Skinny Shaming

meeeeh · 21-10-2014 3:39pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I honestly didn't know that, links to stats from studies for these points? I'm having trouble thinking how being born into a poorer area would correlate to being more likely to be obese, food costs money so less money would result in less food and malnourishment if anything, no?

Not sure if serious..

http://healthyfoodforall.com/food-poverty/

I don't want to be mean but this is one of the most communicated points around obesity and you really have to live under a rock not to know it. And if you still don't believe me you should walk down the Henry or O'Conell street and down Grafton street. The difference is obvious. Also if you drive past a school in disadvantaged area and a private school. There is plenty of research on the subject but this is one of those issues where differences are noticeable with naked eye.

BonsaiKitten · 21-10-2014 3:59pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually don't agree with that. Sizing is only part of the story. Tailoring especially in premium brands is a lot more precise and does not fit all sizes. I know there is also some kind of snobbery present when certain brands refuse to cater for bigger sizes because they don't fit into their aesthetics. But in the same way plus size brands don't cater for smaller sizes. And a lot of brands in general don't cater for size six and even less for smaller sizes.

I don't think this has anything to do with skinny shaming or fat shaming but if you are plus size it is likely that you will be better served by plus size brands. Size six and 20 can't wear the same type of a cropped top. I think I am around size 12 (possibly 10 on top) and I am under no illusion that certain brands are not for me. Not because they don't sell my size but because their tailoring doesn't suit me. And I'm ok with that.

Yes, very much this. At smaller sizes the weight distribution is easier to predict, and so designing clothes in smaller sizes will be easier.

At higher weights though it's less easy to predict where someone will store weight, so not all clothes will correctly fit.

And what exactly does all sizes mean anyway? It's a nice sentiment, yes. But does that mean shops should (lets choose random size numbers out of my head here) stock size 40 or above if demand isn't high enough to be profitable for them? Should a shop sell an xxxs top if there isn't demand for it? Or are they discriminating against some sizes by not stocking every possible size ever.

At the end of the day, shops are businesses - if there is demand they will supply. (ignoring Abercrombie etc who stock smaller sizes to fit into their aesthetics).

Dial Hard · 21-10-2014 4:28pm

Neyite wrote: »

I agree, people can get too hung up on sizes, when it really is a variable unit of measurement for clothes.

It shouldn't be, though, which is the point I think was being made - sizes should be standardised so that a 12, say, is a 12 is a 12 no matter what shop you go into.

skallywag · 21-10-2014 5:44pm

Dial Hard wrote: »

...sizes should be standardised so that a 12, say, is a 12 is a 12 no matter what shop you go into.

Is that practically possible though, considering the wide variety of origin of our clothes these days? e.g. along the same lines that one can be a size 42.5 in an ASIC shoe but a 44 in an Adidas, etc.

Semele · 21-10-2014 11:07pm

http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/a-shallow-look-at-fat/#respond

This is a lovely response from a clinical psychologist to the whole Katie-Hopkins-showing-how-easy-it-is-to-lose-weight nonsense a while ago.

It still surprises me when people cling to the idea that weight loss is a straightforward matter of calories consumed versus calories burned and that anyone who has difficulty with that is lazy or lying. It's like saying that love is a chemical reaction in the brain- it's true, on one level, but its not how many of us experience falling in love and it doesn't hold much relevance as an explanation of why you still can't get over your ex!

There are "true" and there are "meaningful" explanations for most human experiences and it is much more useful IMO to work with where they meet, rather than valuing one at the expense of the other.

DoYouEvenLift · 21-10-2014 11:58pm

Semele wrote: »

http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/a-shallow-look-at-fat/#respond

This is a lovely response from a clinical psychologist to the whole Katie-Hopkins-showing-how-easy-it-is-to-lose-weight nonsense a while ago.

It still surprises me when people cling to the idea that weight loss is a straightforward matter of calories consumed versus calories burned and that anyone who has difficulty with that is lazy or lying. It's like saying that love is a chemical reaction in the brain- it's true, on one level, but its not how many of us experience falling in love and it doesn't hold much relevance as an explanation of why you still can't get over your ex!

There are "true" and there are "meaningful" explanations for most human experiences and it is much more useful IMO to work with where they meet, rather than valuing one at the expense of the other.

Eh, probably because for the majority of people who don't suffer from actual health concerns that cause weight gain or take medication with weight gain as a side effect that is what it's all down to?

I lost over 10lbs coming up towards summer by doing literally nothing extra than my typical day to day life aside from tailoring my calories to be at a deficit of between 300-500 each day. One could even sit on a couch all day and still lose weight by just calculating the correct amount of calories for one's lifestyle. Now add in high intensity cardio into the equation and one will be struggling to keep up with how fast they can lose weight.

Malari · 22-10-2014 8:23am

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Eh, probably because for the majority of people who don't suffer from actual health concerns that cause weight gain or take medication with weight gain as a side effect that is what it's all down to?

I lost over 10lbs coming up towards summer by doing literally nothing extra than my typical day to day life aside from tailoring my calories to be at a deficit of between 300-500 each day. One could even sit on a couch all day and still lose weight by just calculating the correct amount of calories for one's lifestyle. Now add in high intensity cardio into the equation and one will be struggling to keep up with how fast they can lose weight.

Did you read the article? Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone (although I agree the article does not really make the point very well).

People who are usually slim and eat what they need to maintain a healthy weight are used to subconsciously thinking 'I'm full now, so I'll stop eating' or 'I'll wait till I'm hungry to have lunch' and have those chemical pathways in their brain. For people who struggle to lose weight the logical side of their brain is telling them not to eat portions that big, or to eat that often, or to make healthier choices at the same time the more primal, instinctual part of their brain is saying to eat the food, food is energy, it may not be there later. There is a constant war going on which is what makes it so difficult to change habits. A normally slim person has the pathways in place to lose a few extra kilos after a holiday or Christmas

If you say to someone who is terrified of doing a bungee jump 'you are just being lazy or stupid if you don't just see that all you have to do is step forward. You take steps every day, you should be able to step off a cliff' it's the same kind of thing. You might know logically that this will not kill you, the safety ropes are there, dozens of people have done this safely before you, etc. and you know that the adrenaline rush will be amazing and you will feel happier for doing it. The instinctive part of your brain is telling you that it is insane to jump off a cliff and will not let the logical part of your brain simply take a step forward.

So even though people know to 'just' eat less and exercise more, practically doing that is the challenge, despite knowing the reward is healthy and maybe greater happiness.

skallywag · 22-10-2014 8:34am

Malari wrote: »

Did you read the article? Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone

The science behind the formula is definitely true, i.e. one will certainly lose weight if one can consistently take in less calories than are being consumed. This fact is true regardless of any clinical psychology arguments.

The issue is that some people will struggle to consistently take in less calories than are being consumed, due to the arguments being outlined in the article.

Malari · 22-10-2014 8:58am

skallywag wrote: »

The science behind the formula is definitely true, i.e. one will certainly lose weight if one can consistently take in less calories than are being consumed. This fact is true regardless of any clinical psychology arguments.

The issue is that some people will struggle to consistently take in less calories than are being consumed, due to the arguments being outlined in the article.

Eh, yeah, that's exactly what I said!???

skallywag · 22-10-2014 9:36am

Malari wrote: »

Eh, yeah, that's exactly what I said!???

I didn't read your comment that way myself i.e. you wrote:

"Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone"

... with my point then being that the formula is indeed that simple for everyone, regardless of any other factors.

I assume now though that you were not referring to the formula when you wrote 'it' but to rather to the ability to lose weight.

Das Kitty · 22-10-2014 9:53am

I thought it was pretty clear that the "it" Malari was referring to was losing weight...

Malari · 22-10-2014 9:54am

skallywag wrote: »

I didn't read your comment that way myself i.e. you wrote:

"Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone"

... with my point then being that the formula is indeed that simple for everyone, regardless of any other factors.

I assume now though that you were not referring to the formula when you wrote 'it' but to rather to the ability to lose weight.

Well, yes, which was clear from the rest of my post.

skallywag · 22-10-2014 9:59am

Malari wrote: »

Well, yes, which was clear from the rest of my post.

My apologies if I may have misinterpreted your opening sentence.

I agree fully with your arguments though.

DoYouEvenLift · 22-10-2014 11:30am

Malari wrote: »

Did you read the article? Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone (although I agree the article does not really make the point very well).

People who are usually slim and eat what they need to maintain a healthy weight are used to subconsciously thinking 'I'm full now, so I'll stop eating' or 'I'll wait till I'm hungry to have lunch' and have those chemical pathways in their brain. For people who struggle to lose weight the logical side of their brain is telling them not to eat portions that big, or to eat that often, or to make healthier choices at the same time the more primal, instinctual part of their brain is saying to eat the food, food is energy, it may not be there later. There is a constant war going on which is what makes it so difficult to change habits. A normally slim person has the pathways in place to lose a few extra kilos after a holiday or Christmas

If you say to someone who is terrified of doing a bungee jump 'you are just being lazy or stupid if you don't just see that all you have to do is step forward. You take steps every day, you should be able to step off a cliff' it's the same kind of thing. You might know logically that this will not kill you, the safety ropes are there, dozens of people have done this safely before you, etc. and you know that the adrenaline rush will be amazing and you will feel happier for doing it. The instinctive part of your brain is telling you that it is insane to jump off a cliff and will not let the logical part of your brain simply take a step forward.

So even though people know to 'just' eat less and exercise more, practically doing that is the challenge, despite knowing the reward is healthy and maybe greater happiness.

Cliffs:
- Lack of will power

Malari · 22-10-2014 11:33am

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Cliffs:
- Lack of will power

Pardon?

Thoie · 22-10-2014 12:20pm

And we've moved once again from "skinny shaming" to "fat people have no willpower".

AmyPL · 22-10-2014 2:30pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Cliffs:
- Lack of will power

You are aware Binge Eating Disorder is a recognised eating disorder, right?

Wibbs · 22-10-2014 8:14pm

Awareness may be the stumbling block there AmyPL...

Will power is a tiny part of it. Never mind that there is a huge difference between losing 10 pounds and losing 10 stones. It is not just do the same thing for ten times longer. Not even close. I would suggest people who have difficulty with this should research things like setpoint weight. Basically weightgain can be akin to an elastic band. Put on a stone, band stretches a bit, but can spring back with ease to its original length/size. Put on ten stones and the elastic stretches beyond a certain point and the body sees a new original length/size. So there can come a point with very overweight folks where dropping weight is beyond difficult no matter what will power is involved. Even folks who undergo gastric band operations where they physically can't eat more than a couple of spoonfuls, yes they lose weight initially and can lose a lot, but look at the results of follow ups at five years or ten. Many have gained back a good amount of their original weight.

Basically you can say "sure it's easy" if you're talking about a few pounds, but you cannot equate that to someone struggling with real obesity. It's a vey different thing going on.

BonsaiKitten · 22-10-2014 9:14pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Awareness may be the stumbling block there AmyPL...

Will power is a tiny part of it. Never mind that there is a huge difference between losing 10 pounds and losing 10 stones. It is not just do the same thing for ten times longer. Not even close. I would suggest people who have difficulty with this should research things like setpoint weight. Basically weightgain can be akin to an elastic band. Put on a stone, band stretches a bit, but can spring back with ease to its original length/size. Put on ten stones and the elastic stretches beyond a certain point and the body sees a new original length/size. So there can come a point with very overweight folks where dropping weight is beyond difficult no matter what will power is involved. Even folks who undergo gastric band operations where they physically can't eat more than a couple of spoonfuls, yes they lose weight initially and can lose a lot, but look at the results of follow ups at five years or ten. Many have gained back a good amount of their original weight.

Basically you can say "sure it's easy" if you're talking about a few pounds, but you cannot equate that to someone struggling with real obesity. It's a vey different thing going on.

...and it's also possible to stretch out gastric bands by having portions that are too big. It's also possible to go on a diet that will initially reduce the weight, before returning to your original eating habits. Obviously that will cause weight gain - doesn't mean the diet failed.

I don't disagree that losing weight is hard, and tougher to shift as you lose more weight. As weight decreases, so will the TDEE for that body. It isn't a linear process - reducing your initial calorie deficit won't equal having the same calorie deficit produce the same results over time. You then up the amount of exercise or decrease the calories. I have a lot of sympathy for folks trying to lose weight, it must be so frustrating to try and manage.

Relevant link: I saw this on /r/dataisbeautiful earlier actually, it was quite an interesting read. http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/calories-in-calories-out/

beks101 · 22-10-2014 11:11pm

The "calories in versus calories out" approach takes no account of the fact that we are not all walking robots whose problems cannot be quickly solved by following simplistic maths equations. The uniquely individual chemical processes occurring in our brains combined with individual genetic makeup, environmental variances, physiological, social and cultural factors means that we each respond to external stimuli differently.

So someone can have a weight problem for literally an infinite number of reasons - ONE of which may be that they simply eat too much without any deeper motivation. Those types of 'meh, I like food and am not aRsed' people MIGHT respond well to 'eat less, exercise more' if they suddenly decide they're ready to lose weight. And those cases are rare in my experience. For most overweight people, it's about as helpful as telling an alcohol to go for a run instead of hitting the bottle or telling a depressed person to 'go for a walk in the sunshine and get over yourself'.

Tarzana2 · 26-10-2014 4:14am

AmyPL wrote: »

You are aware Binge Eating Disorder is a recognised eating disorder, right?

Indeed!

I vacillated between this and bulimia over the years. TBH, not much difference between the two except bulimia goes one step farther with the purging. Binge-eating on its own happened when I'd tell myself how crazy I was to be forcing myself to throw up. Or when my chest was in absolute agony from being forced into an unnatural action a number of times a day, every day.

So yes, calories in calories out. If only it were that simple for everyone!

28-10-2014 3:13am

"I'm a size 6".... "Do you realise men prefer real women?".... "Yeah, I'm still a size six, I didn't get it from robotics or digital manipulation, you know."

doctorwhogirl · 28-10-2014 10:32am

I've been on both sides of the scale and both the fat-hating and the skinny-hating irritate me immensely.

To be honest, when I heard all these songs about booty etc... it really, really frustrated me. We were badgered for so long to be slim, skinny etc... and now all of a sudden you're not allowed be too slim but rather have a very specific body shape (that's basically non-achievable for most)

It is 100% about body image for me. I'm just sick of being told what my body image SHOULD me, whether it be curves of the fifties, skinny, fat, bootilcious, even this whole god damn "strong not skinny" (and I lift weights btw) drives me mad.

All the above are insinuating that there is ONE way to look beautiful, ONE way to get a man, ONE way to be attractive, ONE way to be desirable.

I've spent so long hating myself for being fat, then they expect me to work on myself until I have a larger rear end to the rest of me and others want me to spend hours in the gym lifting weights until I'm slim, but with some muscle.

I agree with previous posts about losing weight. It does often mean being put on a pedestal. That's one of the hardest things about maintaining.... you do miss the compliments! And that's me being completely honest! I never got so many compliments as when I was losing weight. Which is wrong. Don't get me wrong, at times it can wreck your head. For example. my ex-boss, after I got to goal, always introduced me to new staff members as "half the girl she hired years ago". Essentially it all boiled down to my image.

I still struggle with my body image, always will I'd imagine. But thankfully, as I get older and get more sense than I had in my youth, I'm seeing past the above (as best I can). I worked damn hard to lose the weight I did and I work hard to make sure I stay healthy. I also have to work hard to make sure I don't go too far either. I worry for people who are more vulnerable though because having been there I can see where the pressure might drive you to an extreme.

LoganRice · 29-10-2014 3:27pm

I think body shaming is tragic full stop

jeanrose770 · 29-10-2014 3:35pm

Using either one in a derogatory fashion, says a lot about the confidence of the person whose mouth it is coming out of. Shaming any person, any color, any size for anything wrong and without compassion.
People do it so naturally these days and often times one sided, without even realizing. The fact that "F*** you skinny bitches" is being thrown around in songs, is ridiculous. While if the opposite was said, it would be blown up!
Color would be a whole other crazy thing, but just like size and color, everyone is the same. Stop with the judging and hating. Instead we need support and love that way everyone feels comfortable in their own skin. That is the first step to stop shaming like this in the first place.

sashafierce · 30-10-2014 9:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Tasden · 30-10-2014 9:41pm

sashafierce wrote: »

I think the problem is there is pressure to be skinny.... there's no such thing as pressure to be fat! Its all about being skinny, magazines, newspapers, the tv its all skinny people. Id be a 14/16 (damn hips) it can be hard because clothes shops cater for the size 6-12... when you go into the plus size the clothes are not the same, they are old fashioned and horrible. That's causing a dived itself like someone over a 12 should not be wearing the nice clothes is the impression these shops are giving off! (before anyone says not all shops do this I am talking about the shops I generally shop in)

But skinny people feel the pressure to be "a real woman", "curvy", that men like "something to hold onto not a bag of bones" etc. The trend imo has shifted from skinny as the ideal to "curvy in the right places" which is just as difficult to achieve if not more so because you cant create a shape that you just don't naturally have.

WeHaveToGoBack · 30-10-2014 9:45pm

Skinny shaming, and the act of calling "curvy" women "real" women is around because "skinny" women have it much easier.

How often are they ridiculed, really ridiculed, because of their weight or size? Much much less than large women.

On the whole smaller women have it much easier than large women; the only problem smaller women suffer is not being called "real" women. Ask most larger women if they'd rather be big or small, and 99% would presumably say they'd be thin.

sashafierce · 30-10-2014 9:48pm

This post has been deleted.

sashafierce · 30-10-2014 9:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Tasden · 30-10-2014 9:56pm

WeHaveToGoBack wrote: »

Skinny shaming, and the act of calling "curvy" women "real" women is around because "skinny" women have it much easier.

How often are they ridiculed, really ridiculed, because of their weight or size? Much much less than large women.

On the whole smaller women have it much easier than large women; the only problem smaller women suffer is not being called "real" women. Ask most larger women if they'd rather be big or small, and 99% would presumably say they'd be thin.

Being accused of being "anorexic" all my teenage years.
Being told by strangers that I need to eat.
Being told after I had my baby that I should spend time with my child instead of focusing so much on my figure (never even thought about my figure after having my baby), basically insinuating I was not caring for my baby as much as a larger woman would.
Not having one single pair of jeans that fit me properly til I was about 23.
People referring to me as a skinny bitch just because I don't have "meat on my bones"
Barely any shops stocking bras for smaller sizes- 32A is actually pretty difficult to find in a lot of shops believe it or not
The very fact people assume "smaller women have it easier"

Thank god I no longer have any of those problems, got some unwanted meat on my bones now :pac: although i still have a small frame naturally.

Choccie Lover · 31-10-2014 7:46am

WeHaveToGoBack wrote: »

Skinny shaming, and the act of calling "curvy" women "real" women is around because "skinny" women have it much easier.

How often are they ridiculed, really ridiculed, because of their weight or size? Much much less than large women.

On the whole smaller women have it much easier than large women; the only problem smaller women suffer is not being called "real" women. Ask most larger women if they'd rather be big or small, and 99% would presumably say they'd be thin.

Being told that you are not a 'real woman' is quite the insult, in my opinion.

Also, to say that this is 'the only problem smaller women suffer' is not true either.

Being asked if you are ill, 'do you ever eat?', 'you could do with a few burgers' etc is not very pleasant either.

Also, slimmer women often have pointed references (like the above) made to their weight as a part of casual conversation. You would rarely hear someone make the opposite comments to a bigger woman (of course there is always going to be some obnoxious...often drunken.....yoke that would).

By the way, this isn't intended to be a 'woe is me' post (these kind of comments aren't the 'be all' and 'end all' as there are so many other things to worry about in life on a daily basis!!!!)........Just pointing out that Skinny Shaming does exist.....and that these throwaway comments can be hurtful .....

Penny Tration · 31-10-2014 8:15am

I see skinny shaming most days in my family. My mam is a size 0 (uk 4) and hates it. She would kill to be a size 12 and she eats like a horse (no really, she consumes more cals than anyone I know). Because she has an overactive thyroid, amongst a host of illnesses, she can't gain weight.

Her sisters, her in laws, even some of her kids (not me) regularly tell her to eat more, call her a skinny bitch, and so on. She won't wear tops without full length sleeves, and won't wear skirts, because she's afraid of the comments she'll get. She only wears baggy tops, way too big for her, to try make herself look bigger.

Her self esteem is worse than mine was when I was a size 24

Moocifer · 09-11-2014 7:15pm

I've seen it from both sides. Nobody ever commented about my size when I was a size 14 but due to illness I've dropped to a size 6 and that's here to stay. Despite eating 3000 calories a day it doesn't change!!

I've been told I look unhealthy, I'm anorexic would I not do something about my weight etc. It's actually much harder to get clothes that fit and flatter at size 6 than it ever was at 14.

Precious flower · 09-11-2014 8:09pm

The funny thing about that Anaconda video is that Nicki Minaj herself is skinny with the addition of fake breast and butt implants. Basically the body image she's celebrating is having a fit/slight figure but with big breasts and butts but yet strangely the video is said to be skinny shaming. I'm surprised the irony is lost on Nicki Minaj. It's ridiculous how women are expected to look nowadays, we're expected to be super fit but still have a big butt and big breasts which is unrealistic for most women as as you lose body fat the fat in your breast tissue and butt goes down too.

Shrap · 09-11-2014 8:52pm

Tasden wrote: »

But skinny people feel the pressure to be "a real woman", "curvy", that men like "something to hold onto not a bag of bones" etc. The trend imo has shifted from skinny as the ideal to "curvy in the right places" which is just as difficult to achieve if not more so because you cant create a shape that you just don't naturally have.

Totally impossible if you're naturally slight, unless you have a boob job. A woman asked me a few years ago "Would you not consider a boob job?". I was so taken aback, I didn't do my usual take no prisoners routine, but if I met her again.....

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes.....now. I'm 43. I've struggled with not filling jeans or bras nearly all my adult life so far. I would have swapped in a heart beat, right up to about 5 yrs ago. Interestingly, I was *judged* best body in the PE changing rooms - utterly against my will, and as my size-at-least-18 friend stood beside me, poor girl - due to puppy fat (which fell off a few years later) and skinniness combined. Mortified. The judging starts young, my friends. And by us, against us.

Tasden wrote: »

Being accused of being "anorexic" all my teenage years.
Being told by strangers that I need to eat.
Being told after I had my baby that I should spend time with my child instead of focusing so much on my figure (never even thought about my figure after having my baby), basically insinuating I was not caring for my baby as much as a larger woman would.
Not having one single pair of jeans that fit me properly til I was about 23.
People referring to me as a skinny bitch just because I don't have "meat on my bones"
Barely any shops stocking bras for smaller sizes- 32A is actually pretty difficult to find in a lot of shops believe it or not
The very fact people assume "smaller women have it easier"

Thank god I no longer have any of those problems, got some unwanted meat on my bones now :pac: although i still have a small frame naturally.

Yes totally all that, bar the "unwanted" meat. It was wanted. "Not a pick on you" was not a compliment. Not at all.

Also, as a point of interest, did you all know that size 36A can also be a 34B and a 32C? It just depends on the shape and fall of your breasts and the cut of the bra. I was told this by a Triumph expert who I went to in Debenhams in despair due to no 32As in the shop (what I thought I was - untrue as it turned out!).

DoYouEvenLift · 09-11-2014 9:44pm

Moocifer wrote: »

I've seen it from both sides. Nobody ever commented about my size when I was a size 14 but due to illness I've dropped to a size 6 and that's here to stay. Despite eating 3000 calories a day it doesn't change!!

I've been told I look unhealthy, I'm anorexic would I not do something about my weight etc. It's actually much harder to get clothes that fit and flatter at size 6 than it ever was at 14.

Are you sure you're getting a full 3,000 calories a day? As in weighing out and measuring the food as part of a day-to-day diet? And how long have you been eating that amount to not see results? 3,000 cals is a LOT of food, I eat just above that amount every day, and sometimes struggle to do so, and do lots of exercise but still gain a steady pound or two a week.

Malari · 09-11-2014 10:33pm

Shrap wrote: »

Totally impossible if you're naturally slight, unless you have a boob job. A woman asked me a few years ago "Would you not consider a boob job?". I was so taken aback, I didn't do my usual take no prisoners routine, but if I met her again.....

That's not true. It's rare, but not impossible. I have a size 6 friend who has DD size breasts and a curvy bum. But... can't believe someone suggested you have a boob job! Cheeky mare!

Shrap wrote: »

Also, as a point of interest, did you all know that size 36A can also be a 34B and a 32C? It just depends on the shape and fall of your breasts and the cut of the bra. I was told this by a Triumph expert who I went to in Debenhams in despair due to no 32As in the shop (what I thought I was - untrue as it turned out!).

I have bras in all the above sizes. I stopped getting measured years ago, I just select a style/brand I want, then try on a few sizes and see what fits best - same as I do with all my other clothes.

Shrap · 09-11-2014 11:13pm

Malari wrote: »

That's not true. It's rare, but not impossible. I have a size 6 friend who has DD size breasts and a curvy bum. But... can't believe someone suggested you have a boob job! Cheeky mare!

Yup. However, she was speaking as someone who had let the pressure get to her to the extent that she'd had a boob job herself. Still wanted to throttle her though.

As for my "totally impossible" comment....obviously it's not totally impossible for someone to grow up to be a natural size 6 or 8 with curves in all the socially acceptable places. What I should have said is "totally impossible to achieve", if you're slim all over. It was in reply to a previous poster speaking about the pressure to achieve this look, and I quite agree with her.

Tasden · 10-11-2014 2:05am

Malari wrote: »

That's not true. It's rare, but not impossible. I have a size 6 friend who has DD size breasts and a curvy bum. But... can't believe someone suggested you have a boob job! Cheeky mare!

I have bras in all the above sizes. I stopped getting measured years ago, I just select a style/brand I want, then try on a few sizes and see what fits best - same as I do with all my other clothes.

So glad to hear I'm not the only one who does this

I have bras from a to c and just get whatever looks/feels right. Been measured a few times in my life and buying my "actual" size never really worked as well as just trying on any sizes that looked right and picking the best fit. Then if they are a little big/small I know which ones to wear when my size fluctuates too.

DoYouEvenLift · 10-11-2014 3:18am

Shrap wrote: »

Yup. However, she was speaking as someone who had let the pressure get to her to the extent that she'd had a boob job herself. Still wanted to throttle her though.

As for my "totally impossible" comment....obviously it's not totally impossible for someone to grow up to be a natural size 6 or 8 with curves in all the socially acceptable places. What I should have said is "totally impossible to achieve", if you're slim all over. It was in reply to a previous poster speaking about the pressure to achieve this look, and I quite agree with her.

I don't entirely agree. With hard work and dedication anyone can definitely improve in certain areas, butt/glutes being one of them. Now, breasts are an exception as they're not made up of much muscle, however a higher bodyfat percentage could potentially increase their size but it wouldn't be anything significant compared to other solutions (implants). But for other areas where one may desire achieving curves like the glutes and legs, and also improving arms and shoulders and back, it is definitely possible to improve and achieve a curvier appearance. The simple reason for that is they are muscle tissue and one can grow this through weight and resistance training combined with a protein rich diet. I've seen plenty of examples in real life where 'skinny' and basically curveless women picked up weight training (fitness, cross fit, even bodybuilding etc.) and achieved much better physiques.

Squats, deadlifts and lunges are just some of the lifts that can help build the glutes and legs. Calves can also improved a lot.

Here are examples of women who make decent progress on these:

http://iconosquare.com/tag/bootyprogress

https://www.pinterest.com/myn31/squat/

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3705531

Tasden · 10-11-2014 8:59am

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I don't entirely agree. With hard work and dedication anyone can definitely improve in certain areas, butt/glutes being one of them. Now, breasts are an exception as they're not made up of much muscle, however a higher bodyfat percentage could potentially increase their size but it wouldn't be anything significant compared to other solutions (implants). But for other areas where one may desire achieving curves like the glutes and legs, and also improving arms and shoulders and back, it is definitely possible to improve and achieve a curvier appearance. The simple reason for that is they are muscle tissue and one can grow this through weight and resistance training combined with a protein rich diet. I've seen plenty of examples in real life where 'skinny' and basically curveless women picked up weight training (fitness, cross fit, even bodybuilding etc.) and achieved much better physiques.

Squats, deadlifts and lunges are just some of the lifts that can help build the glutes and legs. Calves can also improved a lot.

Here are examples of women who make decent progress on these:

http://iconosquare.com/tag/bootyprogress

https://www.pinterest.com/myn31/squat/

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3705531

No matter how much a very slim bony woman with narrow hips works out she will not end up with wide hips, huge boobs, and a huge bum. She can add more curves by adding muscle and improve how their shape looks generally, but that a straight up and down woman can become the type of "curvy" we're talking about from lifting? They are more likely to end up getting quite muscly looking if they have a very low bodyfat % to begin with. And that's not me saying lifting makes you manly or whatever other myths you hear, I'm a fan of weight lifting myself, I just think its very limited in what it can do for those who are genuinely lacking in the natural shape required for that "curvy" physique. That's not to say they can't make themselves look unbelievable, just not a curvy hourglass figure when its naturally just not possible.

DoYouEvenLift · 10-11-2014 5:22pm

Tasden wrote: »

No matter how much a very slim bony woman with narrow hips works out she will not end up with wide hips, huge boobs, and a huge bum. She can add more curves by adding muscle and improve how their shape looks generally, but that a straight up and down woman can become the type of "curvy" we're talking about from lifting? They are more likely to end up getting quite muscly looking if they have a very low bodyfat % to begin with. And that's not me saying lifting makes you manly or whatever other myths you hear, I'm a fan of weight lifting myself, I just think its very limited in what it can do for those who are genuinely lacking in the natural shape required for that "curvy" physique. That's not to say they can't make themselves look unbelievable, just not a curvy hourglass figure when its naturally just not possible.

True. It's still better to work to improve the areas you can rather than negatively dwelling on the areas that are totally genetic though and not trying to improve at all. There are actually lots of men who also feel disheartened by their hips and waists genetics if that's any comfort lol.

Glad you pointed out the myth of women lifting weights results in them becoming manly by the way. Hate when ignorant people think that.

Earl Turner · 11-11-2014 7:04pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

True. It's still better to work to improve the areas you can rather than negatively dwelling on the areas that are totally genetic though and not trying to improve at all. There are actually lots of men who also feel disheartened by their hips and waists genetics if that's any comfort lol.

Glad you pointed out the myth of women lifting weights results in them becoming manly by the way. Hate when ignorant people think that.

Some (many?) women think if they so much as lift a dumbbell they'll turn into a she-beast. Not going to happen. If you want a great body you got to lift, male or female.

Ave Sodalis · 11-11-2014 7:49pm

Earl Turner wrote: »

If you want a great body you got to lift, male or female.

I disagree. I've a super fast metabolism and eat copious amounts of food but fluctuate between toned and squidey. My dimensions never really change though. Squidey is usually for a few hours after eating a big dinner, or a few days if it's something like pizza or pasta. Toned is my natural way of being. If I did more exercise, I'd get quite defined. If I started lifting, I'd be a she beast, without a doubt.

DoYouEvenLift · 11-11-2014 9:38pm

sup_dude wrote: »

I disagree. I've a super fast metabolism and eat copious amounts of food but fluctuate between toned and squidey. My dimensions never really change though. Squidey is usually for a few hours after eating a big dinner, or a few days if it's something like pizza or pasta. Toned is my natural way of being. If I did more exercise, I'd get quite defined. If I started lifting, I'd be a she beast, without a doubt.

Would you be cycling steroids? Because if not, it's not naturally possible for women to look anything like 'she beasts' like this

You could easily lift to target areas you want to build on like the legs and glutes and once you're happy just maintain it, like this. Female crossfitters also have some of the best female physiques in the world.

Tasden · 11-11-2014 9:50pm

Some people would view the physique in that second photo as muscular/masculine though. Its not everyone's cup of tea even though it is impressive

Malari · 11-11-2014 10:08pm

Tasden wrote: »

Some people would view the physique in that second photo as muscular/masculine though. Its not everyone's cup of tea even though it is impressive

Those are seriously muscle legs in the second photo!

DoYouEvenLift · 11-11-2014 10:08pm

Tasden wrote: »

Some people would view the physique in that second photo as muscular/masculine though. Its not everyone's cup of tea even though it is impressive

Strong, thick legs and glutes on a woman is very feminine I think, goes perfectly with the wider hips and narrow waist look discussed earlier. If her body fat % was lower and she had very visible abs and striations showing on her legs then I'd agree with you, but she still has that soft and feminine look

Here's an example of a woman who went from "flat" to a curvy look in the way I described it before

And a good example of great progress due to lower body weight training. Like I said, it's all about managing your goals, if you're just looking to "tone" up and get to your ideal look then you can easily just maintain it rather than continuing to get stronger, lifting bigger weight and bulking up too much muscle

meeeeh · 11-11-2014 10:27pm

Seriously? ! Now I am supposed to obsess about my body enough to spend half of my life in gym. Firstly I have no time, secondly I have no interest and thirdly there are about gazillion exercises that are more interesting that weight lifting. And most importantly I really don't know why should I be that obsessed with how I look. This whey fuelled fitness craze is really making me miss good old alcohol, caffeine and nicotine filled days.

Btw first two before after pics are taken in a way to exaggerate certain features and totally freaky looking.

Skinny Shaming

Comments