> “Now, it could be that on the whole we’re a lot larger now than even overweight medievals were, or that St. Thomas was never the portly friar described by his legend,” Father Aquinas quipped, adding, “Regardless, the stories of St. Thomas’ size are probably exaggerated.”
This is certainly in stark contrast to the centuries-long traditional notion of Aquinas' appearance, which may require some further detail why and how this choice was made. – I can see why the quoted father Aquinas should be excited by this "angelic" appearance, but this may be hardly sufficient to motivate a scientific choice. Personally, I can't see how the size of the skull (the sole evidence) should or could correlate with body mass.
I was watching an old game show with Bob Barker and one of the competitions was for people to guess stats about the "average" man, and then run around Hollywood looking for a man who matched that description. So each competitor would guess the average age, height, number of kids, etc. One woman guessed that the average man weighed 180 pounds and Bob Barker mocked her mercilessly for thinking that the average man is such a fatso.
That old OLine gets killed in P5 college football now.
When I was in college in the mid-80s, one of my fraternity brothers was a scholarship linebacker. A big, fast, strong man. He goes back every couple of years for the big 'meet the new players' event for those associated with the athletic association. He said that if he was that 18yo again in 2025, not only would he not be considered for a D1 scholarship, but he probably couldn't have made the practice squad of our D1 team. He'd be looking hopefully at someplace like Albany State or West Alabama for a scholarship.
Now I'm 260lbs and fat by any standard. What I wouldn't give to be 180lbs again.