carved between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago, depict women with corpulent
thighs, buttocks, breasts and bellies, and estimated body mass indexes well
over 30.
As a rule, archaeologists say, only the most important elements of ancient
life and society were immortalized in stone, suggesting that the obese women
who served as models for the figurines were either royalty, or were accorded
superhuman powers - specifically, the power never to go hungry.
Attitudes in Antiquity
Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, attitudes toward body weight became
more complex, said Dr. Barton J. Blinder, a professor of psychiatry and
human behavior at the University of California at Irvine.
On the one hand, plumpness, particularly in women, was seen as desirable, a
sign of well-being and fertility, and the goddesses were often depicted as
hefty matrons.
On the other hand, early physicians like Hippocrates and Galen recognized
that too much fat was unhealthy. Aristophanes, the comic playwright, wrote
in the fifth century B.C. that obese men were "bloated, gross, and
preseniled fat rogues with big bellies and dropsical legs, whose toes by the
gout are tormented."
The early Christians also looked scornfully upon the obese, counting
gluttony as one of the seven deadly sins.
In some medieval paintings, sinners were shown as fat and Christ's disciples
as slender. And whether in Gothic art or its Victorian recrudescence, the
attenuated, El Grecoesque morphology has often been equated with holiness,
the sign of an ascetic life that eschews the carnal pleasures of the body in
favor of the transcendent, fat-free pleasures of the soul.
To the common folk, however, the lure of portliness beckoned. "On balance,
until fairly recently many societies put considerable value in plumpness,"
said Dr. Peter N. Stearns, the provost of George Mason University in
Fairfax, Va., and the author of "Fat History: Bodies and Beauty in the
Modern West."
"To be a good 20 to 40 pounds above what we would now consider desirable was
seen as a sign of prosperity," Dr. Stearns said. "Thin people were regarded
with suspicion, as ugly. To say that Cassius had a `lean and hungry look'
was not a compliment."
The artist who best captured the sensuality of corpulence was the Baroque
painter Peter Paul Rubens. A Rubens woman, according to the art historian
Sir Kenneth Clark, is "plump and pearly," while to Richard Klein, author of
"Eat Fat," she is a "luscious fat girl" who stands for "the whole weight and
wealth of human nature."
Oh, to be Rubenesque.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, Dr. Stearns said, "there were more
programs to help people gain weight than the reverse."
In non-Western cultures, fatness often was associated with high status.
Polynesian kings were frequently quite fat, while the girls of Banyankole in
East Africa were fattened in preparation for marriage like so many Christmas
geese. Dr. Watson of Harvard said that when he began doing field work in
Hong Kong in the 1960's, women who were slender would not have been
marriageable. Neither would highly muscular young men.
"Men who were heavily muscled were considered the lowest of laborers," he
said. "They were the ones who had to lift backbreaking loads for a living,
and their prospects were dim."
There we go. There's a bit of quoting for the one that wants something set
in stone somewhere.. Although it is my opinion that nothing is set in
stone - even that the sun will rise tomorrow. And it is generally my opinion
that almost nothing is set in stone when it comes to history.
Sanura
sanura
--
www.cafeshops.com/sanura_kitten - for alt.gothic.fashion merchandice.
"Vicky =^,,^= cat" <nos...@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:bu35h5$d3dtj$1...@ID-164556.news.uni-berlin.de...
And if I had one for every morman who... well, that don't need to be
discussed here. Children listening *laughs* Same goes for self proclaimed
catholics which divert from the written gospel (eg, sex before marriage, sex
before marriage with another female.. A friend of mine 'experimented' at her
same sex catholic school, and apparently she was far from the only one
*laughs*) Yet I still consider her to be devoutly catholic, as does she.
Funny that.
sanura
Martin Read
>I find it odd that you say you know people who are physically in shape but
>lazy even when you posted the definition which says "Disinclined to action
>or exertion; averse to labor;
>idle;". Please explain this to because in my mind that's contradicting.
I'm going to pull an example from fiction.
In "Moving Pictures", by Terry Pratchett, there is a character who is in
good shape *precisely because* he is lazy. He finds that being in
reasonable shape makes doing everyday things less effort.
And most people are averse to labour (doubly so to New Labour); this is
why "labour-saving devices" are so popular.
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | we are few / and far between / i was thinking about her skin / love
\/ | is a many splintered thing / don't be afraid now / just walk on in
------+ -- Sisters of Mercy, "Ribbons"
sanura
> I'm going to pull an example from fiction.
>
> In "Moving Pictures", by Terry Pratchett, there is a character who is in
> good shape *precisely because* he is lazy. He finds that being in
> reasonable shape makes doing everyday things less effort.
That is an excellent read ;) Mentioning it makes me want to read it again..
(just finished reading 'Hogfather' for the umpteenth time)
Sanura
Ivan Wine
> Didn't bother to read this,. sure it says the same as the last post. Speak
> to doctor's! They have at least 11 years of medical schooling on you.
That's
> where I get my info FYI.
>
> Isabella
>
>
Didn't bother reading any of it.
Don't bother explaining yourself when asked.
Claim to know quite a lot, display very little, most of which is incorrect.
-Ivan
Vicky =^,,^= cat
> I never once said that but it seems you get joy out of twisting my
thoughts
> around. My belief is that you all managed to read that wrong somehow.
So, if *all* here seem to read your thoughts the wrong way, *maybe* then
there is an issue with the way you express yourself. To be blunt and to the
point, if we all misinterpret what you mean, it means you're not writing
clearly. If one or two misunderstand you, their fault. If EVERYONE does,
your fault.
xx Victoria
unbroken
"Martin Read" <mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:0Yg*wZ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
It's fiction, it doesn't count for proof of anything. Cause if everything in
fiction existed then I'd be surrounded by aliens. And I don't believe Naboo
exists either.
Also, according to most doctor's, it'd be difficult to be physically in
shape and be lazy at the same time.
Isabella
unbroken
I handwashed a weeks worth of clothes once and yeah, to me it's a lot of
work especially since it was just mine. Although since I have issues with
OCD I sat there and made sure they were definitely clean and also had to
make sure all the soap was out and it was completely wringed out. Pain, I
cherish my washer now.
Overall you must be pretty damn healthy. I'm surprised you stuck with that
as most people wouldn't (not even I). Good job. Depression does stress out
the body which does slow the metabolism. But it seems like you were
healthier than most people anyways.
Isabella
unbroken
In my opinion, yeah. If you go against your religion and practice otherwise
then why would you even bother to try practicing it? That's why I laugh at
Catholics who have pre-marital sex or constantly give their parents hell.
Isabella
unbroken
Sex with members of the same sex is against the Catholic religion and I
wouldn't consider her Catholic. It's also against God and she must know
where she's going when she dies.
Isabella
unbroken
"Ivan Wine" <ebo...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:SHcNb.1305$c1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Nah, I'm correct as I get my information from factual resources and from
doctor's themselves or people who study on a certain subject.
I feel no need to explain myself because I don't care how ignorant you are.
If it's one thing I have learned in 22 years of life it's that ignorance is
never helped.
Isabella
unbroken
It is a physical activity and a form of exercise. Check ivillage.com under
diet and fitness..
Isabella
unbroken
"Binkey" <bin...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:39f857c7.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "unbroken" <unbr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<V_1Nb.76172$Dq1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > "Crowmaiden" <crowmaiden@rockchick***.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:941Nb.18465$3o.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > unbroken wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> > > > Proof that we are just plain old lazy.
> > >
> > > Speak for yourself.
> >
> > I'm not the fat one here. :o)
> >
> > Isabella
>
> ...but we're not the ones constantly obsessing over size/weight and
> 'fat' people. You are the one who started both the corset.net thread
> and this one - not us 'Isabella' :o)
>
> skinny? Could your unfathomable targeting of the over-weight be a
> coping mechanism for your own issues and insecurities? I guess we'll
>
> Look kitten, the sooner you deal with the fact that throughout history
> there has and *always* will be variation/changes in people's sizes the
> better. The bottom line is that people and society will also continue
> to shift and change long after we're dead and buried too for that
> matter. If people are over-weight, so what? Don't let it ruin your
> day.
>
> ~Binkey
>
> ++++
> You know what they say about love and war - one involves a lot of
> physical and psychological pain...and the other one is war.
> ++++
Hey, obsessing isn't trying to prove a point. Two separate things.
And I was fatter when I was younger, it wasn't until I was about 17/18 that
I got to this current weight. I'm far from insecure, as I watch my large
friend not get any dates but I have guys asking me out all the time.
Uh, I obviously know people have always varied. The point was that until
recently people weren't as big as they are now. Which someone had said
otherwise, that people were always this fat.
It doesn't ruin my day. Just ruins my appetite.
Isabella
@fakeemail.com tiassa
> > LOL if I had a quid for every Muslim I've met who happily guzzles a few
> > pints down the local with his non-Muslim mates, my mortgage would be
half
> > way paid!
> > xx Victoria
>
> And if I had one for every morman who... well, that don't need to be
> discussed here. Children listening *laughs* Same goes for self proclaimed
> catholics which divert from the written gospel (eg, sex before marriage,
sex
> before marriage with another female.. A friend of mine 'experimented' at
her
> same sex catholic school, and apparently she was far from the only one
> *laughs*) Yet I still consider her to be devoutly catholic, as does she.
> Funny that.
Humans are humans, no matter what group they claim to be affiliated with.
They still have weaknesses, but the point of religion is to attempt to
overcome said weaknesses. Not to be magically free of them.
--
tiassa -@- nospam dot byu dot edu
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is cheap. You decide.
unbroken
It's your fault I believe as I spent many years in school and I have never
had a problem (I've been told I should be a writer because of the way I
express myself as a matter of fact), only when I came to this NG everyone
started to have all these issues with the way I write and such. So I think
it's all on you.
Isabella
qwayla
<snip>
> Work in the past was labor, not sitting at a desk doing someone's financials
> or answering a phone. It's not just Victorian women, men also, and people
> all from the past. They did a lot of labor since there was no technology.
> I've been told handwashing your clothes is enough work, let alone all the
> stuff they had to do in a day (yes, cleaning is considered a physical
> activity for the most part). That's why I had found it hard to believe the
> woman who implied that women were always just as big as now. But I don't see
> it as possible, I for one have seen bigger women decide to exercise and do
> more labor and they lost weight. So how would they have stayed obese during
> all that (unless they had medical problems or genetics)? That's just logical
> thinking. Do more physical work, stay in better shape.
<snip>
> Isabella
While I'm not sure how much of this was the case in the Victorian era
(the specific time period in question), I have seen in several
different places data about the physical strain put on bodies that did
large amounts of manual labor. Specifically, I remember several
articles (not sure what or when they specifically were, but I seem to
remember magazines like Scientific American, Smithsonian, or
Archaeology) addressing bone wear and attendant deformities from
people doing highly repetative, high stress manual labor. This would
likely lead to problems akin to severe arthritis (I'm not trained in
biology or medicine, so I'm not 100% sure).
Since this research was specifically on skeletons from pre-industrial
agricultural societies, this may not have been the case in the
Victorian era in England or the United States (or Western Europe for
that matter, although "Victorian" as a term I think applies less
there). I have, however, read that there were significant health
problems with especially the laboring population that would have
procluded them from being considered "fit" in most people's
estimation. There may have been many laborers who were _thin_,
including presumably some who were extremely healthy and well muscled,
but many of them were emaciated instead of healthy thin. Problems of
malnutrition were not unknown among the "active" people you're
referring to (not a quote from you, just a term). Diseases and
overwork were common. Unfortunately, the books I've read this
information in (note my avoidance of the word "fact") must have been
library books as I can't find them in my bookcase. Any good library
(try a college or university library, they usually have the best
selection) should have volumes on the conditions of laborers in the
Victorian era, including a good amount of ones that are well
researched but read well rather than reading like someone's history
disertation.
Another thing to consider, especially as you hearken back to the
corset.net thread, is that some of the thinness of the women you refer
to was artificial. Corsets of any period will alter your body
dimensions by redistributing whatever it is you have. Victorian
corsets will generally nip in the waist (most others do this as well,
although I had an Elizabethan corset that made my waist look thicker
-- it's all about where it gets redistributed). Therefore
illustrations, period patterns (not reproductions), etc., will give a
picture of women as thinner than they may have been without that aid.
Remember also that much of Victorian fashion (and Elizabethan as well,
since you had mentioned it earlier) played with the impression of a
small waist by artifically enlarging the hip and buttock region --
think hoopskirts, bustles, bumrolls.
Has anyone considered cross-posting this thread to a historical
newsgroup? I'm not on any, but you could certainly get some good
discussion about the historical research done into this topic.
~Qwayla
Martin Read
>It's fiction, it doesn't count for proof of anything. Cause if everything in
>fiction existed then I'd be surrounded by aliens. And I don't believe Naboo
>exists either.
Fiction can, however, be used to illustrate a point. Philosophers have
been doing so since time immemorial. Also, authors of fiction routinely
draw on real concepts and events in their construction of fictional
events.
>Also, according to most doctor's, it'd be difficult to be physically in
>shape and be lazy at the same time.
And I see you've *missed* the point I was trying to illustrate: one
might be lazy, in the sense of wishing to avoid working hard (especially
at things for which one perceives no benefit from working hard), and
therefore regard effort spent in the direction of keeping fit as
worthwhile work, since it makes everything else *less* work.
I didn't think I was being terribly subtle, obscure, oblique, or
obfuscated. Maybe your supposed IQ of 167 isn't worth much after all.
m. (I've never done an IQ test in my life, because I can't be arsed.)
Martin Read
>Sex with members of the same sex is against the Catholic religion and I
>wouldn't consider her Catholic. It's also against God and she must know
>where she's going when she dies.
Last I heard, Catholicism was big on the idea that all sins of which one
has truly repented by the time one dies will be forgiven.
m.