Hard News: Sunday's Perfect Storm
57 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Although, also: Jayne Mansfield. Marilyn Monroe. Mae West. Jane Russell. 'Twasn't all Audreys and Kate Hepburns either, back in the day.
Indeed, and Danielle is probably going to give me a (virtual) slap in the ears for this, but I'd like to remind people that Marilyn Monroe was the first Playboy centerfold in December 1953. Those halcyon days before Photoshop, gyno-cam and the odd idea that being unable to distinguish your breasts from the Hindenberg was in any way attractive.
-
If you actually look at Kate Moss's size and stats (size 4 US 34 1/2-26-34) she is not very thin compared to fashion icons of the past. Kate Moss's waist at 26 inches is 5 inches bigger than Katherine Hepburn's was, 6 inches bigger than Audrey Hepburn's.
I find it very strange that this information is publicly available.
-
I find it very strange that this information is publicly available.
It's *gross*, but I don't think it's strange. If you have a many-centuries-long history of being chattel, your measurements are going to continue to be be part of the pop-cultural deal, even after you become a 'person'...
Those nude shots of Norma Jean are awesome, though. :)
-
Film studio publicists lied like flatfish. I would not believe any supposed measurements they issued. They made up whole names and back histories for stars, so faking body measurements was no big deal.
As well as small waists, it was particularly important for women to have small hands and feet (up until about the 1960s). Early actresses standing in cement outside Grauman's in Hollywood did it in two stages to make the print of their high heel look closer to the toe. Tricky but feasible.
I grew up with nearly every photo of a woman in the public eye having a tripartite set of her measurements appear after it in magazines and newspapers. The Sun kept it up longer than most. Gave us young girls something to measure ourselves against and fret about if we fell short of perfection.
-
Early actresses standing in cement outside Grauman's in Hollywood did it in two stages to make the print of their high heel look closer to the toe. Tricky but feasible.
That is so interesting! When I went there I wondered why the prints all seemed crazily miniscule...
-
It's *gross*, but I don't think it's strange. If you have a many-centuries-long history of being chattel, your measurements are going to continue to be be part of the pop-cultural deal, even after you become a 'person'...
Well I wasn't so much commenting on society in general (though I agree), more just the practicality of how it enters the public arena.
I guess with models it might be information that is released publicly. It just seems irrelevantly wrong though.
-
The waist sizes of actresses in the past are consistent with changes in the average waist size in the general population. The average height has not increased that that much in the past generation (less than an inch) but the average girth has increased dramatically. In 1950 the average woman's waist measurement was 27 1/2 inches, today the average measurement is 34 inches. We are growing wider much faster than we are growing taller. We are also getting weaker.
The assumption that the increasing weights of children and young people is a sign that we are much better nourished or stronger than previous generations is incorrect. Diets in the developed world have never been as calorie dense or nutrient poor as they are today.
We are seeing adult onset diseases in children as young as nine or ten. Adult onset diabetes - never seen in a child until the 1980s - is now no longer called "adult onset diabetes" as it is commonly seen in teenagers and even in prepubescent children.
The heights of playgrounds have shrunk dramatically as the height of past equipment is too dangerous for how heavy and how weak children are today. Injuries resulting from falls are essentially a formula of weight over splat and as children are much, much heavier and much, much weaker than their parents; it has become too dangerous to have the higher climbing equipment available. The drop in upper body strength, core strength, flexibility, endurance and recovery time from anaerobic activity is cause for alarm . Children are reaching school age without the motor skills expected of toddlers .
I've worked on two sci/med conferences on obesity and obesity related disease - which is probably why Graham Reid describes me as an "obesity expert" on his recipes website - but my past experience in public health has been working with HIV/AIDS - when I wasn't working on public health campaigns (before the scource of expensive, ad agency driven "social marketing") I was developing recipes that delivered nutrient/calorie dense foods for people with wasting diseases, people who were genuinely too thin.
In determining whether someone is healthy or not actual weight is not really the most important indicator. You need to look at waist to hip ratio - male, female, adult, child, if your waist the same size or bigger than your hip or chest measurement, then your health is at risk. It would be a good idea to know 1) triglycerides 2) serum cholesterol 3) glucose tolerance 4) (i) resting heart rate (ii) heart rate after exertion (iii) recovery time, i.e. length of time it takes your heart to return to R/hr. This data will give you a much better idea of your health that BMI, which is a tool developed for measuring large populations, not individuals.
If you have excess belly fat, this can be a result of stress - high levels of cortisol will cause fat to be deposited in the most dangerous place, around your middle. That adipose tissue, once in place around a person's middle will go on to behave like a sinister pancreas, causing everything from insulin resistance to heart disease, certain cancers and depression (HPA axis - or hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenals axis). Belly fat is caused by stress and in turn causes stress and depression. Fat is not a feminist issue, it's a public health issue.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.