Samantha Brick strikes again: women need to diet every day

wallycharlo

Malari wrote: »

Are we sure this isn't satire? or is that a genre too far for the DM?

This is just the latest in a series of articles which have followed on from this first one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html

They all align to the same basic modus operandi.

misslt

The scary part is though that there are actually people that think 800-1000 calories per day is perfectly acceptable if not too much and bounce from the cabbage soup diet to the juice diet to whatever.

As much as I believe she's trolling its the poor saps that believe her that I feel sorry for :eek:

vitani

Still thinking about those chocolates going to waste... and it makes me wonder why she felt the need to pour coffee over them first. I could understand somebody who'd just started a diet doing it. But surely, if what she wrote there was in any way accurate, throwing them out would have been enough. If her willpower is so fantastic, she was hardly going to go rooting in the bin for them later.

I'm overthinking this...

krudler

Malari wrote: »

Are we sure this isn't satire? or is that a genre too far for the DM?

the DM isn't clever enough for that, nor its readers.

Dravokivich

The Cool wrote: »

What do you all think?
Reading through this I was mostly sad at how she thinks everything she has achieved in life is due to her being thin and beautiful;

What stands out to me is that she's screaming;

"DIET!
DIET!
DIET!"

But what it is she's advocating is forcing people to put themselves into starvation.

Forget about one's self image, it's that she advocating the extreme consequences of people under pressure that needs to be taken into consideration.

Boskowski

She is obviously an idiot and I only read the first couple of paragraphs (tl;dr) but isnt the real issue that we westeners eat way too much? Much more than our body needs and is healthy for us? And it has become normal now to eat way too much permanently so everyone eating just the right amount is considered to be on a diet?
The other day I ordered a half lunch which was still a good sized slice of bacon, two mash and a fairly hefty bit if cabbage. My colleague looked at this and remarked 'you on a diet?'

And yes the 'regular' lunch would have been more or less double that. And this is in a canteen for office workers not farmers.

wonderfulname

I didn't read the whole thing but what I did read reminded me of people I once knew with eating disorders, a number of whom I've heard were subsequently hospitalised... Regardless of whether this is a true account or a troll it bugs me this stuff gets published, there should be some degree of responsibility in journalism, there's going to be someone who reads that and thinks 'polo diet, great idea!'.

krudler

Boskowski wrote: »

She is obviously an idiot and I only read the first couple of paragraphs (tl;dr) but isnt the real issue that we westeners eat way too much? Much more than our body needs and is healthy for us? And it has become normal now to eat way too much permanently so everyone eating just the right amount is considered to be on a diet?
The other day I ordered a half lunch which was still a good sized slice of bacon, two mash and a fairly hefty bit if cabbage. My colleague looked at this and remarked 'you on a diet?'

And yes the 'regular' lunch would have been more or less double that. And this is in a canteen for office workers not farmers.

In other news,people have different appetites. I'd usually eat a small breakfast then a light lunch and huge dinner, or vice versa depending on what I'm eating that day.

mood

Merkin wrote: »

After being witness to her "dazzling" personality and sparkling wit on the last series of Big Brother (She has zero personality incidentally. AND she's absolutely bet down, the whole "being this beautiful is sooooo tough" piece was obviously trolltastic), the poor cow would want to have something going for her.

She's also definitely eating chocolate croissants on the sly because if she is eating the diet she says she is then she'd be slimmer than a size 12.

Yawn.

I never read that but to be honest she is not as good looking as she thinks she is. You would have to be absolutely stunning for it be 'sooooo tough'.

Boskowski

krudler wrote: »

In other news,people have different appetites. I'd usually eat a small breakfast then a light lunch and huge dinner, or vice versa depending on what I'm eating that day.

That's not really related to anything I wrote though isn't it?

Merkin

mood wrote: »

I never read that but to be honest she is not as good looking as she thinks she is. You would have to be absolutely stunning for it be 'sooooo tough'.

Read this and shake with mirth. I saw her interviewed subsequent to its publication and she was being deadly serious apparently....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html

krudler

Boskowski wrote: »

That's not really related to anything I wrote though isn't it?

Well a big dinner to some wouldnt be to others.

hollypink

That article sounds too trollish to have any truth in it, especially the bit about the box of chocolates. I'm sure it will provoke plenty of reaction, which is undoubtedly what was intended. Sadly, my love of chocolate is causing me to think about those fictional french chocolates in the fictional bin covered in fictional coffee dregs

But I'd agree with wonderfulname that while this might seem like harmless trolling, maybe it would provide validation for someone with an eating disorder, or a trigger for someone who was recovering?

MissFlitworth

hollypink wrote: »

Sadly, my love of chocolate is causing me to think about those fictional french chocolates in the fictional bin covered in fictional coffee dregs

Are you also thinking "hmmm, well if the bin was clean-ish & the box of chocolates was at the top & the coffee was just liquid/no grounds or at least the grounds only hit the box they'd probably still be edible. Gosh, even if some grounds got on I could probably blow them off. Wonder where she lives and if her bin is near a door...."

Not that I'm thinking anything like that.

Boskowski

krudler wrote: »

Well a big dinner to some wouldnt be to others.

True that. But in my example a regular lunch was 2 pieces of bacon, 3 to 4 mash and all the veg. I can't think of too many office workers who'd burn that unless they're 20 odd stone to begin with.
Deep down everyone knows what's right for them and if you're piling on the pounds saying 'ah, I have a strong appetite' surely is a cop out?

beks101

wonderfulname wrote: »

I didn't read the whole thing but what I did read reminded me of people I once knew with eating disorders, a number of whom I've heard were subsequently hospitalised... Regardless of whether this is a true account or a troll it bugs me this stuff gets published, there should be some degree of responsibility in journalism, there's going to be someone who reads that and thinks 'polo diet, great idea!'.

Agreed.

As trolltastic and obviously intended to incite as the article is, I have to say as someone who used to have an eating disorder, the first thing I honed in on while reading that was the meal plans she laid out - "coffee for breakfast...egg whites omelette for dinner...less than 1000 calories a day....size eight....always had a boyfriend and a job...".

Those are the things that vulnerable young women or men who are prone to self-esteem and body image issues are going to see. And possibly try, in an effort to lose weight. Because obviously, being thin trumps any other quality you can possess as a human being.

Obviously the DM isn't exactly a shining beacon of journalistic integrity, but I dread to think of the kind of negative impact her article could have on countless ED sufferers.

krudler

Her husband isnt exactly thin, why does he get a pass?

Das Kitty

Daily Mail forumla...

1. Print something to rile up the masses (even better the 'lefty' masses)
2. Wait for the debate, discussion and kickback to drive traffic back to the Daily Mail and increase advertising revenue.

It's a very elegant forumla if they can manage to keep on the legal expenses low enough.

mood

Das Kitty wrote: »

Daily Mail forumla...

1. Print something to rile up the masses (even better the 'lefty' masses)
2. Wait for the debate, discussion and kickback to drive traffic back to the Daily Mail and increase advertising revenue.

It's a very elegant forumla if they can manage to keep on the legal expenses low enough.

That's why I didn't read the link provided by another poster where the 'journalist's' (I use that title very loosely) wrote about the plague of her 'beauty'... when infact she is average / slightly above average!!!

The less attention the person get the less of her crap will be printed.

dfx-

Is there a list of 'controversialists'* somewhere so I can filter out nonsense like this..

*Julie Burchill coining herself as that

sunshine and showers

You are what you eat. Samantha Brick has clearly ingested several trolls at this stage.

username123

lukesmom wrote: »

I think she's an idiot of the highest order.

I dont think that what Samantha Brick the person really thinks and what she writes as "articles" have any relationship with each other.

I think that she knows she creates maximum fuss by writing trollish nonsense and keeps her salary high as a result. People love to hate her and she likes to feed that hate. She gets paid by the word for this rubbish and as far as I can tell all she does is go out of her way to annoy people with what she writes.

How she is as a private individual is probably totally different.

wonderfulname

username123 wrote: »

I dont think that what Samantha Brick the person really thinks and what she writes as "articles" have any relationship with each other.

I think that she knows she creates maximum fuss by writing trollish nonsense and keeps her salary high as a result. People love to hate her and she likes to feed that hate. She gets paid by the word for this rubbish and as far as I can tell all she does is go out of her way to annoy people with what she writes.

How she is as a private individual is probably totally different.

Honestly a person who will destroy their own name on such a scale and put it to something that could adversely affect others for nothing more than money is worse than the character in my book.

mood

wonderfulname wrote: »

Honestly a person who will destroy their own name on such a scale and put it to something that could adversely affect others for nothing more than money is worse than the character in my book.

And the editor who allows this crap to be published is as irresponsible as the writer. this is the height of their 'career' hopefully.

username123

wonderfulname wrote: »

Honestly a person who will destroy their own name on such a scale and put it to something that could adversely affect others for nothing more than money is worse than the character in my book.

I dont disagree but I dont really see how any tripe published in a rag like the Daily Mail has much of an adverse effect on anyone except maybe being a bit harsh on the bum cheeks while being used to wipe?

lva2013

Seriously,what a total moron!!Her quotes are ridiculous and totally degrading to women.She obviously has a lot of issues,being too thin to me is not attractive at all personally I think women look better with curves.She must not have any self esteem as she says all the men she's been with constantly kept an eye on her weight,how sad is that,I actually sorry for her,what a horrible existence watching everything you eat to the point of obsession.

Sulla Felix

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

All I have to say about this is....

I say the friend was real impressed reading this article - how ungrateful :eek:. She could have kept them for other guests or gave them on to a friend or family what I waste.




I would have ate them

You make it sound as if theres even a grain of truth in what she writes. There rarely is.

krudler

Sulla Felix wrote: »

You make it sound as if theres even a grain of truth in what she writes. There rarely is.

Her imaginary french chocolate friend probably lives in the same part of her head as the pilots who give her free drinks on flights for being ridiculously good looking :pac:

sunshine and showers

krudler wrote: »

Her imaginary french chocolate friend probably lives in the same part of her head as the pilots who give her free drinks on flights for being ridiculously good looking :pac:

Oh, that doesn't happen to you? I bet you don't have strangers buy your train tickets or pay your taxi fares either. Awkward.


She's full of it.

mood

krudler wrote: »

Her imaginary french chocolate friend probably lives in the same part of her head as the pilots who give her free drinks on flights for being ridiculously good looking :pac:

But she is not ridiculously good looking. It's all in her head (imaginary or not).