"Curvy" women in print media

southsiderosie

Between the rise of Joan Holloway, bad photoshopping and Lara Stone, there seems to have been a fair amount of discussion in the media over the last few months about the size of models and how women's bodies are presented in the media in general. And by "discussion" I mean about a week of hang-wringing and/or debate before all goes back to the very thin status quo (with an occasional "clothes for every size!" article in fashion magazines)...until the next "controversy" or "cutting-edge campaign" hits the airwaves. :rolleyes:

Well, recently a few women's magazines have included editorials featuring so-called "plus sized" models. Editorial #1 appeared in V Magazine as part of its "size issue". Editorial #2 appears in Elle Canada...without any fanfare. (I used the Tom & Lorenzo links because they compiled the photos that aren't otherwise available all together)

So what do you think? Would you prefer to see more magazines and advertising featuring a broader range of physiques? Does using larger models take away from the fantasy/aspirational aspect of women's magazines (the argument that most editors use)? Are these editorials just a publicity stunt, or the beginning of a shift towards using a broader range of women in magazines and advertising? And what do you think of the editorials themselves? Personally I'm more of a fan of #2 than #1. To me, #1 screams "look, we put big girls in the magazine! Happy now?", while #2 makes me want to drink martinis and lounge around in fishnet stockings...which means it's aspirational, I guess...

amacachi

Where are the "plus-size" ladies there?

This type of advertising has been ebbing over into male advertising as well for a number of years and is near enough on a par now. I find it sad for both genders. Unfortunately advertisers must have some reason for believing it works and for as long as people (money) justify a particular style of advertising it'll continue.

I also find the media's use of "curvy" to be hilarious a lot of the time, it seems to represent everything from a size 8 woman to a morbidly obese woman.

pikachucheeks

Nice thread, OP.

I like your use of references and sources. Fair play!

southsiderosie wrote: »

So what do you think? Would you prefer to see more magazines and advertising featuring a broader range of physiques?

I'd prefer magazines and advertising to feature a broader range of physiques and models, yes.
Because as we know, women (and men) come in various, shapes and sizes.
Not everyone fits in to the stereotypical notion of a magazine model - and there's nothing wrong with that.

People are all different - and that's OK. It's the nature of life and genetics.
By choosing to only feature certain body types and people in their magazines, editors isolate others.

In my opinion, it's misleading for a fashion magazine to brand itself as "for women" if it's only catering for a small sector of the female market. (IE. If they're using models of a particular size and height, featuring brands that only stock a select range of sizes etc)

southsiderosie wrote: »

Does using larger models take away from the fantasy/aspirational aspect of women's magazines (the argument that most editors use)?

No.

There's no reason why a "larger" model shouldn't be aspirational or a fantasy aspect of a magazine, provided she's healthy, happy and confident. Same goes for a smaller counterpart.

There's nothing aspirational about a magazine using only small models. A lot of woman can't relate to them and now recognise that it's not necessarily a good thing - or healthy - to be as thin as you possibly can.
The notion that these models are "fantasy" is long gone, in my opinion.

Women are all different. We can't be boxed in to one category or represented by one type of model.
It's about time magazine editors started realising this and embraced the idea that beauty is not one single definition.

serenacat

personally i love crystal renn she is gorgeous and is healthy for her frame. I really would love if models were size 10-14 as this is the healthy range of shapes and gives you an idea of what clothes look like on.

Lia_lia

I think Lara Stone is SO hot. She is my favourite model. She has a gorgeous figure, nice face and that gap tooth thing is super cool. Not at all "curvy". Just in relation to other high fashion models. She has nice boobs.

Hellz yeah!



I don't care either way. I don't read fashion magazines. Very skinny girls are going to be in fashion for another few years so whatever. I just love Lara Stone.

chocgirl

I would definitely like to see a broader range of physiques in print media, definitely.

However I would like these physiques to be within healthy weight ranges only.

I think personally that we don't need to be aspiring to look like overweight plus size models. That is just swapping one unhealthy ideal for another. Having said that I realise that not all plus size models are overweight.

krudler

I laughed when i heard Holly whatsername from the X-Factor described as a "plus size" tv personality, sorry but what?! she's a normal sized, extremely yummy woman, plus size, ffs

http://xfactorblog.co.cc/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Holly-Willoughby-Picture-001.jpg

Nyom

Magazines do tend to use "curvy" a bit liberally to describe some people though, Beth Ditto isnt "curvy" she's morbidly obese

southsiderosie

I agree that Lara Stone rocks, but her quote "when they say curvy you know they mean fat" sums up everything that is wrong with the fashion industry. She is in no way, shape, or form fat.

And to speak to Amacachi's comment, I agree that "curvy" has become kind of meaningless. I generally consider women who have boobs and hips and are proportionate as curvy - like Christina Hendricks (who I have a slight obsession with - I LOVE her on Mad Men) or Salma Hayek.

pikachucheeks

krudler wrote: »

I laughed when i heard Holly whatsername from the X-Factor described as a "plus size" tv personality, sorry but what?! she's a normal sized, extremely yummy woman, plus size, ffs

Willoughby

I've always thought that too - it's crazy that they'd consider her plus size.

She's just curvy, by celebrity standards.

Lia_lia

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Willoughby

Are ye related? :P

southsiderosie

chocgirl wrote: »

I would definitely like to see a broader range of physiques in print media, definitely.

However I would like these physiques to be within healthy weight ranges only.

I think personally that we don't need to be aspiring to look like overweight plus size models. That is just swapping one unhealthy ideal for another. Having said that I realise that not all plus size models are overweight.

So out of curiosity, what do you think should be the cut-off point? Should there be an upper-level limit on BMI the same way that a lower-level limit has been proposed in Spain and the UK?

What did you think of the images in Editorial #1 from the original post?

chocgirl

I can't see editorial 1 pic, links not working for me.

BMI isn't the greatest measure of body fatness, it's not the most reliable but in terms of implementation yes I believe it would be the easiest way. Obviously it does need to be controlled at the other end of the scale too, too many grossly underweight models in magazines.

shakencat

plus size is considered from size 12+:mad:

i must be obese so :P

krudler

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Willoughby

I've always thought that too - it's crazy that they'd consider her plus size.

She's just curvy, by celebrity standards.

Thats the one:) Ms Willoughby made having to sit through the X-Factor just that more bearable, curves ftw

Massive Muscles

shakencat wrote: »

plus size is considered from size 12+:mad:

i must be obese so :P

You probably are. Is your BMI over 25, by much?
Actually that is just overweight.

3DataModem

pikachucheeks wrote: »

It's about time magazine editors started realising this and embraced the idea that beauty is not one single definition.

Womens magazines are extremely competitive - they are trying to appeal to the purchasers. They are not trying to change the world (and shouldn't be expected to).

It's about time magazine BUYERS purchased magazines that gave appropriate column inches to healthy sized women.

shakencat

Massive Muscles wrote: »

You probably are. Is your BMI over 25, by much?

actually no.. no where near 25..
22.6 last time i checked.

Massive Muscles

shakencat wrote: »

actually no.. no where near 25..
22.6 last time i checked.

Good for you.

shakencat

Massive Muscles wrote: »

Good for you.

pikachucheeks

Lia_lia wrote: »

Are ye related? :P

Haha! I actually get that a lot! I have no idea ... but I must find out

shakencat wrote: »

plus size is considered from size 12+:mad:

Just in the celebrity circuit, I'm guessing.
Most models and female celebrities would be smaller than that, so 12 is considered to be curvy or "+ size".

Of course, when you look at stats, size 12 is a size smaller than what the "average" woman's clothing size is said to be in the UK and Ireland.

Lia_lia wrote: »

I don't care either way. I don't read fashion magazines. Very skinny girls are going to be in fashion for another few years so whatever.

Out of interest, do you not read fashion magazines because of the models / clothing they feature?

chocgirl wrote: »

I think personally that we don't need to be aspiring to look like overweight plus size models. That is just swapping one unhealthy ideal for another. Having said that I realise that not all plus size models are overweight.

I agree.

Magazines should feature women who are healthy for their size - that's far more aspirational than showing teeny, underweight models or sticking larger-sized models in to their pages, for the sake of proving a point.

iguana

southsiderosie wrote: »

I generally consider women who have boobs and hips and are proportionate as curvy - like Christina Hendricks (who I have a slight obsession with - I LOVE her on Mad Men) or Salma Hayek.

Well that's what curvy is supposed to mean but in the last decade or so it has become a "polite" or even "empowering" way to say fat. You often see people who are actually overweight describe themselves, or be described as, curvy and it drives me up the wall.

Curvy means someone who has an hourglass figure, as in their body clearly curves in and out. I always gotten the impression that most men find that figure the most attractive.

OnTheBalls

Hmmm to be honest if you think you are overweight you probably are. I hate the way people talk about models being skinny bitches. size 36-40 is the size most women should be relative to height of course. back about 200 years ago women over this would have been considered overweight. The funny thing is when alot of think of obese they think of people who need to be lifted on cranes from their beds. But in fact people who would be over weight are actually obese. For exampekl ricky gervais.

What my point is, just because women are getting fatter doesn't mean we need to start adopting to it. And of course this applies to men too. I'm not talking women specific. I think the modern lifestyle just makes people fat. People spend along time in work at desks and generally not burning casualties. To an extent I don't blame the people themselves but society and it's attitude in general.

It's interesting. All of my friends would be considered of normal size. I'm the skinny lad. According to wii fit they are overweight and I am of ideal height?

Did I get too off point?

pikachucheeks

3DataModem wrote: »

Womens magazines are extremely competitive - they are trying to appeal to the purchasers. They are not trying to change the world (and shouldn't be expected to).

It's about time magazine BUYERS purchased magazines that gave appropriate column inches to healthy sized women.

Good point.

Obviously, magazines are a business and operate with the agenda of creating revenue. So, it's actually to be expected that they'd feature smaller models that link in with the types of model designers and advertising firms use, considering the magazine would be appealing to them to fill up ad space.

Maybe magazines are scared of using curvier models for the very reason that it would have a negative effect on their revenue, if certain brands felt the magazine wasn't relating or appealing to their target audience and pulled their advertisements.

Lia_lia

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Out of interest, do you not read fashion magazines because of the models / clothing they feature?

No, because they cost a fortune.

Macha

shakencat wrote: »

plus size is considered from size 12+:mad:

i must be obese so :P

And don't forget that height matters. Put two women standing beside each other, both size 16 but one is 6 foot and the other is 5 foot. Big difference.

OnTheBalls - you have to make the distinction between "overweight" and unhealthy. Just because someone has a BMI (pointless measurement anyway) over 25, or over a certain weight it doesn't automatically lead that they are unhealthy. In fact, doctors say it is healthier to be slightly overweight than slightly underweight but I don't see anyone calling the hoards of slightly underweight women unhealthy.

I have a BMI slightly over 25 but I am the fittest, strongest and healthiest out of my friends. I also know the most about fitness and nutrition and have the healthiest diet.

southsiderosie

taconnol wrote: »

And don't forget that height matters. Put two women standing beside each other, both size 16 but one is 6 foot and the other is 5 foot. Big difference.

Speaking of side-to-side, V also did that in its "size issue": they put a "regular" and a "plus size" model side to side in the same outfits: "One Size Fits All". I'm not actually sure what the point of this was though.

southsiderosie

chocgirl wrote: »

I can't see editorial 1 pic, links not working for me.

BMI isn't the greatest measure of body fatness, it's not the most reliable but in terms of implementation yes I believe it would be the easiest way. Obviously it does need to be controlled at the other end of the scale too, too many grossly underweight models in magazines.

link fixed.

helimachoptor

Lia_lia wrote: »

I think Lara Stone is SO hot. She is my favourite model. She has a gorgeous figure, nice face and that gap tooth thing is super cool. Not at all "curvy". Just in relation to other high fashion models. She has nice boobs.

Hellz yeah!



I don't care either way. I don't read fashion magazines. Very skinny girls are going to be in fashion for another few years so whatever. I just love Lara Stone.

honestly I wouldnt consider her curvy at all, yes she is hot, but is is pretty lean aswell.

krudler wrote: »

I laughed when i heard Holly whatsername from the X-Factor described as a "plus size" tv personality, sorry but what?! she's a normal sized, extremely yummy woman, plus size, ffs

http://xfactorblog.co.cc/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Holly-Willoughby-Picture-001.jpg

Nyom

Magazines do tend to use "curvy" a bit liberally to describe some people though, Beth Ditto isnt "curvy" she's morbidly obese

Holly is curvy, Grainne Seoige, Caroline Morahan are "curvy".

iguana wrote: »

Well that's what curvy is supposed to mean but in the last decade or so it has become a "polite" or even "empowering" way to say fat. You often see people who are actually overweight describe themselves, or be described as, curvy and it drives me up the wall.

Curvy means someone who has an hourglass figure, as in their body clearly curves in and out. I always gotten the impression that most men find that figure the most attractive.

Iguana I agree completely, far too many woman say they are "curvy" when plainly they are just fat and using the word to make themselves feel better.

And yes it also drives me up the wall. Beth Ditto is a fat mess and is not an inspiration to 99% of women, honestly who wants to look like that??

I can think of actually curvy women who's body types girls I know would love.

southsiderosie

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Good point.

Obviously, magazines are a business and operate with the agenda of creating revenue. So, it's actually to be expected that they'd feature smaller models that link in with the types of model designers and advertising firms use, considering the magazine would be appealing to them to fill up ad space.

Maybe magazines are scared of using curvier models for the very reason that it would have a negative effect on their revenue, if certain brands felt the magazine wasn't relating or appealing to their target audience and pulled their advertisements.

I think you have picked up on two key arguments here.

The magazines that use larger models - and do so not for shock value or only for annual "shape issues" - are not the "high end" fashion magazines like Vogue or W. And most editors that feature couture or high-end designer labels argue that they have to book really skinny girls because the sample sizes for the clothes are so small. So they blame the designers. And the casting agents say they try to send different-sized models, but the designers complain that they are fat. So maybe the designers are the problem, not the consumers...even though they claim that consumers want to see the aspirational images of women who are 6 feet tall and weigh 105 pounds. :rolleyes:

But if your magazine mainly features clothes from, say, high street shops (i.e. not Dior), then I don't see why it's so difficult to have a wider range of models - especially those magazines that do the "buy her designer outfit for 100 euro"-type features - because you know you are targeting an audience that would consider actually buying the clothes. Wouldn't it be more helpful for the reader to use models that do have a more "normal" body? Or at least have breasts and hips?

Macha

helimachoptor wrote: »

Holly is curvy, Grainne Seoige, Caroline Morahan are "curvy".

Hang on. Holly Willoughby is a size 8 but with large breasts. If size 8 is your definition of curvy, what do you call a size 6 - normal?

Gauge

From what I've gathered in this thread, fat women shouldn't refer to themselves as curvy. I'd be interested to know- what adjectives are okay? Or are they allowed to describe themselves in positive terms at all?

Good OP btw.

helimachoptor

Edited : in summary size 6/8 woman can be curvy

iguana

taconnol wrote: »

Hang on. Holly Willoughby is a size 8 but with large breasts. If size 8 is your definition of curvy, what do you call a size 6 - normal?

But curvy doesn't mean overweight it means someone with curves. If she curves out at the boobs, in at the waist and out at the bum/hips she is curvy. A curvy person can have a 22" waist or a 32" waist, if she curves she is curvy.

Macha

iguana wrote: »

But curvy doesn't mean overweight it means someone with curves. If she curves out at the boobs, in at the waist and out at the bum/hips she is curvy. A curvy person can have a 22" waist or a 32" waist, if she curves she is curvy.

So now you're saying that a curvy person cannot be apple-shaped..?

I just think everyone is running around using the word curvy and meaning completely different things by it! We need a poll or something..

helimachoptor

taconnol wrote: »

So now you're saying that a curvy person cannot be apple-shaped..?

I just think everyone is running around using the word curvy and meaning completely different things by it! We need a poll or something..

Agreed, but curves come in different shapes however I think we call all agree that perhaps this is a bit too "curvy"
http://www.ayushveda.com/mens-magazine/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/blog2-beth-ditto.jpg

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

So now you're saying that a curvy person cannot be apple-shaped..?

Exactly.....the word curvy implys a well defined waist. The classic hourglass shape.

iguana

Gauge wrote: »

From what I've gathered in this thread, fat women shouldn't refer to themselves as curvy. I'd be interested to know- what adjectives are okay?

Accurate ones.

That Holly woman accurately gets described as curvy and Tacannol reacted with horror that a slim woman gets called curvy as it now has associations with being overweight.

Macha

iguana wrote: »

Accurate ones.

That Holly woman accurately gets described as curvy and Tacannol reacted with horror that a slim woman gets called curvy as it now has associations with being overweight.

Horror is a bit of an exaggeration. But I suppose my reaction was because in my mind, curvy is used to describe women who are sexy but a bit plumper than your average size 8. So if someone then describes a size 8 as curvy, I dread to think what name they give to women who are size 14 (all logic of course based on my own definition of curvy y'see?)

We need a poll I tellsya.

Silverfish

helimachoptor, that's not really adding to the discussion.

Someone do up some poll options and I'll try add it.

helimachoptor

Sorry silverfish, was just saying that women can be small and still be curvy, my bad

Silverfish

We just don't want this thread to turn into pics of women with 'nice rack' comments.

Thanks

jam_mac_jam

I dont read the magazines so I dont think it applies to me, but the reason that skinny models are used is because clothes look better on them. They are aspirational so why would you aspire to be normal looking, just because people are getting fatter does not mean that it should be catered for. In saying that I think it has gone too far, I dont think that people whose bones are sticking out are attractive but do I want to see fat people in magazines, no not really to be honest I have to look at them enough all day.

Elba101

southsiderosie wrote: »

Between the rise of Joan Holloway, bad photoshopping and Lara Stone, there seems to have been a fair amount of discussion in the media over the last few months about the size of models and how women's bodies are presented in the media in general. And by "discussion" I mean about a week of hang-wringing and/or debate before all goes back to the very thin status quo (with an occasional "clothes for every size!" article in fashion magazines)...until the next "controversy" or "cutting-edge campaign" hits the airwaves. :rolleyes:

Well, recently a few women's magazines have included editorials featuring so-called "plus sized" models. Editorial #1 appeared in V Magazine as part of its "size issue". Editorial #2 appears in Elle Canada...without any fanfare. (I used the Tom & Lorenzo links because they compiled the photos that aren't otherwise available all together)

So what do you think? Would you prefer to see more magazines and advertising featuring a broader range of physiques? Does using larger models take away from the fantasy/aspirational aspect of women's magazines (the argument that most editors use)? Are these editorials just a publicity stunt, or the beginning of a shift towards using a broader range of women in magazines and advertising? And what do you think of the editorials themselves? Personally I'm more of a fan of #2 than #1. To me, #1 screams "look, we put big girls in the magazine! Happy now?", while #2 makes me want to drink martinis and lounge around in fishnet stockings...which means it's aspirational, I guess...

Depends what your definition of curvy is....the media seems to think it's a size 16 where as i'm a 10-12 and have plenty of curves! Sticking a size 16 in fashion mags and labelling it as "curvey" and "the average women" is all well and good to promote the larger women but, to me, a size 16 can, on smaller girls, be unhealthy.

I think both of the women are beautiful but absolutley rather 2 over 1. If i saw a girl that size wearing a short cropped top, i would think she was fat. The clothes they have her in aren't complementing her figure!!

I think all mags that do the "real woman" editorial is a publicity stunt. Unless their gonna stick to it, it's a publicity stunt. Any woman can look good if she dresses for her size instead of falling victim to what is "in".

helimachoptor

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I dont read the magazines so I dont think it applies to me, but the reason that skinny models are used is because clothes look better on them. They are aspirational so why would you aspire to be normal looking, just because people are getting fatter does not mean that it should be catered for. In saying that I think it has gone too far, I dont think that people whose bones are sticking out are attractive but do I want to see fat people in magazines, no not really to be honest I have to look at them enough all day.

I'm a boy so probably dont get this, but why would you aspire to be a stick insect?? Pop culture may indicate being stick insects are what we all want women to be, i certainly dont, and the threads that come up similar to this all end with the guys saying they prefer women with some meat/curves

@jam what/who would you consider fat?

jam_mac_jam

helimachoptor wrote: »

I'm a boy so probably dont get this, but why would you aspire to be a stick insect?? Pop culture may indicate being stick insects are what we all want women to be, i certainly dont, and the threads that come up similar to this all end with the guys saying they prefer women with some meat/curves

@jam what/who would you consider fat?

They are not all stick insects, there are plenty of models who are absolutely gorgeous. I just said above that people with their bones sticking out are not attractive. Slim people look better than fat people and calling them curvy is not going to change that. In answer to your question I dont really know what I would consider fat, I cant give a dress size because it depends on how tall you are. Somebody who is overweight I suppose.

stripysocks85

southsiderosie wrote: »

Between the rise of Joan Holloway, bad photoshopping and Lara Stone, there seems to have been a fair amount of discussion in the media over the last few months about the size of models and how women's bodies are presented in the media in general. And by "discussion" I mean about a week of hang-wringing and/or debate before all goes back to the very thin status quo (with an occasional "clothes for every size!" article in fashion magazines)...until the next "controversy" or "cutting-edge campaign" hits the airwaves. :rolleyes:

Well, recently a few women's magazines have included editorials featuring so-called "plus sized" models. Editorial #1 appeared in V Magazine as part of its "size issue". Editorial #2 appears in Elle Canada...without any fanfare. (I used the Tom & Lorenzo links because they compiled the photos that aren't otherwise available all together)

So what do you think? Would you prefer to see more magazines and advertising featuring a broader range of physiques? Does using larger models take away from the fantasy/aspirational aspect of women's magazines (the argument that most editors use)? Are these editorials just a publicity stunt, or the beginning of a shift towards using a broader range of women in magazines and advertising? And what do you think of the editorials themselves? Personally I'm more of a fan of #2 than #1. To me, #1 screams "look, we put big girls in the magazine! Happy now?", while #2 makes me want to drink martinis and lounge around in fishnet stockings...which means it's aspirational, I guess...

I have to say that, as a plus size girl myself, those girls deemed as curvy, are curvier than the waif thin women we usually see in the media, but under no circumstances could be seen as plus size.

Whilst it is admirable that these magazines are attempting to break out of the size 0 phase, there are still many women that are marginalised by such magazines - added pressure on everyone to be a particular size etc.

I do think it has a lot to do with social conditioning, particularly the images and models and articles that we are fed every day through the media.

Ah yes, social conditioning has a lot to answer for!

Macha

OK I did up an idea of a poll. I've never done one before so feel free to edit!

What does the word 'curvy' mean to you?

- I'm male and it means otherwise slim but large breasts
- I'm male and it means otherwise slim but large breasts and hips
- I'm male and it means anyone larger that Kate Moss
- I'm male and it means Beyonce's body type
- I'm male and it means Nigella Lawson's body type

- I'm female and it means otherwise slim but large breasts
- I'm female and it means otherwise slim but large breasts and hips
- I'm female and it means anyone larger that Kate Moss
- I'm female and it means Beyonce's body type
- I'm female and it means Nigella Lawson's body type

southsiderosie

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I dont read the magazines so I dont think it applies to me, but the reason that skinny models are used is because clothes look better on them. They are aspirational so why would you aspire to be normal looking, just because people are getting fatter does not mean that it should be catered for. In saying that I think it has gone too far, I dont think that people whose bones are sticking out are attractive but do I want to see fat people in magazines, no not really to be honest I have to look at them enough all day.

Here I have to disagree. I think it depends on the clothes. A halter neck mermaid-style evening gown is going to look better on a woman with boobs and hips. And spaghetti-strap sheath dresses I think may better suit a leaner, less busty woman. Perhaps the best argument for body diversity in fashion magazines is that by using a variety of women, you could actually do a better job of featuring the clothes. Too often the models used are so thin (and young) they look like they are playing dress-up in their mother's closet.

minidazzler

Excellent opions there Taconnol. It's Nigella Lawson

Marilyn Monroe is actually the PERFECT example of curvy IMO.

Snowie

minidazzler wrote: »

Nigella Lawson

.

one of the sexist women ever :Dand she can cook better then me very rare that

chocgirl

Ok just looked at the article 1 pics and have to say that I wouldn't say many of the models are overweight, certainly not obese but at the same time the shoot isn't very flattering. Certainly wouldn't be enticing me to buy anything or think about it again. Hate saying this but they look like token big girl photos to me.

I agree with what is being said about the difference between being curvy and being fat. I think somewhere along the line we started calling overweight girls and women curvy to gloss over the fact they are overweight. Most curvy women as I see it aren't overweight, they usually have terrific figures, Holly Willoughby springs to mind.