It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Leahn
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Me and my girl go running a few times a week. I can run a lot longer then she can so i always push her. she ran 3 miles with me the other day. Thats the longest shes ever ran and we are getting fit togeather. Thats the key "together"
A 150 lb person will lose 100 calories by running a mile. Weighing less will cause the person to lose less. So, she lost 300 calories, more or less. This is two cans of diet coke. It is a lot of food if you eat correctly, but that's a big if.
reply to post by Suspiria
Look, the adults are trying to have a conversation here. Take your childish passive-agressive remarks somewhere else.edit on 21/10/2011 by Leahn because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by notquiteright
reply to post by Leahn
I'm sorry you spent time on a post because you thought I wanted or needed some explanation. I was offering up a statement. My dating days are way behind me. I'm married with children.
Originally posted by GonzoSinister
reply to post by Leahn
i do however feel the need to point out the middle ages bit is not entirely correct, generally speaking the preference (especially in europe) was for a slightly larger woman, not exactly fat but a uk size 12-16 (rather than a size zero) as this showed wealth however they then did cram such bodies into a whalebone corset to look thinner on the waist (but this combined with the weight gave them a rather fetching bust)
Originally posted by Chai_An
Choose your words wisely or you could find yourself ALONE.
Originally posted by SecondAmendmentUser
The trend of skinny sickly looking girls being "attractive" only came into being in the 60s. Until then a more shapely figure was the norm through out history.
Originally posted by Suspiria
Where's the passive? I'm being purely aggressive.