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.

You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004:

I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down.

Actually, fat is lighter than muscle.

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.

Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was
beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I
wasn't trying to lose 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.

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

If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point
in continuing this conversation.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/70/89 kg

You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004:

I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down.

Actually, fat is lighter than muscle.

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.

Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was
beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I
wasn't trying to lose 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.

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

If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point
in continuing this conversation.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/70/89 kg

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:22:05 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:

Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was
beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I
wasn't trying to lose weight?

Er...Annabel, if you'd checked the headers for crossposting before
sending your reply you would see you're not just posting to a diet
support group.

janice

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:22:05 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:

Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was
beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I
wasn't trying to lose weight?

Er...Annabel, if you'd checked the headers for crossposting before
sending your reply you would see you're not just posting to a diet
support group.

janice

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004:

I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down.

Actually, fat is lighter than muscle.

You might want to rethink and rephrase this statement. A pound of fat
weighs the same as a pound of fat. Did you mean to imply that a pound of
fat is larger in volume than a pound of muscle?

Beverly





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.

Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was
beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I
wasn't trying to lose 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.

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

If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point
in continuing this conversation.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/70/89 kg

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004:

I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down.

Actually, fat is lighter than muscle.

You might want to rethink and rephrase this statement. A pound of fat
weighs the same as a pound of fat. Did you mean to imply that a pound of
fat is larger in volume than a pound of muscle?

Beverly





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.

Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was
beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I
wasn't trying to lose 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.

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

If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point
in continuing this conversation.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/70/89 kg

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004:

I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down.

Actually, fat is lighter than muscle.

You might want to rethink and rephrase this statement. A pound of fat
weighs the same as a pound of fat. Did you mean to imply that a pound of
fat is larger in volume than a pound of muscle?

Beverly





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.

Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was
beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I
wasn't trying to lose 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.

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

If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point
in continuing this conversation.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/70/89 kg

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
m...
We were discussing dancing, not sumo wrestling or heavyweight
weight-lifting, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

There are exceptions that are the closest to what men needed for survival :
lifting stuff and wrestling with their food. They are also sports that have
been around since the beginning of humanity. It's still pretty interresting
that a little bit of extra fat actually makes you perform better at them.

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

That's where fat acceptance (and feminism) *has* a role to play. Because
many women are deluded into thinking that these magazine women are actually
attractive to men.

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.

A six-pack might look nice on a man, because our bodies are designed to be
lower in fat, but not always in a woman. I can like one in a woman, if it's
not due to body-building (body builded bodies look repulsive), but I
consider that a kind of fetishism. But there is a wide range of body fat
between a "wobbly gut" and a six-pack you know. Anyway, there is nothing
special about having a six-pack, it's not like it's really useful or
anything...
As for moving more easily, what's the point? It's not like you're going to
move any easier with such a small variation as 10lbs. That's a variation
many people experience from summer to winter! It's not like pounds in the
overweight range are a large hindrance to your mobility. Even with 50 extra
pounds, I still move better than many non-active slim people of my age; I
climb the stair much faster and I'm not as out of breath as they are after
my six floors - hell, I used to do that with another 50lbs of fat *and* 20
lbs of water bottles and groceries. Likewise, most of my slim friends
complain when they walk with me, because I walk too fast for them. Sure, I
will be able to perform better when I have lost some extra weight - but
then, I will be out of friends able to keep up with me when I walk.

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

You know women do have to go into unhealthy body fat percentages before they
show a six-pack and stop having belly fat, right?

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!

These newsgroups are about extreme obesity. But since you declared you
couldn't think of anywhere these women would be attractive, I had to help
your lack of imagination...
When you check regular Internet resources that attracts mainstream sex
users, you still have very sucessful overweight women, some of them on the
low end of obesity. They attract normal men, not fetishists. They might not
attract the same men (more mature men in the lot) as the slim girls (more
kids), though some like me like both, but they still attract many men.

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.

The Sims experience *proved* that not everyone can put weight as easily.
Some people will put a straight 1kg of fat from 8000 calories, while others
will only put a mere hundred grams from the same amount. When it comes to
the ability to convert energy to fat, not all metabolism are equal,
especially when they wander far away from their set points. Just ask the
skinny types who are trying to gain weight, it's a real nightmare for them.
It's not a matter of food being scarce, it's a matter of food costing money.
Economically, the girl with good genetics is better, because you will get
her fat with less money.

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.

That's what I said. It's the combination of all this that made these women
attractive : powerful familly genetics, wealth and power.
What do you think makes a slim woman attractive nowadays? Willpower to
starve herself, money to invest in silicone enhancements (breasts will go
away with diet), power to be able to devote your whole life to improve your
body instead of working. That's the exact same deal, tuned to our current
values as a society.

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
m...
We were discussing dancing, not sumo wrestling or heavyweight
weight-lifting, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

There are exceptions that are the closest to what men needed for survival :
lifting stuff and wrestling with their food. They are also sports that have
been around since the beginning of humanity. It's still pretty interresting
that a little bit of extra fat actually makes you perform better at them.

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

That's where fat acceptance (and feminism) *has* a role to play. Because
many women are deluded into thinking that these magazine women are actually
attractive to men.

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.

A six-pack might look nice on a man, because our bodies are designed to be
lower in fat, but not always in a woman. I can like one in a woman, if it's
not due to body-building (body builded bodies look repulsive), but I
consider that a kind of fetishism. But there is a wide range of body fat
between a "wobbly gut" and a six-pack you know. Anyway, there is nothing
special about having a six-pack, it's not like it's really useful or
anything...
As for moving more easily, what's the point? It's not like you're going to
move any easier with such a small variation as 10lbs. That's a variation
many people experience from summer to winter! It's not like pounds in the
overweight range are a large hindrance to your mobility. Even with 50 extra
pounds, I still move better than many non-active slim people of my age; I
climb the stair much faster and I'm not as out of breath as they are after
my six floors - hell, I used to do that with another 50lbs of fat *and* 20
lbs of water bottles and groceries. Likewise, most of my slim friends
complain when they walk with me, because I walk too fast for them. Sure, I
will be able to perform better when I have lost some extra weight - but
then, I will be out of friends able to keep up with me when I walk.

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

You know women do have to go into unhealthy body fat percentages before they
show a six-pack and stop having belly fat, right?

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!

These newsgroups are about extreme obesity. But since you declared you
couldn't think of anywhere these women would be attractive, I had to help
your lack of imagination...
When you check regular Internet resources that attracts mainstream sex
users, you still have very sucessful overweight women, some of them on the
low end of obesity. They attract normal men, not fetishists. They might not
attract the same men (more mature men in the lot) as the slim girls (more
kids), though some like me like both, but they still attract many men.

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.

The Sims experience *proved* that not everyone can put weight as easily.
Some people will put a straight 1kg of fat from 8000 calories, while others
will only put a mere hundred grams from the same amount. When it comes to
the ability to convert energy to fat, not all metabolism are equal,
especially when they wander far away from their set points. Just ask the
skinny types who are trying to gain weight, it's a real nightmare for them.
It's not a matter of food being scarce, it's a matter of food costing money.
Economically, the girl with good genetics is better, because you will get
her fat with less money.

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.

That's what I said. It's the combination of all this that made these women
attractive : powerful familly genetics, wealth and power.
What do you think makes a slim woman attractive nowadays? Willpower to
starve herself, money to invest in silicone enhancements (breasts will go
away with diet), power to be able to devote your whole life to improve your
body instead of working. That's the exact same deal, tuned to our current
values as a society.