Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 Heidi- >But those skinny, strong monkeys (as in, animal >monkeys) amaze me too. Monkeys don't have much fat at all, and seem to do >fine, and are amazingly strong. I've always wondered why certain primates have muscles which are so much stronger per unit size than ours (chimps come to mind) but are you sure they're all that lean? Bruce Lee, frankly, looked like he'd been overzealously liposuctioned. His appearance, at least to me, seemed to border on the unnatural, though I'm certainly not suggesting he had any artificial aid and I'm not even sure his body fat percentage was unhealthily low. But anyway, he looked like skin on top of muscle with virtually no fat in between, while Price's healthy natives were lean by modern standards but not, I think, bodybuilder-lean or Bruce Lee-lean. I don't know what the thresholds and the gradients are, but I do know that too low a percentage of body fat can leave one prone to illness and injury. >where did >the artists get the idea to create FAT women for some of the first stone >carvings? Clearly women, at least, at least sometimes, got fat even in >Paleo times. Maybe it was such a rarity they felt the need to immortalize >it in stone ... Back then, before refined sugar and flour -- in fact before agriculture -- fat was probably a sign of plenty, abundance and wealth (however wealth might have been measured then) and therefore of status. I'm also sure that people then knew that if a woman got too thin, she couldn't conceive or carry a baby to term, so fat would've seemed like a fertility blessing too, and would doubtless have been exaggerated to convey divine wealth and reproductive power. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 >Maybe they got fat during times of abundance of some sweet fruits that >they were unable to stop eating. And the stone >carvings could've been used as reminders to the women of what overeating >does. Just a thought... > >Roman LOL! I love that -- not a theory I've heard espoused at all. One researcher thought they might be sex objects, like an early version of Playboy, but shoot, any guy who went to that much work to make a sex fetish would probably have her come out more like Barbie or those dancing babes on the temples in India. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 The stone carvings they found are considered to be religious art objects and not a reminder of what " overeating does. " Reuben and other European artists painted fatter women, too, because they thought they were beautiful. (I'ven seen air brushed copies in modern art stores; no doubt because we hate fat so much.) Sorry but being fat is still considered a sign of good health and wealth to this day in many parts of the world. They believe it to such a degree that there is a part of Africa where women take dangerous drugs to make them fatter (for beauty in this case). I don't remember which country. It was in a magazine. You may not agree with it, and I'm sure the World Health Organization is trying to change their minds, but there it is. Robin From: Roman <romeml@...> Reply- Subject: Re: Re: Physical training; was NT, weight gain, thyroid Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:12:24 -0500 Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote: >Clearly women, at least, at least sometimes, got fat even in > Paleo times. Maybe it was such a rarity they felt the need to immortalize > it in stone ... Maybe they got fat during times of abundance of some sweet fruits that they were unable to stop eating. And the stone carvings could've been used as reminders to the women of what overeating does. Just a thought... Roman _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 Robin- >(I'ven >seen air brushed copies in modern art stores; no doubt because we hate fat >so much.) EVERYONE gets airbrushed nowadays. It's absurd, but I doubt it has much if anything to do with our attitudes towards fat people per se. (After all, the airbrushed subjects aren't any thinner as a result.) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 I meant that they airbrush famous paintings to make the women in them look thinner. Obviously, the subjects are long dead. Modern people hate fat so much they won't buy pictures of fat women even if they're by famous artists like Reuben or Gaughin(did I spell that right?). That is certainly a prejudice. It's got nothing to do with improving the health of the people in the pictures. They just make the women look thinner to sell the paintings. Obviously, the original artists thought they looked beautiful as painted or they would have made them different. Robin From: Idol <Idol@...> Reply- Subject: Re: Re: Physical training; was NT, weight gain, thyroid Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:31:31 -0400 Robin- >(I'ven >seen air brushed copies in modern art stores; no doubt because we hate fat >so much.) EVERYONE gets airbrushed nowadays. It's absurd, but I doubt it has much if anything to do with our attitudes towards fat people per se. (After all, the airbrushed subjects aren't any thinner as a result.) - _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 Robin- >I meant that they airbrush famous paintings to make the women in them look >thinner. You mean they're actually recomposing the paintings? Wow, I didn't know that. That's pretty pathetic. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 , >Efficient muscle is obviously desirable, though I don't know that >I'd go so far as to say small muscles are also desirable. A person >with moderate muscle bulk with very efficient muscles is going to be >more powerful than a wiry person with relatively little muscle bulk >with equally efficient muscles. I think we're using " powerful " in different ways. For me it is about the *capability* and wherewithall to... accomplish what needs to be done on a regular basis (cracking a coconut, opening a jar, walking up a flight of stairs, etc.) as well as deal with big and small *emergencies* such as falling into a raging river rapidly going out to sea and having to pull myself out of it without a foothold on the muddy bank or getting caught in a strong current while wearing a bunch of gear and heading right toward a reef, being attacked and having to defend oneself (done that), steering a sailboat in a storm around rocks after no sleep in 24 hours (hubby handled the sails), or simply catching something valuable--and heavy--before it lands-- including a person. The advantage of small strong muscles over large is that with less weight holding you back you can jump higher and move faster than a big ole gorilla and have more endurance whilst running away if necessary. >However, it does seem likely that there's a genetic continuum of >body types. Some people naturally can look sort of like Bruce Lee, >and other people tend to be bulkier, and these types don't seem to >depend only on diet. Moreover, since there are different genetic >body types, it seems unwise to me to pick one type as the one true >desirable body image. I mostly agree with you. You make good points. However, I also believe that we can shape ourselves the way we want within certain constraints--but nobody knows exactly where they sit. There is some element of *will* combined with the available physical building blocks and input diet materials in the shaping of one's body. Obviously, there's a place in this world for the whole gamut of body types, whereas, while Roman holds up Pavel Tstatsouline as the ideal male body type, I hold up Bruce Lee, what of it? Obviously, we have different goals. I don't particularly want to build up my own hip flexors, for example, because I value a small waist and lateral flexibility. >...you figure out your 6RM... and then do 5 reps And the outcome is, whenever you want to do an activity that requires an equal amount of effort, you can do it exactly 5 times...does that mean if you encounter an emergency that requires you to move an object that requires 1/4th the force you normally require for a rep for 20 times that you'll be able to accomplish it? Or will you end up with some nagging pain in the elbow, for example? Only experience will tell. I'm using " you " in the objective sense. I don't mean to be personal. >I haven't checked on Tstatsouline's historical claims, but he points >to many strong men (and strongmen) of the >past who had remarkable strength without anything like a modern >bodybuilder's physique ... Like " powerful " , I think we are using the term, " strength " in different ways, or perhaps with some overlap. If he's talking about exhibition style strength--go to that platform there, take that weight, and lift it over your head--which is the only way to measure something like that in a competition, objectively, then I say, so what? How many times a day is an ability like that useful? Whereas if he is talking about a triathelon, where different kinds of " strength " come into play including speed, then I think he is really on to something. >>and work >>on speed >I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you moving the weight faster? >What's the purpose of that, if that's what you're doing? Yes. I do slow reps sometimes, and sometimes I do fast reps. The purpose of doing it is simply because I want to be able to do it, while still maintaining form, so that when one needs to perform something with an equivalalent amount of force--but quickly--the muscle's capability is assured, purely by practice. I mean, why wait until the emergency arises? Be prepared is what I say, and practice makes perfect in both the neural impulse that moves the particular muscle in the particular direction and the muscle " memory " and recovery rate. The same goes for a really really long " set " , i.e., a long hike. You can work on your hamstrings, quads, and calves every day in the gym, but that won't necessarily guarantee a muscle capacity for *sustained* exertion, even at a slow pace, plus there's the ankles to worry about which many people neglect in the gym. >but I think their argument in favor of moving the weight very >slowly, on a 10-count in each direction, is very, >very sound. I agree. That's a very good thing to do. I do that more than half of the time. I do one long set, and drive whoever is waiting for my machine batty. I believe I answered your last question by the way and I'm sure you don't mean to sound like Henry Higgins but I can practically hear whatshisname " singing " " Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man? " now. By the way, another advantage of small muscles is the little bit of advantage it buys when one is underestimated. in Berkeley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 >Bruce Lee, frankly, looked like he'd been >overzealously liposuctioned. His appearance, at least to me, seemed to >border on the unnatural, though I'm certainly not suggesting he had any >artificial aid and I'm not even sure his body fat percentage was >unhealthily low. But anyway, he looked like skin on top of muscle with >virtually no fat in between, while Price's healthy natives were lean by >modern standards but not, I think, bodybuilder-lean or Bruce Lee-lean. I >don't know what the thresholds and the gradients are, but I do know that >too low a percentage of body fat can leave one prone to illness and injury. I tend to agree ... fat has all kinds of good functions, it is a shame to get rid of it just for the sake of muscle definition. > >where did > >the artists get the idea to create FAT women for some of the first stone > >carvings? Clearly women, at least, at least sometimes, got fat even in > >Paleo times. Maybe it was such a rarity they felt the need to immortalize > >it in stone ... > >Back then, before refined sugar and flour -- in fact before agriculture -- >fat was probably a sign of plenty, abundance and wealth (however wealth >might have been measured then) and therefore of status. I'm also sure that >people then knew that if a woman got too thin, she couldn't conceive or >carry a baby to term, so fat would've seemed like a fertility blessing too, >and would doubtless have been exaggerated to convey divine wealth and >reproductive power. I'd tend to agree, something like that ... the Hawaiians wanted their rulers FAT and they worked at getting that way. Kind of like Sumo wrestlers (Japanese aren't normally fat!). But when I think about how much WORK it is to carve stone without metal tools ... if you were going to spend a few months carving a rock, why would you (and lots of other guys all over Europe) all choose to carve fat women? It would have to be a magical kind of thing, or religious, I'd think, to go to that much work. But later in Europe, magic was usually associated with males. So at the very least, I'd have to say that those guys (I'm assuming it was guys who did rock carving, which seems to be the case in most societies) at the least had a lot of reverence for women. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 Robin Lillian wrote: > The stone carvings they found are considered to be religious art objects and > not a reminder of what " overeating does. " I was joking, Robin. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 OK. Sorry. You can't see people smiling on the Internet. Not unless they draw it in, anyway. Robin From: Roman <romeml@...> Reply- Subject: Re: Re: Physical training; was NT, weight gain, thyroid Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:27:07 -0500 Robin Lillian wrote: > The stone carvings they found are considered to be religious art objects and > not a reminder of what " overeating does. " I was joking, Robin. Roman _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Robin Lillian wrote: > OK. Sorry. You can't see people smiling on the Internet. Not unless > they draw it in, anyway. > > Robin That would be too simple Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.