Historical Accuracy in your Romance?

Libby · Post by **Libby** » Thu February 26th, 2009, 9:10 pm

[quote=""EC2""]
Not for the squeamish or innocent I warn you. I am not easily grossed out, but I am now....
[/quote]

There was stuff there I really didn't need to know - but I just couldn't help myself taking a look, could I?

MLE (Emily Cotton) · Post by **MLE (Emily Cotton)** » Thu February 26th, 2009, 9:41 pm

I can't think of a single excessively thin modern movie star who isn't just that. I would say the reverse -- that some of the ones we consider 'plump' would be considered average to skinny a hundred years back.

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Fri February 27th, 2009, 11:14 pm

A hundred years ago, yes. A thousand years ago - food just wasn't that plentiful, except in the royal courts. That's why it was considered more attractive for a woman to be "plump" - it meant she was well-fed enough to bear healthy children.

nona · Post by **nona** » Sat March 14th, 2009, 1:56 pm

[quote=""Margaret""]That's why it was considered more attractive for a woman to be "plump" - it meant she was well-fed enough to bear healthy children.[/quote]

lol, if thats the case I wouldn't have to worry due to my 'plump-ness' and if we're not careful all my husband has to do is look at me and I'm with child!

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Sun March 15th, 2009, 5:01 pm

I've done a lot of reading on so-called "evolutionary fitness" - the idea that the genes are still optimized for survival in the Stone Age. That means a high-protein, very low-carb diet with short burst / high intensity exercise. So, ten thousand years ago everyone either looks like a "gym rat" or is dead. As the discussion has noted, between one thousand and one hundred years ago having enough food to be plump means wealth, and therefore a good indicator of evolutionary desirability. Today, only the reasonably well-off can affrord the high protein diet or have the time and equipment to exercise like our stone-age ancestors. Paradox!

nona · Post by **nona** » Sun March 15th, 2009, 5:56 pm

very true what a paradox.