A role model for ordinary women?

Dudess

Totally going by appearance. It's obvious from Kelly Brook's appearance that she is curvy and healthy. Yeah, I know the camera adds lbs but she's still a healthy slim.
She's hardly only 120lbs. She, or her agency, obviously want to make her sound more skinny than she is. I'd say you could add 25 or 30lbs to that figure.

Macha

yeah you're probably right... but she is definitely the slim side of healthy. Twould be nice to have some more women out there on the larger side of healthy in the media as the norm.

Another thing: people seem very happy to accept the idea that some people are naturally very slim. ie, it's every catwalk model's justification for being so slim. Is it that much of a leap to think that maybe some people are naturally a bit larger? (question directed at the world in general )

Dudess

taconnol wrote: »

but she is definitely the slim side of healthy.

I'd have to disagree. This, to me, is being on the slim side of healthy:

Macha

I dunno...she's actually quite slim. I reckon if she wasn't a 34DD or whatever she is, she would be considered much slimmer:



I'd consider this, or even with a bit more weight, to be the larger side of healthy

ali.c

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think the author has issues with fat people at all. I think the author has issues with unhealthy eating and lack of exercise. I wouldn't be in the habit of defending Daily Mail journos, but this girl is too unhealthy to be cast in a positive light.

I think the bikini shoot was possibly the most unflattering the girl could of pick it certainly did her no favours at all. I agree that at her age with her body shape healthy isnt the word that springs to mind however that article was pure venom IMHO. The journalist accused her of being a liar, it is possible to excercise and not be slim afterall a good figure is built in the kitchen not anywhere else.


Not suggesting the girl in question is a good role model but IMHO the definition of beauty as portrayed in our society is very narrowly defined, it would be nice to see it widen a bit

Dudess

ali.c wrote: »

it is possible to excercise and not be slim afterall a good figure is built in the kitchen not anywhere else.

Is that really true though? Can you achieve a slim figure only through diet? I'd have thought a combination of both would be required.

Macha

Yeah it's called 'exercising the fat'. When you eat too many calories and do a decent amount of exercise, you may not be achieving a calorie deficit necessary for weight loss. So a lot of people focus on exercise (rightly so as there are many health benefits to exercising) but neglect their diet and don't see results (I've been there)

I've heard people say it's 70% diet and 30% exercise and I'd say that's about right. So if you're diet is great, you'll lose a fair amount of weight (if you need to) but not as much as if you combined it with an effective exercise plan.

ali.c

Dudess wrote: »

Is that really true though? Can you achieve a slim figure only through diet? I'd have thought a combination of both would be required.

I think so at least i know i have lost weight through a good diet without a whole lot of excercise. Slim figure really doesnt leave a whole lot of room for muscle mass and part of the problem with conventional dieting is that alot of the weight lost is muscle. On the other hand i have been fairly active with no attention to diet and the result is not a huge change in physique. Excercise is important and it is far healthier (IMHO) to create a calorie deficit through excercise rather than solely through diet. Excercise is important though especially weight bearing activities as it helps to promote the maintenance of lean muscle mass. Other benifits include the fact that it helps prevent osteporasis and it looks better too.