Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll

[Willie Pep 229]

- - With the 21st Century melting in some of the worst wars consecutively in history, could be **** dominate what will be coming. The Tragedy is that post Vietnam the world was mostly at peace until Billy Slick managed to ignite what amounts to little world wars everywhere growing like international wildfires.

Apparently mankind cannot regulate itself no matter the political structure they live under.

Do you mean Clinton?

Because all those mini world wars of the 1990s go straight back to the League of Nations. They were inevitable, not the fault of the USA, no matter who was president.

There was no country of Yugoslavia nor was there any place called Iraq or Pal-estine. All were created to foster British and French regional control.

They were all bound to fall apart into violence eventually but all served as a Western convenience while they lasted.

[billeau2]

Do you mean Clinton?

Because all those mini world wars of the 1990s go straight back to the League of Nations. They were inevitable, not the fault of the USA, no matter who was president.

There was no country of Yugoslavia nor was there any place called Iraq or Pal-estine. All were created to foster British and French regional control.

They were all bound to fall apart into violence eventually but all served as a Western convenience while they lasted.

Ahh! the perspective of a true History teacher! Bravo!!! Iraq should be called what it is/was/ and will perhaps be for some time... Mesopotamia, Sumeria, a place where tribes developed out of Kingship and patronage. A place where status was transferred onto a set of civic Gods, creating City States with a need to fight, prosper and create patronage to a dominant tribe and their theological masters. The Gods, once fertility and nature imbued, all became warriors... from immanent changes one observed in life, they became transcendent forces, divorced from life and there to wage war. Since that last Millenium in that part of the world, nothing has really changed... Islam took over the many polytheistic traditions, but really was the same transcendent force.

Yugoslavia is particularly sad. A place that managed to exist with multiethnic communities broken apart when nationalism reared its ugly head. And yes all the effects of Western control.

[DeeMoney]

The average height for a UK male has only increased by an inch since I was a boy.
Americans Slightly Taller, Much Heavier Than Four Decades Ago


Wednesday, October 27, 2004






Adult men and women are roughly an inch taller than they were in 1960, but are nearly 25 pounds heavier on average as well, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition, average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.

The report, “Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States,” prepared by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5-8 in 1960 to 5-9 ½ in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5-3 in 1960 to 5-4 in 2002.

Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

• Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:
• Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

For women, the near opposite trend occurred:

• Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

Meanwhile, the report documented that average weights for children are increasing as well:

• The average weight for a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 74.2 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 85 pounds.
• The average weight for a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was 77.4 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 88 pounds.
• A 15-year-old boy weighed 135.5 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight of a boy that age increased to 150.3 pounds.
• A 15-year-old girl weighed 124.2 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight for a girl that age was 134.4 pounds.

According to the report, average heights for children also increased over the past four decades. For example:

• The average height of a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 55.2 inches, by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old boy had increased to 55.7 inches.
• The average height of a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was about 55.5 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old girl had increased to 56.4 inches.
• In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5-7½; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5-8½.
• In 1996, the average height of a 15-year-old girl was 63.9 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old girl had not changed significantly (63.8 inches).

Average BMI for children and teens has also increased:

• In 1963, the average BMI for a 7-year-old boy was 15.9; in 2002 it was 17.0. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 15.8 to 16.6 over the same period.
• In 1966, the average BMI for a 16-year-old boy was 21.3; in 2002, it was 24.1. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 21.9 to 24.0 over the same period.

Your cases are from the 1960s, to me that already is the modern era. All the children numbers you show are for kids born post WWII, the post war era is the time of economic growth in the west, relative to the era of world wars and depression from before. So naturally, there is already benefits that lead to increased height and size. But if you run those same numbers from someone in the 1920s or 30s, there will be more of a gap.

[Mr Mitts]

This is tricky... We do see this in countries with real empirical affects from nutritional deficiencies. That much is a fact. There are even theories, like the idea Chinese martial arts had to build the body up considerably through forms (Tai Chi for example), to get people able to handle the stress of combat, given the general deficient physical symptoms people experienced... But in First world countries people had plenty of protein sources... People had access to nutritionally complete food sources and generally were quite robust. That is where the theory starts to apply less and less... It is possible but I do not believe it is probable.

People ate much better than we do today by many metrics... Again there are exceptions. Junk foods, processed foods are required to put certain vitamins in food to make sure people do not get sick, and this was not present back in the day... But even as late as the fifties, we see housewives putting gigantic steaks under the broiler lol...

I am not sure which people ate better. I do not believe a general statement works. Yes, some people ate better than moderns, and many, many, many more did not. I do not think I could claim: at least all those millions of dirt poor people we have always had were eating well.

[billeau2]

I am not sure which people ate better. I do not believe a general statement works. Yes, some people ate better than moderns, and many, many, many more did not. I do not think I could claim: at least all those millions of dirt poor people we have always had were eating well.

The sea traditionally had the highest quality proteins, then meat, then dairy. People in nutritionally deficiant areas had no access to these sources of protein.

[Willie Pep 229]

I am not sure which people ate better. I do not believe a general statement works. Yes, some people ate better than moderns, and many, many, many more did not. I do not think I could claim: at least all those millions of dirt poor people we have always had were eating well.

In the 1950s Kellogg and other companies (Post) added sugar to their corn flakes suggesting that mothers refrain from adding table sugar to their kids cereal. The amount of sugar consumed by kids went down.

Too much nostalgia; the past was seldom as good as remembered.

The point being, while today's processed foods are full of grease, sugar, and chemicals, we weren't eating that great in the first half of the 20th Century either.

I don't think its about better nutrition as I think it is more about calories. I.e. the abundance of food and its convenience.

IMHO That's what changed things in the second half of the 20th Century. Abundance ensured maxium growth opportunity, not necessarily a healthier being.

[Dr Z]

Perhaps you should confine yourself to the Lounge where you can indulge your interest in decades old *****phile cases to your hearts content? If I should ever get banned from here ,everyone will know who is responsible for it,and,unlike you I have other Boxing Forum.
options.
What part of any of my posts is Woke? Do you even know what the word stands for?
Manty
Thim
Is this code? lol


Issues with posters?There are two posters here I dislike.

Queensbury Fool,because he is a trolling waste of space.
And you, because you are a lying agenda driven bigot.
Don't threaten me,you moron.

You keep crying about things and trying to verbally assault others.. You can put me and others you fued with on ignore. Just a helpful hint.























And remember to keep your cane hand high.

[Bronson66]

You keep crying about things and trying to verbally assault others.. You can put me and others you fued with on ignore. Just a helpful hint.























And remember to keep your cane hand high.

I'm crying about nothing,just correcting you when you tell porkies! That's why you aren't on ignore,we can't have you telling lies without being corrected!. I'm feuding with no one.You and Queenie are the only ones I ,"verbally assault".Queenie likes it,what he fears is being ignored and going unnoticed.
Notice the spelling FEUD.lol

[Marchegiano]

I don't really follow TF happened to this thread.

I don't think Z is British are ya bud?



As far as the population stuff ... figures. I'm going to say this once and leave it:


You came over here with your big boats and told us where we live, what we have, what is value. You refused to listen when we defined our nature and told us we are evil by design. Remove us from the land, replace our culture with your own, and justify it with knowledge. All the while refusing to even consider our input.


You think I'm an ignorant savage? We have our own history, it might have some answers.


Science? Be more specific. Diet? Tell me exactly what you mean. Medicine? Whose?


We were the largest people on the planet. You came, you took our land, you took our food, and you it ate for yourselves. You became the largest people on the planet. You then made an economic engine out of the most fertile place on the planet that produces the best food on the planet to export around the planet. Those who eat American grown food are growing. Those who do not, are not. Amazing.

Y'all think England has the land to grow the beef to feed England? France do doe? How about good ol China? They got the means?


They growing in the west, eating our food we cultivated for eons, but go ahead and give that to your science too. Done did everything else we ever made ever anyway.

[Bronson66]

I don't really follow TF happened to this thread.

I don't think Z is British are ya bud?



As far as the population stuff ... figures. I'm going to say this once and leave it:


You came over here with your big boats and told us where we live, what we have, what is value. You refused to listen when we defined our nature and told us we are evil by design. Remove us from the land, replace our culture with your own, and justify it with knowledge. All the while refusing to even consider our input.


You think I'm an ignorant savage? We have our own history, it might have some answers.


Science? Be more specific. Diet? Tell me exactly what you mean. Medicine? Whose?


We were the largest people on the planet. You came, you took our land, you took our food, and you it ate for yourselves. You became the largest people on the planet. You then made an economic engine out of the most fertile place on the planet that produces the best food on the planet to export around the planet. Those who eat American grown food are growing. Those who do not, are not. Amazing.

Y'all think England has the land to grow the beef to feed England? France do doe? How about good ol China? They got the means?


They growing in the west, eating our food we cultivated for eons, but go ahead and give that to your science too. Done did everything else we ever made ever anyway.

Z lives in Florida,or at least that is what he told me.
Are you under the impression I am critiquing the US? Because I am not, it's a great country although it has the 9th most obese population in the world.
The only time I have ever eaten US beef was in NY it is virtually unknown in the UK or,at least I have never seen it advertised.
Your beef came for Spain in the 1400's and the cattle as we know them today came from Herefordshire and Devon in the UK.
In the US a lot of additives are allowed that are not permitted in the UK,whether that has any significance to the obesity problem in the States I don't know.
Americans are sure growing but horizontally not vertically.

I copied that earlier piece from the net as I thought it was germane to the subject,it's really not something that interests me that much.
What is interesting to me at the moment is the US' most recent stance on Ukraine,but this isn't the place for a debate on it.