What Fashion Insiders Think Of Glamour’s Plus-Size Model
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
style
11:30AM, Monday August 31st 2009
We told you all about how much positive response Glamour magazine has received from readers for the image of a nude plus-size model featured in the September issue. Lizzie Miller has since appeared on “Today” and copies of the magazine are selling out. Catherine wondered whether the overwhelmingly positive response would result in magazines, and the fashion industry, finally recognizing that beauty comes in a variety of shapes and sizes and that they would start featuring more models like Miller on a regular basis. The Sartorialist’s Scott Schuman wrote on his blog, “When I am shooting on the street older women and larger size women often say ‘no’ to my request to shoot them…. I think they have a real suspicion about how the image will be used. I also think there continues to be a growing disconnect between the fashion community and ‘average’ women in general.”
If a recent blog post from “style expert and bon vivant” Adrien Field is any indication, we still have a long way to go.
Field says that Miller is not normal-sized—actually, she’s “fat” and needs to step away from the Big Mac—and doesn’t understand why she’s being idolized. “I understand the impulse some women have to laud ‘normal’ bodies as beautiful, but why?” he writes. “Do we claim an average song to be a masterpiece? Is Milli Vanilli on the same plane as Mozart or even Madonna? This woman is pretty, don’t get me wrong, but I think fashion exists to fulfill a fantasy. I am frankly sick of the politically correct women seeking to make an idol over any woman that looks like she hasn’t been to the gym since No Doubt was on the Billboard 100.”
Field’s analogy is absurd and offensive because it assumes that the only body types that qualify to be “masterpieces” are those that fit within a very thin range. A true master like, say, Botticelli, would likely disagree. Never mind the fact that comparing body size to the musical accomplishments of Mozart is completely nonsensical. It should be noted that Field is a spritely little fellow and has likely never had to watch his diet at all. Though he may be in the “masterpiece” weight range, at a teensy 5’3, he’s still mighty flawed.
Sure, to a certain degree fashion is absolutely about fantasy. I still read Vogue even though I would and could never spend the enormous sums designers charge for their clothes. But fashion is also about function—we all have to wear clothes and, ideally, we’d all love to feel sexy, cute, and comfortable in what we’ve got on. Fashion cannot and should not be just for the elite—or the “masterpieces,” according to Field—because you need the masses to make money and if the success of this issue of Glamour is any indication, women will spend more when they feel good about themselves.
But this isn’t really about fashion or clothes, is it? It’s about the messages being sent to women about what is beautiful. For a long time now, that definition has been narrow and the results have been more devastating and far reaching than Field could possibly know. I find it interesting that Field says that the positive coverage of Miller’s photo is “endemic of our culture where over-consumption is encouraged,” because it’s clear the only consumption he’s referring to is of food. Over-consumption of food—which people actually need in order to live—is bad, but over-consumption of, say Restylane for your lips, fur for your back, and fad diets for your ignorant pie-hole—three of Field’s favorite things—are good? Field’s reaction to Miller’s photo is endemic of something far more revolting—how utterly shallow, out-of-touch, wasteful, and narrow-minded our culture can be.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
joyy
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:38 am: [report]
Oh wow. How is she not ‘normal sized’? She may not be ‘thin’ by fashion industry standards, but if that model is ‘fat’ in his eyes, he obviously lives a very, very sheltered life.
FloraPoste
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:41 am: [report]
Obviously, you could abstain from Big Macs and go to the gym daily and still look like that model. It’s all about genetics. I too enjoy the fantasy, but you could dress Lizzie to look just as beautiful as any size 0 model. THAT is the point the fashion industry is missing.
*sam*
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:43 am: [report]
that outfit he’s wearing looks like a bad 80s ‘corporate’ dress.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:43 am: [report]
His article doesn’t bother me, mostly because it confirms what I already know about the high-fashion world, and that is that it is a place of fantasy for the wealthy and out-of-touch. Why would I care what a gay dude thinks about my body? He’s really not going to find it attractive, no matter what. Curvy women like Miller are extremely unlikely to meet his coveted approval, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t beautiful.
Humble Bee
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:55 am: [report]
whatever, Liz miller gets way more cock than that dude.
He’s just mad at the world for being a 5’3 masterpiece of sh*t. NOT EVERYONE IS PERFECT, he should know that….
Humble Bee
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:56 am: [report]
*C_ock
AlisonNoelle
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:01 am: [report]
Hm. At 5’4” and a 130lbs am I fat too? I think not! Yeah I’ve got a bit of a belly. I’ve had kids and crunches suck. Yeah I’ve got big boobs and nice curvy hips and a nice round butt. How is this not normal? How is that beautiful woman not a “masterpiece”? Because she doesn’t starve herself to look like all the Barbies out there? Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:18 am: [report]
OK, straight men of teh Frisky! Please let Alison and the rest of us normal girls know how hot Miller looks up there. I really think its only girls with eating disorders and certain gay men who hate an ounce of fat on a woman’s frame.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:19 am: [report]
BTW, I apologize… that was a super tacky use of the word “normal.” As someone who’s pretty thin, myself, I don’t like when anyone implies there is an acceptable weight range and that skinny girls are somehow “abnormal.” Though I do think fashion pushes women to unnatural weights which usually can only be achieved though fad diets and anorexia.
AlisonNoelle
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:27 am: [report]
@Brandy meh…. What is normal? My guess is just when you are comfortable in your own skin. Who cares what other people’s concept of normal is?
_jsw_
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:37 am: [report]
@brandyalexander: As a SMOTF (Straight Man of TheFrisky), I can assure you that Lizzie absolutely looks hot.
The hottest thing about her - as mentioned by AlisonNoelle - is that she is comfortable with herself. Not every man is attracted to every body style, but a woman who is at peace with her appearance - no matter what that appearance happens to be - is always far more attractive than one who is not, all else being equal.
tk_2009
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:38 am: [report]
@brandy: She’s beautiful. PERIOD (in case you didn’t see the little one).
I find that most of the women that fashion designers fawn over lack many of the things that make them feminine: including, but not limited to, curves. I like women to look like women, seems simple, right? How many people, no matter what kind of shape they are in, can sit, leaning forward and not have a little pooch, or a fold here or there? I certainly can’t, and you won’t catch me complaining about it on anyone else, either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Making claims that there is some gold standard for physical beauty and it fits into a neat little category that involves less than 2% body fat is absurd and self serving, and comparing that to, say, music, or painting is equally absurd. That’s like saying a Kandinsky is less beautiful than a Picasso or Monet. Or a Beethoven is any less masterful than Ray Charles. Or Jack White, for that matter.
If he had said “nah, not for me, I like my women to look like teenage boys” he could be forgiven for having a preference, but to say that someone’s opinion is erroneous, a lot of someones in this case, based on his own idyllic standard is churlish at best. Who is the arbiter here? Him? Certainly not. I would imagine his idea of an “average” song would not match the opinions of many others.
_jsw_
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:43 am: [report]
As a side comment, I find that many women who have the “ideal” physique for fashion are often derided as being “too skinny” out in the real world, which means that, really, no matter what your body type, the world’s going to judge it as inadequate one way or another. Fortunately, though, it doesn’t much matter what the world thinks. All you need is one person who likes you as you are, and in a world this big? Such a person always exists.
betty123
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:44 am: [report]
“I am frankly sick of the politically correct women seeking to make an idol over any woman that looks like she hasn’t been to the gym since No Doubt was on the Billboard 100.”
Yeah and those models are working out at the gym all the time. Because a body that looks like a ten year old boy is the pinnacle of physical fitness.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:47 am: [report]
@Alison: I know, I know. Stupid word choice on my part. I agree with you.
@JSW and Tony: Gracias. Cheers to the SMOTF!
*sam*
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:50 am: [report]
@_jsw_: All you need is one person who likes you as you are, and in a world this big? Such a person always exists.
that made me all warm and fuzzy inside
_jsw_
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:53 am: [report]
@*sam*: I’m glad you liked it. I left out the part about it not always being easy to find them.
bogart4017
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:56 am: [report]
Hey, she looks just fine to me. Plus i like big thighs!
tk_2009
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:56 am: [report]
@betty: true enough. My wife and I watch the various Next Top Model shows from around the world, including Australia’s NTM. The Aussies always have a fitness episode where they make the girls do various things to show them how to stay in shape. Invariably the entire cast (mean age: 16) huffs and puffs and proves to have never even done a forward roll. This is all well and good, as I am not about to go do an Iron Man or anything, but it also shows what it takes to “look like a model” and it mostly involves genetics, lack of exercise and smoking. When my forearm has a larger diameter than their thigh, you know there is a problem.
tk_2009
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 11:58 am: [report]
P.S. we watch for the ridiculous drama and absurdity that these shows are rife with. The overall message is not a positive one, and we rarely agree with the judges, but is sure is amusing!
GDB79
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 12:12 pm: [report]
Things I’ve learned from reading this article…
1. What Pee-Wee Herman’s and Liza Minelli’s love child would look like.
2. Size 12 isn’t plus size, it’s perfect.
kmatter
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 12:38 pm: [report]
is she really a size 12? i would not have guessed that. i guess that means this bozo would call me fat too at a size 6 :p stupid ignorant people. but she’s absolutely lovely
hlnbabe
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 12:53 pm: [report]
I think most of what he is saying is crap.
However, I do think he has a brilliant point. We are applauding someone who is fat. I do not care who you are, where you’re from, there isn’t a doctor in the country that wouldn’t tell Lizzie she could lose some substantial weight of, I would guess, approximately 20lbs.
Are most models too thin? Yes. Is the fashion industry setting unattainable standards? Certainly. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean we should promote an equally unhealthy standard that it is okay to be fat. I’m sure there are plenty of woman out their that would argue we come in different shapes and sizes, to which I would say, “you’re right”. Still, our country’s obesity problem has grown exponentially in the last half century due to people eating too many Big-Macs and not working out. I’m okay with a cellulite softer model that looks like she works out and eats right. But this model, I do not. Women who claim they’re healthy at a size 12, I ask you, write down what you eat for an entire week and truly assess if your present weight is chalked up to “genetics”.
*sam*
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 12:57 pm: [report]
@hlnbabe: I understand what you’re saying, but I think it’s better to substitute ‘fat’ for ‘unhealthy.’ You can be healthy and be a size 12, just as you can be healthy and be a 2. It’s not so much a matter of sizes so much as it’s a matter of overall health.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:00 pm: [report]
I have to disagree. Lizzie isn’t fat at all. She is soft and womanly. She actually looks like she is in pretty good shape. She just has a poochy little belly, that’s all. And from what I hear from the SMOTF
, a lot of guys like that.
tk_2009
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:09 pm: [report]
@brandy & @sam: damn right!
hlnbabe
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:10 pm: [report]
@*sam*: Yes, you can be healthy at a size 12, if you’re like 7 feet tall. Most people could be healthierthan their size if they are a 12 and above. I’m 6’1”, I weigh about 150lbs, by National health standards I can weight up to 166lbs for my height. So say I weigh the National standard of 166lbs, I couldn’t fit in a size 12 if I wanted to. Now, take my sister, who is shaped completely differently then me (given god’s gift - hips and boobs) and about 4 inches shorter. If she were a size 12, she’d still be considered heavy. For someone to be a size 12, one has to be consuming far too many calories than one’s metabolism can handle, including too much saturated fat, sodium, and not enough fiber. All of which are unhealthy. A size 12 is not a standard for any body shape. I don’t care if you are the thick middle/skinny limbed person, the apple bottom jean chicka, or the luckier than hell bangin-bodied person. A size 12 means you are not consuming the proper nutrition for your body. Thus, unhealthy.
hlnbabe
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:12 pm: [report]
@Brandy: That’s great you like it. Otherwise, their would be a lot of unhappy people in the world. We obviously have to like each other’s flaws. I just don’t think we should applaud someone who could be healthier as being a healthy standard.
*sam*
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:16 pm: [report]
@hlnbabe: I’m certainly not a health guru, but I still think it’s possible to be a healthy size 12. IDK, I suppose one of my biggest qualms is equating health with a size rather than physical ability.
tk_2009
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]
Well, for one thing, woman’s clothing sizes seem to be largely arbitrary, so let’s not use that as our rubric for healthy or over/underweight. So she has a little extra body fat, women are supposed to, their bodies are in fact programmed to do so, especially women who have had children (and men are programmed to intrinsically respond to a certain ratio of waist to bust to hip sizes which happen to favor curves). And anyway, the debate here isn’t “is she healthy?” it’s “is she beautiful?”
Lola980
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:28 pm: [report]
My problem isn’t with this models’ weight at all. I just don’t see where she is ‘beautiful’ at all!!! I’ve seen bigger and better looking. Like loads of models look to me-ordinary!
I think Uma Thurman said it best-it went something like..” the girl behind the counter pouring your morning coffee could be prettier than me. The difference is she’s not in a position/profession to be thought of that way, so she won’t be.”
brandyalexander
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]
Huh, who knew you were so rad, Uma?
hlnbabe
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]
@*sam*: Ever heard of Vanity Sizing? A size 12 isn’t what it used to be. Did you know runners can still be fat? Because you only burn about 100 calories a mile. So if you run 3 miles a day, 4 times a week, you can still be fat because you eat like a heffer. Being fat means you’re unhealthy because extra weight contributes to a massive number or complications. So maybe we should be paying attention to both size and physical ability.
hlnbabe
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:33 pm: [report]
Dude, she’s pretty. But I just don’t like to see naked pouches.
Lola980
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:42 pm: [report]
Huh Brandy?
Nothing tricky here to figure out. Maybe Uma can help you turn the old brain on!
brandyalexander
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 01:49 pm: [report]
Woah, Lola, I was saying I liked your quote. Why so mean?
Lola980
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 02:19 pm: [report]
Sorry girl!
BigUglyCat
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 03:19 pm: [report]
Straight male here. I found Playboy centerfolds fascinating when I was 12 years old. Now, in my maturity (physical, anyway), I think Lizzie is absolutely ravishing! Imagine anyone chalking her off for that oh-so-slight wrinkle of flesh! As someone already pointed out, I just don’t see Scott as useful or relevant in this discussion.
greenwitch
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 03:47 pm: [report]
If you look at paintings of women throughout history, they are all portrayed “thicker”. Look at artwork done by Frazetta, Royo, Vallejo - all the women would be considered thick, muscular, curvy, whatever. The fact remains - classic art depicted women as they should be - curvy! Modern fantasy art depicts women as they should be - curvy! All this hype about the “beautiful” women that is supposedly society’s “norm” makes me sick! Who truly wants to have knobby knees, pointed elbows, protruding ribcages, jutting hipbones, sunken cheeks and a visible backbone? It’s disgusting, and it’s unhealthy. Marilyn Monroe was a size 14, Jayne Mansfield was a size 16 - I’m sticking with the classic version of beauty and I’m damn proud to be a 14!
Jenn27549
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 03:47 pm: [report]
@hlnbabe: That’s exactly the problem is that we keep increasing sizes so women don’t have to feel bad about it, but in reality they should be paying more attention. I’m not saying that “a little” pouch or extra weight is bad, but so many people start with a little and keep getting lazier and end up with alot. You don’t go to bed one night weighing 120 and wake up the next morning at 220. We justify bigger and bigger bodies as “normal” and say it’s genetic, or they have a disorder, or the worst “addicted” to food. I don’t like stick thin, either, and this lady in the picture is certainly in a normal-looking healthy range, but soooo many people are not, and I think that is the point Field is trying to make.
greenwitch
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 03:55 pm: [report]
@Jenn27549: Just because a woman doesn’t do 50 stomach crunches each day does NOT mean that she’s lazy or unhealthy. You can have a paunch and still be healthy.
_jsw_
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 03:55 pm: [report]
@Jenn27549: I agree with you about how we fool ourselves and supply excuses which aren’t really valid. People weigh a lot more on average today than they did 20 years ago, and I suspect genetics haven’t shifted all that much in that time. I mainly blame our ironic insistence on non-fat foods (the ones that get that way with the addition of sweeteners as opposed to ones which have always been non-fat) for much of it, as well as the fact that we consume far more prepared food than we used to.
I eat food I shouldn’t, and I weigh more than I should, but I don’t think that I’m justified just because it’s what everyone else is doing too. I need to eat better and exercise more. I do think that we should accept people as they are, but I do not think we should be giving the message that it’s OK to be overweight. It’s OK to be overweight and aware of it and trying to become healthier. It’s not OK just to be overweight and relishing it. That said, the fashion mags consider “overweight” to be far less weight than medical professionals consider to be actually unhealthy.
joyy
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]
@_jsw_ - standards for healthiness change over the years too. But I still agree that any reference of this model’s weight/size as anything but normal is ridiculous. The douche had to be referring to what normal in the modeling world looks like, but unless you have the tall stick-figure genes (I say that with affection as my bf is one of them
), then the model-industry brand of normal is anything but.
_jsw_
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 04:06 pm: [report]
@joyy: I completely agree about the standards for health and beauty changing. I just know that people in general weigh a lot more than they did a few decades ago, and now it seems that everyone’s chalking it up to “genetics” when really it’s “changing diet and reduced activity”. I also wish clothing sizes were based on government standards or actual, oh, measurements so that my size 36 pants were actually 36” around the waist instead of the much larger amount they actually are so that I can claim to wear size 36 pants that would have been a 42 or whatever in 1989. It’s OK to be bigger, to an extent, but it’s not OK to fool ourselves into thinking we’re not actually bigger.
tk_2009
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 04:17 pm: [report]
You know, interestingly enough, women’s clothing sizes have gotten smaller over the last 50 years. A size 16 in 1950 would be perhaps a size 8, maybe a 10, now.
http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.asp
Probably a moot point here, but still interesting.
I think the healthy distinction is what’s important here. If you really are healthy, then that’s the bottom line. I hardly think that applauding this woman’s self confidence is self serving rationalization, I think Field’s comments are out of bounds in that he is using her as an example of America’s obesity problem. As jsw said, “overweight” for the so called normal does not jive what what Field and his industry are telling society.
Shasta
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 04:49 pm: [report]
Cut the #&@$% with the health. This is about what people find attractive.
This whole “fat acceptance” is ludicrous. I accept you. I’m not going to kill you.
It’s YOU who doesn’t accept you. It’s YOU who insists on dieting endlessly to get to a size whatever to attract a certain type of guy.
There is a hard truth to Fat and Beauty: While Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are personal preferences, there are certain proportions that men (and women) biologically and objectively find attractive.
I think we can all agree that Brad Pitt and Angelina are both beautiful specimens, not because of “who they are on the inside,” but because they won the evolutionary lotto and are physically gorgeous.
All of us implicitly understand how things work but want to believe otherwise. That’s why the average-looking folk have the best personalities. They knew they had to work in order to compete.
Life is not fair, but it’s easier if you accept the realities.
Coral
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 05:32 pm: [report]
I agree with many of you. And I find that no matter what weight you are, you are still going to be judged and scrutinized for it. I am a size 0/2 and 5’4”, yet many people will tell me that I’m too thin. I’m still young, and it has always been hard to put on weight with my metabolism, but people’s comments still affect me sometimes. I work out a lot and dance 5-7 times a week. I eat fairly healthy, but of course, I eat food that I shouldn’t be eating. And even though I’m thin, I still have a bit of pudge on my stomach. And I just accept it—I really don’t care that much. I think the model above looks gorgeous and I think it’s great to show people of all shapes and sizes. And of course, we all want to be at a healthy weight, but there isn’t one set range where everyone should be at.
hlnbabe
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 07:28 pm: [report]
@tonykeuhn: You seem to have misinterpreted your article. Or maybe our point that clothes are getting bigger. We are so shallow that we can’t handle seeing an ever increasing dress size that companies have made the smaller sizes bigger!! Take Marilyn being a 16, if that’s equivalent to today’s 8/10 means that today’s clothes are bigger than 50 years ago.
If a size 16 dress today were identical in proportions to when Marilyn Monroe’s was alive, then the average American would be wearing like a 28. We have catered to people’s sensitivity and chubbiness so much that to make those size 28s feel better, we tell them its actually a 14. So, no clothes have NOT SHRUNK, they’ve GROWN.
beeper
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 09:20 pm: [report]
I think her pooch is gross. Yuck.
canadiancutie
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:45 pm: [report]
Has no one noticed that she is bending over?
Arms - normal
Love Handles - Non-existent
Thighs - Normal
Gut - Not normal BUT, she is leaning over
So standing upright, she may very well have a fairly flat tummy.
This woman is not a plus-size model. She’s a medium at best. And if she’s a medium… how on earth did she get someone in the fashion industry to give her a job???!
mmkw
wrote on August 31 2009 @ 10:56 pm: [report]
@hlnbabe
“For someone to be a size 12, one has to be consuming far too many calories than one’s metabolism can handle, including too much saturated fat, sodium, and not enough fiber. All of which are unhealthy.”
Thats actually not true. I’m also 6’1 and my natural size is a size 12. This remained true when I was a member of a Big 10 university’s rowing team where I worked out INTENSELY 6 days a week, at least 2 hours a day, and my nutrition was monitored by nutrition specialists. I could run 5 miles a day with ease and ate really well. I found myself around 180lbs which my trainers thought that was just fine. Just because YOU could never fit into a size 12 at 6’1 doesnt make it unnatural. It just means we have different body types. I got my father’s broader build (broad shoulders and hips) and my sister, who is also 6’0, got my mother’s narrower build and finds herself around an 8.
If you want to judge by physical fitness, there it is. I will never be in better shape in my life than I was then and I was still a size 12.
And I made it look good! hahaha
lovepops/centralpark
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 12:12 am: [report]
I love her give me more!!!!!
retro chic
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 12:40 am: [report]
She looks like Robin Wright (Penn) would look if she lived outside of the public eye. Or, Jenny in Forrest Gump, had she lived and enjoyed life and a few good southern meals.
retro chic
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 12:54 am: [report]
PS: Frisky, re type. I know you’re trying to find the “right size,” but your PLUS-SIZE CAPITALS on the commenters’ names is too much for my frame. Since we’re all different shapes and sizes, why not retain our natural Upper and Lower case proportions!? As for the italics? Too forward for my “retro” chic, otherwise I’m forced change my name to “neo” chic. Happy to be me the way I was born, er, registered. Thanks!
retro chic
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 01:01 am: [report]
PPS to above: Names are OK on the post/thread, just not the Chatter page.
brandyalexander
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 07:46 am: [report]
Canadiancutie: I know! The only thing remotely plus-sized about her is her little belly. And almost everyone has a fold when they sit like that…
What I think is most interesting is the look on her face… its like she just doesn’t give a damn. Even if she was “fat,” I think, with that expression, people would still find her kinda sexy.
hlnbabe
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:17 am: [report]
@mmkw: That’s great. I’d still think you’re unhealthy cause as I’ve said it’s not just fitness or weight. It’s both. Health is a construction of not just how “fit” you are, but your weight. People think because they can run 5 miles they’re “healthy”. That is 50% of the equation. At 180 pounds, your BMI for your height is approximately 24%. 25% is considered overweight. 1% higher and you are classified in a category that means your body goes through greater strain to function. I don’t think its healthy that your body has to work harder to be alive. I think it’s healthy if you could run those 5 miles and not eat those second helpings of dorm food.
PinkRanger
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:20 am: [report]
@hlnbabe: bmi’s are bullsh*t, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/56296/the_bmi_indicator_of_heart_disease.html
ever think maybe mmkw has greater muscle mass then you do that makes her weigh more instead of “second helpings of dorm food”? She is a dedicated athlete after all.
hlnbabe
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 01:29 pm: [report]
@PinkRanger: Maybe I would assume she had more muscle mass… But I was also a Div 1 athlete and an All-American, so no.
joyy
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]
Yeah I’m also calling bullsht on BMIs as a quality hard and fast standard on what is healthy and what is not. My bf is 6’2” and about 155 lbs (he’s got scandanavian model-type genes - his 5’11” sister actually modeled for a while). His BMI says he’s underweight, but his genes, a healthy diet, and a high activity leve/metabolism don’t really let him put weight on to what would really be the ‘normal’ range. BMI is a good place to start when evaluating overall health, but it’s not a golden standard of defining what is an isn’t healthy for each individual.
joyy
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 01:36 pm: [report]
*close to underweight. 155 is actually heavy for him.
GreenAura
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]
I also agree about BMI’s being crap (for the most part). It might be a good base, but don’t consider it fact. According to the chart, I’m underweight… but anyone who knows me, knows that I am a curvy girl and obviously healthy, not underweight at all. BMI’s don’t account for muscle mass or bone density.
I think h1nbabe just wants to start a fight.
PinkRanger
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 02:22 pm: [report]
@h1nbabe: just because you’re also an athlete doesn’t mean your body type or muscle mass is the same. You were referencing her bmi to say she is unhealthy, and the medical community has all but rejected the bmi, especially when it comes to healthy weights for athletes. My comment is still completely valid.
Riley
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 03:00 pm: [report]
@Brandyalexander - I don’t think she is attractive, but that is just me.
mmkw
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 03:46 pm: [report]
“I think it’s healthy if you could run those 5 miles and not eat those second helpings of dorm food.”
Well that was mean. I can assure you, I didn’t take any second helpings of dorm food. Nor did I drink any sugared beverages or eat fried, powdered, fatty, etc foods because I knew they would affect my performance as an athlete. Also if you knew anything about BMI’s you would know that they aren’t very accurate where muscle is concerned, as muscle weighs more than fat. If you’ve ever seen a collegiate rower, you can tell that there is a lot of muscle there. I also never said that I was petite, or anything smaller than a size 12. I am who I am and no amount of crazing dieting would change that. All I was trying to point out is that there is such a huge variety of body types out there that its not okay to base them around your own experience. I was offering mine up as an example and you threw it back in my face rather than appreciating the fact that I put myself out there as another human being. Maybe try to be a little more open minded and consider that people come in all shapes and sizes rather than assume that my body type is due to second helpings of food.
mmkw
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 03:53 pm: [report]
and this is a quote from pinkranger’s article, just to back up what I already stated:
“But new research put out by the Mayo Clinic indicates that the BMI might not be the best indicator for obesity after all. An athletic, muscular man who is 5’10” and 200 pounds comes up “overweight” on the BMI scale because of his muscle mass. Muscle weighs more than fat, so simply using height and weight is not an accurate measure of a person’s fitness.”
velvet-steamroller
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 03:58 pm: [report]
The funny thing is that if our culture hadn’t thrown so many women into a self-esteem tizzy—if fashion itself didn’t have the power to do so—the guy quoted in the article wouldn’t raise my eyebrows. If fashion models were expected to look like fashion models, and accountants and editors and baristas were supposed to look like accountants and editors and baristas, I’d be happy to accept seeing tall, skinny, vacant-eyed fashion models. It would be in the realm of fantasy—fantasy that it’s the clothes that matter, not the people wearing them, a sort of Christian Dior candyland.
But that’s not the case. Accountants and editors and baristas are supposed to look like fashion models (except not even that—as JSW pointed out above, women with that physique are sometimes derided in the “real world” as being freakishly thin). Our culture holds fashion modeling up as the epitome of womanhood somehow, which means that it’s no longer a place of fantasy but a dangerous dictum on what women should be.
purplearies
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:40 pm: [report]
hlnbabe, I’m going to call BS on pretty much everything you have said here. Claiming that a size 12 individual cannot possible be healthy has to be the most ludicrous thing I have read on the internet all day. Health has little to do with a person’s dress size or actual weight.
First off, the BMI is USELESS when it comes to a person’s health. But if you’re so keen on it, maybe you should know that women in the “overweight” category have LOWER mortality rates than those in the “normal” category. Or perhaps you would like to know that “morbidly obese” women have LOWER mortality rates than those in the “underweight” category. Maybe that is because anorexia is more dangerous and fatal than obesity even has been on society. How many obese people can you claim have drop dead at 35? Because that is the average life-span on a woman who suffers from anorexia.
Also, a person’s size has NOTHING to do with their eating habits. The so called “obesity crisis” has actually been caused by people trying to lose weight - 95% of diets will fail. In fact, dieting causes MORE DAMAGE to the body than obesity.
Basically, you are making judgment calls on people who don’t live up to your personal standards - in other words, being a major #&@$%. You can’t take YOUR personal standards and apply them to other individuals, because the human body is not a monolith. Plus, your little snipes at fat people pretty much tell me your real agenda here, which is your blatant hatred of fat people.
If you’re interested in educating yourself:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/
http://obesityhc.blogspot.com/
http://kateharding.net/
http://the-f-word.org/blog/
http://www.haescommunity.org/
http://www.healthyweightnetwork.com/
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/
purplearies
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:44 pm: [report]
“Maybe try to be a little more open minded and consider that people come in all shapes and sizes rather than assume that my body type is due to second helpings of food.”
A mind is like a parachute - it works best when open.
And the brain is 70% fat, by the way. Better get to work on that, hlnbabe. Your brain might suffer from obesity!
hlnbabe
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 09:07 am: [report]
Luckily, many people out there, such as yourselves, are more receptive to the variety of body shapes and sizes so that women everywhere can feel beautiful. I’m just not one of them. I have set a very high internal standard for fitness, health, and beauty. Consequently, Lizzie just doesn’t appeal to my standard. That does not mean that I cannot appreciate her as a person. Moreover, I find her quite attractive. I just don’t want to see her naked and I don’t think she should be “idolized” as an example of “health”. Some of you may find my thought process “underdeveloped” or an “unopened umbrella”, possibly even “shallow”. That’s cool. I think that most of you are egregiously deluded as well. We’ll keep it mutual.
I also want to apologize for the “second helpings” comment I made at mmkw, it was in poor taste. Hypocritical as well, I must admit, as I enjoy second helpings myself on occasion, and particularly thirds - on Thanksgiving.
develange
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 08:23 pm: [report]
I’m just wondering…did they still photoshop out any cellulite and skin imperfections? I know there are women who have near perfect skin, but it’s like…if they’re gonna make an effort to change their image and show “real” women, why not cut back on photoshopping, too? But she could very well have perfect skin…
PinkRanger
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 11:09 pm: [report]
@develange: In a bigger shot, you can see some faint stretch marks on her hips, so I know it’s not completely airbrushed, but it wouldn’t surprise me.