Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Do women below Size 8 Disgust you ?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59102
She's pretty, but personally I think she's heavier than she should be. The double chin is the obvious part. She could easily drop a dress size and not look like skin and bone. Now she describes herself as looking like skin and bone at size twelve and while she may not look as nice at say size 14, she would be a looooong way from skin and bone at size 12. There's a bit of wishful thinking at both ends of the scale. From ms knightly to her. Ms knightly is scarily thin and shes tipping the scales.BubbleWrap85 wrote: »I think she looks fantastic. Not meant to have extra flab? I see slim people with "flab", but I hardly think that's a fair comment to make! She's a beautiful girl with a beautiful body. She's 5'10! She carries the weight extremely well. Too much pressure is put on people nowadays. Plus she says she eats healthily and goes to the gym so what's the problem?
Good post and I would agree with you, but....Dragan wrote:Actually, we kind of are. Having a six pack and the relevant bodyfat levels is far more unnatural than having a bit of excess weight.
As a species food has been plentiful to us for a much shorter time that it was a rarity. Sounds odd right? A lack of food meaning excess wait but on a genetic level we are still tuned to storing as much as we can to prevent starvation in times of need.
When food comes into short supply the body will start shedding calorifically demanding tissues first.....mainly muscle. It cuts down the bodies basic metabolic rate required to function meaning we can survive on less food. Fat is a pretty much a non demanding tissue to have...it requires no calories to maintain it.
As such, as a species, it is perfectly normal for us to store extra weight....in the grand scheme of things.
While we are programmed to store fat for times of need, that programming has been overwritten by the abundance of food at our disposal now. Look at hunter gatherer types all over the world. Yes the men may get middle aged spread, but most of the young men(up to 40) have six packs or 4 packs at least and are well muscled and lean. The young women tend to be within a fairly slim range too. You very rarely see women of size 18 or anything near that, unless the tribe has a fattening culture(and they're usually agrarian societies). We're also programmed to like high calorie sugars, but in the wild they're rare, hence diabetes is almost unknown in those groups. The only hunter gatherer people on the planet I can think of that would be chunkier would be the Inuit as a cold adaptation.
I would reckon that "natural" humans would have a very narrow range of weights. You don't even have to go back that far. Go back a couple of generations and women were much smaller on average. Yes there were big people, but they were rare by comparison. I would say trying to find a size 18 dress in the ireland of 1960 would be a long search. Look at old photos and try and find obese people. Not easy.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
I walked into that one. Sharp as a tack you are! Speaking of which, walking on a tack barefoot or only in socks must be mighty painful...I read in Cosmo that salt will cause you to retain water and make you a fatty fatty fat fat! Have you seen what that **** does to slugs? :eek:
Oh she's very pretty and not at all huge, but she's overweight.Wincest is best! wrote: »Id say she is hot.
But thats me.
Oh I know the only people who have no fat are skeletal types/super-muscular ones, but extra wobbliness and chunkiness... wouldn't we be healthier without it?Actually, we kind of are. Having a six pack and the relevant bodyfat levels is far more unnatural than having a bit of excess weight.
As a species food has been plentiful to us for a much shorter time that it was a rarity. Sounds odd right? A lack of food meaning excess wait but on a genetic level we are still tuned to storing as much as we can to prevent starvation in times of need.
When food comes into short supply the body will start shedding calorifically demanding tissues first.....mainly muscle. It cuts down the bodies basic metabolic rate required to function meaning we can survive on less food. Fat is a pretty much a non demanding tissue to have...it requires no calories to maintain it.
As such, as a species, it is perfectly normal for us to store extra weight....in the grand scheme of things.
What am I supposed to be denying? Kiera Knightley, in some pictures, is scrawny, not slim. "Thin" would even be a generous adjective. Adriana Lima, in that pic, is slim but toned and with curves. If Kiera Knightley's a size six (say in that premier/dress pic) then Adriana Lima is clearly bigger. And being a model, she's likely to be taller too, which would make her look scrawnier again if she was a size six. I think Adriana Lima looks size 10 tops, which is still slim.MissHoneyBun wrote: »Dudess ya can't pick and choose what you want to believe just to suit your own argument. Now I'm not being pedantic but I remember a few pages back you replied to someone who thought Keira Knightley looked good that 'well i read she doesn't eat'. Now a few pages on when someone has posted a really hot pic of Adriana Lima where it states she's a size six, you don't want to believe that though
I know paper never refused ink but denial's not just a river in Egypt either...
No doubt about it.The camera does put pounds on people. Its a cruel mistress and women I would have thought of as slim look bigger on camera.
That's what I'm saying too. Bubblewrap, the girl is a bit heavy - not drastically so - but she's considerably overweight. And I'm not saying she has a humungous amount to lose, nor would she only look good skinny. She could still be curvy and shapely if she slimmed down, and would look, in my opinion, a lot nicer. And I don't think it's harsh to say it like it is about her. I don't think I have an unhealthy, skewed view of what fat is.She's pretty, but personally I think she's heavier than she should be. The double chin is the obvious part. She could easily drop a dress size and not look like skin and bone. Now she describes herself as looking like skin and bone at size twelve and while she may not look as nice at say size 14, she would be a looooong way from skin and bone at size 12.
Someone who would consider this fat though, does have such a view: http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/martinemccutcheon/martine_mccutcheon_2.jpg
That to me is the ideal female figure.
As I said, I don't think scrawny looks good, I don't think overweight looks good.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement