Quote:

---

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schism:
actually those photos were amazingly tasteful.....for a change...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!

---

No, actually that's what healthy women are supposed to look like. I know that's not the average of what we see on the streets in North America these days. But, what we see on the street in North America isn't exactly healthy. It's what happens when we, on average, eat about 3-4 times the amount of food that we need and on top of that, make some tragic dietary choices that are 'food like substances' rather than actual food.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Penguin:
EXCUSE ME!

Back on topic!!

Nekked wimmin!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schism:
actually those photos were amazingly tasteful.....for a change...

---

I coulda gone for a slightly less tastefull lay-out myself.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!

---

No, actually that's what healthy women are supposed to look like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Penguin:
EXCUSE ME!

Back on topic!!

Nekked wimmin!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

I think it's taking it a bit far to say that's how they should look. Historically speaking, that has been the ideal form for women only for the last 30 years or so. In the big picture, "real" women have rarely looked like that. As recently as the 60's, a fuller figure was considered ideal - look at Marilyn Monroe - the epitome of female beauty at the time, and would be considered overweight today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LexiBlock:

Unlikely. They are in the media because they are able to stay abnormally thin. You are supposed to put on weight with age, assuming no abnormal developments (obviously not several tons, but this is below normal)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LexiBlock:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!

---

No, actually that's what healthy women are supposed to look like.

---

Unlikely. They are in the media because they are able to stay abnormally thin. You are supposed to put on weight with age, assuming no abnormal developments (obviously not several tons, but this is below normal)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by asarian:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LexiBlock:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!

---

No, actually that's what healthy women are supposed to look like.

---

Unlikely. They are in the media because they are able to stay abnormally thin. You are supposed to put on weight with age, assuming no abnormal developments (obviously not several tons, but this is below normal)

---

Nah, I'm with SigmaNunki; it's really what women are supposed to look like. :) Eliza, at least. She simply has a perfect figure. Sierra, arguably, is probably a mite too thin; still frakkin' attractive, though, and her thinness is endlessly better-looking than, say, Mellie's chubbiness.

But that's just me, of course.



--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

---

Quote:

---

Point of fact, healthy diet (i.e. healthy food + exercise) and "you'll" look like that

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:

Right. 'Cause being fat or skinny is all about diet and exercise. Which is why I have to eat a lot of veggies and work out five days a week to maintain my 110 pounds... except I don't. And, all those fatties must just eat too much/not exercise enough.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

Mellie's chubby? Really? I see her as more of the realistic body type and I'm a 21 year old health conscious San Franciscan who studies the nude figure most of the week.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

Granted you can look like Eliza and be healthy, but the perfect figure isn't for everyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

I'm healthy, I eat right, I walk a average of 3 miles a day, I go to the gym once a week, I don't look like any of those women.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
Lol, SigmaNunki! I don't even know when to start. I'll come back with a more articulate reply when I've gotten some sleep, but until then, I find your views on this matter to be both stunningly incorrect and utterly repulsive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by asarian:
Nah, I'm with SigmaNunki; it's really what women are supposed to look like. :) Eliza, at least. She simply has a perfect figure. Sierra, arguably, is probably a mite too thin; still frakkin' attractive, though, and her thinness is endlessly better-looking than, say, Mellie's chubbiness.

---

Mellie's chubby? Really? I see her as more of the realistic body type and I'm a 21 year old health conscious San Franciscan who studies the nude figure most of the week.

---

Quote:

---

I used to look like Eliza. 5'7", 120 lbs, 5% body fat, between a size 3 and 5 with all lean muscle. It took ALOT of work to get down to that and maintain it as a woman.

---

Quote:

---

Claim #2: ‘Mortality rates increase with increasing degrees of overweight, as measured by BMI.’—WHO, 2003 (p. 61) 2

This claim, central to arguments that higher than average body mass amount to a major public health problem, is at best weakly supported by the epidemiological literature. Except at true statistical extremes, high body mass is a very weak predictor of mortality, and may even be protective in older populations. In particular, the claim that ‘overweight’ (BMI 25–29.9) increases mortality risk in any meaningful way is impossible to reconcile with numerous large-scale studies that have found no increase in relative risk among the so-called ‘overweight’, or have found a lower relative risk for premature mortality among this cohort than among persons of so-called ‘normal’ or ‘ideal’ [sic] weight. Among the obese, little or no increase in relative risk for premature mortality is observed until one reaches BMIs in the upper 30s or higher. In other words, the vast majority of people labelled ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’ according to current definitions do not in fact face any meaningful increased risk for early death. Indeed the most recent comprehensive analysis of this question within the context of the US population found more premature deaths associated with a BMI of ,25 than with a BMI above it. This was largely owing to the finding that lowest death rates fell within the BMI range of 25–29.9—some 86 000 fewer ‘excess’ deaths than was observed in the referent group, the so-called ‘normal weight’ BMI range of 18.5–24.9. Additional analyses that controlled for potential confounders such as length of follow-up, weight stability, weight loss caused by illness, or smoking status did not change the results. For this nationally representative cohort of US adults—National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys I, II, and III—the ‘ideal’ weight for longevity was ‘overweight’. 6

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/saguy/IJE.pdf
6: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/293/15/1861

---

Quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS: Normal MPS was associated with low risk of [cardiac death] in patients of all weight categories. In patients with known [coronary artery disease] undergoing, obese and overweight patients were at lower risk of [cardiac disease] over three years than normal weight patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16580531?dopt=Abstract

---

Quote:

---

Compared to individuals without elevated BMI levels, both overweight* and obesity** were associated with lower all-cause mortality. Overweight (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92) and obesity (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.53-0.69) were also associated with lower cardiovascular mortality. In a risk-adjusted sensitivity analysis, both obesity (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.93) and overweight (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97) remained protective against mortality.

*(BMI ∼25.0-29.9 kg/m2, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.90)
**(BMI ∼≥30 kg/m2, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.73)

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(08)00154-3/abstract

---

Quote:

---

These data suggest that mild-to-moderate obesity in HIV-1-infected chronic drug users does not impair immune function and is associated with better HIV-1-related survival.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10708060?log$=activity

---

Quote:

---

Poststroke mortality is inversely related to BMI: overweight and obese stroke patients have a lower poststroke mortality rate than normal-weight and underweight patients.

http://tinyurl.com/cwsqde

---

Quote:

---

Conclusions. Our results do not support applying the National Institutes of Health categorization of BMI from 25 to 29.9 kg/m2 as overweight in older women, because women with BMIs in this range had the lowest mortality.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2005.084178v1

---

Quote:

---

Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease.

http://tinyurl.com/ck5cxc

---

Quote:

---

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726395.500

---

Quote:

---

Background No current treatment for obesity reliably sustains weight loss, perhaps because compensatory metabolic processes resist the maintenance of the altered body weight. We examined the effects of experimental perturbations of body weight on energy expenditure to determine whether they lead to metabolic changes and whether obese subjects and those who have never been obese respond similarly.

https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/10/621

---

Quote:

---

Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. For most, research shows, neither diets nor moderate exercise brings significant long-term weight loss.

In brief:

- Weight control is not simply a matter of willpower. Genes help determine the body's "set point," which is defended by the brain.

- Dieting alone is rarely successful, and relapse rates are high.

- Moderate exercise, too, rarely results in substantive long-term weight loss, which requires intensive exercise.

http://health.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-obesity-ess.html

---

Quote:

---

The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.

...

In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=all

---

Quote:

---

Despite fears of bad foods, numerous researchers have found that eating high-calorie, low-nutrient dense foods like sweets doesn’t correlate with children’s weights and that consumption is high among all kids. Canadian researchers looked at the diets of more than 130,000 kids in 34 countries and reported in a recent issue of Obesity Reviews that fat kids even eat the least sweets, and that kids’ body weights had nothing to do with how many fruits, vegetables or soft drinks they consumed.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/03/no-tomorrows.html

---

Quote:

---

Despite activists claims that we’ve become a nation pigging out on gargantuan amounts of food, total calories among adult men and women averaged 2,157 kcal/day — slightly less than the 2,178 kcal/day reported in 2001-2002. Men averaged 2,638 kcal/day. Women (20 years+) have been eating continually fewer calories, today averaging only 1,785 kcal, below recommended levels for moderately active women.

...

This week’s report also showed that dietary fat consumption was also not increasing. Total fats among all Americans over age 2 (men and women) averaged 33.6% of calories, within dietary guidelines. This compares, for example, to 1977-78 data when 40% of our calories came from fats.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/were-not-eating-so-badly.h
tml

---

Quote:

---

They found that the study participants needed an average of 2,768 calories a day to maintain their weight.

Let’s stop right there for a moment. The U.S. CDC National Center for Health Statistics has monitored the daily calories consumed by American adults since 1971. Their latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) reported that the average American eats 2,240 calories a day (1,877 among women, 2,618 in men)...

So, average American adults are eating less than calculated to maintain stable weights, not "overeating" as popularly believed.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/question-of-week-diet-or-e
xercise.html

---

Quote:

---

We’ve examined here how the trans fat scare campaign has tried to convince lawmakers and the public that this “unnatural fat” is deadly and even the tiny amount in our diet is a “risk factor” for everything from heart disease, cancer to infertility. The trouble is, there isn’t even a credible association they can hang their hat on. Not a single population study has been able to show even a link between trans fats or any other dietary fat and heart disease. Not only has our consumption of trans fats not changed in half a century, while we’ve been eating all of this supposedly bad stuff, the actual health of Americans has improved enormously, we’ve gained more than seven years in life expectancy; and heart disease and most cancers have dropped.

This isn't just opinion. The FDA, after spending years reviewing all available evidence on trans fats, said in its July 9, 2003, 260-page ruling (Docket No. 94P-0036), that any fears of a public health concern from the small amounts of trans fats in our diets were not supported by the evidence. These fatty acids haven’t been shown to be better or worse than any other dietary fat. The FDA expert panel specifically stated that trans fats needn’t be eliminated from the diet and they refused to establish a daily recommended intake due to lack of evidence. They agreed to add trans fats to food labels, but only after explaining it was only in response to a relentless, decade-long activist campaign. But those labels are being used by certain interests as proof that trans fats hold some health danger that’s imperative to control.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/speaking-up.html

---

Quote:

---

Even the most strident obesity skeptics concede that across Western populations, adults are on average 7 kg heavier than they were 25 years ago. {Ooh, 7 kg (~ 15.5 lbs)… that’s huge! Or, not.}

...

The obesity epidemic, Campos argues, amounts to a relatively small across-the-board weight gain pushing large numbers of people from the top of the ideal-weight category into overweight, and from the top of overweight into obese—subtle shifts, in other words, rather than alarming spikes. Support for that view can be found in creeping mean BMI readings for New Zealand men: they've gone from 25.5 in 1977 to 26.9 in 2003. The starting point for overweight used to be 27, until health authorities—following the W.H.O.'s lead—lowered it in the late 1990s.

The consensus among obesity researchers is that people began getting heavier in the 1970s and have continued to do so. While skeptics don't dispute this, they say that if the extra weight is a problem, it should be reflected in rising death rates from cardiovascular disease. In fact, the opposite has occurred. In March, a month after launching a $A6 million advertising campaign aimed at getting kids to be more active and saying, "obesity is a very serious problem in our society ... obviously it leads to cardiovascular disease," Australia's Minister for Health and Ageing Tony Abbott told a National Heart Foundation conference in Sydney: "There has been a truly remarkable drop in the death rate from cardiovascular disease. Since the 1970s ... [it ]has dropped by 60%."

...

But let's assume for a moment that a high BMI score is a health hazard. What then? What advice should health authorities give to the more than 1.3 billion people in the world who would supposedly benefit from losing weight? The standard tip has been to eat less and move more, which presupposes that people eat more and move less than they did a generation ago. A typical media portrayal of today's child is of a fatso slumped in front of a video game, guzzling soft drink and not faintly inclined to venture outside to kick a ball or climb a tree. But this perception buckles under scrutiny. From the SPANS school survey, Michael Booth reports that while few pupils walk to school any more and cycling there has all but vanished, a huge majority are performing the recommended one hour a day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Moreover, both girls and boys are much more active than their counterparts of 1985 and 1997. Booth told his audience in Sydney that these results "stunned" him, appeared to "defy belief" and "were checked to within an inch of their lives." The report states: "Perhaps surprisingly, the survey did not show any clear correlation between BMI and the amount of physical activity."

As for eating, SPANS homed in on a few bad habits, but nothing startling compared with childhood decades ago, while academic Gard says the "serious epidemiological data on food consumption [show ]we've been eating fewer calories each decade since the 1920s." Less food. More exercise. So why are people getting heavier? Some analysts say we just don't know. Others theorize that what we're seeing is a continuation of increasing body mass in well-nourished nations, helped along by falling smoking rates. "I'm not arguing that we know for a fact that the increased weight level of people in developed nations is entirely benign," says author Campos. "It might not be. But it very well might. Given that we don't know the underlying causes ... the best approach is to ask whether people's overall health is getting better or worse. It's clearly getting better. The only reply the obesity alarmists have to this is that it will stop getting better and start getting worse."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,503060918-1533489,00.
html

---

Quote:

---

When we hear scary statistics that, for instance, childhood obesity among children aged 2-5 years has soared from 5% in 1971 to 13.9% in 2004, that doesn’t mean that children’s weights have ballooned by nearly 9% over the past 33 years. Nor does it mean that 13.9% of children today weigh 500 pounds. It means that 9% more children today have crossed that arbitrary threshold to receive the clinical label of being “overweight.”

A recent Voices of America reported on the “alarming number of obese children worldwide at risk for heart disease” and the “disturbing global trend.” To illustrate the “20 million children under the age of five considered ‘too fat,’” they showed this adorable little girl:



...

If we have a 6-year old girl who is 3 foot, 9 inches tall she would be considered to be a “healthy, normal weight" at 49 1/4 pounds (BMI 17.1). If she gained 1/4 pound more, however, she becomes “overweight” at 49 1/2 pounds. For untold numbers of children classified as “overweight” they are within a fraction of a pound or few pounds of “normal.”

However, if this little girl grew a mere 1/8 inch, she would be considered to be a “healthy, normal weight” again!

At 54 1/2 pounds (BMI 18.9) she crosses the 95th percentile cut-off and is now labeled “obese.” A very different picture of childhood obesity than the mainstream media is portraying.

However, if this little girl was a mere 1/8 inch taller, at 3-9 1/8 inches tall, she would be merely “overweight” again.

So, for a 6-year old girl who theoretically isn’t growing taller, around a mere 5 pounds makes the difference between being labeled as a “normal” weight or all the way to being “obese.”

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/03/by-whos-definition.html

---