Girls Bellys hangin out

dundalk cailin · 13-10-2005 09:15AM

Le Rack wrote:

kirby I is size 14 also and wher are ya going with your (*cough*) that isn't big trust me! I used to be like a 20 or so!
It depends on the build of the person too on whether they look dog awful or just awful, like if I was a whole lot thinner I would look stupidly top heavy, 12 I would look grand but like a 10 would be pushin it big time, as I'm big boned too...

its terrible when girls squeeze themselves into too small clothes, whats the big deal with buyin ur proper size? im a 14 also, i wudn say its big, its average, but i dont wear too tight of clothes i wear proper fittin clothes. sure who's gonna see the label inside anyway, all people will see is the excess skin!!

jcoote · 13-10-2005 09:17AM

pregnant bellys are sexy anything else tho is just wrong

MrVestek · 13-10-2005 09:30AM

I, too, have noticed this 'trend' lately and I have to say, it completely disguists me. Can these people not see what we see when they look in the mirror or when their other friends see this for what it is? I mean, I'm sorry I hate to discriminate against people as I was teased over my weight when I was a kid so I know how horrible bullying can be but my god put that bouncing 'podgy' stomach away. I for one certainly don't want to see it, and I know alot of other people don't want to see it either. Any time I see these skangery hoopie ear ringed delusional eejits (especially around town) all I can think to myself is 'errrrghhh.... good god put some clothes on, you're no Jessica Alba'.

MorningStar · 13-10-2005 10:06AM

I worked with agirl who did this. Generally I assumed they were stupid people who did this but she proved me wrong. Very smart and nice person but maybe overly confident.
That actually seems to be the problem. The whole "Girl Power" hangover where a load of woman now have the confiendecne and belief they can do anything. The problem being being one sex or the other doesn't make you able to do anything it's personal ability and apperance. I have met some really stupid people who think they can do things when their ability is lacking.

Praetorian · 13-10-2005 04:18PM

I don't like the trend either. Men should pick clothes for women and vice versa. Some women can't be trusted to pick things that suit!

SprostonGreen · 13-10-2005 04:32PM

Yeah, its disgusting alright. Girls who do this, havent got a clue and never will. I dont think they're the kind to post on internet message boards either. So they'll probably go through life with their spare tyre showing.

Brittany · 13-10-2005 05:00PM

I am what I consider to be a thin girl, (5 foot 7 and size 8) but even I can not pull off most outfits and I know it!I don't mean to be offensive but some styles of clothes are not meant for fat people and fooling yourself that the clothes look good just because they come in your size is not right at all!Dress to suit your shape and you'll look much nicer!!!Belly flab hanging out is disgusting!

Sangre · 13-10-2005 05:13PM

Le_Rack wrote:

kirby I is size 14 also and wher are ya going with your (*cough*) that isn't big trust me! I used to be like a 20 or so!

And how do you know what you'd look like at a size 10?

(I swear I'm big boned!!)

Horrible trend with girls though. Belly doesn't even need to be flat, it just shouldn't hang over like cookie dough or something!

Rozie · 13-10-2005 10:44PM

rsynnott wrote:

Sorry, you've said this a number of times; as far as I can ascertain, it has no basis in medicine. What is the health risk of being in the conventionally considered healthy range (BMI 19.5-25)?

You do realise that the people who "calculate" BMI and "what is healthy" are funded millions and millions by diet companies, right?

Being skinny like a lot of pop stars and a handful of actresses isn't particularily healthy. And yes, being very thin is worse than being overweight, by a long shot. At least when you're fat you've more energy.

Rb · 13-10-2005 10:57PM

Rozie wrote:

At least when you're fat you've more energy.

That's not really true at all.
Take popstars for example, they're what you might call thin but they're pretty damn fit to be able to get on stage every night or two and dance for hours, so they're obviously exercising and burning their fat(i.e creating energy) aswell as most likely following a great diet so realistically they'd have a whole lot more energy than any fat person, aswell as being a whole lot healthier.
Not all "very thin" people got to be that way from eating disorders.

Fat people, on the other hand, most likely rarely exercise and try fad diets that merely drops a few pounds while at the same time dropping their metabolism. Then their little cravings for the shi'ite they ate before trying this diet kicks in, they start indulging again and end up putting on more weight and then claim that everyone who is thin has a eating disorder.

rsynnott · 13-10-2005 11:04PM

Rozie wrote:

You do realise that the people who "calculate" BMI and "what is healthy" are funded millions and millions by diet companies, right?

Ah, yes, the NHS, sponsored by WeightWatchers; the CDC, sponsored by Dr. Atkins. It's a little-known fact that most world governments are controled by the diet cartels.

Don't be silly.

Rozie wrote:

Being skinny like a lot of pop stars and a handful of actresses isn't particularily healthy. And yes, being very thin is worse than being overweight, by a long shot. At least when you're fat you've more energy.

I've a BMI of 20 and lots of energy, thanks. Obviously, being underweight (<18.5, guideline naturally) is unhealthy. What health issues are associated with being within the accepted medical guidelines, precisely?

Back on topic briefly, I don't care one way or another about womens' bellies hanging out. Some of the guys, though, could stand to lose a stone or five.

(joking; peoples' weight is their own business)

AARRRGH · 13-10-2005 11:07PM

The belly hanging out may not be attractive to the eye, but it does mean Irish women are liberated somewhat. You'd NEVER catch a French girl doing that.

Rozie · 13-10-2005 11:11PM

I said being considerably underweight, and yes, it does sap your energy.

As for how pop-stars keep up with it it's a lot to do with "working out", and taking lots of vitamins and the like, but I still say they'd be more up for it if they gained a few pounds.

Ah, yes, the NHS, sponsored by WeightWatchers; the CDC, sponsored by Dr. Atkins. It's a little-known fact that most world governments are controled by the diet cartels.

Don't be silly.

The US generally sets the standard for BMI that other countries then follow. And there the organisations that decide on the BMI are indeed heavily controlled by diet organisations.

Le Rack · 13-10-2005 11:27PM

Sangre wrote:

And how do you know what you'd look like at a size 10?

(I swear I'm big boned!!)

Because I have big bones, I'm 5"6, and have a 40 DD chest. Also there is the muscle that I have to compensate for. If I were size 10 I'd look like a really bad Irish version of Jordan, cuz she's so hot, boo-yah! :rolleyes: (that was sarcasm by the way)

Rozie · 13-10-2005 11:29PM

Le Rack wrote:

Because I have big bones, I'm 5"6, and have a 40 DD chest. Also there is the muscle that I have to compensate for. If I were size 10 I'd look like a really bad Irish version of Jordan, cuz she's so hot, boo-yah! :rolleyes: (that was sarcasm by the way)

I unfortunately suffer from big bones too. I'd look terrible thin for that reason, I'd look far more male than I need to. At least like this I look more "the right shape".

AARRRGH · 13-10-2005 11:33PM

Isn't big bones just an excuse for fat? (seriously)

DD chest is not because of large bones...

Le Rack · 13-10-2005 11:39PM

dublindude wrote:

Isn't big bones just an excuse for fat? (seriously)

DD chest is not because of large bones...

I didn't say it was, I'm pointing out how size 10 wouldn't look right on me, and the reasons for this, one of them happens to be that's I'd be really top heavy.

Are most peoples forearm bones two and a half inches wide? Or their index finger bone, 1cm?

rsynnott · 13-10-2005 11:40PM

Rozie wrote:

I said being considerably underweight, and yes, it does sap your energy.

As for how pop-stars keep up with it it's a lot to do with "working out", and taking lots of vitamins and the like, but I still say they'd be more up for it if they gained a few pounds.

But you posted that whole thing about energy in response to me asking what the problem was with being in the normal range...

Rozie wrote:

The US generally sets the standard for BMI that other countries then follow. And there the organisations that decide on the BMI are indeed heavily controlled by diet organisations.

First of all, do you have evidence of that? Second of all, I doubt the Center for Disease Control, a government body which seems to dictate policy on obesity for the US, is being paid off by WeightWatchers....

Rozie · 13-10-2005 11:49PM

http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2005/05/19/can_medical_journals_be_trusted.php

First google hit.

A link from that page that's even more relevant:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2576

But of course, there is no "conspiracy" since the thought of human beings ever being deceitful or putting profit before people is a completely unrealistic notion. :rolleyes:

Rb · 13-10-2005 11:56PM

Le Rack wrote:

Are most peoples forearm bones two and a half inches wide? Or their index finger bone, 1cm?

my index finger is 2cm's wide and I'd never consider myself "big boned".

rsynnott · 14-10-2005 12:00AM

Rozie wrote:

http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2005/05/19/can_medical_journals_be_trusted.php

First google hit.

A link from that page that's even more relevant:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2576

But of course, there is no "conspiracy" since the thought of human beings ever being deceitful or putting profit before people is a completely unrealistic notion. :rolleyes:

I realise that studies funded by drug companies are worse than useless. I also realise that medical studies in general are very badly done. However, there have been many state-funded studies into this, and I think it's reasonable to assume that most of them are fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong *shrug* There's no way to be sure other than to conduct a survey myself, and I know just enough about statistics to know that they're very easy to **** up.

sceptre · 14-10-2005 12:03AM

Rozie wrote:

The US generally sets the standard for BMI that other countries then follow.

No it doesn't and no it hasn't. As a matter of fact the US NIH guidelines for the line between ideal and overweight differed from the WHO recommendations for years (the US line was higher) and was only brought into line with the WHo recommendation in 1998. They followed, they didn't set. The only substantial difference currently existing between regional guidelines and WHO guidelines is for Asians. And that's been defined in Singapore.

BMI of course isn't the best method of deciding whether someone is in fact overweight or not - it's a simple rule of thumb that we can all easily calculate based on a formula that's over 150 years old. It's a basic estimating tool, not a hard rule.

As for the two links above, the first one appears to be generally saying that sometimes people who produce medical papers have a conflict of interest, which is true but not directly relevant in that it doesn't actually reference anything in particular while the second one attacks the CSPI who aren't part of the US NIH, don't have direct input at the WHO any more than I do and again obviously has no relevance in that they don't set the interpretation of what BMI is or means (and see above for it being a basic estimating tool anyway). It does mention the chap who chaired the body that changed the US definition of overweight but as I've mentioned above, they only changed it to bring it into line with pre-existing WHO guidelines in any event (which the writer of the article chooses not to mention, assuming he did his research and was actually aware of that) so that's hardly surprising with a possible axe to grind. Paranoia isn't always one's friend.

Rozie · 14-10-2005 12:04AM

rsynnott wrote:

I realise that studies funded by drug companies are worse than useless. I also realise that medical studies in general are very badly done. However, there have been many state-funded studies into this, and I think it's reasonable to assume that most of them are fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong *shrug* There's no way to be sure other than to conduct a survey myself, and I know just enough about statistics to know that they're very easy to **** up.

But even the state funded ones are under enormous amount of presure, and I don't see how governments can be blame free.

A lot of the time, with these studies, if you look to find something, you'll find it. There are so many ridiculous things that are the main cause of cancer nowadays that it's unbelievable. It's best to keep an eye out, and pay more attention to the people second guessing than what's put on your plate direclty in front of you.

rsynnott · 14-10-2005 12:10AM

Will you at least accept that being overweight or (especially) obese greatly increases chances of contracting type II Diabetes, an extremely nasty disease? This is, as far as I know, fairly much universally accepted.We now have kids of 6 contracting Adult Onset Diabetes; they're generally overweight.

Seraphina · 14-10-2005 12:12AM

ffs Rozie, stop trying to justify being overweight and liking overweight people!

everyone has their own choices, and your whole attempt to push 'being obese isn't unhealthy' on us is really pissing me off

you're allowed to think whatever you wanna think, and prefer whatever shape you wanna prefer. but that doesn't mean we're going to prefer that shape too and also take your view that being a normal size is 'unhealthy' because we're somehow undernourised and all have eating disorders!

now take this bloody arguement back to the fat girls thread, and stop spilling it over into everything else!

Rozie · 14-10-2005 12:12AM

rsynnott wrote:

Will you at least accept that being overweight or (especially) obese greatly increases chances of contracting type II Diabetes, an extremely nasty disease? This is, as far as I know, fairly much universally accepted.We now have kids of 6 contracting Adult Onset Diabetes; they're generally overweight.

Diabetes is to do with sugar levels, I'm not sure how obesity itself would play a part in it.

The reason those kids are overweight is because they eat a lot of sugarry food, same reason they have diabetes. That's fairly obvious. But it's the amount of sugar they consume and how they react to it rather than the weight they carry, I don't see how that can have anything to do with it.

Rozie · 14-10-2005 12:16AM

Seraphina wrote:

ffs Rozie, stop trying to justify being overweight and liking overweight people!

everyone has their own choices, and your whole attempt to push 'being obese isn't unhealthy' on us is really pissing me off

you're allowed to think whatever you wanna think, and prefer whatever shape you wanna prefer. but that doesn't mean we're going to prefer that shape too and also take your view that being a normal size is 'unhealthy' because we're somehow undernourised and all have eating disorders!

now take this bloody arguement back to the fat girls thread, and stop spilling it over into everything else!

That was extremely rude. How am I pushing "Being obese isn't unhealthy" any more than you're pushing twice as much on me, dare say?

I never said anything about what shape people prefer. I'm just trying to get people to realise that being overweight doesn't automatically make a person lazy or unattractive, if you can't stand that, then quite frankly, you can go **** yourself.

I never said that normal size is unhealthy, and I do NOT appreciate people twisting my words in that manner. I said that being extremely underweight is more unhealthy than being "fat", which it more than likely is.

And lastly, I didn't spill it over here, someone else did. Quite why it's human nature like to blame someone who stands up for something and accuse them of ridiculous fallacies is beyond me, but please, stop doing it.

Rb · 14-10-2005 12:16AM

Seraphina wrote:

ffs Rozie, stop trying to justify being overweight and liking overweight people!

everyone has their own choices, and your whole attempt to push 'being obese isn't unhealthy' on us is really pissing me off

you're allowed to think whatever you wanna think, and prefer whatever shape you wanna prefer. but that doesn't mean we're going to prefer that shape too and also take your view that being a normal size is 'unhealthy' because we're somehow undernourised and all have eating disorders!

now take this bloody arguement back to the fat girls thread, and stop spilling it over into everything else!

/applauds and cheers

Le Rack · 14-10-2005 12:19AM

rb_ie wrote:

my index finger is 2cm's wide and I'd never consider myself "big boned".

For a girl?

rsynnott · 14-10-2005 12:22AM

Rozie wrote:

Diabetes is to do with sugar levels, I'm not sure how obesity itself would play a part in it.

The reason those kids are overweight is because they eat a lot of sugarry food, same reason they have diabetes. That's fairly obvious. But it's the amount of sugar they consume and how they react to it rather than the weight they carry, I don't see how that can have anything to do with it.

Do you have a source for this? Diabetes AFFECTS processing of sugar, certainly, and once you are diabetic you must be very careful about sugar, but the risk factors in type 2 diabetes seem to be simple overweightness, along with cholesterol, blood pressure and genetics.

Girls Bellys hangin out

Comments