Anti-Sugar Elitism

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
Laura Ingalls
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:13 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Laura Ingalls » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:05 pm

halfmoon wrote:
7Wannabe5 wrote:It neglects to mention the fact that the primary mechanism through which efficient storage of sugar calories as fat aided in the survival of the human species was storage of fat on the hips of human females leading to increased survival of infants.
@7Wb5, can you link or quote something about this? My utterly uneducated belief was always that pelvic width alone allowed for more successful childbirth, but I'm pretty sure pelvic width doesn't equal storage of hip fat any more than successful childbirth equals infant survival. I tried googling the subject without finding anything useful (see your warning about not all wisdom being online ;) ).
Anecdotally, I weighed about 165-170 lbs right after giving birth. By the time each of my kids was 18 months I was 135-140. IMO my healthiest weight is about 145.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:24 pm

@Laura Ingalls: I know of several other women who had similar experiences. I felt constantly hungry while breast-feeding, so I actually gained a bit of weight during each of my two rounds of feeding an infant from around 8 lbs. to 30 lbs. on nothing but breast-milk and generic Cheerios. My kids were in the top percentile for both height and weight at 1 year, but now as young adults in their late 20s they are both very tall and quite slender, maybe 5'10" 135 lbs., and 6'3" 155 lbs.? Of course, this is likely mostly due to the fact that their father has about the same build as Keith Richards, so cancelled out my tendency towards curves.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:46 am

1786 Satire


Image

Post Reply