A Weighty Matter

Posted March 31, 2010 by Tracy in Miscellaneous | 25 Comments

How the hell did women in historical times stay trim – or at least not be the size of a small whale? For some reason I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Maybe it’s because I keep telling myself I’m going to start exercising and eating more healthy foods. Yeah, right. Anyway, the thought has crossed my mind numerous times and so I thought I’d put it out there. All of you can answer my questions for me since I’m shit at doing research and can’t be bothered! lol
I read at least 4 or 5 historical romances a month. In all of these the women eat 3 meals a day – and if they are having callers or making calls they are having tea and biscuits on top of it…sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the afternoon…sometimes both. Not to mention that one of the 3 meals they are having are most likely at a ball, especially during the Season, late at night, and they’re eating a 5 to 7 course meal.
Now that I’ve mentioned food I have to mention exercise…or the lack thereof. These women who are eating all of this food are sewing for entertainment. They’re strolling in the park or the gardens. They’re settling on the settee for a good read. They’re playing a rousing game of whist. Unless of course they’re in the country and then they’re doing a bit of horse back riding, which is good exercise.
All this brings me, once again, to my question: how the hell did women in historical times stay relatively trim? Or, at least not look like the Stay-Puff Marshmallow man? Now I know that women back then tended to be a little “fuller”, should I say. (Yeah, that’s a good term for me, fuller). They didn’t have the magazines flaunting anorexic models and certainly didn’t have television showing them unbearably thin women that they felt they needed to live up to. But really, how did they do it? Was it all the tea? Does tea have magical weight maintaining qualities? *makes note to contact Jenre*
There’s probably not one good answer but since my mind works in mysterious ways I had to get it down on paper (so to speak) and see what others thought on this subject as well. 
So what do you think? Tell me your thoughts. Tell me your reasonings. Or, if you want, just tell me I’m nuts and move on, no harm done.


Tagged: ,

25 responses to “A Weighty Matter

  1. Tam

    Their portions were about 1/4 what our's are for starters. And in books I think they like to put lots of details to interest us, but I'll be they would have tea and a small slice of bread for breakfast, and their dinner would be significantly smaller. Even though there were 7 courses, think about fancy schmancy restaurants. It's not Denny's. They didn't get the grand slam pheasant plate piled 8 inches high with food.

    Plus as you said, they were fuller, except in books where they are always 21st century model thin.

  2. Agree with Tam, also I don't think they ate much sugar and no processed foods with High Frutcose Corn Syrup (I think that's the baddie) and no soda.

    Maybe I should try a "17th Century Diet" LOL!

  3. Agree with both the ladies above — small portions throughout the day & different foods. Plus, the idea of beauty and trim then is not the idea of beauty and trim now (or even here in the States — other cultures have other ideas on beauty, even now). Women were fuller and that was considered beautiful. Thin and muscled was not in… just look at the old paintings of the women that were considered beauties.

  4. You're nuts.. No I just had to say it, you told me too! LMBO!

    Seriously, I agree with everyone above me. It was all about portion sizes to them. And fuller (I use that word to describe myself, lol) was seen as a thing of beauty.

    That is what I love about reading historical novels.. the woman are real. They are Me Size!

    I am laughing and agreeing with Patti ->"Maybe I should try a "17th Century Diet" LOL!"

  5. Hello?! Haven't we learned anything we've read in historical romance novels? The constant sex they were having in the library, gazebo, garden, woods… etc… burns at least a good 500 calories a day.

  6. I'd agree with the smaller portions, and also with the un-processed food idea. No Hostess Ho-Ho's or Doritos or Big Macs etc.

    And did those corsets have anything to do with anything?

  7. I figure the sweating from the weight of all those fabrics (heavy dresses, corsets, 15 layers of undergarmets, and in some periods, two foot tall hair-dos and ornaments) combined with no air conditioning, and the calories expended waving a fan around would keep some of the weight off.

    But I agree that no matter how many courses were served, they probably ate bird-sized portions.

    "Or, if you want, just tell me I’m nuts and move on, no harm done."

    *whistles innocently*

  8. Processed foods, baby! *snacks on Doritos and takes a sip of Coke*

    And only the very rich would have a life of leisure. Vast majority of people were probably starving!

  9. I agree with Tam probably portion sizes and also they had to walk everywhere right? Also snickers & fruit loops weren't invented back then, I refer to this as the 'dark ages'.

  10. Don't forget — they also did a great deal of horse riding — and if you have ever seen the English style of riding where they have to use their whole body to remain upright in those side saddles, you will know that they also do a lot of calorie burning. They walk a great deal — I can't believe how much they walked. Just refer back to Pride and Prejudice where the Bennett girls were walking miles each day to go to town or a neighbor or some such. Even in London they were walking, walking, walking. Makes me tired to think about it . . .

  11. If you read the journals of L.M. Montgomery, you'll know right away how she stayed so trim. She walked everywhere, all the time, sometimes miles–with hardly a mention of being tired afterward. And in all those heavy skirts and uncomfortable-looking shoes…that had to burn a few calories.

    She also did some house cleaning, despite having maids, and she assisted in the heavy-duty fall and spring cleanings. Just keeping house back then was surely enough exercise for one person. What they had to go through every Monday doing the laundry–oh my God. Wears me out, just reading about it.

    She even mucked out the stables on occasion, when her husband was incapacitated.

    So even with the huge amount of time she spent writing and reading, she got plenty of exercise.

  12. Tam – OMG lmao The "grand slam pheasant plate". Dude, you crack me up.
    I figured their portions were smaller but still…

    Patti – oh good point – no processed food.

    Hilcia – I think I'm living in the wrong time. lol. It's true the "vision" of what beauty was was so different.

    Cecile – I knew someone would do it…glad it was you. 🙂
    It can be a new fad that you and Patti and I begin – the 17th Century Diet. I swear we'd have Hollywood on it's head with everyone trying to scramble to do it! lol

    KB – You're so right! I'm ashamed to have not let my pervish side out so that it could use my brain as well. The Sex. Of course, that was it.
    Although….according to my Food Diary 20 minutes of vigorous sexual activity only burns 11 calories. lol

    Wren – no Ho Ho's? Those poor unfortunate souls. 🙂
    I think the corsets kept everything in but it also pushed it up and down. I don't think I'd need anymore emphasis on my lower half, thank you. lol

    Bev – Whyever are you whistling? lol
    Now were the women eating the bird size portions or were they serving bird sized portions?
    TRUE! The dresses, no air and having to keep their necks from not breaking from the do's. I did not think of that. See – I'm learning more by the minute!

    Jill – Well, not that's just depressing – but probably all too true. *sips Starbucks*

    SHB – OMG no fruit loops? They suffered horribly, didn't they?
    Yep – you all are right the whole processed food thing would do it.

    Chris – I love that you're a woman of few words. 🙂

    Dr J.- I did think of the horse riding – score one for me. lol The walking – yes, I guess if you lived out of "town" you were walking quite a bit. But what about those women in "town" didn't they just stroll?

    Tamara – Yes, I guess if you weren't a complete person of leisure you would be working pretty hard to keep your household going. I keep forgetting (and it's been mentioned several times here) that the dresses weighed a freaking ton! I can't imagine mucking out stalls in one of those outfits. Wow. Oh and the laundry. Holy cow – I hate doing it now, I can't imagine what they had to go through. 🙂

  13. Lea

    Very late to the party here, and as Chris indicated I think everyone else has covered the salient points very well.

    Excellent post and I enjoyed reading the comments too.

  14. Lea

    Very late to the party here, and as Chris indicated I think everyone else has covered the salient points very well.

    Excellent post and I enjoyed reading the comments too.

  15. Honestly, I don't think it's possible to eat more than one bite while wearing a corset. You'd be full after that!

    Plus as you said, they were fuller, except in books where they are always 21st century model thin.

    And what Tam said. I think their size (in the books) has been 'edited' to reflect current model standards. If you look at paintings, they are a lot curvier/fuller…but then that could also be a sign of the times…

    That's why I liked Eloisa James' Pleasure for Pleasure. Ignore the cover – the heroine is curvy through and through!

  16. Lea – always nice to see you. 🙂

    Orannia – Oh I forgot about the corset would make you eat small portions. Good point.

  17. What a fun discussion… sorry I'm late on board. Without reading through all of the comments and seeing that I'm probably repeating what someone else said already, I'd say that the food quality and flavors sucked so who'd want to do more than nibble? Even *I'd* get tired of bread, wine, apples and cheese at some point. Eventually. LOL.

  18. Cool topic Tracy… A good discussion going on in comments..

    I agree with all said – I'll also add that size was revered in some society…

    Size went hand in hand with wealth – so the richer you were, you fatter /plumper you were…

    Check out some of the Italian art work.

    E.H>

  19. EH – Thanks!
    I didn't think about the wealth/weight thing but if you think about it it makes complete sense. I still think I needed to have lived in that time and been revered for my size. lol

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.