A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 9th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 07:12:05, The Voice of Reason
wrote:


Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement.


Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and
although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact
that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing.

Both the
lack of fitness combined with excess weight conspire to mean that the
obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's
self-inflicted and so easily curable.

Er, again, that turns out not to be the case. I read somewhere that a
group of very seriously overweight people were, under medical
supervision, put on a carefully calorie-controlled diet, with ample
nutrients and enough calories to maintain a normal body-weight, but lose
excess fat - and their bodies reacted just as though they were being
starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not
necessarily easily curable.

Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most
attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest.

Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs
heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties"
of the era, they are still beautiful. Plus there was no thought, then,
of their being unhealthy.

And, unless you consider being out of fashion harmful, it's not really
an health risk.


Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in
fashion.


Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history?
Had you done so, you would not have made such a statement.

Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you
live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity.


I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.

If you exercise regularly, it will also not reduce your
ability to move, run and hunt.


If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you
deliberately over-eat, end of story.

Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to
take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden"
calories in ready-prepared food.

Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world
countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought
of as sexually desirable.


Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called
developed world.

I have trimmed the excess cross-posts from this posting.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!
  #2  
Old August 11th, 2004, 06:36 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

Annabel Smyth wrote in message ...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 07:12:05, The Voice of Reason
wrote:

Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement.


Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and
although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact
that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing.


I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.

obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's
self-inflicted and so easily curable.

Er, again, that turns out not to be the case. I read somewhere that a
group of very seriously overweight people were, under medical
supervision, put on a carefully calorie-controlled diet, with ample
nutrients and enough calories to maintain a normal body-weight, but lose
excess fat - and their bodies reacted just as though they were being
starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not
necessarily easily curable.


'Read somewhere' isn't really good enough, you're going to have to do
better than that. I know of no fat person who when changing to a
proper diet with regular exercise can't lose weight.

Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most
attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest.


Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs
heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties"
of the era, they are still beautiful.


How many of them were as fat as the obese people today?

Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in
fashion.


Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history?


Yes.

Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you
live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity.


I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.

If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you
deliberately over-eat, end of story.


Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to
take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden"
calories in ready-prepared food.


Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed
pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity.

Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world
countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought
of as sexually desirable.


Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called
developed world.


I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive. That is the case because if it were
attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of
food. In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.
  #3  
Old August 11th, 2004, 06:36 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Annabel Smyth wrote in message ...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 07:12:05, The Voice of Reason
wrote:

Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement.


Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and
although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact
that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing.


I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.

obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's
self-inflicted and so easily curable.

Er, again, that turns out not to be the case. I read somewhere that a
group of very seriously overweight people were, under medical
supervision, put on a carefully calorie-controlled diet, with ample
nutrients and enough calories to maintain a normal body-weight, but lose
excess fat - and their bodies reacted just as though they were being
starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not
necessarily easily curable.


'Read somewhere' isn't really good enough, you're going to have to do
better than that. I know of no fat person who when changing to a
proper diet with regular exercise can't lose weight.

Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most
attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest.


Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs
heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties"
of the era, they are still beautiful.


How many of them were as fat as the obese people today?

Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in
fashion.


Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history?


Yes.

Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you
live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity.


I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.

If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you
deliberately over-eat, end of story.


Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to
take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden"
calories in ready-prepared food.


Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed
pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity.

Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world
countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought
of as sexually desirable.


Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called
developed world.


I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive. That is the case because if it were
attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of
food. In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.
  #4  
Old August 11th, 2004, 07:25 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.


I think you should explain that to a Sumo wrestler, a weight lifter in the
unlimited category or even a Judoka... In these sports, as long as they have
a large lean mass, *any* extra mass helps perform better. Especially mass in
the gutt, since it helps move the center of gravity in an advantageous
position - slightly downward and forward. As long as extra body fat remains
reasonnable, they can use it to great advantage. I doubt you would be able
to even move 300lbs Judoka. On the other hand, he would have no problem at
all to send you flying. And his body fat won't even prevent him from doing a
split as easily as you do.

Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs
heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties"
of the era, they are still beautiful.


How many of them were as fat as the obese people today?


They would nevertheless be stigmatized as overweight or even obese nowadays.
Even though they had the normal healthy woman body. Modern fashion magazines
actually advertise bodies that are *unhealthy* for women. There are health
risks associated with getting your BMI under the norm, and the large
majority of fashion models have a BMI that is dangerously under that norm.

Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history?


Yes.


Ever seen a prehistoric venus? Or even some Renaissance paintings?

I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.


There is no reason to lose weight if you are 10 pounds overweight either.
How do you define "10lbs overweight" btw? According to BMI? According to my
BMI, I was slightly overweight at 18 when I had a six-pack showing on my
abs. According to BMI, most high end sportsmen are obese.
What criteria do you use? Body fat? Muscle definition? Having some fat is
not an health risk, it's actually pretty healthy in old persons. It's also
pretty healthy in a woman, the hour-glass body shape has the highest female
hormones production and highest fertility ratio, unlike the no-butt body
shape. Probably why normal men are attracted to this kind of body shape.
Except to please you, noone has any reason to lose an extra as low as 10lbs.
It doesn't make you any healthier, and it doesn't make you more attractive
either.

I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive.


It depends on what you call obese. Though if you check the
alt.sex.binaries.* newsgroups, some people obviously find extreme obesity
attractive. Overweight can be very attractive, and many people think so.
Marilyn Monroe was thought attractive by a bunch of people, including an
American President, but she would belong to the overweight category
nowadays. I would rather date Marilyn Monroe than Kate Moss, I would be too
afraid to break something with the later or hurt myself on a bone. If you
visit live sex sites, the overweight models are often among the most
popular, so it seems they do attract people.

In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.


Anyone *with good genetics*, which is precisely why it was attractive in the
first place, because it showed superior genetics. It also showed the power
of the familly. They were so rich they could afford to buy extra food to
make their daughters the most attractive.


  #5  
Old August 11th, 2004, 07:25 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.


I think you should explain that to a Sumo wrestler, a weight lifter in the
unlimited category or even a Judoka... In these sports, as long as they have
a large lean mass, *any* extra mass helps perform better. Especially mass in
the gutt, since it helps move the center of gravity in an advantageous
position - slightly downward and forward. As long as extra body fat remains
reasonnable, they can use it to great advantage. I doubt you would be able
to even move 300lbs Judoka. On the other hand, he would have no problem at
all to send you flying. And his body fat won't even prevent him from doing a
split as easily as you do.

Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs
heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties"
of the era, they are still beautiful.


How many of them were as fat as the obese people today?


They would nevertheless be stigmatized as overweight or even obese nowadays.
Even though they had the normal healthy woman body. Modern fashion magazines
actually advertise bodies that are *unhealthy* for women. There are health
risks associated with getting your BMI under the norm, and the large
majority of fashion models have a BMI that is dangerously under that norm.

Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history?


Yes.


Ever seen a prehistoric venus? Or even some Renaissance paintings?

I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.


There is no reason to lose weight if you are 10 pounds overweight either.
How do you define "10lbs overweight" btw? According to BMI? According to my
BMI, I was slightly overweight at 18 when I had a six-pack showing on my
abs. According to BMI, most high end sportsmen are obese.
What criteria do you use? Body fat? Muscle definition? Having some fat is
not an health risk, it's actually pretty healthy in old persons. It's also
pretty healthy in a woman, the hour-glass body shape has the highest female
hormones production and highest fertility ratio, unlike the no-butt body
shape. Probably why normal men are attracted to this kind of body shape.
Except to please you, noone has any reason to lose an extra as low as 10lbs.
It doesn't make you any healthier, and it doesn't make you more attractive
either.

I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive.


It depends on what you call obese. Though if you check the
alt.sex.binaries.* newsgroups, some people obviously find extreme obesity
attractive. Overweight can be very attractive, and many people think so.
Marilyn Monroe was thought attractive by a bunch of people, including an
American President, but she would belong to the overweight category
nowadays. I would rather date Marilyn Monroe than Kate Moss, I would be too
afraid to break something with the later or hurt myself on a bone. If you
visit live sex sites, the overweight models are often among the most
popular, so it seems they do attract people.

In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.


Anyone *with good genetics*, which is precisely why it was attractive in the
first place, because it showed superior genetics. It also showed the power
of the familly. They were so rich they could afford to buy extra food to
make their daughters the most attractive.


  #6  
Old August 12th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 10:36:14, The Voice of Reason
wrote:

Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and
although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact
that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing.


I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.

How do you know? Have you seen me on the ice? Unless and until you
have, you are in no position to comment.

obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's
self-inflicted and so easily curable.

Er, again, that turns out not to be the case. I read somewhere that a
group of very seriously overweight people were, under medical
supervision, put on a carefully calorie-controlled diet, with ample
nutrients and enough calories to maintain a normal body-weight, but lose
excess fat - and their bodies reacted just as though they were being
starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not
necessarily easily curable.


'Read somewhere' isn't really good enough, you're going to have to do
better than that. I know of no fat person who when changing to a
proper diet with regular exercise can't lose weight.

Considering that for nearly 25 years I read 6 newspapers per day and
several scientific journals per week, I can never remember my sources.
Anyway, these people weren't fat, they were obese.

Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most
attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest.


Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs
heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties"
of the era, they are still beautiful.


How many of them were as fat as the obese people today?

You keep changing the rules - one minute you are talking about fat
people, the next you are talking about obese ones. Which are you
talking about? Most of the bathing beauties were probably as fat as fat
people today, certainly.

Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in
fashion.


Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history?


Yes.

Then why do you say this? Have you never seen pictures of Rubens'
nudes, for instance?

Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you
live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity.


I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.

No, it's that women are usually expected to be 20 lbs *under* their
ideal weight, for fashion sake. Think Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones
- she wasn't *fat*, just rather an attractive shape - but everybody made
such a fuss about how fat she had to get to take the role. Then, when
it was over and she shed those surplus pounds, she looked like a famine
victim and we were told how marvellous she looked. Not.

If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you
deliberately over-eat, end of story.


Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to
take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden"
calories in ready-prepared food.


Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed
pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity.

I don't. Eat much ready-prepared food (I don't say none). But some
people do, for a variety of reasons.

Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world
countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought
of as sexually desirable.


Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called
developed world.


I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive.


Among the Ghanaian community in London, perhaps?

That is the case because if it were
attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of
food. In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.


Then do you think people like Callista Flockhart and Renee Zellweger are
attractive?
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!
  #7  
Old August 12th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 10:36:14, The Voice of Reason
wrote:

Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and
although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact
that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing.


I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.

How do you know? Have you seen me on the ice? Unless and until you
have, you are in no position to comment.

obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's
self-inflicted and so easily curable.

Er, again, that turns out not to be the case. I read somewhere that a
group of very seriously overweight people were, under medical
supervision, put on a carefully calorie-controlled diet, with ample
nutrients and enough calories to maintain a normal body-weight, but lose
excess fat - and their bodies reacted just as though they were being
starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not
necessarily easily curable.


'Read somewhere' isn't really good enough, you're going to have to do
better than that. I know of no fat person who when changing to a
proper diet with regular exercise can't lose weight.

Considering that for nearly 25 years I read 6 newspapers per day and
several scientific journals per week, I can never remember my sources.
Anyway, these people weren't fat, they were obese.

Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most
attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest.


Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs
heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties"
of the era, they are still beautiful.


How many of them were as fat as the obese people today?

You keep changing the rules - one minute you are talking about fat
people, the next you are talking about obese ones. Which are you
talking about? Most of the bathing beauties were probably as fat as fat
people today, certainly.

Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in
fashion.


Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history?


Yes.

Then why do you say this? Have you never seen pictures of Rubens'
nudes, for instance?

Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you
live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity.


I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.

No, it's that women are usually expected to be 20 lbs *under* their
ideal weight, for fashion sake. Think Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones
- she wasn't *fat*, just rather an attractive shape - but everybody made
such a fuss about how fat she had to get to take the role. Then, when
it was over and she shed those surplus pounds, she looked like a famine
victim and we were told how marvellous she looked. Not.

If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you
deliberately over-eat, end of story.


Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to
take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden"
calories in ready-prepared food.


Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed
pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity.

I don't. Eat much ready-prepared food (I don't say none). But some
people do, for a variety of reasons.

Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world
countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought
of as sexually desirable.


Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called
developed world.


I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive.


Among the Ghanaian community in London, perhaps?

That is the case because if it were
attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of
food. In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.


Then do you think people like Callista Flockhart and Renee Zellweger are
attractive?
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!
  #8  
Old August 12th, 2004, 07:08 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.


I think you should explain that to a Sumo wrestler, a weight lifter in the
unlimited category or even a Judoka... In these sports, as long as they have
a large lean mass, *any* extra mass helps perform better.


We were discussing dancing, not sumo wrestling or heavyweight
weight-lifting, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

They would nevertheless be stigmatized as overweight or even obese nowadays.
Even though they had the normal healthy woman body. Modern fashion magazines
actually advertise bodies that are *unhealthy* for women. There are health
risks associated with getting your BMI under the norm, and the large
majority of fashion models have a BMI that is dangerously under that norm.


Modern fashion magazines are aimed at women, the women in there are
not necessarily what is attractive to men, but rather to women.

I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.


There is no reason to lose weight if you are 10 pounds overweight either.


There is: when you're lighter your movement is easier and you look
better. For example compare a six-pack of abs to a wobbly gut.

How do you define "10lbs overweight" btw?


I personally don't measure how fat someone is by their weight, but
rather than their body-fat percentage.

According to BMI?


No, only an idiot even mentions BMI in a discussion of how fat someone
is.

I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive.


It depends on what you call obese. Though if you check the
alt.sex.binaries.* newsgroups, some people obviously find extreme obesity
attractive.


Well, I hadn't taken fetishists into account!

In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.


Anyone *with good genetics*, which is precisely why it was attractive in the
first place, because it showed superior genetics.


No, it's because food was scarce. Anyone can put on weight, it's
simply a matter of eating more food than can be used by the body.

It also showed the power
of the familly. They were so rich they could afford to buy extra food to
make their daughters the most attractive.


It showed wealth and power as they had more access to the food and
didn't need to do physical work.
  #9  
Old August 12th, 2004, 07:08 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.


I think you should explain that to a Sumo wrestler, a weight lifter in the
unlimited category or even a Judoka... In these sports, as long as they have
a large lean mass, *any* extra mass helps perform better.


We were discussing dancing, not sumo wrestling or heavyweight
weight-lifting, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

They would nevertheless be stigmatized as overweight or even obese nowadays.
Even though they had the normal healthy woman body. Modern fashion magazines
actually advertise bodies that are *unhealthy* for women. There are health
risks associated with getting your BMI under the norm, and the large
majority of fashion models have a BMI that is dangerously under that norm.


Modern fashion magazines are aimed at women, the women in there are
not necessarily what is attractive to men, but rather to women.

I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" -
i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and
being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose.


There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.


There is no reason to lose weight if you are 10 pounds overweight either.


There is: when you're lighter your movement is easier and you look
better. For example compare a six-pack of abs to a wobbly gut.

How do you define "10lbs overweight" btw?


I personally don't measure how fat someone is by their weight, but
rather than their body-fat percentage.

According to BMI?


No, only an idiot even mentions BMI in a discussion of how fat someone
is.

I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive.


It depends on what you call obese. Though if you check the
alt.sex.binaries.* newsgroups, some people obviously find extreme obesity
attractive.


Well, I hadn't taken fetishists into account!

In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.


Anyone *with good genetics*, which is precisely why it was attractive in the
first place, because it showed superior genetics.


No, it's because food was scarce. Anyone can put on weight, it's
simply a matter of eating more food than can be used by the body.

It also showed the power
of the familly. They were so rich they could afford to buy extra food to
make their daughters the most attractive.


It showed wealth and power as they had more access to the food and
didn't need to do physical work.
  #10  
Old August 12th, 2004, 07:12 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

Annabel Smyth wrote in message ...

I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere
near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven.


How do you know? Have you seen me on the ice? Unless and until you
have, you are in no position to comment.


I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down. However good you are
now, you would be better if you had more discipline. Also, you appear
to be trying to excuse your weight. If you were capable of losing the
weight you would just do it rather than argue that being fat is
beneficial. This goes for everyone on these newsgroups who tries to
argue that being fat isn't bad.

There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just
laziness.


No, it's that women are usually expected to be 20 lbs *under* their
ideal weight,


Expected to by who? Most men don't like under-weight women, but they
don't like them over-weight either.

for fashion sake. Think Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones
- she wasn't *fat*, just rather an attractive shape - but everybody made
such a fuss about how fat she had to get to take the role.


No, she was fat. She was supposed to be fat, it was part of the role.

Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed
pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity.

I don't. Eat much ready-prepared food (I don't say none). But some
people do, for a variety of reasons.


Yeah, these are the reasons:
1) Laziness.

I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is
thought of as attractive.


Among the Ghanaian community in London, perhaps?


I haven't been down that way so I can't comment.

That is the case because if it were
attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of
food. In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in
order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a
distinguishing feature.


Then do you think people like Callista Flockhart and Renee Zellweger are
attractive?


Not the former but the latter.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. ClabberHead 4.01 Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 August 9th, 2004 03:17 AM
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. LucaBG General Discussion 0 August 8th, 2004 08:16 AM
Dr Weil on Larry King Preesi Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 January 14th, 2004 07:18 PM
Sarah Ferguson on Larry King S t a c i Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 October 22nd, 2003 08:53 PM
Saturday Night Live Atkins Mention Pook! Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 October 22nd, 2003 08:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.