I hate when topics like this come up in conversation, because I'm 5'7 and barely weigh 110 lbs. I am a skinny, scrawny twig and there's nothing I can do about it - I've been this way my whole life. It's just the way my body's built. My bones stick out all over the place, I have sharp elbows and narrow wrists, and no matter how much I eat I'll never gain much weight. It's my metabolism and body chemistry. What bothers me is that too many people think I'm anorexic, bulemic, seriously ill, etc. I've even been called into the school counselor about "concerns for my health". But there are some people who are just genetically programmed to be rail-thin. I've always been very active and took gymnastics and dance for years, and even so I never really developed any muscles from it. I know I sound defensive, but I just wish more people knew that some of us are just made this way, and we're not influenced by any pictures in a magazine.
BTW, I like my body even if most men don't.
-------------------- "There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen Won't somebody please think of the adults! Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
And what's worse, Diana, is that you will get very little sympathy for your metabolic dilemma, as the vast majority of us are strugging against the opposite tide. Take heart.
What's important is that you maintain a healthy diet and exercise, despite the fact that you can gulp cheeseburgers from the sofa without gaining an ounce. Cholesterol can sneak up on the thin and unwary, and while your workouts may not build appreciable muscle mass, they will help maintain bone density and have other salutary effects.
Posts: 1744 | From: Houston | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
I find that women's/girls' magazines in general display an incredibly hypocritical attitude to weight and body shape.
As someone pointed out earlier, an article seemingly designed to boost the confidence of the non-supermodels amongst us will be bracketed by adverts and fashion scoops employing precisely those body-types that we're told we don't need to emulate. And probably followed by advice on how to lose a dress size in two weeks by employing some fad diet. Mention of the importance of "fitness" in these magazines (not to mention exhortations to be "toned", or "glowing with health") are, I think, just another way to tell women what they ought to look like.
The ultimate way to boost women's self esteem these days seems to be to include an article bitching about thin women. THis I really can't bear: personal attacks on sub-size-8 women are just as bad as the marketing of fashion using waif-like models. It seems as though the way women look is never good enough. Too fat? Employ this cabbage-soup diet and become magically acceptable. And never forget that the thin woman is your enemy. Too thin? You're simply not "womanly" enough. Etc. etc.
I really try to avoid women's magazines. If I do start getting concerned about my figure or my health then I'd rather buy some kind of earnest outdoor pursuits or running magazine: the primary aim in these at least is to better your fitness or PB, rather than to change the way you look.
-------------------- I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
Alexina, northern star
The Red and the Green Stamps
quote:Originally posted by Elkhound:
quote:Originally posted by Snow Angelwings: WHY is everyone always carrying on about Kate Winslet's weight? The woman isn't even close to being fat. She has a gorgeous, lovely body that I think is ten thousand times hotter than a toothpick supermodel's. Since when did having boobs, a butt, and sweet curves equate to being overweight?
This fetish for scrawny women is a fairly modern thing. Look at Rubens' paintings; look at the Venus de Milo; look at Titian and Rembrant.
ExACTly. I'm 5'8" and weigh about 155. I'm not as slim as I used to be, but I'm not overweight, either. As I mentioned in another thread once before, I really do look roughly like this --
-- except I have arms, of course. And yet, schoolkids see the statue in the Louvre and say, "Ewwwwwwww, she's so FAT."
Sigh... and *that's* what's wrong with the body type promoted by the media. True, the models are NOT all anorexic, and my issue is not with them specifically. The issue is that the media makes it seem that that body type, which occurs in nature relatively infrequently, is the only one that is acceptable. How limiting.
But just think... I could probably be a plus-size model if I really wanted to...
quote:Originally posted by brick: I have no idea what a size 8 means, but what I do know is that a healthy weight for a person who is 5'5" is 110-150, based on a Body Mass Index calculation. I would guess Kate Winslet is flirting with the high end, if not outside, of the healthy range.
Why aren't there models that look more like us? Because we're obese.
Although it is detrimental for the predilections of those who idealize the underweight to color the body maintenance habits of adolescents, it does them no service to encourage them to "learn to love themselves" at any shape.
i hate when people bring BMI into "fatness" arguments. BMI is a good approximator of healthy weight... however...it is NOT a good indicator of FATNESS! body buliders register with BMI's well over 30...but are they obese? NO! women with dense bones, wide bone structures, large breasts, etc...are not going to be accurately represented by the BMI scale. just thought you should know.
Posts: 1 | From: Keller, TX | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you look, your point about BMI was made on the second page of this thread. Also, this thread has been dead for nearly four years.
-------------------- Come on, come on - spin a little tighter Come on, come on - and the world's a little brighter Posts: 5595 | From: Columbus, OH : The Soccer Capital of America | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |