Re: aborigines and Goddesses

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/02 12:15:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

talithakumi@... writes:

> That's a good point. There's a mention in the Bible in the book of Judges

> of a king named Eglon who was very fat. It mentions how he was stabbed and

> his fat closed over the blade. I know that it's not 25,000 years old, but

> certainly before refined sugar and processed white flour, etc. I suppose

> the book of Judges dates back about 3,000 years ago or so. Then again,

> Eglon was a king, so he probably didn't do a lot of physical activity and

> must have had lots of food to eat..

Moreover, he could have just pigged out on honey all day. Honey's certainly

better than refined sugar, but eat enough of it and see what happens...

chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/02 2:35:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I think the " hate " thing for fat people is recent and shallow.

> If you look at our cultural icons, look at Mr. and Mrs. Claus,

> for instance. Both chubby. Chubby older people are

> associated with love, acceptance, calmness. Skinny people,

> like Cruella Deville, are cruel, hyper, and often evil. Buddha

> is often fat. Shiva is skinnier, and represents both

> destruction and procreation. Teddy bears are chubby too.

But Santa Claus being fat is pretty recent. The original Santa Claus was

skinny. I don't remember when it changed, but it was I think a few decades

ago. Santa Claus is, of course, partly based on Saint , an ascetic.

By the way, though, I think chubbiness tends to be associate with youth,

since babies are usually pudgy and gradually slender off as they get older.

Jay Gould, a Natural History magazine columnist, had an essay once

that I read on how humans are actually still fetuses in terms of universal

growth patterns and changes that occur in all other animals, about 8 months

or so after we are born, and how one of the distinctions between us and

primate relatives is that we retain youthful characteristics, relatively,

throughout our life. He connnects this with the long period of parental care

in humans, and says that retaining youthful features facilitates this,

because it stimulates affectionate responses.

He backs this up showing, for one example, the progression of Mickey Mouse

from a scrawny character to a fuller, slightly chubby, character with rounder

facial features, etc, and correlates the rise of popularity of the character

with this progression.

There is definitely an association of fatness with " jollyness. " I wonder why

it is. I think there is some irony, though, in giving ascetics like the

Buddha a fat body!

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/02 2:50:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

talithakumi@... writes:

> Yeah, that's true. I mentioned this to my husband and he said that refined

> grain was available back then, but was done by hand

Really? I suppose it depends what you mean by " refining. " My understanding

was that the ability to remove wheat germ from the wheat is a late 19th

century, maybe early 20th, phenomenon, while removing the bran was done by

sifting, much, much earlier. Do you know what, specifically, they were able

to refine?

Thanks,

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

From: L <lierrekeith@...>

.. But the way the figures are

> sculpted is an accurate rendering of the way fat

> accumulates on the human body--so there had to have

> been some fat women around. And they obviously weren't

> hated like in our culture.

> Lierre

>

That's a good point. There's a mention in the Bible in the book of Judges

of a king named Eglon who was very fat. It mentions how he was stabbed and

his fat closed over the blade. I know that it's not 25,000 years old, but

certainly before refined sugar and processed white flour, etc. I suppose

the book of Judges dates back about 3,000 years ago or so. Then again,

Eglon was a king, so he probably didn't do a lot of physical activity and

must have had lots of food to eat..

This reminds me of another thing. People used to tell me that the body

builders we see today look like they do because of steroids. You know, the

Arnold Schawarzeneger type. But, aren't they trying to replicate the Greek

figures we see like angelo's Moses and such? They obviously had

models with massive muscles too back then. I don't suppose they were using

steriods at that time?

Marla

[Guest guest]

At 04:57 AM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>. But the way the figures are

>sculpted is an accurate rendering of the way fat

>accumulates on the human body--so there had to have

>been some fat women around. And they obviously weren't

>hated like in our culture.

>Lierre

I think the " hate " thing for fat people is recent and shallow.

If you look at our cultural icons, look at Mr. and Mrs. Claus,

for instance. Both chubby. Chubby older people are

associated with love, acceptance, calmness. Skinny people,

like Cruella Deville, are cruel, hyper, and often evil. Buddha

is often fat. Shiva is skinnier, and represents both

destruction and procreation. Teddy bears are chubby too.

My guess is that post-menapausal women (when they made

it that far, which was likely rare) were, much like today,

generally the wiser, comforting " grandma " types, and,

like today, were more likely to be chunky. The " wise women "

of the group. But, like I said, they were probably eating

a low-carb diet too, so I think the issue is more complex

than just carbs.

My children, BTW, at a young age, were adamant that I

NOT get skinnier, because they liked me " soft and huggable " .

(I'm still pretty huggable, but I am a bit skinnier).

Heidi

[Guest guest]

Also if the culture had access to honey they probably had some of the

problems associated with sugar. If it is true what AV says that raw honey

is healthy but cooked honey is not then any society that heats their honey

to get it out of the comb easier (not exactly high tech) would have problems.

At 09:26 AM 9/7/02, you wrote:

>From: L <lierrekeith@...>

>

>. But the way the figures are

> > sculpted is an accurate rendering of the way fat

> > accumulates on the human body--so there had to have

> > been some fat women around. And they obviously weren't

> > hated like in our culture.

> > Lierre

> >

>

>That's a good point. There's a mention in the Bible in the book of Judges

>of a king named Eglon who was very fat. It mentions how he was stabbed and

>his fat closed over the blade. I know that it's not 25,000 years old, but

>certainly before refined sugar and processed white flour, etc. I suppose

>the book of Judges dates back about 3,000 years ago or so. Then again,

>Eglon was a king, so he probably didn't do a lot of physical activity and

>must have had lots of food to eat..

>

>This reminds me of another thing. People used to tell me that the body

>builders we see today look like they do because of steroids. You know, the

>Arnold Schawarzeneger type. But, aren't they trying to replicate the Greek

>figures we see like angelo's Moses and such? They obviously had

>models with massive muscles too back then. I don't suppose they were using

>steriods at that time?

>

>Marla

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> Moreover, he could have just pigged out on honey all day. Honey's

certainly

> better than refined sugar, but eat enough of it and see what happens...

>

> chris

>

Yeah, that's true. I mentioned this to my husband and he said that refined

grain was available back then, but was done by hand. So, in that case, the

wealthy were likely the ones to have access to refined grain and ending up

chunky. That then falls in line with someone else's post that fat is a sign

of wealth and could be a reason why fat figures were emulated. In ancient

Eygpt, the Pharoahs were considered gods as well as the Emperors in China

and Japan. There could be that cross over of imitating the fat noblity as

gods and goddesses.

Marla

P.S. Not that I think being chunky is so bad. It is just a matter of

health at that point. How chunky can a person be and still be in tip top

shape healthwise?

[Guest guest]

the Buddha gave up ascetisism when he became enlightened ( or maybe

before). Maybe he became chubby after that?

At 11:56 AM 9/7/02, you wrote:

>In a message dated 9/7/02 2:35:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>heidis@... writes:

>

> > I think the " hate " thing for fat people is recent and shallow.

> > If you look at our cultural icons, look at Mr. and Mrs. Claus,

> > for instance. Both chubby. Chubby older people are

> > associated with love, acceptance, calmness. Skinny people,

> > like Cruella Deville, are cruel, hyper, and often evil. Buddha

> > is often fat. Shiva is skinnier, and represents both

> > destruction and procreation. Teddy bears are chubby too.

>

>But Santa Claus being fat is pretty recent. The original Santa Claus was

>skinny. I don't remember when it changed, but it was I think a few decades

>ago. Santa Claus is, of course, partly based on Saint , an ascetic.

>

>By the way, though, I think chubbiness tends to be associate with youth,

>since babies are usually pudgy and gradually slender off as they get older.

> Jay Gould, a Natural History magazine columnist, had an essay once

>that I read on how humans are actually still fetuses in terms of universal

>growth patterns and changes that occur in all other animals, about 8 months

>or so after we are born, and how one of the distinctions between us and

>primate relatives is that we retain youthful characteristics, relatively,

>throughout our life. He connnects this with the long period of parental care

>in humans, and says that retaining youthful features facilitates this,

>because it stimulates affectionate responses.

>

>He backs this up showing, for one example, the progression of Mickey Mouse

>from a scrawny character to a fuller, slightly chubby, character with rounder

>facial features, etc, and correlates the rise of popularity of the character

>with this progression.

>

>There is definitely an association of fatness with " jollyness. " I wonder why

>it is. I think there is some irony, though, in giving ascetics like the

>Buddha a fat body!

>

>Chris

>

>____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

>heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

>animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

>them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

>compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

>bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

>Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

>truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

>

>--Saint Isaac the Syrian

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

If you look at the ancient art of Egypt you will see a lot of

handsome strong, slim gods and goddesses. Perhaps the idea of fat

deities becomes important in cultures where foods were sometimes more

scarce, due to climate. I belive, in general, the Nile delivered rich

soil to cultivate each year. Do you think that could be the reason?

Sheila

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

> > Moreover, he could have just pigged out on honey all day. Honey's

> certainly

> > better than refined sugar, but eat enough of it and see what

happens...

> >

> > chris

> >

>

> Yeah, that's true. I mentioned this to my husband and he said that

refined

> grain was available back then, but was done by hand. So, in that

case, the

> wealthy were likely the ones to have access to refined grain and

ending up

> chunky. That then falls in line with someone else's post that fat

is a sign

> of wealth and could be a reason why fat figures were emulated. In

ancient

> Eygpt, the Pharoahs were considered gods as well as the Emperors in

China

> and Japan. There could be that cross over of imitating the fat

noblity as

> gods and goddesses.

>

> Marla

>

> P.S. Not that I think being chunky is so bad. It is just a matter

of

> health at that point. How chunky can a person be and still be in

tip top

> shape healthwise?

[Guest guest]

Refining in mass quantities happened only recently. However doing it by

hand has been around for centuries. There are egyptian pictographs of

people (slaves?) putting grain through finer and finer sieves. Of course

only the weathy or royalty could afford to have this. It might not have

been quite the soft white stuff we have today but it was quite refined

compared to the course stuff the masses ate back then.

At 12:00 PM 9/7/02, you wrote:

>In a message dated 9/7/02 2:50:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>talithakumi@... writes:

>

> > Yeah, that's true. I mentioned this to my husband and he said that refined

> > grain was available back then, but was done by hand

>

>Really? I suppose it depends what you mean by " refining. " My understanding

>was that the ability to remove wheat germ from the wheat is a late 19th

>century, maybe early 20th, phenomenon, while removing the bran was done by

>sifting, much, much earlier. Do you know what, specifically, they were able

>to refine?

>

>Thanks,

>Chris

>

>____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

>heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

>animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

>them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

>compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

>bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

>Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

>truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

>

>--Saint Isaac the Syrian

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> Really? I suppose it depends what you mean by " refining. " My

understanding

> was that the ability to remove wheat germ from the wheat is a late 19th

> century, maybe early 20th, phenomenon, while removing the bran was done by

> sifting, much, much earlier. Do you know what, specifically, they were

able

> to refine?

>

> Thanks,

> Chris

I believe at the turn of the century industrial mills were able to separate

the wheat from the germ and bran, but before the automated mills the

knowlegde and ability to separate the wheat from the germ and bran was

already around. If the wheat was pounded, but not crushed or ground, the

germ and the bran could be sifted out. Or the germ could also be carefully

picked out by hand if it wasn't pulverized. Obviously, it would be very

time consuming to do this by hand, but I guess what royalty wants, royalty

gets. I'm sure they had many other tedious and time consuming jobs to make

royalty happy.

My husband isn't here right now for me to ask him where he got that info,

but I'll ask him later to see if he remembers where he learned that.

Marla

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

>

> There is definitely an association of fatness with " jollyness. " I wonder

why

> it is. I think there is some irony, though, in giving ascetics like the

> Buddha a fat body!

>

I wonder if it's a hormonal thing. I just read Bieler's book recently and

he mentions that people with strong adrenals tend to be wide and thick

around the abdomen with extremities thick with stubby toes. (I know this is

probably a generalization, but I find it interesting that you made the

correlation of fatness with jollyness.) Anyway, another characterisitc of

people with strong adrenals according to Bieler is they are easy-going,

jolly, slow to anger, never bothered with insomnia, fear or cold-feet. In

this case, it may be common for people with strong adrenals to be chunky and

jolly. As a contrast, Bieler states that people with strong thyroids tend

to be thin, are high strung, and have extremely sensitive nervous systems

making them restless, jumpy, etc.

Maybe this is why we associate certain body types with behavior. Hmm. Then

again, I'm sure people don't always fall in neat catagories like that and

other factors complicate the issue. I mean I'm sure we all know a fat

person who isn't jolly and a thin person who is actually nice and not

Cruela's sister or something.

Marla

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: h2ocolor1937 <h2ocolor@...>

> Hi,

> If you look at the ancient art of Egypt you will see a lot of

> handsome strong, slim gods and goddesses. Perhaps the idea of fat

> deities becomes important in cultures where foods were sometimes more

> scarce, due to climate. I belive, in general, the Nile delivered rich

> soil to cultivate each year. Do you think that could be the reason?

> Sheila

>

This is true. I've seen some of those art renderings too. Maybe in their

case chubbyness is associated with fertility. Then again, famine has been

recorded in Egypt as well as in the Orient, so times were not always so

fertile. Hmm. I do know that some asians still look at chunkyness as a

sign of wealth. Especially the older generation. They even equate the

heavyness with health. Maybe because there are so many skinny asians. I

guess it's a case of the grass being greener on the other side! Ha! I'm

about 118 lbs and am the heaviest of my sisters, but I'm the one that got

really sick. Everyone was so surprised because they said I looked the

healthiest. Ha ha! Surprise!

Marla

[Guest guest]

Sheila: Then again, did the Egyptians depict their deity as fat? I don't

recall they did.

Marla

----- Original Message -----

> Hi,

> If you look at the ancient art of Egypt you will see a lot of

> handsome strong, slim gods and goddesses. Perhaps the idea of fat

> deities becomes important in cultures where foods were sometimes more

> scarce, due to climate. I belive, in general, the Nile delivered rich

> soil to cultivate each year. Do you think that could be the reason?

> Sheila

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Marla.

The ancient Egyptians depicted their gods as part animal, part human.

The sphinx as a perfect example. Some of the others had the head of a

jackel or the head or wings of a bird. When a human form were

sculpted or painted, whether a god or not, they were never fat. When

looking at one golden statue of a goddess, I did notice how extremely

thin her waist, arms and legs were and how wide her hips, but fat she

was not!

The ancient Egyptian's considered their Pharoh or Queen to be a god

or goddess. Cat's and ibis were also considered sacred. That's about

all I know about them!

I wonder if this whole discussion about being " fat " in our present

culture is simply a reflection of our innate need to have everything

fall within what the general public would call a normal range? There

was a time when a woman with a rounded shape was far more delightful

to the male eye. Look around in a museum of painting from the 1800's

and it is obvious the most women were heavier then most of the men.

Some men still feel a rounder woman is more disirable, this despite

the media models and actress's, many of whom fight weight gain to an

extreme.

It has also been my understanding that native people did not race

around all day. There was a lot of sitting around the fires, talking,

joking and relaxing. I belive they were slimmer for two reasons.

First they got the amount of exercise they needed for their way of

life. Second their foods were so nutrient dense, fresh and locally

grown, that they ate smaller amounts, but got more out of it

nutrtionally speaking. Do you agree this might be true?

Sheila

> Sheila: Then again, did the Egyptians depict their deity as fat?

I don't

> recall they did.

>

> Marla

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

> > Hi,

> > If you look at the ancient art of Egypt you will see a lot of

> > handsome strong, slim gods and goddesses. Perhaps the idea of fat

> > deities becomes important in cultures where foods were sometimes

more

> > scarce, due to climate. I belive, in general, the Nile delivered

rich

> > soil to cultivate each year. Do you think that could be the

reason?

> > Sheila

> >

[Guest guest]

At 12:47 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>the Buddha gave up ascetisism when he became enlightened ( or maybe

>before). Maybe he became chubby after that?

Oh good -- so since I'm so enlightened I don't have to be ascetic? :-)

I know very little about Buddism, and don't want to offend anyone

who is, but I always liked the idea that someone's idea of a great

person could be a chubby, contented person. Like, if I REALLY

*knew* everything I wouldn't be *worried* about everything.

Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 03:19 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>I wonder if it's a hormonal thing. I just read Bieler's book recently and

>he mentions that people with strong adrenals tend to be wide and thick

>around the abdomen with extremities thick with stubby toes. (I know this is

>probably a generalization, but I find it interesting that you made the

>correlation of fatness with jollyness.) Anyway, another characterisitc of

>people with strong adrenals according to Bieler is they are easy-going,

>jolly, slow to anger, never bothered with insomnia, fear or cold-feet. In

>this case, it may be common for people with strong adrenals to be chunky and

>jolly. As a contrast, Bieler states that people with strong thyroids tend

>to be thin, are high strung, and have extremely sensitive nervous systems

>making them restless, jumpy, etc.

Actually one of the science magazines ran an article where they found

the same thing, statistically. Fat people ARE happier, in general. The

article, which was a long time ago and I don't remember where I read

it, surmised that the fat acted as a buffer for chemicals in the

blood which would otherwise make the person more nervous or

otherwise cause distress: some people, when they lost weight,

became more UNhappy. Which is kind of amazing, given the

cultural influences.

I'm a little reminded of the Orca whales: during times of less food,

they tend to die, because the fat stores environmental toxins which

are released when they lose weight. I think for some people, at

any rate, fat may be a way to buffer the body against toxins (produced

by the body or otherwise).

Heidi

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: h2ocolor1937 <h2ocolor@...>

> It has also been my understanding that native people did not race

> around all day. There was a lot of sitting around the fires, talking,

> joking and relaxing. I belive they were slimmer for two reasons.

> First they got the amount of exercise they needed for their way of

> life. Second their foods were so nutrient dense, fresh and locally

> grown, that they ate smaller amounts, but got more out of it

> nutrtionally speaking. Do you agree this might be true?

> Sheila

>

Hi Sheila: I'm by no means an expert at this, but that does sound

reasonable. However, it seems to depend on which groups of people. I know

it has been stated that the Masai did lots of running while tending their

herds. Did you see that movie The Gods Must be Crazy? I don't know how

accurate some parts were, (it was a comedy, but I think had some truths in

it) but the Bushman ran for days. I think he even told one guy he was going

to just run and find his kids and should be back in three days. (I think

that was in part II) I know there are many good African long distance

runners who attribute their abilities to the fact that they normally run a

lot. So, I think some Africans got more exercise that some other groups of

people. Another interesting thing about the movie was that they ate

elephant. They didn't like to waste the meat, so he told another guy to get

his family and others. Also, when he killed an animal, he used a dart first

to put it to sleep or numb it. Then he would go to the animal, apologize to

it, then kill it. I wondered about that part because I thought that if the

dart put the animal to sleep, wouldn't that affect the meat? Hmm.

About the fat issue. At first I was looking at it as whether it was normal

or healthy, but the topic seems to be intertwined with " Is fat more

desireable. " In that case, fads come and go and it's not limited to just

whether someone is fat or not. There was a time when tiny tiny feet were

admired in China and extremely thin waists in America. (Remember the

corsets that deformed womens' internal organs?) I've seen pictures of some

African tribes that place brass rings around their necks to make them

longer. Each year they place another ring, so that the women can't take

them off anymore because their necks aren't strong enough to support their

heads without them. Or big disks were inserted into their lips to stretch

them way out. There were South American tribes who reshape their heads so

there's an indentation. Fads seem to come and go rather quickly. Just look

at the movies. Marilyn Monroe was voluptuous, then the skinny skinny Miss

Twiggy type was in fashion, then the muscular women started showing up, etc.

Now we seem to have a mixture. . . size 2 with 36 double T cups! Ha! I

think media has a lot to do with what we view as beautiful whether it's fair

skin, tans, big hairdos, blonds, or fat. I think the ancient people were

the same. Easily influenced. Just because we see some of their art work,

doesn't mean that all of their society agreed with the artist. As far as

what's more appealing to men, I've seen men with all kinds of women. Most

men just like women. The media just makes us think they all like one kind.

(Of course, I'm a woman. Any males are welcome to correct me if I'm way out

of line here!)

Marla

[Guest guest]

Hi Marla,

I am no expert on fat accumulation among ancient or current day

native people. I have been thinking about what you said about those

African runners and the Bushman. I find it hard to believe the cows

were dashing about all that much. Maybe African cows are more active

than our Jerseys. I can see them walking a great deal, but

runnning I'm not so sure about that? I guess round up time would be

more active. I fear I am getting out of my depth on this subject.

Weren't the native woman just as healthy as the men who did all the

cow herding? In the Dinka tribe the woman did not herd at all, but

maybe in some other tribes they ran too. This would surprise me,

because someone was needed to watch the little ones, but then I sure

have been surprised before.

Where did you read about the African runners? Are they a modern

phenomenon? Just curious?

I did see the film, " The Gods Must be Crazy " . Yikes, that was ages

ago. It was strangly fascinating.

I saw a native African woman in a film who had her brass neck rings

removed from around her neck. She could hold her head up just fine,

but decided to put them back on because she missed them. Aren't we

such odd creatures of habit?

Sheila

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: h2ocolor1937 <h2ocolor@b...>

> > It has also been my understanding that native people did not race

> > around all day. There was a lot of sitting around the fires,

talking,

> > joking and relaxing. I belive they were slimmer for two reasons.

> > First they got the amount of exercise they needed for their way of

> > life. Second their foods were so nutrient dense, fresh and locally

> > grown, that they ate smaller amounts, but got more out of it

> > nutrtionally speaking. Do you agree this might be true?

I enjoyed reading your reply. Thanks.

> > Sheila

> >

>

> Hi Sheila: I'm by no means an expert at this, but that does sound

> reasonable. However, it seems to depend on which groups of

people. I know

> it has been stated that the Masai did lots of running while tending

their

> herds. Did you see that movie The Gods Must be Crazy? I don't

know how

> accurate some parts were, (it was a comedy, but I think had some

truths in

> it) but the Bushman ran for days. I think he even told one guy he

was going

> to just run and find his kids and should be back in three days. (I

think

> that was in part II) I know there are many good African long

distance

> runners who attribute their abilities to the fact that they

normally run a

> lot. So, I think some Africans got more exercise that some other

groups of

> people. Another interesting thing about the movie was that they ate

> elephant. They didn't like to waste the meat, so he told another

guy to get

> his family and others. Also, when he killed an animal, he used a

dart first

> to put it to sleep or numb it. Then he would go to the animal,

apologize to

> it, then kill it. I wondered about that part because I thought

that if the

> dart put the animal to sleep, wouldn't that affect the meat? Hmm.

>

> About the fat issue. At first I was looking at it as whether it

was normal

> or healthy, but the topic seems to be intertwined with " Is fat more

> desireable. " In that case, fads come and go and it's not limited

to just

> whether someone is fat or not. There was a time when tiny tiny

feet were

> admired in China and extremely thin waists in America. (Remember

the

> corsets that deformed womens' internal organs?) I've seen pictures

of some

> African tribes that place brass rings around their necks to make

them

> longer. Each year they place another ring, so that the women can't

take

> them off anymore because their necks aren't strong enough to

support their

> heads without them. Or big disks were inserted into their lips to

stretch

> them way out. There were South American tribes who reshape their

heads so

> there's an indentation. Fads seem to come and go rather quickly.

Just look

> at the movies. Marilyn Monroe was voluptuous, then the skinny

skinny Miss

> Twiggy type was in fashion, then the muscular women started showing

up, etc.

> Now we seem to have a mixture. . . size 2 with 36 double T cups!

Ha! I

> think media has a lot to do with what we view as beautiful whether

it's fair

> skin, tans, big hairdos, blonds, or fat. I think the ancient

people were

> the same. Easily influenced. Just because we see some of their

art work,

> doesn't mean that all of their society agreed with the artist. As

far as

> what's more appealing to men, I've seen men with all kinds of

women. Most

> men just like women. The media just makes us think they all like

one kind.

> (Of course, I'm a woman. Any males are welcome to correct me if

I'm way out

> of line here!)

>

>

> Marla

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheila:

Ravnskov mentions that the Masai ran around a lot in his book Cholesterol

Myths. I already returned it to the library, so I can't quote exactly what

he wrote. He mentioned their running because he was stating how important

exercise was with their diet of lots of meat. He stated that their arteries

did have some cholesterol deposits, but were still smooth and didn't have

raised spots where blockage could occur. He felt that the running is an

important factor to the cholesterol not forming in dangerous clumps. He

didn't go into much more detail than that. Although he used another example

of animals that exercised and had better arteries than the ones who didn't

even though they had the same diets. (The animals that didn't exercise much

were kept in smaller cages.) I believe Ravnskov believes that even with a

good diet, you need to have good exercise.

They have a yearly marathon here in LA. It's a pretty big deal where they

block of miles of road and televise it. A couple years ago they had several

guys from a province in Africa participate, and they were discussing how

they trained. They mentioned how they ran all day in high altitudes, so

when they came here, it was a breeze. They just practiced running in their

villages, no special tracks or anything. Just dirt and inclines.

Supposedly, it was a natural thing for all of them to do. They had a

little clip and showed them running in their village and other little boys

would follow them running along. I'm sure they don't really run " all day, "

but I tend to believe that they do a heck of a lot more running than the

average American. You know, it may not even be necessary to do all that

running. I know other tribes do lots of walking. My husband was reading a

book on the Aborigines and it mentioned how many miles they walked each day

and what it averaged out to in one year. (I don't recall the figures now,

but remember thinking that it was quite a bit more than us city dwellers

walk.) The women were mostly the ones in charge of gathering while the men

did the hunting. I recall the women spent about two hours a day walking. I

think they also grind and prepare some of the seeds or berries they pick, so

they're still not just lazying about eating marshmellows! Ha ha! I'm

pretty sure we returned that book to the library too!

I don't recall much of the Dinkas. I read Price's book, but I've also

returned that to the library. I really should get my own copy of that one.

The African woman I saw with the rings around her neck was in a National

Geographic magazine. This particular woman had a REALLY LONG neck. They

showed an X-ray of it and were explaining that her neck was in such a

condition that she couldn't take off those rings because her neck wouldn't

be strong enough to support her head. Maybe she was just an exceptional one

who really went overboard with the rings! At any rate, that article gave me

the impression that that was a common thing. There's nothing like seeing

the real thing. I'm glad you mentioned that other woman had no problem.

Marla

P.S. Did you see the Gods Must be Crazy Part II? The guy that made that

film also made another film called Animals are People Too. That's a crack

up! I'm laughing just thinking about it.

[Guest guest]

Hi Marla,

I will be sure to check and see if I can rent those two films you

mentioned. I didn't even know about them or I would have seen them

already.

Your information about the Masai mentioned in Ravskov's book makes me

want to start taking longer walks again. Ravskov is right we are

built to move. It would be interesting clock how much a body moves

around everyday. We might be pleasently surprised or on a heavy use

computer day, horrified!

I certainly have a high choesterol diet. You know, whole dairy and

plenty of meats and eggs. I crave meats and butter. I figure there

must be something in them I really need. Most people I speak to

concerning my diet think I am totally nuts. According to Ravskov they

may be partly right, but according to Price maybe not. I know in an

Eskimo village half the women would go fishing with the men every

morning, while the other half stayed home and took care of the kids

and did the housework around the igloo. Is there any indication they

had high cholesterol? Heart attacks? Of course they were not eating

beef, lamb or a lot of eggs and dairy. I don't know the fat

composition of seal blubber. Do you? The seal is a mammel and would

certainly have higher cholesterol levels than a fish. I know they

ate a great deal of seal meat and it's blubber as well as narwhale

when they could get it.

Did you read Steffenson's account of his life with the Eskimo's? I

have only read the first part and am looking forward to reading the

rest.

Thanks for the interesting facts about the runners from Africa.

Sheila

> Hi Sheila:

>

> Ravnskov mentions that the Masai ran around a lot in his book

Cholesterol

> Myths. I already returned it to the library, so I can't quote

exactly what

> he wrote. He mentioned their running because he was stating how

important

> exercise was with their diet of lots of meat. He stated that their

arteries

> did have some cholesterol deposits, but were still smooth and

didn't have

> raised spots where blockage could occur. He felt that the running

is an

> important factor to the cholesterol not forming in dangerous

clumps. He

> didn't go into much more detail than that. Although he used

another example

> of animals that exercised and had better arteries than the ones who

didn't

> even though they had the same diets. (The animals that didn't

exercise much

> were kept in smaller cages.) I believe Ravnskov believes that even

with a

> good diet, you need to have good exercise.

>

> They have a yearly marathon here in LA. It's a pretty big deal

where they

> block of miles of road and televise it. A couple years ago they

had several

> guys from a province in Africa participate, and they were

discussing how

> they trained. They mentioned how they ran all day in high

altitudes, so

> when they came here, it was a breeze. They just practiced running

in their

> villages, no special tracks or anything. Just dirt and inclines.

> Supposedly, it was a natural thing for all of them to do. They

had a

> little clip and showed them running in their village and other

little boys

> would follow them running along. I'm sure they don't really

run " all day, "

> but I tend to believe that they do a heck of a lot more running

than the

> average American. You know, it may not even be necessary to do all

that

> running. I know other tribes do lots of walking. My husband was

reading a

> book on the Aborigines and it mentioned how many miles they walked

each day

> and what it averaged out to in one year. (I don't recall the

figures now,

> but remember thinking that it was quite a bit more than us city

dwellers

> walk.) The women were mostly the ones in charge of gathering while

the men

> did the hunting. I recall the women spent about two hours a day

walking. I

> think they also grind and prepare some of the seeds or berries they

pick, so

> they're still not just lazying about eating marshmellows! Ha ha!

I'm

> pretty sure we returned that book to the library too!

>

> I don't recall much of the Dinkas. I read Price's book, but I've

also

> returned that to the library. I really should get my own copy of

that one.

>

> The African woman I saw with the rings around her neck was in a

National

> Geographic magazine. This particular woman had a REALLY LONG

neck. They

> showed an X-ray of it and were explaining that her neck was in such

a

> condition that she couldn't take off those rings because her neck

wouldn't

> be strong enough to support her head. Maybe she was just an

exceptional one

> who really went overboard with the rings! At any rate, that

article gave me

> the impression that that was a common thing. There's nothing like

seeing

> the real thing. I'm glad you mentioned that other woman had no

problem.

>

> Marla

>

> P.S. Did you see the Gods Must be Crazy Part II? The guy that

made that

> film also made another film called Animals are People Too. That's

a crack

> up! I'm laughing just thinking about it.

[Guest guest]

At 10:14 PM 9/8/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>Weren't the native woman just as healthy as the men who did all the

>cow herding? In the Dinka tribe the woman did not herd at all, but

>maybe in some other tribes they ran too. This would surprise me,

>because someone was needed to watch the little ones, but then I sure

>have been surprised before.

One lady did a study on women and fiber arts: it is likely that the

women sat around, ground grains or tanned hides, watched kids,

and wove or spun,for a really, really long time into history.

They also tended to gardens. Men did things

like run after herds and go on long trips and go to war.

But the average workday was something like 4 hours a day for

hunter-gatherers. So the women were likely more active than

the average desk-jocky, but probably not a lot more active than

the average housewife with kids and a garden.

The women also breast-fed for about 4 years: which spaced out

the babies but also used up a LOT of calories. Between being

pregnant and breast feeding, they likely didn't have a chance

to hold onto much fat until after menopause.

If you look at statues etc., the " sexy " type figurines DO have

tiny waists almost universally. (And big hips!). I think this

signified then, as now, " not pregnant " to the male. Being

" older and wider " might signify comfort, wisdom, strength,

who knows what, but probably NOT " ready to get pregnant " ,

which is probably the dominating urge to the average

male mind when it comes to " ideal female " . But it could

vary with culture too: someone was interviewing some inner-city

black males who really love big women, and they couldn't

figure out the obsession with thinness.

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Cabrita Software

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

In the 6 weeks I got to spend with the Maasai, I never saw them

running. (Oh wait, once I did see some teenagers playing soccer, but

they were playing with visiting Americans, so i don't know who

initiated this.) This isn't to say they don't run; it's just what I

observed. However, I saw them walk and walk and walk. They walked

while herding their cows & goats, they walked to visit friends. They

walked long distances. I didn't spend a lot of time with the young

warriors and perhaps they run more. When they dance, they jump up

and down. And the warriors also had kind of a mix between a walk and

a jog while chanting. They'd do this in a single file line.

With the Maasai and all the other groups I spent time with, it was

the women's work to get water and firewood. These were daily chores

and many women would have to walk great distances to procure these.

For the firewood, the women also did all the chopping. They'd come

back balancing LARGE loads of wood on their backs or heavy jugs of

water on their heads or back. There's weight training for you! If

they had a baby, the baby would be tied to their back and the water

balanced on their head! Young children (particularly girls) would

often be sent to get water.

I also observed Africans laughing when they saw a white person

jogging for exercise. They thought it funny to run for no purpose.

(Obviously, they weren't in the region of Kenya where the good

runners come from!) The Swahili word for " white person "

means " someone who runs around in circles. " That refers to our

frantic, harried lives (not to the joggers).

The Maasai word for " white person " means " one who contains their

farts " since the white men wear pants! Maasai wear loose toga type

clothes.

Even in the city (Nairobi) there are tons of people walking. They

don't have the small amount of money even for public transportation

so they walk everywhere. When I came home, one of my first thought

was how lonely the roads seemed because there were no people out

walking.

> Ravnskov mentions that the Masai ran around a lot in his book

Cholesterol Myths. I already returned it to the library, so I can't

quote exactly what he wrote. He mentioned their running because he

was stating how important exercise was with their diet of lots of

meat.

>

A couple years ago they had several

> guys from a province in Africa participate, and they were

discussing how they trained. They mentioned how they ran all day in

high altitudes, so when they came here, it was a breeze. They just

practiced running in their villages, no special tracks or anything.

Just dirt and inclines. Supposedly, it was a natural thing for all of

them to do. They had a little clip and showed them running in their

village and other little boys would follow them running along. I'm

sure they don't really run " all day, " but I tend to believe that they

do a heck of a lot more running than the average American. You know,

it may not even be necessary to do all that running. I know other

tribes do lots of walking.

[Guest guest]

: Thanks for sharing that! It's so nice to be able to corroborate

information. Personally, I'm finding that a lot of the things I took for

granted as truth are really quite different. Lately, I've been

*re-learning* things. I read a book by Jerry Mander called Four Arguments

for the Elimination of Television, and one of his main arguments was that

media is very limited in its ablitly to convey reality. No matter how much

a film maker tries to portray the truth, he is not able to do it because of

the limits of the medium--time constraints, his personal biases, concepts

are lost, etc. Television, according to Mander, is only effective with lots

of action, so directors tend to make things look more *busy* or *active*

that what is in reality. I see this example in the clip of the runners I

mentioned. That was just a very small segment in time, but your experience

was longer and in person and is in actuality very different! I really

appreciate people sharing their personal experiences like you and Laurie who

shared her experience in Alaska. It's a treat for people like me who

haven't had the privledge of first hand experience. I'm trying to be more

careful with what I accept a truths now so may appear like the devils

advocate at times! Ha!

By the way, I haven't done much wood chopping, but I have done shovelling

dirt. Now that's a work out for my little arms! I was sweating like a pig

in less than five minutes! Also, I've been doing more walking lately, and

this discussion has been encouraging to me to continue.

Marla

[Guest guest]

Hi Marla,

I second all you said here Marla. Personal experience is the best

source for the truth and we are lucky to have some people who are

able to tell it like it is. Fascinating to read.

All this discussion of native peoples and their natural daily

exercise is beginning to give me a better understanding of what a

human body needs in the way of daily physical action. Men, because of

their larger muscle mass, and perhaps their hormone testosterone, may

actually need more exercise than women? I'm not trying to be sexist

here, but hormones are so powerful and they determine a lot of our

human needs and behaviors. Isn't this what nature intended? If you

look at Olympic women runners you will find their bodies change

dramatically with their high levels of exercise. Their periods often

stop or become sporatic. How can they carry on the nature's basic

business of continuing the species when they are like that? They

can't do it. So there are limits on exercise for women which nature

determines for very good reasons.

I wonder if a male body builders sperm level diminishes with all

that exercise building up muscle mass? Anyone know?

Walking is wonderful exercise for both sexes as evidenced in the true

stories about the Masai. I plan on doing a lot more of it. Chopping

wood and digging in the dirt, I think I will leave for someone else

to do.

Sheila

Sheila

> : Thanks for sharing that! It's so nice to be able to

corroborate

> information. Personally, I'm finding that a lot of the things I

took for

> granted as truth are really quite different. Lately, I've been

> *re-learning* things. I read a book by Jerry Mander called Four

Arguments

> for the Elimination of Television, and one of his main arguments

was that

> media is very limited in its ablitly to convey reality. No matter

how much

> a film maker tries to portray the truth, he is not able to do it

because of

> the limits of the medium--time constraints, his personal biases,

concepts

> are lost, etc. Television, according to Mander, is only effective

with lots

> of action, so directors tend to make things look more *busy* or

*active*

> that what is in reality. I see this example in the clip of the

runners I

> mentioned. That was just a very small segment in time, but your

experience

> was longer and in person and is in actuality very different! I

really

> appreciate people sharing their personal experiences like you and

Laurie who

> shared her experience in Alaska. It's a treat for people like me

who

> haven't had the privledge of first hand experience. I'm trying to

be more

> careful with what I accept a truths now so may appear like the

devils

> advocate at times! Ha!

>

> By the way, I haven't done much wood chopping, but I have done

shovelling

> dirt. Now that's a work out for my little arms! I was sweating

like a pig

> in less than five minutes! Also, I've been doing more walking

lately, and

> this discussion has been encouraging to me to continue.

>

> Marla