You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
17

[–] jhaluska 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Fat women making this argument confuse underweight with being at the upper end of the healthy weight range. Just look 50 years ago what was considered "fat", now imagine going back 300 more years with an even poorer access to food and imagine how thin women were. A woman with a 23 BMI probably was considered "fat" for the medieval era.

0
12

[–] GuntPunt 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Exactly, Circus Freak fats from decades ago are considered small fats today.... tells you something. These were people who were such a rarity that you'd actually pay a carnival barker a nickel to see their freakishness (what a time to be alive, if only it was still like this). Now they are are everywhere and fatter and you often have to pay dearly to get away from them.

0
8

[–] Ifardo 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yes. People were literally starving in the Middle Ages. If your local crops failed, and they often did, they didn't have trains and trucks to bring in food from somewhere else. They certainly didn't have beetus. Skulls from the Middle Ages have very little tooth decay as a result. That all changed as soon as Europeans colonized the Caribbean and started growing sugarcane. By the 17th Century skulls of people rich enough to buy sugar show extensive and at that time unfixable dental problems. Imagine the smell of people whose teeth were literally rotting out from their love of beetus. Source: I am a history nerd.