misssmartypants Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 1) I know I'm heavy. I also know that I can and am doing things to counter act that. 2) I am happy with how I look most days. If I am unhappy, its more an issue of my hair not cooperating or my mascara smeared than "I hate my body. I love my body, it does great things for me. 3) The argument between Tara and the other guy is what I was afraid would happen. Guys who are shallow are going to look at what "beautiful" women - models, actresses, and porn stars, weight and say "that's average for healthy women. Women are going to look at what the average weight of the general population is and say that's average for women. The truth is that many populations of developed countries are overweight by medical definitions. Female performers tend to be underweight. Oh, and the all hallowed BMI - was developed by a Dutch statistician to determine the average size of a Dutch peasant. In the 1600s. It had nothing to do with health, it was a population study, of a small group, in a time when most people didn't have enough to eat. Link to post Share on other sites
Feelsgoodman Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm happy to not discuss American football. You also should not speak of things you have no clue of. The BBC came up with some updated figures on average BMI rates in Europe. Here you are. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6148456.stm It shows Italy lowest at 24.3. For a 5 ft 4" woman that would be 142 pounds. Check it out for yourself. You can't get much more reliable than the BBC, though I'm sure you'll want to argue that it's all wrong. Feel free, and also feel free to provide some credible stats to support your argument....but I'm done. If that study is accurate (which is a big IF, given that the news story is by Buggers Broadcasting Communism), it shows that the Europeans are following the Americans in becoming overweight slobs. This certainly wasn't the case even a decade ago. A pretty sad turn of events. Link to post Share on other sites
thatone Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 gonna have to disagree with ya on knocking the BBC, i actually wish american news was as good as theirs is . Link to post Share on other sites
fortyninethousand322 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 some of them would. look at roy williams (the safety not the receiver). he's played as high as 240, at 6'0". btw if you want to see a weight loss miracle look at nate newton. former lineman for the dallas cowboys for those not familiar. in his playing days he was around 330-340. he's lost down to 180. saw an interview with him and he was joking about trying to go to a practice to see old friends and security wouldn't let him in because they didn't recognize him, lol. btw for those overseas it's amazing how much those guys have to eat. they can lose as much as 10 pounds over the course of a single game, just sweating it out. they have to eat about 5000 calories a day to maintain the weight. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700079926/Game-plan-Food-is-fuel-for-Y-and-U-football-players.html Haloti Ngata is 6'4" and 345 lbs. He doesn't look "fat" at all. Link to post Share on other sites
Feelsgoodman Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 gonna have to disagree with ya on knocking the BBC, i actually wish american news was as good as theirs is . That's not saying much. Compared to CNN and the like, even the Iraqi Ministry of Information would be a step up Link to post Share on other sites
thatone Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Haloti Ngata is 6'4" and 345 lbs. He doesn't look "fat" at all. there's something in the water over there with those guys, though. did you see that 60 minutes report about samoan football players? they had a kid on there who was 6'8" and about 270, who climbed coconut trees to harvest coconuts by hand, and he wasn't even fully grown yet, he was only 17. gravity shouldn't allow someone that big to be that nimble... That's not saying much. Compared to CNN and the like, even the Iraqi Ministry of Information would be a step up true, but at least when they wanna talk about afghanistan they have a guy with a camera standing on the ground in...you know...afghanistan, rather than a bunch of suits in a studio who have never been there. i do give them credit for that. our news is so cheap in comparison. Link to post Share on other sites
Feelsgoodman Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 true, but at least when they wanna talk about afghanistan they have a guy with a camera standing on the ground in...you know...afghanistan, rather than a bunch of suits in a studio who have never been there. i do give them credit for that. our news is so cheap in comparison. Having a camera on the ground does not make them any less biased in the way they report news on certain subjects (i.e. Middle East, Russia). The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is basically a mouthpiece for the British government, which I guess isn't surprising considering that it's a crown corporation.. Link to post Share on other sites
thatone Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Having a camera on the ground does not make them any less biased in the way they report news on certain subjects (i.e. Middle East, Russia). The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is basically a mouthpiece for the British government, which I guess isn't surprising considering that it's a crown corporation.. regardless of what you think of dan rather, you should watch his show on HDNet sometime, if you haven't seen it. it's 100% interviews and on-location reporting. there's no commentary, no debates from opposing opinions, and thus virtually no talking points and hot air. it's strictly old school news reporting, only with better video. it's a good example of what i'm talking about. the way i see it, if i'm gonna pay for cable TV to watch the news, the least they could do is send a guy to take some original video and pictures of the places they're talking about rather than inviting two talking heads who are promoting their books to shout at each other for a few minutes and accomplish nothing in the way of actual information about a place or event. Link to post Share on other sites
lino Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 at the person who said Australia is thin! Probably only the Americans have this place beat in terms of fat people. If that study is accurate (which is a big IF, given that the news story is by Buggers Broadcasting Communism), it shows that the Europeans are following the Americans in becoming overweight slobs. This certainly wasn't the case even a decade ago. A pretty sad turn of events. That's exactly what is happening, in western Europe anyway. West Europeans aren't as thin as you think. The ones from the eastern countries are thinner on average though. The only area I've ever visited where there is next to nobody overweight is East Asia. Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm in too. 33 (nearly 34) 5' 8" 142lbs children: 1 (gained over 40lbs when pregnant) I've been told recently to stop losing weight because I am looking "too thin", but yesterday I went swimming with a friend who is the same height as me and is normally nearly 15lbs lighter than I am. She is currently 6mths pregnant and STILL looks better in a bathing suit than I do. Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 PS average size varies depending on country and brand of clothes UK Size 10/12 US size 6/8 NZ/AUS size 10/12 Link to post Share on other sites
fortyninethousand322 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 regardless of what you think of dan rather, you should watch his show on HDNet sometime, if you haven't seen it. it's 100% interviews and on-location reporting. there's no commentary, no debates from opposing opinions, and thus virtually no talking points and hot air. it's strictly old school news reporting, only with better video. it's a good example of what i'm talking about. the way i see it, if i'm gonna pay for cable TV to watch the news, the least they could do is send a guy to take some original video and pictures of the places they're talking about rather than inviting two talking heads who are promoting their books to shout at each other for a few minutes and accomplish nothing in the way of actual information about a place or event. And usually the authors of said books are former politicians not actual experts on the regions in question. When's the last time you saw Tariq Ali, Vali Nasr or David Kilcullen on CNN? Link to post Share on other sites
Feelsgoodman Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm in too. 33 (nearly 34) 5' 8" 142lbs children: 1 (gained over 40lbs when pregnant) I've been told recently to stop losing weight because I am looking "too thin", but yesterday I went swimming with a friend who is the same height as me and is normally nearly 15lbs lighter than I am. She is currently 6mths pregnant and STILL looks better in a bathing suit than I do. People who tell you to stop losing weight because you "look too thin" are insecure women who don't want you be fitter than they are. Link to post Share on other sites
D-Lish Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm female, 41. 5'7", 114 lbs. I fluctuate between this weight and 130. Because of recent depression and anxiety issues I am on the lower end of the scale currently. I am happy being 120-125lbs. Link to post Share on other sites
Hot Chick Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 5'8, 135 I have to work at this. I do basic weight training and cardio for 45 minutes to an hour each day, 5 days a week, with a long walk on another day, rest day one day a week. I have to constantly watch what I'm eating. It's really important to me to have muscle definition, but I am not the type who will fanatically work out with P90X and such to look "ripped." I am a size 6 to 8 depending on the manufacturer. I'm pretty happy with how I look. My last boyfriend thought I looked like a swimsuit model, but I didn't see that of course. Being in my mid-30's, that is a great compliment! Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Erased Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm 23, 5'1 and currently 127 pounds. Size 10 Australian. I'm most comfortable at least 10 pounds lighter but that's just not happening with my health problems. I'm sure I'll survive. Link to post Share on other sites
Rando Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 At 5'5", 170 is probably not very healthy unless you do a lot if weight lifting (I.e. Muscle weight) Link to post Share on other sites
welikeincrowds Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Underweight at 6'1.5" and 154lbs. (Currently on a bulk to change this.) In pants sizes, I'm about a true 30, but in practice that number is meaningless. I get dunked (hydrostatic) I'd like to do this someday. One thing that's annoying about dieting is that body fat is such a mystery. Electronic measurements are just less-educated guesses, and the general consensus I get about skin fold calipers is that they're some kind of practiced art learned from observations of the Grandmasters of Body Fat from Feudal Japan, and that it would be quite difficult to find someone who would be able to measure you correctly, and even then it's probably inaccurate. So you have to, what, lie in a pool next to a few guys in labcoats every few months? Because if you want to have an effective diet, whether growing muscle or just losing fat, it's imperative to stay within certain percentages. So I guess everyone just eyeballs it. "Yeah, I look a little pudgy now, better cut some cals." I swear I'm going to die in a squat rack. Link to post Share on other sites
Tybalt Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Mid thirties, female, 5'9", 122 lbs. This seems to be right for me with muscle tone/definition when I'm working out regularly. Link to post Share on other sites
Tasha49 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Very interesting to read the range here I think it is cool. 21 5'6 128 7/8 My boobs alone probably weigh 10 each. Haha Link to post Share on other sites
Tasha49 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 And I don't know what sizes people are using. I shop in juniors so I don't know what I am in womens? Or how any of that works lol Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'd like to do this someday. One thing that's annoying about dieting is that body fat is such a mystery. Electronic measurements are just less-educated guesses, and the general consensus I get about skin fold calipers is that they're some kind of practiced art learned from observations of the Grandmasters of Body Fat from Feudal Japan, and that it would be quite difficult to find someone who would be able to measure you correctly, and even then it's probably inaccurate. So you have to, what, lie in a pool next to a few guys in labcoats every few months? Because if you want to have an effective diet, whether growing muscle or just losing fat, it's imperative to stay within certain percentages. So I guess everyone just eyeballs it. "Yeah, I look a little pudgy now, better cut some cals." I swear I'm going to die in a squat rack. Without having an accurate and consistent measurement of where you're at, it's easy to delude oneself into thinking you're just temporarily bloated or that your pants shrunk in the dryer. In between dunks, I rely on my fabric tape measure... Link to post Share on other sites
welikeincrowds Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Without having an accurate and consistent measurement of where you're at, it's easy to delude oneself into thinking you're just temporarily bloated or that your pants shrunk in the dryer. In between dunks, I rely on my fabric tape measure... My, you're dedicated. So what exactly are you "debating" in your signature? Whether to choose a gem color for your tops other than greenish-blue? You could branch out, but the color does suit you. And I must say, it was a very racy decision to include a picture of your body in snow gear. If you dared to post anything more revealing you'd probably be violating Tinypic's TOS. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 My, you're dedicated. So what exactly are you "debating" in your signature? Whether to choose a gem color for your tops other than greenish-blue? You could branch out, but the color does suit you. And I must say, it was a very racy decision to include a picture of your body in snow gear. If you dared to post anything more revealing you'd probably be violating Tinypic's TOS. :lmao: at everything you just said. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 And I don't know what sizes people are using. I shop in juniors so I don't know what I am in womens? Or how any of that works lol Generally speaking, whatever the juniors size is, you're typically the next immediate number-size bigger in womens. A juniors 3 is a womens 4. A juniors 9 is a womens 10. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts