A role model for ordinary women?

ztoical

thread title taken from this piece in the daily mail. The author of it clearly has issues with fat people - I mean I can understand if people don't find the young girl attractive [the first photo really doesn't do anything for her] but the author really goes to town. Thought it would be interesting to hear peoples comments given that we had a big thread on beauty pageants not to long ago.

Dudess

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 certainly do think there should be an emphasis on "curvy" in this scary size zero era, but when I think of "curvy" I think of the likes of Kelly Brook:

rainbowtrout

I've just read that article. The author goes to town on that girl. Granted she's a stone overweight, but in the general scheme of things it's not that much, that can be done quite easily for example over christmas - well maybe not quite a stone it can happen over a short period of time. The author goes on to say that a healthy BMI for this girl (and anyone else) is 20, which to be fair is at the lower end of the scale of healthy BMI values, considering 18.5 and under is considered underweight, this seems an extreme view.

It isn't mentioned anywhere in the article that a healthy BMI is between 18.5-25 so this girl isn't that much overweight. I'd have to starve myself to have a BMI of 20 and I'm not overweight.

Dudess

I would say she's more than a stone overweight, but I still don't think she looks massively overweight. Her upper body isn't big at all, but from the hips downwards she's quite a big girl.

However she could lose that weight easily and get down to a Kelly Brook size (there's a difference but not actually an enormous one).

ztoical

she's 12 stone 8 pounds at five foot ten inches and her BMI is 26.03, at least according to the piece, which is overweight but not morbidly obese.

Dudess

Nobody said it's morbidly obese (although she looks more than 12 and a half stone, especially considering her height). But overweight is overweight is overweight. I'm not talking about a couple of lbs, I'm talking about a significant amount - and that girl is overweight by a significant amount. A stone - while not gargantuan - is a significant amount. She looks at least a stone overweight. According to the VHI Ideal Weight calendar, the ideal weight for someone of that height is anywhere between 9.2 stone and under 12 and a half stone. That's a hell of a lot of scope. I'm not saying she should go down to 9.2 stone but maybe 11? Just to refocus: I'm talking purely about health, not cosmetic reasons for her to lose weight. Getting rid of the excess flab on her stomach is the main thing she needs to do (a lot of stomach fat increases the risk of diabetes enormously), the rest would fall into place. Some thigh and ass shrinkage and she'd be set. As I said, her very upper body isn't big at all - arms aren't big, barely any chin fat, quite slender around the neck and shoulders.

She's a beautiful looking girl.

I do think though that the writer is underplaying the size zero problem in order to make a point. It's maybe "fashionable" to be fat? Bollocks.

ztoical

It is hard to judge her from a health point of view based just on the images and the numbers given - BMI is only one measure of your health. Body fat percentage, blood pressure, resting heart rate, cholesterol and other measurements are at least as important as BMI. You need to get the whole picture. I just found the author funny as she talks about presenting a good healthy image to young girls yet she wrote a book called the crash diet and pushes a fad diet called the yogurt diet.

Seraphina

the author is a bit rough on her, but i can see where she's coming from. at 17 she's pretty young to be that overweight, i know its only a stone and a bit, but seriously at that age, most of us were still pretty damn skinny with little effort.

its not a good idea to be promoting the "it's ok to be fat" idea. yeah its fine to be a size 16, many girls are that size due to their height and hips, but she's just overweight. she's just as bad, saying the other girls are 'skinnyminnies' and 'blonde barbie dolls'

the other girls are healthy, and quite frankly, a lot more attractive, she's just a novelty really...

Loopy

I don't take any pleasure in attacking Chloe..??!!??!!

Ok, so she tears her to shreds and says the above. Bullshit. I think its great, Go away posh.. Skinny is not fabulous...never was.

Ok Chloe is overweight but not obese. The point being even people with a couple of extra pounds on them can be sexy and not be considered lardarses..

That article was just vicous IMO, the journalist had a deadline and thought shit what do I write about.. Ok yeh, I will attack that young teenage girl who had a couple of extra pounds on her. There is no perfect body, is it not good to show young girls that they don't have to be size 6 to be accepted??

Seraphina

hrm

re reading the title, i'm of the opinion that fat skinny curvy, whatever the size, a model, as someone judged soley on their looks, is not a role model for young women, full stop

lorweld

Totally agree with you Seraphina.

daiixi

Dudess wrote: »

Just to refocus: I'm talking purely about health, not cosmetic reasons for her to lose weight. Getting rid of the excess flab on her stomach is the main thing she needs to do (a lot of stomach fat increases the risk of diabetes enormously), the rest would fall into place. Some thigh and ass shrinkage and she'd be set. As I said, her very upper body isn't big at all - arms aren't big, barely any chin fat, quite slender around the neck and shoulders..

She's actually quite slender looking around the waist where excess fat is a problem. As said before it looks like she is carrying most of her weight below her hips. She's probably a decent way under the max of 36 inches that they recommend for women around the waist. You could probably knock a stone off her by giving her a breast reduction too.....

How Strange

I don't think it's a well written article as it comes across as more of an attack on one girl than an objective critique of the issue of obesity today. However, I agree with the core of what she is saying. Allowing obviously overweight girls to be 'models' is normalising obesity.

I agree if she slimmed down to Kelly Brooks size she would still be considered 'too fat' to be a model but she would actually be a good role model for young girls - you can be a good healthy weight and still be a model.

There is lots of evidence to substantiate the argument that obesity or being over weight leads to all sorts of health problems so normalising it and making it acceptable is wrong. Being too skinny is also wrong and what we should be trying to do is promote a healthy, normal weight among young girls by eating healthily and taking regular exercise.

Ruthee

Seraphina wrote: »

hrm

re reading the title, i'm of the opinion that fat skinny curvy, whatever the size, a model, as someone judged soley on their looks, is not a role model for young women, full stop

agreed..

The Sweeper

First: it's The Daily Hate. What do you expect?

Second: I recently wrote a scathing riposte to an article in The Daily Hate and oddly enough they chose not to publish my comment. Which is unfortuate, because I didn't even swear.

Here's the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=546689&in_page_id=1879

Anyone who doesn't want to sully their browser by clicking that link, a journalist decided to take a pop at Posh Spice's choice of spray-on pantaloons and asked "But could a "real" woman carry off the look with such confidence and aplomb? I doubted it."

The journalist then dons her own set of spray-on pants for a day.

During the article she whimpers:

"I, on the other hand, don't starve myself for a living."

and

"I have a penchant for fine dining and a weakness for a nice bottle of wine or two."

She further opines:

"Not only could they see every single lump and bump of my bottom and legs, but also my cellulite and the scar on my calf that I got playing football at university."

In The Daily Hate's own spirit of picking and choosing quotes to reinforce your point, she goes on to whinge:

"Sadly, if I turned around, they could also see the results of seven days of lunching on spaghetti bolognese and dining on tartiflette."

So the journalist sets herself up as "a real woman" and sets out to represent the rest of us in trying to get into Posh Spice's trousers.

Except that she admits, "On a good day, I'm a size 10."

A size 10.

I don't know many overweight people who are size 10. I don't know many remotely fat people who are size 10. In fact, if we assume this journalist is anywhere over 5ft 5", chances are she's bloody skinny at a size 10.

In my scathing riposte, among other points, I challenged the article as being far more self indulgent than eating spaghetti every day at lunchtime while on an activity holiday (skiing) and for some odd reason they didn't print my comment.

The Daily Mail is like one of those "House of Fun" mirrors at carnivals - it reflects a truly distorted perspective of how women look.

themadchef

Reminds me of Sophie Dhal (if i spelled it right) she was a beautiful + size model. Then she lost all the weight.

Once the weight was gone, she was just another scrawny beautiful model imo, she lost what made her unique in that business, again imo.

The pressure they are under must be intense. Fair play to Chloe for having the courage to go for this even though she will be a lamb to the slaughter for reporters like that. Hope she can take it on the chin.

ztoical

ztoical wrote: »

It is hard to judge her from a health point of view based just on the images and the numbers given - BMI is only one measure of your health. Body fat percentage, blood pressure, resting heart rate, cholesterol and other measurements are at least as important as BMI. You need to get the whole picture. I just found the author funny as she talks about presenting a good healthy image to young girls yet she wrote a book called the crash diet and pushes a fad diet called the yogurt diet.

Well said.

The author is an idiot. She claims to be a Dietician and then informs us that BMI is an indication of levels of body fat. And for that matter if you were 5ft 10 and your BMI was 26.03 you would weigh 12st 13lbs 7 oz.

Its disgusting really.....From the "Chloe claims to excerise" jibe. To holding her up as a dangerous role model, while claiming that it is a fallacy that the skinnier models inspire those with eating disorders.
Just the hyprocrisy of claiming to be worried about the health of her nations young people, while ignoring the fact that eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.

I'm not surprised by this....I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Mail.


Anyway I'd bet money that Chloe isn't 12st 8lbs, She looks Obese. I MVMed those stats for a pear shape and this is the model...

and no way is Rossana Davidson 5ft 9.

themadchef

themadchef wrote: »

Reminds me of Sophie Dhal (if i spelled it right) she was a beautiful + size model. Then she lost all the weight.

Once the weight was gone, she was just another scrawny beautiful model imo, she lost what made her unique in that business, again imo.

+1 Sophie was gorgeous as a plus size....

monters

Dudess wrote: »

when I think of "curvy" I think of the likes of Kelly Brook:

even though the girl going for miss england looks nice in the 2nd photo - she is over weight. and its not good for her to be campaigning as miss england when she is that size. it is telling over young girls that a size 16 is ok - and its not. its sad that "curvy" has become a cover name for "fat" ..kelly brook IS curvy - she has beautiful curves in the RIGHT places and in proportion to her height and body type...being a podgy overweight 17 yearold is NOT what we should be encouraging as"curvy".

Gordon

Daily Mail wrote:

None of them was underweight.

Made me chuckle.

"How much more black could it be? None. None.. more black." /tap

Dudess

ztoical wrote: »

It is hard to judge her from a health point of view based just on the images

Appearance-wise she is undoubtedly overweight though.

I just found the author funny as she talks about presenting a good healthy image to young girls yet she wrote a book called the crash diet and pushes a fad diet called the yogurt diet.

Oh well now I'm looking at this a bit differently. I've come across Monica Grenfell before actually. She takes quite a hardline approach. My mum and I accumulate fat on the stomach and nowhere else so we bought a book to remedy that situation - entitled Fat Around The Middle... by Monica Grenfell. Bloody hell! You can't even have beans as the tomato sauce contains sugar, or a fruit yogurt (has to be natural, nothing else). Fukk that!
I remember reading a column by her in which she said something really harsh. To paraphrase: "A number of people have been moaning about how Beyoncé says she lives on tomatoes and lettuce. Well at least she's not eating junkfood and turning into a fat, lazy lump." Take it easy there, bitch!

I still stick by what I said at the start though. This girl is not a good role model as she's too overweight.

looptheloop wrote: »

is it not good to show young girls that they don't have to be size 6 to be accepted??

Of course it's good - does that mean that you demonstrate that point with someone overweight who's a size 16-18 instead? Of course not. There's an in-between.
As I said, the physique of someone like Kelly Brook, who's probably a 12-14 and with amazing curves yet little flab, is a perfect example of something to aspire to (I emphasise her physique, the woman herself seems like an uber-bint).

daiixi wrote: »

She's actually quite slender looking around the waist where excess fat is a problem. As said before it looks like she is carrying most of her weight below her hips.

True. She is the epitome of pear-shaped. And to be fair, excess fat anywhere besides the stomach isn't anywhere near as dangerous - it's only on the stomach area that it's covering vital organs.

She's probably a decent way under the max of 36 inches that they recommend for women around the waist.

Hmmm... hard to tell. From what I see, I'd have to disagree. Sure, her stomach may not appear that "chunky" in comparison to her hips and thighs, but it's still too flabby for her health.

You could probably knock a stone off her by giving her a breast reduction too.....

That's more than likely fat, and would be lost through healthy diet and exercise. It's unusual for a pear-shaped woman to have such large breasts.

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

I recently wrote a scathing riposte to an article in The Daily Hate and oddly enough they chose not to publish my comment.

Do you have it handy?

I don't know many overweight people who are size 10. I don't know many remotely fat people who are size 10. In fact, if we assume this journalist is anywhere over 5ft 5", chances are she's bloody skinny at a size 10.

Looking at the pic, she's chunkier than VB (not difficult) but she's still bloody slim. Exceptionally self-absorbed all right.

The Daily Mail is like one of those "House of Fun" mirrors at carnivals - it reflects a truly distorted perspective of how women look.

Yeah, but the journo probably believes all this stuff about herself - the mind can exaggerate physical flaws. However those looking in on the outside (i.e. the editorial team) were obviously able to look at her case more objectively and yeah, what a pack of morons for publishing it.

This fat around the middle being dangerous thing.
It is visceral/internal fat that does the damage. Alcohol, stress, smoking and inactivity promote visceral fat formation. It doesn't have to be visible.

http://www.you.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=445691&in_page_id=1908

Pherekydes

ztoical wrote: »

she's 12 stone 8 pounds at five foot ten inches and her BMI is 26.03, at least according to the piece, which is overweight but not morbidly obese.

12 st 8 and 5'10" gives a BMI of 25.3.

5'10" and a BMI of 26.03 gives a weight of 13st. If she's 5'10" she looks even heavier than 13 st to me. She doesn't look particularly unhealthy or particularly healthy. She's definitely overweight, but then many of the entrants to these types of competitions would be underweight. I would question this type of entrant who feels she needs to counterbalnce the size zeroes by being a size 16 (yeah, right. Try 20). Everyone needs to be their own healthy best weight, and stop using silly extremes to justify their own silly extreme.

Slow coach

Slow coach wrote: »

5'10" and a BMI of 26.03 gives a weight of 13st.

EEhhemmm! Mr lazy calculator user.

Moonbaby wrote: »

26.03 you would weight of 12st 13lbs 7 oz.

Slow coach wrote: »

I would question this type of entrant who feels she needs to counterbalnce the size zeroes by being a size 16 (yeah, right. Try 20). Everyone needs to be their own healthy best weight, and stop using silly extremes to justify their own silly extreme.

Maybe she just wants to be a lovely girl.

Pherekydes

Moonbaby wrote: »

EEhhemmm! Mr lazy calculator user.

I rounded. Your 12 st 13 lbs and 7 oz is much more accurate. But necessary?

Slow coach

Slow coach wrote: »

I rounded. Your 12 st 13 lbs and 7 oz is much more accurate. But necessary?

It was to make the point that the author is incompentant/pulled the figure out of thin air. 13 st is actually 26.16.

Pherekydes

Moonbaby wrote: »

It was to make the point that the author is incompentant/pulled the figure out of thin air. 13 st is actually 26.16.

It's pointless making calculations to this degree of accuracy. 13 stone is 182 lbs which is 82.55 kg. 5'10" is 1.778m. The BMI would then be 26.11. That's the most accurate figure to two decimal places. Still too fat!

Now, is that enough, or are you going to come over to my place (maths forum) and see what's vanilla?

This does not constitute an attempt at stalking. slow coach, normally as sober as a judge, has consumed half a bottle of Baileys. Terms and conditions apply.

SarahSassy

Seraphina wrote: »

the author is a bit rough on her, but i can see where she's coming from. at 17 she's pretty young to be that overweight, i know its only a stone and a bit, but seriously at that age, most of us were still pretty damn skinny with little effort.

its not a good idea to be promoting the "it's ok to be fat" idea. yeah its fine to be a size 16, many girls are that size due to their height and hips, but she's just overweight. she's just as bad, saying the other girls are 'skinnyminnies' and 'blonde barbie dolls'

the other girls are healthy, and quite frankly, a lot more attractive, she's just a novelty really...

+1

daiixi

Dudess wrote: »

True. She is the epitome of pear-shaped. And to be fair, excess fat anywhere besides the stomach isn't anywhere near as dangerous - it's only on the stomach area that it's covering vital organs.

Hmmm... hard to tell. From what I see, I'd have to disagree. Sure, her stomach may not appear that "chunky" in comparison to her hips and thighs, but it's still too flabby for her health.

That's more than likely fat, and would be lost through healthy diet and exercise. It's unusual for a pear-shaped woman to have such large breasts.

I'm not disagreeing with you, she could be a lot healthier but it's her life and her choice. Just as it's the life and choice of those who wish to make a role model out of her. However breasts are made up of fat and it's not that unusual for pear shaped women to have large breasts, I know plenty who do, Calculating BMI is not really an accurate way to find out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight or obese. If she had smaller breasts then she'd have a lower BMI. Would it make her healthier? No, but it makes the BMI argument ridiculous.

Dudess

daiixi wrote: »

she could be a lot healthier but it's her life and her choice.

Of course it is, but that's not really of relevance to what's being discussed here or in that article. The point is, she's being put on a pedestal in a way, and is that a good thing when she's overweight?

it's not that unusual for pear shaped women to have large breasts, I know plenty who do

Wouldn't they be more hourglass-shaped? (The lucky biatches... )

Calculating BMI is not really an accurate way to find out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight or obese. If she had smaller breasts then she'd have a lower BMI. Would it make her healthier? No, but it makes the BMI argument ridiculous.

Yep. Again, what about those who weigh a lot simply because of huge muscle? Are they obese...?
BMI might be ok as a vague indicator for some people, but hip-to-waist ratio seems far more effective. And the use of those forceps thingies to get a measurement of one's body fat percentage.
Body compositions vary greatly. If I went below eight and a half stone I'd be miserably thin yet I'm not particularly tall, I'm between five foot four and five foot five. Other girls of my height and who weigh less than eight and a half stone are very healthily slim as opposed to skinny.

But back on topic: I hope people understand me - if the girl in the picture was a generally healthy size with the odd little flabby point, then I'd be championing her to the bitter end, but she's a significantly overweight girl, no getting away from it. Sure, she's not even anywhere near http://www.herpes.ru/hudo/hum/fat_girl.jpg but it would take a lot for even very overweight people to reach that level.

I've been reading up on the writer of the piece, Monica Grenfell. Yep, she has a book Crash Diet - How To Lose 7lbs in Seven Days. Irresponsible battle-axe tbh.

Macha

Why is Kelly Brook being lauded as what we should be aiming for?? If Google is right and she is 5ft 8in and 120lbs, her BMI is around 18 - ie underweight! Why is that better than overweight? Or are we just doing things on looks around here?

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.