Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (42) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 58724  
Subject: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The discussion about how much fat is too much and how has "healthy" been redefined to essentially equate with skinny, I offer this little article.

http://www.refinery29.com/1912-perfect-woman

For the record, her BMI would have been 26.8, which is considered by today's standards to be "overweight", but by the standards of 1912, she was perfect.

The diet industry would have a lot to lose if all women whose BMI was between 25-30 suddenly decided that they were just fine.

LWW
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HearNoEvil One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57496 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 2:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Here's more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/perfect-woman-1912_...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57497 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 3:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Maybe I'm not clicking on the right links but, is there an actual photograph of this perfect woman?

Truth be told, her height and corresponding weight looks a bit too hefty for what I fancy my tastes would be......but I'm not a Cornell grad. My daughter (who is.....and who I fancy is the epitome of *a* perfect woman) is way taller and a fair bit lighter than this perfect specimen.

This is a journalistic article and opinion, right??

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57498 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just out of interest.....and because I'm in that Science By Press Release smackdown mode....I Googled the *Perfect Woman* and WHADDAYAKNOW, pageafterpageafterpage came up on this topic with pretty much the exact same wording.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57499 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 5:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Just out of interest.....and because I'm in that Science By Press Release smackdown mode....I Googled the *Perfect Woman* and WHADDAYAKNOW, pageafterpageafterpage came up on this topic with pretty much the exact same wording.

Welcome to the internet. Another couple years and you'll figure out how it works. (Hint: try the same trick for those article you agree with. WHADDAYAKNOW! To quote someone.)
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57502 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 6:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My how times have changed :0)

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57503 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 6:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
This is a journalistic article and opinion, right??

It was a reflection of our skinny obsessed culture and noting the difference between what we see as "perfect" today vs. 100 years ago.

It's not "science by press release", it was simply an interesting reflection on how times and thinking have changed over the years.

Truth be told, her height and corresponding weight looks a bit too hefty for what I fancy my tastes would be......

Duh! That was the point. What we considered to be desireable in 1912 is considered overweight in 2012.

My daughter (who is.....and who I fancy is the epitome of *a* perfect woman) is way taller and a fair bit lighter than this perfect specimen.

I'm sure your daughter is lovely by today's standards, but would probably have been considered a bit on the lanky/skinny side in 1912.

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: martybl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57504 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/6/2013 10:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
[H]er BMI would have been 26.8, which is considered by today's standards to be "overweight". . .

In the immortal words of Peter Noone, "Second verse, same as the first." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZG0NZviGvA at 0:25. In the previous thread, consensus was that BMI is a superficial and deeply flawed measurement of weight and fitness, yet because it's been around for awhile, we can't kill the thing.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone who was 5'7", 171 lbs, and considered perfect in 1912 would still be considered very attractive today. The fact that she was reportedly "very strong" makes me think that a good portion of the 171 lbs was muscle. I further think it's likely that if body fat measurements had been done, she would have been in the desirable range even by contemporary standards.

Within my own family, my niece is twenty years old and an "A" student at a highly selective private university. She's been an athlete throughout high school, and while I don't know her exact weight, I'm fairly certain that her BMI is over 25. She's also a certified Crossfit Level 1 instructor, does the Crossfit WOD most days, and teaches classes at my nephew's Crossfit gym on breaks. She's an attractive girl and suffers no shortage of male attention.

If all you know about someone is that they have a BMI of 26.8, that's all you know about them. I wish somebody could drive a stake through the heart of BMI and put it out of its misery.

One of the "quality measurements" that ObamaCare and Medicare have foisted on medicine is the BMI. We are now encouraged to calculate BMI and counsel folks whose BMI falls outside the desirable range. I had a former professional athlete who looked like he'd been chiseled out of granite, yet I had to dictate the obvious, that in his case BMI was not a reliable indicator of health. I wish folks would start thinking and talking in terms of body fat percentage, instead.

martybl

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57507 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 3:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone who was 5'7", 171 lbs, and considered perfect in 1912 would still be considered very attractive today. The fact that she was reportedly "very strong" makes me think that a good portion of the 171 lbs was muscle. I further think it's likely that if body fat measurements had been done, she would have been in the desirable range even by contemporary standards.


On balance of probablities, I doubt it.

I'm just about 5'6", so she wouldn't have been that much taller than me. I'm quite muscular as it is right now and although I suspect my genetic potential would allow me to pack on about another 5 or so pounds of muscle with a lot more hard work, I can't imagine any way it'd be physiologically possible for me to reach 140 lbs. However you slice it, 171lbs is a lot of weight to be carrying at 5'7". I could just about imagine it on a guy who'd packed on a lot of muscle with judicious training and all the etcs., but a woman at this weight with a decent body fat percentage would be a darn near impossible, absent genetic pathology or pharmaceutical assistance. She'd have had Ronnie Coleman's physique. As we constantly say on the weight training board, if it was that easy........

Historically speaking, a more rubenesque figure was fashionable...medically deirable, almost....for a couple of centuries or so before effective treatment for tuberculosis became avaiable. For the lay public it denoted "affluence" and for their doctors, it was a reassurance that they weren't wasting away from consumption. Fatness was the lesser of two evils as much as a fashion statement back then.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57508 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 5:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Now here's an interesting thing.....especially in the context of wondering how come so many articles appear at the same time with pretty much the exact same verbiage in a very memelike way. I got to wondering about the origin of this "perfect specimen" title.....and did it actually reflect a consensus opinion of what an ideal weight was back then or the results of a popular vote etc.

I found a reproduction of a newspaper report from back then. No photo but vital stats of 34.6 30.3 40.4. Apparently it was the opinion of one (female) examining physician at Cornell that Elsie Scheel's build most closely resembled that of the Venus de Milo and Elsie apparently became known as Cornell's Venus. I'm pretty sure that her build must've been considered pear shaped and not viewed in a particularly flattering in general way back then since she's quoted as attributing her "perfection" to clean living and a sane life and avoiding all the "silly things" that other girls do like going dancing instead of taking bracing walks.

At least she was a pear rather than an apple so being overweight wasn't quite as disadvantageous to her health as it could've been.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57509 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 6:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And here's a page with actuarial statistics from the era.

http://science-in-farming.library4farming.org/Food-Nutrition...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57510 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 8:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
One of the "quality measurements" that ObamaCare and Medicare have foisted on medicine is the BMI. We are now encouraged to calculate BMI and counsel folks whose BMI falls outside the desirable range. I had a former professional athlete who looked like he'd been chiseled out of granite, yet I had to dictate the obvious, that in his case BMI was not a reliable indicator of health. I wish folks would start thinking and talking in terms of body fat percentage, instead.

I totally agree that BMI is a lousy indicator of health, as it doesn't accurately reflect the actual physiology of the human body. And athletes always have a higher muscle ratio which throws off the calculations.

So far as being considered beautiful or "perfect", I can assure you that while Ms. Scheel might be considered somewhat average today, in the diet industry/media-fueled, perfection-driven society we live in, any excess weight is considered taboo and it's all about appearances.

We have 10 year olds who are obsessed with being skinny. They're worried about their weight when they shouldn't have any concerns beyond getting their homework done and brushing thier teeth before bedtime, you know?

But the fact is, our standards of beauty do fluctuate. For centuries, women with some meat on their bones were considered desirable. It was a status symbol. It showed that you were prosperous enough to afford enough food to overeat. Look at the paintings of the Masters from the Renaissance, those women weren't thin, they had enough reserves to get them through a hard winter. Same for the men.

It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that being super thin began to be the preferred look. But even then, look at people like Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. Those women are considered beauty icons today, but women with similar measurements couldn't break into modeling (Marilyn's first gig) without shedding the excess pounds.

As we learn more about the relationship between fat and health, I have no doubt that many of the things we consider to be "the answer" today will be laughed at in 100 years, much the same way we laugh at the old "miracle cure" patent medicines that were sold at the turn of the 20th century.

LWW

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57511 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 8:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I totally agree that BMI is a lousy indicator of health, as it doesn't accurately reflect the actual physiology of the human body. And athletes always have a higher muscle ratio which throws off the calculations.

However, BMI index....as it's applied across a large demographic.....is a fairly reasonable indication of obesity. *Athletes* will always skew the numbers....if you're actually dealing with athletes....you know, right there in fron of you all muscular an athletic and whatnot. However, in the grand scheme of things and numbers across the board etc. etc. how many *ATHLETES* could realistically be included in BMI stats. My BMI would be consistent with that of an athlete, but.....


We have 10 year olds who are obsessed with being skinny.

...*we* also have children of the same age who're so overweight that they don't actually fit onto a BMI scale in any representative way.

It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that being super thin began to be the preferred look...

However, the *preferred look* isn't quite the same as trying to avoid obesity and all that it entails.

I fancy that glomming onto whatever anyone wants WRT the "skinny culture" and whatever they perceive to be fashionable is totally distinct from the impact of the obesity epidemic.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Volucris Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57512 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 12:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Truth be told, her height and corresponding weight looks a bit too hefty for what I fancy my tastes would be......but I'm not a Cornell grad. My daughter (who is.....and who I fancy is the epitome of *a* perfect woman) is way taller and a fair bit lighter than this perfect specimen.

You seem somewhat threatened by an article from 1912. Why is that?

Sure she's a little overweight by today's standards, but I bet she could come through cholera or typhus just fine, while her skinny sister would have wasted away and died.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57513 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You seem somewhat threatened by an article from 1912. Why is that?

Why would you infer that?

Pointing out that carrying 170 or so lbs on a 5'7" frame is BIG is s simple observation. Regardless of the suggestions that she might've been incredibly muscular and therefore defying BMI averages, it seems that given her anthropometric measurements and comparing her weight to height measurments with statistics from that era she was, in fact, pear shaped and heavy even by 1912 standards.......contrary to what the various media reports are suggesting.

BMI in this instance does seem to be spot on with the "overweight" designation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Volucris Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57514 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Why would you infer that?

Mostly because 46% of the posts up until I posted were yours. Mostly, they are attacking a fairly innocuous post stating that people in 1912 thought more weight was better than people in 2012.

In general, it seems as if you are fairly hostile towards the premise "slightly" overweight is probably OK in the big picture, science by press release or not. That is the impression I get from your past 15 or so posts in this and the previous thread.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57515 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 6:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Weighing-in on this (no pun intended) since everyone seems to have an opinion: I think it is helpful to remind ourselves correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and that is true of the BMI as well. I think we should also remind ourselves that the lifespan of those living in the early 1900's was far shorter--the average life expectancy for a woman was 48.3 years in 1900 vs 80.6 years in 2008:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_03.pdf

so using the ideal man, woman, or child from that era as a guide for health in the current population really doesn't make sense. They used outhouses instead of indoor bathrooms too--it doesn't meal that was 'ideal' for health.

I think the diet industry would be just fine if 'overweight' were defined as over 30 instead of over 25 since there would still be societal pressure to be rail-thin. Besides, if we are going to conspiratorialize the BMI and any other measure of what is overweight, normal weight, obese, etc. then it would certainly be in the interests of the food industry to have a higher BMI considered 'normal', now wouldn't it? So please let's not demonize for-profit entities or try to draw some misguided conclusion that the reason we are now being told we're fat is because of 'big, bad, business.'

That said--I think it is refreshing to have a more accepting view of different body types and to recognize that it is possible even if not probable to have a BMI outside the 'healthy' parameters and still be 'healthy'. I think the intent of the BMI is as a warning signal of potential health problems, not that having a certain BMI is, in and of itself, a health problem.

I also don't think that if something health-related appears on the newswire and gets picked up by a host of media outlets that it deserves a pejorative term like 'science by press release' . Just google the phrase 'fda warns of counterfeit botox'. It doesn't make the story any less legitimate (my PS is NOT on the list of doctors who might've purchased the botox in question, btw).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57516 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 7:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Mostly, they are attacking a fairly innocuous post stating that people in 1912 thought more weight was better than people in 2012.

I'm afraid that's your misundertanding. I was simply expressing scepticism that a 5'7" woman weighing 171 actually represented what was commonly viewed as the perfect body type a century ago......which is the implication of all the articles currently on this topic.

In fact, it was the opinion of one doctor at Cornell who felt that her body type most closely represented that of Venus de Milo out of 400 or so other Cornell gals. There's a bit of strangeness about that. Don't know whether it was a newspaper competition or what. However, she wasn't universally considered "perfect". Apparently famous-in-the-day "physical culturists" considered her too tall, too fat and with a disproportionately bottom heavy body.

Doesn't seem to have done her any harm. She lived a healthy life till well into her 90s but she wasn't representative of the average or ideal body type for the era.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57517 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 8:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I think we should also remind ourselves that the lifespan of those living in the early 1900's was far shorter--the average life expectancy for a woman was 48.3 years in 1900 vs 80.6 years in 2008:

Just for the record, that statistic, while accurate, is also terribly misleading.

That's because it includes all ages from birth, and at the turn of the century there was a high incidence of childhood disease which killed infants and children, bringing those "overall" averages way down. (It's common argument from the anti-Social Security crowd, that expectancies have gone up so much. Except they haven't, since children never contribute in, nor take out, if they die in childhood.)

A more relevant statistic is "remaining life" at various ages, in which we find a far different story. From the early part of the century most adults' lives have been extended by about 10 years plus or minus (depending on gender, ethnicity, etc.), not 30, and much of that 10 is thanks to "last stage of life" extensions thanks to heroics of modern medicine, about which we could have another debate.

Ignoring the calculation of childhood deaths, and ignoring the estimates I have seen of "late stage heroics", the actual longevity of people has increased about five years. (And even that is subject to debates, as it includes such terrors as the mass epidemic of flu in 1918, the huge number of casualties in World Wars I and II, all of which contribute to a "shorter" life expectancy.)

Here's a chart which gives a clearer - if more complicated - picture: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
 


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ThyPeace Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57518 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/7/2013 11:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Thank you, Goofy. I have read many times that the life expectancy arguments was generally inaccurate, but this is the first time I've read anything more about it. That was very helpful.

ThyPeace, at 5'9" was strong enough to earn the admiration of her kung fu instructor when she was at 172 pounds. And, frankly, I -was- strong. And very, very fit. Would love to be that strong again one day!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57519 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 9:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
... It's common argument from the anti-Social Security crowd, that expectancies have gone up so much. Except they haven't...

and then you post a link to a table refuting that statement....

Given the limitations of the data gap, the 'perfect woman of 1912' would've fallen between the 20 year old category for the 1909-1911 stats and those for 1919-1921--past the childhood illness stage--with a life expectancy of 53.57 years and 55.17 years respectively. The 20 year old category in 2004 was 71.3. How is that not an increasing life expectancy? You can attribute the longevity to modern medicine, but to attribute the presumably good health of a woman in 1912 to a higher BMI involves convoluted reasoning. Again think causation vs. association. Is the higher BMI of the perfect woman merely associated with her good health or the cause of her good health? Some here are trying to say the relationship is causal. I am saying that is quite a stretch in logic to draw that conclusion. I am also saying I do not know if her 'perfect' health is because of her higher BMI or despite it. And let's be honest--neither does anyone else here.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57520 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I also don't think that if something health-related appears on the newswire and gets picked up by a host of media outlets that it deserves a pejorative term like 'science by press release' . Just google the phrase 'fda warns of counterfeit botox'. It doesn't make the story any less legitimate (my PS is NOT on the list of doctors who might've purchased the botox in question, btw).

I agree with you on this. The whole point of the internet and social media is to keep people connected and aware of what's going on in the world around us.

The point I tried to make, which I apparently have failed miserably, is that our perceptions over the past few centuries have changed. Even in this forum, the woman in question was judged by today's standards.

We base so much of our society on looks. It's really terribly sad. People really do tend to judge others by how they look, and not how well they can do the task at hand.

I ran into this most recently when we had two top candidates for the job of my former coworker. One candidate was an older woman, very pleasant, and qualified in spades. She had years of experience in the judicial system and had also been a academic advisor for two different universities over the years. She was a little on the heavy side, but no where near obese.

The other woman was a college grad from the same year and school as my boss, who has some experience in technical writing, is admittedly OCD, very personable, a bit of a drama queenm but also really tiny and attractive.

Guess who we hired?

LWW

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57521 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ThyPeace, at 5'9" was strong enough to earn the admiration of her kung fu instructor when she was at 172 pounds. And, frankly, I -was- strong. And very, very fit. Would love to be that strong again one day!

You'll get there. Just remember that overall health is a marathon, not a sprint.

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57522 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 2:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I agree with you on this. The whole point of the internet and social media is to keep people connected and aware of what's going on in the world around us.

But you want it to be accurate, surely?

That's the problem with Science By Press Release.....because, oftentimes that's not entirely the case. What you're actually reading is marketing copy from the PR department of whatever research institution the current topic under discussion comes from......frequently gussied up in a way that makes a tentative finding in a small study or a study done on rodents appear to be STOP PRESS!!, paradigm shifting, super-sexy info you should react to RIGHT NOW, that's designed to do what marketing copy from PR departments is supposed to do.

It's then disseminated to various newswire services ... EurekAlert!, being one such outlet (I think the *!* is actually part of the title) and, lo, when your science writer/correspondant/journalist opens up their e-mail list serve for these marketing channels each am, there's the ad. copy that you can expect to read in the Science section on Tuesday's NYT, on Science Daily, HuffPo and, ultimately TMF. Usually, without any of the intermediaries involved taking the time to actually do any sort of checking what the initial study actually found (assuming they have the capability, of course)


The point I tried to make, which I apparently have failed miserably, is that our perceptions over the past few centuries have changed....

Don't feel bad. The point that I also apparently miserably failed to make was that perceptions haven't necessarily changed since Elsie Scheel's day and now......but spreading ad. copy appears to be the same. And that the folk who attempt to correct these mythconceptions get ignored......a bit like back then, also.


I ran into this most recently when we had two top candidates for the job of my former coworker.....

.....Guess who we hired?


I'm amazed that the choice was between the top two candidates.....unless you didn't get more than 3. I'm going to shoot for neither. I bet the comfortably built, old(er) woman with experience and the OCD, tiny and attrative drama queen are right now drowning their sorrows in a Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot ?!? sort of way and wondering where this new hire out of Left Field.... coincidentally related in some way to the head of the selection committee, BTW .... came from and that the advertisement for the job was a total sham designed to comport with the legalities of hiring practice.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57523 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The point I tried to make, which I apparently have failed miserably, is that our perceptions over the past few centuries have changed. Even in this forum, the woman in question was judged by today's standards.

We base so much of our society on looks. It's really terribly sad. People really do tend to judge others by how they look, and not how well they can do the task at hand.


I agree and think I got the main point you were trying to make before we went off on various tangents--that's why I wrote this:

That said--I think it is refreshing to have a more accepting view of different body types and to recognize that it is possible even if not probable to have a BMI outside the 'healthy' parameters and still be 'healthy'.

and to further back up what that main point is--I googled VS supermodel alessandra ambrosio's stats (another presumbaly 'perfect woman') and the first search result I clicked on was this:

http://www.celebrity-diets.org/alessandra-ambrosios-stats

ht 5' 10", wt 112 lbs (bmi would be 16 or underweight)

Oddly enough, there was only one comment--and it was about her low BMI

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57524 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 3:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
....I googled VS supermodel alessandra ambrosio's stats (another presumbaly 'perfect woman') and the first search result I clicked on was this:

http://www.celebrity-diets.org/alessandra-ambrosios-stats

ht 5' 10", wt 112 lbs (bmi would be 16 or underweight)


And you took it on face value as accurate?

Unless those breast implants are filled with helium and lifting her up off the scales, of course....

Chick has very little by way of worthwhile muscle etc. so that's a negative.....but still. You can't read everything on the Internet and believe it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57525 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 4:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And you took it on face value as accurate?

well, only alessandra knows for sure, but that weight sure seems accurate judging by unretouched photos:

http://happyeaters.net/forums/?page=post&id=FA227805-EB4...

(and if those are implants, she needs a refund....)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57526 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 5:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Don't feel bad. The point that I also apparently miserably failed to make was that perceptions haven't necessarily changed since Elsie Scheel's day and now......but spreading ad. copy appears to be the same. And that the folk who attempt to correct these mythconceptions get ignored......a bit like back then, also.

But the reality is that in America the perceptions have changed. Skinny women weren't considered to be fashionable until the 1920s with the advent of the Flapper.

Hell, having a tan, up until the mid-20th century was a mark of the working class. Women were prized for their lily white skin right up until the 1940s when getting a tan suddenly became the status symbol of the wealthy, displaying the ability to just laze away in the sun without having to work. Most probably having something to do with our country being at war and the idea that leisure time was something only for the wealthy.

I'm not saying that being obese is healthy. But I did find it interesting that someone who was compared to Venus DeMilo in 1912 would be considered to be overweight in 2012.

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57527 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/8/2013 11:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You can attribute the longevity to modern medicine, but to attribute the presumably good health of a woman in 1912 to a higher BMI involves convoluted reasoning.

I made no such implication. I merely said that quoting longevity statistics without understanding their implications may lead to quite faulty reasoning.

If you look down the chart you find that the increase in longevity comes in lumps. Partly that's (probably) because the decrease in child mortality didn't come about until antibiotics made such a dramatic impact during World War II, but surely there were other things which affected the statistics across the century: the Flu pandemic of 1918, better nutrition, better medical help in other areas, better water treatment & sewage disposal, and so on.

None of that has anything to do with "fat" versus "skinny", although those, too, might be factors (somehow.) I'm saying that merely quoting "life expectancies" without understanding how those are affected by many disparate factors means you can be totally accurate - even while you are totally misleading.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57528 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/9/2013 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I made no such implication.

My mistake, I thought you were the OP of the thread and so assumed that was the point being made.

(life expectancies) are affected by many disparate factors

I don't dispute that. But it seemed to me that conclusions were being drawn that shouldn't have been about health and weight at the turn-of-the-century. That connection was what I was disputing.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57529 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/9/2013 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My mistake, I thought you were the OP of the thread and so assumed that was the point being made.

You're probably a bit confused by the enthusiasm of the OP in the thread who thought that it was healthy to be fat!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57530 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/9/2013 4:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're probably a bit confused by the enthusiasm of the OP in the thread who thought that it was healthy to be fat!

Given that I was the OP in this thread, exactly where did I say it was healthy to be fat?

I said that our perception of what constitutes fat has changed over the years.

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57531 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/9/2013 4:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're probably a bit confused by the enthusiasm of the OP in the thread who thought that it was healthy to be fat!
********
Given that I was the OP in this thread, exactly where did I say it was healthy to be fat?


You weren't the OP in the thread who thought it was healthy to be fat.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57532 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/9/2013 5:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're probably a bit confused by the enthusiasm of the OP in the thread who thought that it was healthy to be fat!

Yep--I got the two threads intertwined in my head:

This thread with this one:

http://boards.fool.com/its-healthy-to-be-fat-30465287.aspx?s...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57533 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/9/2013 6:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Given that I was the OP in this thread, exactly where did I say it was healthy to be fat?

I think that conclusion was left to be drawn by posting the article that the 'perfect woman' of 1912 'never got sick' had 'no defects' etc:

...What qualities did the perfect girl of 1912 possess, you ask? Let us regale you: Aside from standing at 5'7" and weighing a healthy 171 pounds, Miss Elsie rarely ate breakfast, never drank coffee or tea (gasp!), and preferred beefsteak dinners to candy. She also never got sick and didn't feel fear — apparently, in the 1900s, the perfect woman was also a superhero.

While we'll never meet the outdoor-sport-ing, horticulture-ing, beef-eating Scheel, we can imagine that she pulled in many a handsome man — you couldn't expect any less from a woman who didn't "have a single defect."


And this remark:

What we considered to be desireable in 1912 is considered overweight in 2012.

So it is not unreasonable to conclude you feel that today's 'overweight' (or 'fat') 25+ bmi was 'healthy' by yesterday's standards.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57535 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/10/2013 12:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're probably a bit confused by the enthusiasm of the OP in the thread who thought that it was healthy to be fat!

It was intended to be humorous. Apparently you missed it. No wonder you took such offense.

On that same line, here's a sure fire, can't miss:

Device helps obese lose weight by emptying stomach

A device sucks food out of the stomach after eating so only about a third of the calories are kept in the body, helping in weight loss, its U.S. inventors say.

The group of inventors, including the creator of the Segway, said patients eat a meal, wait 20 minutes, then empty 30 percent of their stomach contents into the toilet via a tube -- a small, handheld device, which connects to a skin-port discretely embedded on the outside of the abdomen.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/01/09/Device-helps-obese...

Sounds like a winner. Besides the weight loss, you get to give your intestines some time off! How could this miss?
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zoningfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57537 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/10/2013 9:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It was intended to be humorous. Apparently you missed it. No wonder you took such offense.

Then I'm wrong again--I missed the humor too.

On that same line, here's a sure fire, can't miss:

Device helps obese lose weight by emptying stomach


3 words:

Oh

Dear

God!



And I though Alli with its side effect of 'anal leakage' was bad.....

That's sick. That's really sick. A medical way to avoid the consequences of gluttony. I've seen it all now. I honestly thought the link was to a satire site like 'the onion'....apparently not. (Though I still have my doubts about the validity of this...it's really too bizarre)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57539 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/10/2013 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So it is not unreasonable to conclude you feel that today's 'overweight' (or 'fat') 25+ bmi was 'healthy' by yesterday's standards.

Not really. Donuts can be desireable, but they aren't healthy. My point was only about the way our perceptions of what is and isn't considered attractive have changed.

A point borne out when someone else remarked that the woman was a bit too heavy for their tastes.

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57541 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/10/2013 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's sick. That's really sick. A medical way to avoid the consequences of gluttony. I've seen it all now. I honestly thought the link was to a satire site like 'the onion'....apparently not. (Though I still have my doubts about the validity of this...it's really too bizarre)

It's high-tech bulimia. Just without the acid erosion on the teeth.

Sad.

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57542 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/10/2013 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My point was only about the way our perceptions of what is and isn't considered attractive have changed.

A point borne out when someone else remarked that the woman was a bit too heavy for their tastes.


Well, as that *someone else*, I should point out that tastes (or norms) haven't changed that much apparently. Contrary to the impression given in the current buzz about The Perfect Woman, Elsie Scheels doesn't appear to have been commonly viewed as the ideal body type..... just one person was of the opinion that she more closely resembled the statue in body proportions than the other women she was jusdged against Assuming the actuarial stats from the site I posted were accurate, the norm for women of the 20-25 age range were much closer to.....lighter than, even..... what's desirable for today (which is a "bit too light" for my tastes, FWIW)

In the context of doing a bit of actual fact checking, here are the vital stats for the actual Venues de Milo (which I assume is something that's easy to check)

http://www.quora.com/Art-History/What-are-the-measurements-o...

Compare with Elsie Scheel's 5'7", and 34-30-40 or thereabouts. Methinks that the one person who voted Elsie "the closest to Venus" might've had it wrong.....or was right in that the other girls were much slimmer...... and that a heck of a lot of internet sites are repeating nonsense as fact.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: VeeEnn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57544 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 1/10/2013 2:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the context of doing a bit of actual fact checking, here are the vital stats for the actual Venues de Milo (which I assume is something that's easy to check)

That's proportion-wise mind. The actual statue is about 6'8". I'm guessing it has a BMI of about 150 or more.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dianakalt Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57586 of 58724
Subject: Re: Perfect Woman 1912 Date: 2/4/2013 2:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Within my own family, my niece is twenty years old and an "A" student at a highly selective private university. She's been an athlete throughout high school, and while I don't know her exact weight, I'm fairly certain that her BMI is over 25. She's also a certified Crossfit Level 1 instructor, does the Crossfit WOD most days, and teaches classes at my nephew's Crossfit gym on breaks. She's an attractive girl and suffers no shortage of male attention.

I have a bit of a girl-crush on your niece now. :)

diana

BMI 33, CrossFitter. :)

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (42) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement