Samantha Brick strikes again: women need to diet every day

RacoonQueen

Very, very irresponsible article to publish whether she's been genuine or not.

No part of the media, no matter how trashy can make excuses for publishing that. Disgusting.

krudler

mood wrote: »

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

Far from it tbh

meeeeh

As someone said it's perfect DM formula. And considering this seems to be one of more active threads in TLL, it seems to be working.

Madam_X

This is more than trolling that can just be ignored IMO though - this is unethical stuff. I'd be more bothered by her editor for giving the green light, than by her.

mood

krudler wrote: »

Far from it tbh

Really? I know much better looking women. She is nothing special in my opinion.

Please note that I am only commenting on her looks because I really dislike her because of her crap article etc.

Madam_X

I think Krudler means she's far from as breathtakingly beautiful as she makes herself out to be. :pac:

And yeh, I think she's grand-looking - quite pretty. But not a stunner like she says... and unattractive because of her personality.

krudler

Madam_X wrote: »

I think Krudler means she's far from as breathtakingly beautiful as she makes herself out to be. :pac:

.

That

Dolbert

Madam_X wrote: »

I think Krudler means she's far from as breathtakingly beautiful as she makes herself out to be. :pac:

And yeh, I think she's grand-looking - quite pretty. But not a stunner like she says... and unattractive because of her personality.

C'mon, she's a total fox...

vitani

Madam_X wrote: »

And yeh, I think she's grand-looking - quite pretty. But not a stunner like she says... and unattractive because of her personality.

There's one pic of her in the first article she wrote in which she is actually quite pretty. I'm convinced the DM just keep using the less flattering ones to get our backs up.

meeeeh

Madam_X wrote: »

This is more than trolling that can just be ignored IMO though - this is unethical stuff. I'd be more bothered by her editor for giving the green light, than by her.

Nah, it's natural selection.



Joking. Well sort of, I have no idea why her opinion matters.

Edit: I goggled her picture. She can't be anything but a troll.

April O Neill

Can't believe this obvious troll article inspired someone to start a thread. This isn't meant to be a go at the OP, it just makes me sad. And part of that sadness is reserved for Ms. Brick herself.

While we're on it, she is skinny fat. Untoned arms and a tummy. Nothing wrong with this - but she doesn't meet her own apparent standards.

April O Neill

Wibbs wrote: »

+1, on a 1000 cals a day you would likely be a lot thinner. You could be perfectly healthy on that level of intake, but it would take serious planning around your food choices(supplements would be required too) and you'd have little enough in reserve.

It doesn't seem perfectly healthy to have little in reserve.

April O Neill

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.

That sounds like a carvery type lunch, they're always massive. They wouldn't be typical of homemade lunches people might eat. And no, that's not the real point of this particular article. That would be giving it *far* too much credit TBH.

April O Neill

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

Reminds me of SATC where Miranda starts compulsively eat chocolate cake. She throws the cake she has in the fridge into the bin, then takes some out and eats it, then squeezes detergent all over it to stop herself eating more of it. She then rings Carrie and says she'll have to check herself into the Betty Crocker clinic.

Wibbs

April O Neill wrote: »

It doesn't seem perfectly healthy to have little in reserve.

I mean A in the sense you mightn't be running marathons and such Plus it would depend on your basic build and gender. A small framed man with a sit down job is going to require a lot less food than a heavily muscled man for example*. Women need more than men in general as low body fat can cause problems with the female reproductive system. Periods can stop for a start(even then women can vary), bone loss is a real concern too. Plus like I said you'd need to be very careful to eat highly nutrient dense food to get all your bodies requirements at 1000 cals a day. Hell people eating triple that are often lacking in some nutrients.








*muscle requires a lot of calories even while at rest. It's very "expensive" as a body system. Bodybuilders have to eat like ravenous horses to sustain their extreme physique. Another reason many diets are bad news as the first thing to usually go is your lean mass, the very mass that would burn calories at rest, so when people come off such diets the weight can go on even easier than before.

kylith

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The poor woman just needs some love.

And some cake.


As someone who discovered the Polo diet herself at age 16 I now call it what it was; the beginning of anorexia. Luckily I got myself sorted before it got to that stage, but I rarely eat Polos any more.

Twee.

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The poor woman just needs some love.

Yes, I feel that she is just so unsatisfied with her own life that she feels the need to justify it.

I can't even read her articles any more, they just get more ridiculous and more full of **** as they go on. This one in particular though, IMO, is dangerous. I'm ashamed to say, but I read the DM online for the celebrity gossip (I know, I'm a bad person!), but I'm sure that section of the site gets a lot of young readers, and Brick's articles are often mixed into the celeb gossip links. It wouldn't be hard for a vulnerable person to stumble across.

Bid08

I dunno where I have been but I have never came accross any of this idiots articles
what an absolute gobsh1te of a woman, never read so much crap (in saying that I even skimmed through alot of it)

krudler

Bid08 wrote: »

I dunno where I have been but I have never came accross any of this idiots articles
what an absolute gobsh1te of a woman, never read so much crap (in saying that I even skimmed through alot of it)

look up the one about how awful her life is because she's too good looking, its one of the funniest things you'll ever read. I dunno whether to laugh at her or feel sorry for her, laughing feels better though.

Ilyana 2.0

Whatever about Samantha Brick being a troll, it's quite disgraceful that the DM would publish an article where the writer is advocating what is essentially eating disorder behaviour.

I had a lot of the same behaviours as that, not too long ago. Had I stumbled on that article 18 months ago it would have reinforced in my head that starving myself was the only way to be happy. I only ate 1,000 calories a day, less if I could manage it. And I didn't even have a full-blown eating disorder.

My 18 year old sister reads the DM everyday. She's a size 8 and is convinced that she's fat, and tends to control her eating. Needless to say, when the DM is publishing irresponsible sh*te like this, I really worry for her.

Lia_lia

LOL I've never dieted and I'm way skinnier than her..boom!

:pac:


Seriously though, what's the craic with her.

The Sweeper

*google image searches Samantha Brick*

*blinks*

iguana

Lia_lia wrote: »

Seriously though, what's the craic with her.

She's another in the line of somewhat disturbed women, a la Liz Jones, who the Daily Mail exploit to troll the internet and increase their profits massively. Brick was a very successful tv producer back in the 90's (she was responsible for the Ibiza Uncovered series) who destroyed her career, her long-term relationship, lost her house and company and bankrupted herself all on the advice of 'psychics' who she estimates she paid about £30k to. She then married a man who appears to be horrible and controlling (according to her own descriptions of him) and they struggled for years to have a child, pouring a lot of money into several failed IVF attempts.

She seems to be a sad, bitter, insecure woman who masks her unhappiness by writing awful articles where she insists that the things which are clearly adding to her unhappiness are in fact what make her great and that everyone else is jealous of her. The DM most likely pay her very well for this and I suspect that the costs of her IVF treatment factored into her decision to write more and more personal articles, as the articles increased around the time she was doing IVF. That would all be fine if she was conscious of the trolling element of her articles and wasn't taking it seriously but when I've seen her on tv it appears that the reaction that her articles provoke hurts her and adds to her misery.

Legs.Eleven

Whatever about discussing the article but please don't support that paper by clicking on any links which brings you to their paper.