I just wondered to myself whether the average women today would be faster than the average women in 1700. What do you all think? Would it be about the same?
I just wondered to myself whether the average women today would be faster than the average women in 1700. What do you all think? Would it be about the same?
Wouldn't the women from the 1700's be used to being on their feet longer hours, maybe have more leg and upper body strength from doing more strenuous chores? The average woman back then might be thinner than the average woman now as well.
Reefer Madness wrote:
Wouldn't the women from the 1700's be used to being on their feet longer hours, maybe have more leg and upper body strength from doing more strenuous chores? The average woman back then might be thinner than the average woman now as well.
Try this article
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletics/comment/0,10083,1207844,00.htmlMight be thinner? The average woman from your grandma's and great grandma's generation where thinner than the average woman now. The average woman of today would have been considered fat prior to the 1970s.
LA is not the real world. Do this in Green Bay, WI. Real American girls.
Speeeedy wrote:
You forgot she would have those hand weights and a fanny pack with a bottle of water, an i-pod and AF baseball cap with her hair in a pony tail out the back. Then at 200 meters she would take a cell phone call.
After she finished the 400 meters, she would have this overwhelming sense of accomplishment.
...and would then hop in her SUV, drive two blocks to the nearest Starbucks and get a half-caf decaf skinny mochachino with low fat whip cream on top.
Better have the EMS close at hand.