Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickieChicks
I can understand the theory behind this....fitness is almost always going to be the desired outcome. But I don't like he these studies are often INTERPRETTED as overweight being better. I personally have friends and family who sight these studies as a reason to not eat right and work out very frequently. They THINK they are fit, and therefore, they are "healthy". It really discounts those individuals who ARE very fit at a higher weight. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that even half of overweight people in this country fall into the fat, but fit, category.
Added: it also bugs me when people look at the Rubenesque body shapes from hundreds of years ago and try to relate their desirability to our current age. Those women in the paintings were NOT fit. They were squishy and round. I love roundness, but it all seems like just another excuse to stay fat. There was absolutely not an emphasis on physical fitness in that era, and that body shape could ot be sustained at that time if those cherubs were running marathons...
|
I would imagine that with the lifestyle many of our ancestors led, they would have to be somewhat fit. Studies even suggest that they were fitter than we are today. They might have not run marathons, but that's not really a requirement of fitness nor is it necessary. Fit is when your body is capable of doing everything you need it to do for as long as you need it to. I mean, really, gymnastics, olympics, hunting and gathering, yoga, these didn't just pop on the scene.
How do you know they weren't fit? And why do you say there was no emphasis on physical fitness back then? Have you read studies that state this? Just curious as to how you gathered this information.
