"Now, you're all size 12, aren't you?"

[Bluebear]

Kindly enjoy this video: ("I Love Lucy", 1951)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNlABs4_ve4

These women would be heifers according to today's Hollywood/modeling standards, including the late, great and shapely Lucille Ball. (Can you imagine, she had to diet to get "down" to size 12?)

=======

We've made progress in a lot of ways but anorexia is not progressive. Uruguayan "supermodel" Luisel Ramos died at the age of 22, having consumed nothing but lettuce and Diet Coke for three months. Her younger sister and fellow model Iliana died just six months later of a heart attack on 14. February, 2007. Ana Carolina Reston, dead of kidney failure due to anorexia, 11/15/06.

This world is turning women against their own bodies because of an unchallenged pop culture. ENOUGH.

[Hepburn]

1. Marilyn Monroe was a Size....

14!

Let's hear it for those of us gals who have some MEAT on our bones!

[Warpy]

5. It's the last acceptable bigotry

especially of the young towards anyone older. The young think they'll always look like that if they eat a fad diet and work out at a gym.

The young are in for a big shock in too many short years.

There is no cure for obesity, no long term solution. The weight comes back for 90% of people who lose it all, even when they lose it through surgery.

It's far better for overweight folks to keep as active as possible to keep in cardiovascular condition than it is to diet and regain, diet and regain.

The bigots need to be called on it whenever we find them.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

26. Yeah, there is a solution for obesity.

Don't eat excessive calories and exercise. Pretty simple, actually.

[Bluebear]

30. Did you know that insulin therapy makes it very difficult to lose weight?

It's NOT 'pretty simple' for everybody.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

38. For the average obese American, it is simple.

And the reason why diabetes is a problem in America is because Americans eat so much and exercise so little.

There are exceptions, of course. But why, if obesity is out of a person's control, isn't obesity a huge problem in Africa? Or even France or New Zealand for that matter. Why is obesity off the charts in the US--and increasingly in the UK? The answer is lifestyle.

[Bluebear]

Good food is expensive food. Carbohydrates fill you up.

When you hardly have enough money to put food on your family, it is not easy to say "go out and buy expensive proteins!"

It is not that Americans "eat so much".

[AnotherGreenWorld]

45. I grew up very poor, and was homeless for a time.

Somehow obesity was never a problem for me, my sister, or my mom. Interesting how you don't gain weight when you don't eat excessively.

Carbs aren't necessarily bad. If you only eat simple carbs--and you eat a lot of them--that's not good. Oatmeal's not expensive. That has complex--not simple--carbs. That won't make you fat, provided you don't eat it excessively and provided that you don't drive your car everywhere rather than walk at least sometimes.

If you were motivated to find inexpensive healthy food, you could do it.

[Bluebear]

49. Well goody for you, your sister & mom.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

55. I can tell you're an Edwards supporter.

[Bluebear]

56. Yeah, go ahead and make it personal.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

66. You're saying good for me, my sister, and my mom...

that because we didn't have any food we were not as a result obese.

My point is that poor people don't become obese. Middle-class Americans who feel sorry for themselves and think they're poor might be obese. But poor people, if they have been poor for a sufficiently long period of time, do not.

Obesity isn't a disease; it's a lifestyle.

[Bluebear]

70. Yes, poor people DO become obese. Also, Edwards cares about those people.

Since you decided to make this about candidates.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

75. Having been poor and lived around poor people,

I have never seen an obese poor person. I've known people who might have high body fat %, but they're more of a skinny-fat than anything. They're certainly not obese.

Regardless, is obesity a major problem in Africa like it is in the US?

[Bluebear]

80. 'The U.S. obesity epidemic begins with kids....at least in poor, urban families"

THURSDAY, Dec. 28 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. obesity epidemic begins with kids barely out of diapers -- at least in poor, urban families, a new study suggests.

A review of nearly 2,000 3-year-old, low-income children and their mothers found that one-third of white and black children were overweight or obese, while a stunning 44 percent of Latino children fell into those categories.

"The message is that we're seeing overweight and obesity at younger ages than we thought possible," said study author Rachel Tolbert Kimbro, a health and society scholar at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "It's a particular problem in lower-income communities, and it's something we need to keep an eye on and prevent as much as possible."

According to Kimbro, there's been little research into weight problems among very young children. But, studies have shown high rates of obesity among older children and teenagers.

In the new study, the researchers examined surveys of parents who had children from 1998 to 2000 in 20 large U.S. cities. The parents lived in urban areas and were poor.

The researchers focused on 1,976 children whose height and weight were measured at 3 years of age. After adjusting the statistics to discount the influence of factors such as the age and education level of parents -- which have been shown to affect obesity in children -- the researchers found that 32 percent of the white and black children were overweight or obese, as were 44 percent of the Latino children.

The study findings are published in the Dec. 28 online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

Why the difference between the groups of children? While the answer isn't clear, the researchers said they did uncover a few clues. For one thing, children who took bottles to bed were nearly twice as likely to be overweight or obese, and Latino kids were more likely to do that than black or white kids. The excess calories in the bottles could contribute to obesity, Kimbro surmised.

Also, children with overweight or obese mothers were nearly twice as likely to be overweight or obese as kids with normal-weight mothers. Latino children with overweight mothers were most likely to be fat themselves, the researchers said.

Breast-feeding for six months or more also helped protect children of obese mothers from becoming obese themselves, the researchers said.

Does it matter if a 3-year-old is heavy? Definitely, according to Kimbro, who said overweight young children are at higher risk of asthma, orthopedic problems and even high blood pressure.

"And the earlier these health problems start, the more serious the consequences will be later in life," she said.

Also, Kimbro added, heavy youngsters are "subject to more psychosocial stress and stigma."

Cynthia Sass, a registered dietician in Tampa, Fla., and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, said, "We are seeing young children with 'adult' diseases like type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and several cardiovascular risk factors."

Still, the new findings need to be confirmed in future research, Sass said, and the conclusions need to be firmer.

"The authors only have theories about why Hispanic preschoolers are nearly twice as likely to be overweight or obese by age 3," Sass said. "We do know that an overweight child has a 70 percent chance of becoming an overweight or obese adult, so being able to identify at-risk children early can be very valuable. But we need more information in order to understand how to create prevention-oriented programs."

SOURCES: Rachel Tolbert Kimbro, Ph.D., health and society scholar, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Cynthia Sass, M.P.H., R.D., registered dietician and spokeswoman, American Dietetic Association, Tampa, Fla.; Dec. 28, 2006, American Journal of Public Health online

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=78751

[AnotherGreenWorld]

88. If they can afford to spend so much on food,

I don't really think they're poor. And Americans, regardless of class, now don't exercise at all. They watch TV. Little kids don't play outside; they play video games. That's a difference, too. It's not that they can't find healthy food.

Also: "For one thing, children who took bottles to bed were nearly twice as likely to be overweight or obese, and Latino kids were more likely to do that than black or white kids. The excess calories in the bottles could contribute to obesity, Kimbro surmised."

[Chulanowa]

185. Because with cheap food, you get what you pay for

"Cheap food" no longer means ramen, oatmeal, and lentils. That right there is a pretty healthy diet for a low low price. But nowadays stores offer what looks like "real food" for about the same cost as those cheap and healthy (but relatively tasteless) alternatives. The result is that America's poor end up eating lots and lots of empty calories, sugars, altered fats and oils, and simple carbs. And being poor, one usually doesn't have the time or energy to indulge in regular exercise - you sure has hell aren't going to afford that bowflex the TV teases you with.

Fatty ground beef, cheap sodas, fried snacks and pre-prepared meals are less expensive and less time-consuming than planning out a meal, buying the components, and cooking it all yourself. America's poor are overworked and underpaid, so these foods are what they eat, with the spaces in between filled with sugars. Add in the absence of exercise and the stress load, and you've set the stage for truly overweight people.

You've been poor. I bet most people have. Have you ever been poor and had to feed a family at the same time? It's a bit of a different situation than being poor and single.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

188. I was a child when I was homeless.

It's understandable, as I've said, why so many Americans are obese. But oatmeal is still cheap. So is cereal--the generic brand stuff. And a person doesn't have to buy generic brand Lucky Charms; there's generic brand Cheerios, and others as well. When I was a kid, pretty much the only thing I ate was cereal.

Also, I doubt most people have been poor.

[Chulanowa]

263. Yes, I understand all that

But remember American culture - why have something that looks like less (but is better for you) when you can have something that looks like more (but is worthless?)

We're a nation of myna birds, attracted to shiny junk and endlessly interested in shit that doesn't matter.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

276. I agree. American culture is the problem.

Not thyroids. Not genes. Not the unavailability of healthy food.

That's why, as American culture becomes the dominant culture around the world, obesity is increasingly becoming a problem in other parts of the world as well.

[Chulanowa]

391. Nobody said healthy food was unavailable...

It's just that unhealthy food is both more available, and more appealing - shiny things, remember.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

408. There are MANY metabolic/endocrine problems that people have.

And lots of people have them and they are undiagnosed. Examples: Polycystc ovary syndrome, adrenal insufficiency, hypothyroidism (estimated to be in one out of five American woman and routinely undiagnosed and undertreated).

You think it's not a metabolic problem? Check out this website: www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

This woman has been thru all the crazy answers from doctors I have, and then some.

The high fructose corn syrup, lack of exercise, and junk food make it worse. But it's not always just a matter of eating less and exercising more, as so many people of normal metabolism seem to think.

Poor people can be quite obese and quite undernourished at the same time, for your information. Healthy food is often expensive.

[susanna]

416. I completely disagree with one element of your argument.

It's the third item in your first sentence: "Not the unavailability of healthy food."

I live in Detroit. Detroit has TWO major supermarkets in all the city, last I heard. The rest are small, locally-owned with dismal produce and meats (I'm being kind using dismal as an adjective). Some pockets of this city have NO produce sections of a market with vitamin-rich, varied available produce. It's gotten serious enough that gardeners all over the area are working to help urban residents grow gardens so they, too, can enjoy healthy produce.

I have to believe that Detroit is not the only urban center without good produce for poverty-level people. So, if I were you, I would temper my blanket statements that anyone fat deserves to be fat vis a vis their choices.

On full disclosure, I am married and have no children. I am lucky that I have the time and money to afford a good variety of food, and I am even luckier that I enjoy the craft of cooking delicious meals with whatever is available. I also adore gardening, and grow a multitude of vegetables for consumption and storage over the winter months. I am also acutely aware that not everyone has the luxuries regarding food that I do. I try to keep from translating my experience to the whole because of these facts.

So, respectfully, I'd suggest to you that you consider other viewpoints. I believe that you may be missing information that might change your perceptions on this issue.

[Lorien]

341. I was extremely poor for a time

I lived in the basement of a post war home in the worst section of town. Most of my meals were made up of Ramen noodles and occasionally white bread, peanut butter, and bananas.The cheapest food is usually high in starch, salt, sugar and/or corn syrup, and MSG. I was extremely thin because I wouldn't eat for days, but had I eaten regularly the starch and salt would have packed on the pounds pretty quickly. That kind of food leaves a person without any energy at all, and a bad neighborhood is no place to take a jog, so it's perfectly understandable to me how the poor would become obese.

[CitizenLeft]

292. thank you for that reality check

Geezohman. Shouldn't have had to be explained.

[Patchuli]

339. I respectfully disagree with you

I think it *is* a class issue. There are lots of poor Americans. Cheap food is fast food. Fast food is unhealthy food. That accounts for a lot of obesity.

As to your statement that Americans "now don't exercise at all," once again, you are lumping us in a bunch. I have worked out for the past 30 years since I was quite young. It is sad for me to see that I have a better figure than girls 30 and more years younger than I. I think it is an age-related issue. Kids are overly-entertained these days. Take away all the video games, etc. and kids will do what they used to do, what we did; go outside and play hard. If the corporate sponsors would stop pushing the 'supersized' greasy fried food and the sedentary games, things would change. Maybe you should say "some Americans" when referring to the obesity problem.

And yes, I'm a size 12!

[madmom]

285. could it be that mom doesn't have time to cook a good nutritious

meal any more because she has to work 2 maybe 3 jobs and therefore they use ready made micro wave or add water insta meals?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

309. No.

That certainly doesn't explain why the average American is obese. And even eating microwavable meals doesn't by itself make you fat. Eating excessive calories + playing video games/driving your car everywhere/etc = obesity--in most cases.

[madmom]

360. Have you looked at the labels on these meals, they are nothing but fat

and calories unless you buy so called diets meals and they cost an arm and a leg. I hate to burst your bubble but in the "average" American family, mom still has to work to make ends meet. Check the price of enough rice, beans and potatoes to feed a family of say 4 then check the price of vegetables and fruit, oh and by the way they have to get enough to eat so they can make it thru the whole day because some only get 1 good meal a day.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

409. Even so called "healthy choice" meals have WAY too much SALT and FAT.

Yucko.

You can't find anything pre-fixed that doesn't have way too much salt, sugar and fat in it. Pretty misleading.

[DangerDave921]

439. Losing Battle

I have to laugh reading AnotherGreenWorld's posts as I fear he/she is fighting an uphill battle. I believe that in 95% of the cases, obesity is nothing more than lifestyle with maybe some genetic component to it. But there will always be champions of victimhood who will strive to blame society or anyone else they can think of to explain obesity. Proper eating and exercise is the cure for being overweight.

I've seen too many examples to conclude otherwise. Fat parents with fat kids buying the worst crap in the world at the grocery store. And I'm not talking poor people. I'm talking regular everyday folks. Chips, prepared foods, sodas, deserts, etc. stretched down the conveyor belt.

It is NOT expensive to eat well. Yes, some of the proteins can be costly (like fish), but there is an abundance of foods that are healthy and nutritious: rice, beans, pasta, veggies. Most of your eating should come from those categories anyway. And even most proteins like chicken, beef, and cheese are affordable, especially with the sales that go on at most stores. So I don't buy the excuse that eating healthy is too expensive. For that $3.79 cent bag of Doritos, you could buy some quality food instead.

[Bluebear]

86. Study: Obesity rises faster in poor teens

CHICAGO (AP) — Older American teenagers living in poverty have grown fatter at a higher rate than their peers, according to research that seems to underscore the unequal burden of obesity on the nation's poor.

"Today the percentage of adolescents age 15-17 who are overweight is about 50% higher in poor as compared to non-poor families, a difference that has emerged recently," said Johns Hopkins' sociologist Richard Miech, the study's lead author.

Obesity rates among all teens climbed substantially during the study, which covered 30 years. But the great divide according to income occurred most notably among the 15- to 17-year-old age group.

That led one outside expert to challenge the findings. Rand Corp. economist Roland Sturm said it seems implausible that younger teens would differ so much from older teens. Even if they do, he said, "It seems a rather secondary issue compared to the general trend in weight gain across all youth."

Miech argued that older teens generally have more autonomy to buy what they want and to determine their own activity levels, which he said might explain the results. And Sturm and other experts said the study's underlying message about obesity and poverty is sound.

The study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association. It is based on data from 10,800 youngsters ages 12 to 17 who participated in four nationally representative health surveys conducted from 1971 to 2004.

The researchers determined poverty levels using family income and the U.S. Census Bureau's poverty threshold.

In the early 1970s, about 4% of poor youngsters ages 15 to 17 were severely overweight, compared with about 5% of teens who weren't poor. By the early 2000s, those rates jumped to 23% of the poor and 14% of other kids, the researchers said.

The results contrast with recent research suggesting that while the poor are most likely to be overweight, obesity rates among U.S. adults have climbed fastest in recent decades among those with annual salaries over $60,000.

Miech said both could be right because eating and exercise habits are different for adults and adolescents.

Over the past decade, the percentage of calories from sweetened drinks has grown by more than 20% among kids in the 15-17 age group — an increase concentrated among the poor, he said.

"We also find that physical inactivity increases with age in adolescence, as well as the probability of skipping breakfast," said Miech. "Both these factors are more likely to be found among the poor and are also associated with overweight."

Economic differences have been linked to other health problems too, including AIDS, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. The disproportionate rates emerge as wealthier people seek medical care and make lifestyle changes, while the poor do not, said Barry Popkin, a nutrition scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The study shows that this trend "is emerging in late adolescence and just building into adulthood," Popkin said.

The results also show the need for healthful resources in low-income neighborhoods, said Dr. Rebecca Unger, a Chicago pediatrician who works with a group seeking to lower obesity rates among Chicago children.

Adam Drewnowski, a University of Washington researcher, said the disparity will persist unless the underlying problem, poverty, is also addressed.

"The campaign against obesity and the struggle against poverty are, in fact, one and the same," he said. "...Healthier diets cost more," he said, and access to physical activity "depends on how much money you've got.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-23-obesity-teens_x.htm

[CTyankee]

166. This is quite a large study, Bluebear. Since we know that the larger the study, the lower the margin

of error, and the fact that it was carried out over several years time, makes me believe its veracity.

Thanks for this. It shows what we SHOULD be looking at seriously as a problem with the poor in our society. Even tho we pretty much "knew" this, it is nice to know that we have science on our side.

[Bluebear]

87. "Poor fat people: The mass of the masses"

We’ve seen images of skeletal farmers from the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, their bodies a reflection of their withered crop. We’ve seen starving children in Ethiopia in the 1980s, bellies bloated as if to mock the barrenness of their fields. History seems to teach us that, if you’re poor, you will be thin.

But these days America’s poor are marked by the fact that they look nothing like poor of any previous era on any part of the earth: they are as fat as kings.

The masses are growing—but not in a way that, say, Karl Marx (or Richard Simmons for that matter) would be happy about. In a 2004 article published in the journal Research on Aging, Professor Jay Zagorsky found, in America, the “net worth of the obese is roughly half of that of those with normal body mass.” In other words, to put it somewhat tritely, as the rich get richer, the poor are getting fatter.

How so? Studies in Europe (where much more attention is being paid to the correlation between poverty and obesity) show that for every 3.5 ounces of fruits and vegetables consumed per day, the cost of a person’s diet increases by 30 cents. On the other hand, consuming the same amount of fats and sweets lowers the cost of a person’s diet by almost 50 cents. The decision to eat at McDonald’s rather than Whole Foods is not cultural. It is profoundly economic, as well as biological: it’s cheap, and it tastes good.

In America, the lack of research on the relationship between obesity and poverty—and the lack of interest—is troubling. Don’t we find it puzzling, if not completely ass-backwards, that our poorest metropolises—Detroit, San Antonio, and Philadelphia—are also among our fattest? That a person can be fat and poor at the same time should strike us not only as counterintuitive, but also deeply at odds with a sensible narrative of human history.

In the case of Renaissance Italy or Britain, for example, it was the economic power of the ruling class that came to define what was attractive, physically and even medically speaking. As in previous centuries, what was beautiful and healthy was defined by what was not “poor.” And being fat was the thing. Obesity was synonymous with wealth, health, and power. One thinks not only of rulers like the gargantuan Henry VIII, but also of the grazzo, which was the name (literally meaning fat) given to members of the Italian aristocracy.

It is an anomaly in our post-industrial age that fat people are usually poor people and rich people are almost always thin. Perhaps the only historical constant in this is that, in our contemporary loathing of obesity and its attendant social and medical repercussions (unattractiveness, diabetes, friendlessness, high blood pressure, discrimination, pancreatic cancer) exists a resilient scorn for the poor. Obesity has been vilified in the workplace—business consultants commonly finger it as being one of the biggest economic concerns for the life of the company (i.e. fat people are less productive). And cases of discrimination against fat applicants are quickly becoming the norm and not the exception.

No job means no dough, and no dough means McDonald’s tonight—not Zen Palate. To quote a particularly appropriate character from Mike Myers’ Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, it’s a vicious cycle.

http://www.nyinquirer.com/nyinquirer/2006/10/poor_fat_people.html

[CTyankee]

176. I am relatively thin, my husband relatively fat. I cost more to our health plan than he does!

I'm not trying to negate anything you have been saying. Just that I wonder how unfair everything is: I have exercised and watched my diet over theyears of our marriage and my weight has been relatively stable but my husband's has been much greater. However, he has not had my health problems! My family history is also one of greater longevity than his. It is a supreme irony to me and I struggle with it...

[Bluebear]

91. "Thinner pay, fatter bodies: obesity hits poor"

POOR people in Melbourne weigh an average three kilograms more than those on high incomes, a study on obesity has found.

The Melbourne University survey of 4913 people across metropolitan Melbourne found local factors play a big part in obesity.

The quality of footpaths for exercise, the location of parks, and the price and availability of healthy food all influenced health.

Poor neighbourhoods near major roads with many take-away food stores were likely to have more overweight people, the Victorian Neighbourhood Lifestyle Environment Study found.

High-income suburbs with parks and good recreational facilities had fewer overweight residents.

Suburbs with high rates of obesity included Reservoir, Thornbury, Dandenong and Sunshine, while low rates were recorded in Sandringham, Doncaster and Templestowe.

The $400,000 VicHealth-funded research project revealed that men and women of average height were likely to be about three kilograms heavier in poorer areas of Melbourne.

Associate Professor Anne Kavanagh, the survey's chief researcher, said communities with poor health could sometimes be found next to affluent and healthy neighbourhoods. Prahran was one suburb that had areas with high and low levels of obesity, she said. "Hopefully, health promotion activities can start to become very focused at a local level to try to change things and make local environments more healthy."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/thinner-pay-fatter-bodies-obesity-hits-poor/2005/12/21/1135032080231.html

[Bluebear]

CNN: Working poor face higher obesity rates

CUTLER, California (AP) -- Farm worker Iris Caballero often has a hard time keeping the refrigerator and cupboard stocked with food. Yet, she's overweight and diabetic.

She is a classic example of a modern-day paradox: as reliable access to healthy food declines, the likelihood of being overweight goes up.

The working poor like Caballero often have no time for cooking, little money to buy fresh vegetables, and a long walk to the closest supermarket with a good produce section.

"We have been pretending that it is easy to replace a diet of soft drinks and fast food with home-cooked meals, fresh fruits and vegetables," said Adam Drewnowski, a University of Washington epidemiology professor who has studied the problem.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fitness/03/04/obesity.paradox.ap/index.html

[iverglas]

99. I'm curious

Could you give us directions to the 7-11 in Darfur, or even Soweto, where the shelves are lined with chips and chocolate, and the freezers full of ready-to-eat empty carbs and fat -- and the televisions that tempt people to sit in front of them, while they trumpet these goodies hour in and hour out? And the schools that make deals with their producers in order to supplement inadequate budgets , to purvey the delicious comestibles to their captive audiences? (Does this happen in wealthy neighbourhoods in the US?) And a culture that just generally promotes consumption of everything someone can think of making a profit by producing?

Maybe you could just educate your own self.

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1961.cfm

Obesity: A Worldwide Issue

Comment and analysis from Toronto, London, Beijing, Chennai, Australia, Jerusalem and Glascow, October 24, 2004

Fast food is a worldwide obsession.

Toronto C-Health (online publication): While news stories dwell on the alarming trend toward obesity in North American children, the rest of the world appears to be following suit. More than 1.2 billion people in the world are now officially classified as overweight, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Since the publication in the British Medical Journal of new standards for evaluating children's weight, health officials around the world have begun estimating their childhood obesity rates. The Chinese government calculates that 1 in 10 city-dwelling children are now obese. In Japan, obesity in nine-year-old children has tripled. The WHO reports that approximately 20 per cent of Australian children and adolescents are overweight or obese. ...

Lots more of interest there, even without putting finger to google yourself.

The poor in the US are RELATIVELY poor. Not in relation to the poor in Soweto; in relation to the rest of their society. They also have different choices presented to them from the choices presented to someone in Africa. The poor in Africa really don't have access to the appalling food choices that are displayed to the US population everywhere they look, or the enormous pressure is brought to bear on them to make particular choices.

The minute a population has disposable income, there will be someone trying to get them to exchange it for useless, cheaply produced shit. And shitty food is not excluded. And for a lot of sometimes complex reasons, poorer people can be more vulnerable to these efforts.


http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/

... Obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, with more than 1 billion adults overweight - at least 300 million of them clinically obese - and is a major contributor to the global burden of chronic disease and disability. Often coexisting in developing countries with under-nutrition, obesity is a complex condition, with serious social and psychological dimensions, affecting virtually all ages and socioeconomic groups.

Increased consumption of more energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods with high levels of sugar and saturated fats, combined with reduced physical activity, have led to obesity rates that have risen three-fold or more since 1980 in some areas of North America, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, Australasia and China.The obesity epidemic is not restricted to industrialized societies; this increase is often faster in developing countries than in the developed world.

... Why is this happening?

The rising epidemic reflects the profound changes in society and in behavioural patterns of communities over recent decades. While genes are important in determining a person's susceptibility to weight gain, energy balance is determined by calorie intake and physical activity. Thus societal changes and worldwide nutrition transition are driving the obesity epidemic. Economic growth, modernization, urbanization and globalization of food markets are just some of the forces thought to underlie the epidemic.

As incomes rise and populations become more urban, diets high in complex arbohydrates give way to more varied diets with a higher proportion of fats, saturated fats and sugars. At the same time, large shifts towards less physically demanding work have been observed worldwide. Moves towards less physical activity are also found in the increasing use of automated transport, technology in the home, and more passive leisure pursuits.

Obviously, the WHO has it all wrong. Obviously, this global phenomenon, this community behaviour, is the fault of rising numbers of stupid people ...

[AnotherGreenWorld]

107. I don't disagree.

I do think that American culture is the reason why Americans are so fat. It's not genes. It's not other health problems. It's American culture. And that is quickly being exported to other parts of the world.

Still, if an American wants to lose weight, he/she can. It's understandable why so many Americans are fat. But, unlike MS, leukemia, or a real disease, they can do something about it.

[Blue_In_AK]

241. It really isn't always that easy...

I'm not obese, but I am probably 20-25 pounds over the "ideal" weight for someone my age and height. I regularly walk over 20 miles a week, ride the elliptical machine 20 minutes a day, and eat only "good" food and not a lot of it, certainly no more than 1800 calories a day, usually much less. It doesn't matter -- I'm stuck right where I'm at.

Metabolisms differ from person to person. I myself am hypothyroid, although stabilized. I really don't think you can make blanket statements about people's eating and exercising habits leading to obesity. It's seldom that simple.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

252. Why, then, are obesity rates higher in the US than in France?

American culture explains American obesity. Do all obese Americans have thyroid problems? And never overactive thyroids, of course.

It might not be easy for you to lose weight, but you could.

[DemBones DemBones]

267. Maybe because Europeans kept GM foods out?

Hypothyroidism is very common in people over 50, especially in women. I believe the risk starts going up when people are in their forties.

How old are you, Mr./Ms. Skinnier-Than-Thou??? Over 40? Over 50? I'll bet not.

And where do you live that you have never seen an obese poor person? Free Republic, perhaps?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

269. Even if hypothyroidism accounted for all obesity over 50,

both males and females, that wouldn't explain all--perhaps not even most--obesity in American. And that would raise the question: Why is hypothyroidism more common in the US than other parts of the world? And maybe it would have something to do with the US's generally low environmental standards. I think that explains a lot of other serious health problems in the US. But I really don't think that has very much to do with obesity.

And I doubt most people over 50 are obese because they have hypothyroidism.

[DemBones DemBones]

383. You didn't answer my question: Are you over 40? Over 50?

If not, are you over 30? Over 20?

Answer please.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

410. Hypothyroidism hit me when I was eleven years old.

It's called Hashimoto's thyroiditis and it's an autoimmune disease. A bacterium attacks your thyroid and kills it. It's common in older women but often strikes in the pre-teen years.

Because of the environmental pollutants, autoimmune diseases such as Hashimoto's thyroiditis, rheumatoid arthritis,and diabetes are more common. And also,there is a cluster of symptoms called metabolic syndrome.

[truedelphi]

322. I like your answer

TYhe foods here in The USA are atrocious.

It has been a major news story over the last few years that poor neighborhoods are losing the only remaining groceries.

SO what?? Let them eat at McDonalds. Or KFC

In Europe, Street Markets that sell foods are everywhere. Real food - produce and handmade cheeses.

Not the MSG corn syrup laden Crap we are given. (Almost all prepared food has MSG - even the cookies in the health food stores)

[DemBones DemBones]

384. Thanks. You're right, you can get real food in Europe

and you see less obesity there but the older people are, the more likely they are to be obese. Now that the attack of the Golden Arches is spreading through Europe, obesity is likely to hit at a younger age. Convenience foods are in use now, too.

Even older women who walk a lot (you can tell from their legs) are often quite hefty in their torsos, despite regularly walking up and down stairs, (in cities, no one lives on the first floor, and elevators are rare) and walking several blocks to do their shopping, coming back with an armload of groceries, carrying them up two or three flights of stairs. Some cities are very hilly as well so people get a lot of exercise just walking around town but most older people are not thin because metabolism naturally slows down with age

Maybe the slowing of metabolism is an adaptation to help pad our bones with more fat so we are less likely to fracture a hip. Hip fractures put a lot of older people on a downward path and they never recover, developing other problems that lead to death. Of course we're all going to die, but a hip fracture speeds up the process. Who is most likely to fracture a hip? A thin person.

[verdalaven]

246. If not genetic......

when I was trying to stay thin (I don't bother anymore) I ran 5 miles a day and ate 1200 calories a day; I couldn't budge the scale lower than 140 lbs. Yet my extremely thin best friend eats whatever she wants (one time we counted her calories and in a day SHE ATE 6000!!!!) never exercised, and yet never gained an ounce over 120.

Um, if not not genetic, then what is it about me that makes me have to work so hard to keep every pound off, while my friend can eat like three people and stay stick thin? I want the secret, and don't say diet and exercise, because for some of us, size 12 is the best we can do.

Oh, and I find this argument makes the point of an earlier poster - obesity, the last acceptable prejudice.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

253. 140lbs is hardly obese...

When you get to a more reasonable weight, it becomes harder to lose weight. It's not impossible to lose that weight, however. You probably need to do more vigorous exercise. Walking actually burns more fat than running. Weight-training might be a good idea--if it matters that much to you.

[SoCalDem]

278. Not the last...maybe next-to-last

It's always ok to demonize smokers:)

[madmom]

365. "a real disease" are you a doctor then?

[Bluebear]

111. PS, notice this thread was about women who psychologically think they have to be size zero

Yet, people go the other way and choose to comment how Americans are too fat.

[iverglas]

125. I did feel a little odd

pursuing that tangent. ;)

It's related, though. Fat is a moral failure. Skinny is therefore laudable, as evidence of the absence of moral flaws. It is proof of one's worthiness. It is deserving of reward.

Just more hokey prosperity theology.


If you're rich, it's because you're good. If you're fat, it's because you're bad.

Once again, the chorus can sing:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm+all+right+Jack!

1. I'm all right Jack!

(originally: "Fuck you, Jack, I'm all right!!" - described the bitter dismay of sailors ("jacks") returning home after wartime in the Navy to find themselves not treated as patriots or heroes, but ignored / sneered at by a selfish, complacent, get-ahead society - phrase was subsequently toned down for acceptable general use.)

Attitude of "every man for himself, survival of the fittest, devil take the hindmost", ... but also, that all the possible advantages (however gained), success (however won) and satisfaction (whatever the cost to others) belong to me first!" Narrow-focus, narrow-gauge pseudo-Darwinian selfishness glorified as a sensible philosophy of society and life.

and go back to patting itself on the back for not being fat, and not being poor anymore, and not having any share of responsibility for anybody who is.

[BlooInBloo]

126. ZING.

[waiting for hope]

221. Thank you for the OP -

Not to continue to highjack the thread, I was a lot thinner before my two kids. My weight additions are not due to having children for within a few months I was back to where I started, but due to the fact I have NO time to exercise. I work 40+ hours a week, my oldest is in first grade and my youngest is 2 1/2. After getting home after work and picking them up, it's immediately off to fix dinner, half the time it's something quick because my hubby and I are both exhausted, then clean up, off to help my son with his homework, baths, bedtime and then a few things to keep the house straight and off to bed (or here for a precious hour) for the alarm goes off at 5:00 AM.

Besides myself not having time to go to the gym or a walk around the neighborhood, my son may not be able to play an after school sport - our jobs are not flexible enough to get off earlier in the day to take him to either soccer practice or swimming etc. People don't realize that both parents having to work excludes a ton of activities, both for the parent and the child. I would love to work part-time (or not at all), be able to pick my son up after school and my daughter up from day care earlier in the afternoon so we can have quality time to do other things. I used to go to the gym three to four nights a week, I used to play in an adult soccer league with practices two nights a week but that was when I didn't have children. Thankfully my kids are healthy, a bit on the skinny side (my husband's genes, he also has the "no ass" syndrome) but I sympathize for families with a lower income and for families with only one parent. I just hope and pray that by the time my daughter is older, these stereotypes will have faded. I don't know if you have noticed the new Dove commercials (http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/inside_campaign.asp) but the attitudes are slowly turning back to normal..

[Bluebear]

224. Thanks for the message

You "get it". :hug:

[waiting for hope]

230. You are very welcome.

:hug:

[eridani]

280. How DARE you insist that you have a life?

It's all your fault for putting your family and your work ahead of being on a treadmill. :sarcasm:

[Occulus]

290. Not "people", Blue

One poster. That's it.

I think I've seen his shenanigans on this subject before, too. To him, Obesity Is Always A Choice(tm).

[ismnotwasm]

149. Are you kidding?

Seriously? I was dirt poor for years, and around dirt poor people of different ethnicities. In different parts of the country. An incredible amount of obesity having much to do with lack of cheap nutritional food as well as lack of nutrition education in that population.

I work on a renal/transplant unit now, and I still see obese, poor folks. Lots of renal failure d/t diabetes.

My daughter, who is a personal trainer, and studying to be a dietitian, plans on doing something about the childhood obesity epidemic through education, not judgment and condemnation. We both want to see better food provided in public schools.

I don't know where you were poor at, or for how long, but that is an incredible statement.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

151. Perhaps it is different now than when I was a child.

Americans, thanks to American culture, have become much lazier.

I was also homeless, not merely poor.

[Kingshakabobo]

201. Perhaps you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. n/t

[Occulus]

291. You also never told us how old you are

And you were directly asked.

Why, yes, Mildred, things ARE a little different these days...

[phylny]

372. You are absolutely right.

We just moved to southern Virginia from New York and we are absolutely FLABBERGASTED at how many morbidly obese people there are here versus where we lived in New York. This area has a lot of poverty, and it certainly shows in the size of many of the people.

[deadmessengers]

153. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read

Try walking around the South Bronx some time. 400-pounders aren't a rare sight in the slightest.

[AZBlue]

196. "I have never seen an obese poor person."

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Let me guess...you forgot to mention that you're legally blind??

[DemBones DemBones]

256. Best reply so far! It's the only explanation

I can imagine.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[WildEyedLiberal]

235. You've NEVER seen an obese poor person?

Look harder.

Mississippi is the fattest state in the US, with around I think a 30% adult obesity rate. It's also one of the poorest.

And it's really kind of cruel for you to keep bringing up Africa where everyone with a brain knows that STARVATION is a problem - kind of hard to be obese on 400 calories a day, isn't it? Is that what you're suggesting people in America do to avoid obesity?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

249. It shows that weight is in a person's control.

Of course, a person needn't go to an extreme.

[shimmergal]

293. Thanks, WildEyedLiberal.

Actually, all he/she needs to do is walk into any WalMart. Granted, without impersonating a poll taker and asking for income data, you can't be _sure_, even there, but I'm always struck by the large percentage of very obese WalMart shoppers who certainly appear to be poor.

It's especially noticeable where we live--there's both a WalMart and a Target within the larger neighborhood. Seldom do I see anyone who's outright obese shopping at Target. 'Course they don't carry a full range of groceries like the WalMart.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

300. You can't tell if a person's poor by their apperance.

:eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

385. I'm not answering your questions until you answer mine:

How old are YOU???

Over 50? Over 40? Over 30? Over 20?

Answer that and I'll tell you how to judge a person's income level by their appearance.

[Contrary1]

389. I agree, you can't tell if a person is poor by their appearance...

So, how can you know that you have never seen an obese person who was poor?

[last_texas_dem]

122. Poor people DO become obese

There were statistics released a few years ago noting Mississippi as the most overweight state. It is also one of the poorest, if not the poorest, state in the U.S.

[treestar]

182. Yes they do

In fact, that is why thin is in.

What is "in" tracks what the rich can afford.

Being plump was great in prior ages; it meant you were rich enough to eat.

Now, the rich are thin - they have time for exercise and they have the $$ to order their diet, in this society, so as not to be too fattening (and no compunction about wasting food).

[mzmolly]

225. Bullshit.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fitness/03/04/obesity.paradox.ap/index.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040105071229.htm

I have a good friend of Mexican ancestry, her family has been poor for generations, many of them are morbidly obese, and they don't have to eat much to get there.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829090143.htm

More here: "Those maps were used to support that argument that the obesity epidemic did not discriminate," said Drewnowski. "Our research shows that geography, social class, and economic standing all play huge roles in the obesity problem. Some of the most disadvantaged areas -- those hardest hit by low income, low education, and low property values -- are also the ones most affected by the obesity epidemic."

[eridani]

279. Bullshit. Obesity is 6 times as common among the poor n/t

[bliss_eternal]

157. What does this have to do with supporting Edwards...?

:shrug:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

159. Person A: I was homeless, and because I didn't have any food to eat, I wasn't obese.

Person B: Good for you and your family.

Edwards pretends to care about the poor. Looking at his Senate record and his extravagant lifestyle, it is obvious that he does not. But even supposing he really does care about the poor, it's just a fact that he has done nothing significant to help the poor. Though he did invest in a hedge fund that foreclosed on the homes of victims of Katrina.

Edwards supporters also pretend to care about the poor. They like being self-righteous: "We're helping the poor! We're voting for Edwards!" When you talk to them, it's obvious their concern for the poor is also merely rhetorical. It makes them feel good. Everyone likes to be perceived as helping someone else.

[Bluebear]

169. Self-righteous? That is you in spades! "Look at me, I had no trouble staying thin!"

Oh yeah, because you understood SCIENCE. :eyes:

[bliss_eternal]

175. Well said.

Thank YOU!

:applause:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

177. No, I said science explains why I was thin. I didn't have much food to eat.

And because I was not eating very much food, I didn't gain weight.

Also, I don't view being thin as an accomplishment.

[saracat]

262. Well you certainly seem to regard it as a moral failure on the part of those who are NOT thin!

And BTW, I am thin and have to work at it.I also have to take meds. If I were poor, I would not be able to do what is necessary to keep me thin.Whatever. I think some of your posts smack of self rightous bigotry.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

275. No. That's not clear at all.

I don't care if people are obese or not. It is up to them to decide if their weight is important and how important. However, if they don't want to be obese, that is something--most of the time--that is within their control. It doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Edit: To the extent that it is related to morality, it is only related insofar as Americans need to stop consuming excessively in general. That is immoral.

[bliss_eternal]

172. In my opinion...

...that's a superficial value judgement based on your own limited thinking. You refuse to believe that someone that appears wealthy with an extravagant lifestyle can care about the poor.

Seems ironic, coming from someone that is making a lot of gross generalizations and blanket statements about the obese. Clearly it just doesn't exist if YOU don't believe it.

How rude of you to attack someone for supporting a Democrat on a progressive board.

BTW, welcome to my ignore list.
Your bigotry is disturbing. I'd rather not waste any more time trying to have a rational discussion with someone so small-minded as you.

Enjoy your flame-fest.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

174. If he cared so much about the poor,

he wouldn't live so extravagantly. With all of his excess, he would save thousands of lives.

No gross generalizations from me. This is a fact: If you eat a calorie-restricted diet and exercise you will lose weight. Yes, if a person is on certain medications losing weight is harder. I've said that.

But most Americans are fat because of their lifestyle. It's not genes. They could change it if they wanted to. Obviously something like this isn't popular on an internet message board.

[Bluebear]

178. If Obama cared about human rights he wouldn't cite Senator Coburn as his "good friend"

and the "kind of Republican he looks forward to working with".

"No gross generalizations from me." :rofl:

[Blue_In_AK]

242. Would you acknowledge that FDR was quite rich

and helped the poor a lot?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

255. I don't think it's impossible for a rich person to care about the poor.

Edwards is proposing a modern-day New Deal? Are you sure you're not confusing him with Dennis Kucinich, the real populist in the race, the guy who lives in the same $22K house he bought in the 1970s?

If Edwards had Kucinich's policies--and stopped repeatedly acting like a hypocrite--his extravagant lifestyle wouldn't look so bad. Or if he stopped pretending to be a populist whose primary concern is alleviating poverty.

[saracat]

264. Exactly what is so admirable about Dennis living in a crappy house and wearing ill fitting suits?

Maybe he isn't a hypocrite but why is never having achieved material wealth admirable? I expect more out of my candidate tham sitting in the same house for years.Fortunately I think there is more to Dennis than that.But where he lives is not a great argument to support him!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

265. I'm not arguing that people should support Dennis because he lives in a $22K house.

However, the fact that Dennis lives in a house that he bought in the 1970s for $22K adds to his populist credentials. Unlike Edwards, he is not selling himself as a populist; he actually is a populist.

Dennis practices what he preaches, which is quite rare, and I find it admirable. It would be hypocritical of him to live as luxuriously as Mr. Edwards while so many people about whom he cares deeply live in such misery.

Suppose Gandhi had lived in a mansion, told others to do precisely what he was not. Wouldn't we remember him quite differently?

[saracat]

271. I don't think where you live has anything to do with "practicing what you preach"

And living in the same house he bought in the 1970's says nothing about populist credentials so much as it says Dennis really loves that house or has no ability to manage real estate as an investment!

Do you think the Kennedys were hypocritical to live as well as they did and do? What about MLK, he didn't live on poverty row.Nor did FDR.

What is your definition of a populist? Do think that everyone should sell all their stuff and give it to the poor before they can do any good? That would be silly.
Who exactly does it benefit that Dennis lives in a small house? I would guess the Edwards at least, like the Kennedys, keep a lot of people employed.And since when is Edwards telling anyone else to do something he isn't? Is he telling people to be poverty stricken? Has he told them to give money away?.He has told people that he wants them to be able to achieve the American Dream as he has.What the heck is wrong with that?

As for Gandhi, I doubt that we would remember him any differently after all.It was what he did, not where he lived that counted.

Your post reminds me of my Mom who told me,"Eat all the food on your plate.Remember, there are starving children in China" as though my eating the food would make a difference either way.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

366. Apparently quoting Albert Camus and siding with Jean-Paul Sartre is unacceptable...

:eyes:

[TygrBright]

250. Something interesting about Edwards for you to chew on...

...since you seem determined to despise the man.

Did you know that his law career was built around holding malpracticing physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, etc., to account for the damage their carelessness and incompetence did to peoples' lives?

Seeing yer sigline, and all, I thought you might be interested in that. Despicable, isn't it? How anyone can like the guy...

ironically,
Bright

[AnotherGreenWorld]

254. Yeah, and I defend him for that. I have pointed that out several times on DU as well.

That doesn't excuse his Senate record or his extravagant lifestyle.

[Terri S]

282. I guess that goes for the Kennedy's too?

Truly, I'm not sure which of your gross generalizations are the most absurd.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

301. The problem is you don't read close enough.

Also, no, I'm not a fan of the Kennedy's. Most people on the left are not. Have you ever read Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn?

[saracat]

323. Who the heck are you to speak for 'MOST" people on the "left" ?

Most of us Lefty's on DU like the Kennedys and Rossevelt.Many do not care for Chomsky or Zinn.We are Democrats not Socialists!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

330. The Democratic Party isn't a party of the left.

It's a bourgeois right-leaning centrist party.

[saracat]

331. So why do you support Obama who is the choice of Big Business?

and is most certainly a Democrat? And why do you post on Democratic Underground if you think the Democratic Party is a "bourgeois right-leaning centrist party.?" This seems very odd behavior for a follower of Zinn and Chomsky. Are you trying to associate Obama with Socialism? He would not be grateful for your efforts or the denigration of his party!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

333. Such odd deductions.

No, I am not trying to associate Obama with socialism. I support Obama for a variety of reasons. This thread is not the place to get into them.

Howard Zinn said he was interested in both John Edwards and Barack Obama. Was he trying to associate them with anarchism, since he is an anarchist? And are JE and Obama his ideal candidates? Obviously not. Unfortunately, the US is not a sophisticated country, and intelligent people have to make compromises.

There are plenty of Socialists and Green Party voters on this board.

[saracat]

335. Green Party yes. I doubt we have many Socialists.

Not saying we don't have any but it is not mainstream DU!

[BamaGirl]

381. I gotta know

Do you have kids??

Cause I'm not sending mine to bed hungry. There have been times, when we made less money, that meant they weren't going to bed having had the best of dinners (read too calorie rich). Because the good stuff costs more. Fresh fruit and veggies and good quality meats cost more money. So I could ensure my kids stay skinny and be hungry...or I can be damned sure I stay at least middle class so I can afford that stuff. Ya know, it just ain't that simple.

[divinecommands]

248. Well said

I think people often adopt opinions, or "poses", based on what they think will make them look best to others -- and perhaps, more importantly, what will make them look best to themselves.

Good on you for pointing that out.

[Matariki]

413. I think the actual quote was "goodie for you and your family"

which is more flamebaitish. you've been remarkably polite. you're probably aware, this is a tough subject around here. I'm at a bit at a loss as to why people don't think food intake and calorie output has any effect on weight, but apparently that's not the consensus here. I'll probably get flamed for even admitting I think there's a connection...

[AZBlue]

197. Let me tell you: you're not doing Obama any favors with his logo in your posts.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

203. Anyone who decides not to vote for Obama because of something I post

probably isn't intelligent enough to appreciate the greatness of Barack Obama anyway.

[DemBones DemBones]

268. You're not winning any friends here for Obama. nt

[JuniperLea]

437. congratulations... you just forfeited this argument...

Read up on genetics and weight, then read up on being polite, then read up on debating... you are wrong, wrong, wrong across the board here.

[mzteris]

92. some people have high metabolism -

thank your genes.

We're vegetarians on a low fat diet. I avoid high-fructose-cornsugar like the plague. We eat healthier than nearly any one I know.

Yet I've gained weight (menopause)

And my 8 yo - has rapidly gained weight in the last two years. He's verging on obese. He is a VERY active child. The nutritionist has examined our food journal and really had "not much to add". :shrug:


Your simplistic POV suggests you might have wandered astray from your usual stompin' grounds, hmmm?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

97. There are exceptions. I have already admitted this.

But for most Americans, if they wouldn't eat excessively, and if they would exercise even a little, they would lose weight.

And it doesn't matter what sort of diet you're on, if you eat excessive calories, you're going to gain weight. That's just how the body works.

[AZBlue]

195. You grew up in another time. There's scientific proof that today it's cheaper to eat poorly.

People buying what they can afford...
From the "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition":
"It's a question of money," Drewnowski said. "The reason healthier diets are beyond the reach of many people is that such diets cost more. On a per calorie basis, diets composed of whole grains, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit are far more expensive than refined grains, added sugars and added fats. It's not a question of being sensible or silly when it comes to food choices, it's about being limited to those foods that you can afford."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040105071229.htm

People buy cheap food that fills because they can't afford more food...
"But, in the U.S., the highest rates of obesity occur among the poorest people. Clinical research studies have been done to study the eating habits, grocery shopping habits and the income changes of obese, poor people in the U.S. What these studies found were that the head of the households buy high calorie, high carbohydrate and high fat foods, with high density, when they have a limited amount of money each month. These kinds of foods, such as, hamburgers, doughnuts, pizza, salty snacks have the most dietary energy at the lowest costs and, at the same time, have the highest level of satiety and taste. In short, they taste good and make people feel full. However, they have the lowest nutritional value and the highest calories. In fact these obese people are overweight but under nourished.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5576/obesity_and_poverty_the_poorest_of.html?page=2

From Dr. Adam Drewnowski, director of the Nutritional Sciences Program in the UW School of Public Health and Community Medicine:
"Fat in America is an economic issue, he says. The highest rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes are found among groups with the highest poverty rates, and the least education. "We think of obesity as being predicted by genetics; believe me, it is also predicted by incomes and zip codes," says Drewnowski. There are many reasons why low-income families have less access to affordable healthy foods. Those reasons may involve food pricing and marketing, school and work schedules, or even transportation and access to the nearest grocery store."
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=4798

From Seth S. Martin in the "American Economist"
"Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States and is disproportionately concentrated in poor populations...Current literature supports a food choice constraint model in which one's ability to purchase healthy foods falls with income in a standard budget constraint shift fashion because healthy foods (non-energy-dense foods) are relatively costly."
http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting/1086324-1.html

Just three days ago in the news!
"Poverty and obesity often go hand in hand, doctors say, because poor families stretch their budgets by buying cheaper, processed foods that have higher fat content and lower nutritional value. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee...explained during a Southern Governors' Association meeting last weekend that there are historical reasons poor people often fry their foods: It's an inexpensive way to increase the calories and feed a family.

And so on. If you'd take a minute, you could find 100's of articles all saying the same thing.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

204. They're talking about a healthy diet.

My diet as a child--cereal--was not healthy. I never ate fruits or vegetables. Even so, it was not as unhealthy as eating McDonald's, cheetos, doritos, and so on. Eating a diet of oatmeal, cereal, and similar inexpensive items a person does not become obese. If people want to lose weight, that is something they could do. I'm not saying people should want to lose weight. If they want to be obese, that's their choice.

[AZBlue]

209. Oh my - you just don't get it do you??

Are you really that dense or are you just playing? How can anyone be that out of touch with today's society??

Here's a hint for you: compare the ingredients in the cereal you ate as a child and the cereals available today. Today's cereals - and most other foods - contain chemicals and preservatives proven to mess with your metabolism and your health. High fructose corn syrup and other sugars and ingredients that make you easily gain weight. The cereal they are eating today has nothing to do with what cereal you ate as a child. There is no comparison.

I do wonder why you are so determined to prove to everyone that overweight people are so awful and it's all their fault - you must have almost half the posts in this thread! I wonder why someone is so filled with hate and is so bent on hurting others. Sounds like you're out for revenge really. Perhaps an overweight person hurt you at some time in your life. You'd be better off dealing with that rather than trying to spread your mean-spirited and nasty vitriol. Good luck.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

213. Yeah, they're not ideal.

But generic brand Cheerios, as opposed to something like Lucky Charms, isn't as bad as even a lot of the so-called healthy food.

[AZBlue]

215. We were talking about poor people here - so what's your point??

Obviously I'm not talking about South Beach Diet brand bars or the diet cookies that are low in fat but high in calories and preservatives - they wouldn't be able to afford those.

Your post is completely irrelevant. A weak attempt at keeping up an argument you are so obviously losing. Admit defeat. You were wrong - so what? Learn from it and move on. I learn lots of things on DU I never knew before (but I don't waste half a thread trying to continue my POV when it's so obviously incorrect).

[AnotherGreenWorld]

217. My original post simply said

that if a person doesn't eat excessively and exercises, he/she won't be obese--with a few exceptions. That's indisputable. People might not want to hear it though. And if a person says they only have bad foot to eat like Cheetos, McDonald's, and Doritos, they are not being honest. It is hard to find inexpensive food that is relatively healthy, but it's not impossible. And it's not that hard to find foods that are better than the foods that the average American is eating.

In addition, the average American isn't poor. The average American, therefore, cannot use poverty as an excuse for being obese.

Also, I'm not sure why you mention the South Beach Diet brand bars. When I say some so-called healthy food isn't actually healthy--because of little regulation and low standards--I'm talking about milk, fresh produce, and so on.

[AZBlue]

245. It's very disputable. It's simply not that cut and dry.

Unless you think the entire science community is lying to you??

Again, why are you so caught up in this obviously incorrect line of thinking? Why do you have so much invested in it? I think you'd do good to think about that for a while.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

251. I don't have anything invested in it. I just like the truth.

If you do not consume more calories than you burn, you will not gain weight.

If you simply cut your calories from 5000 to 2000, however, this will reduce your metabolic rate. A person has to cut slowly and get down to only eating what your body needs.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

298. Read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich

For a good view on what life is like for MILLIONS of working poor in this country. Mind you, most of these people aren't officially below the arbitrarily drawn "poverty line" in this country. They are the folks who wait on tables, clean houses, stock the shelves at WalMart. She spent a year undercover, working at these jobs and trying to survive, at various locations throughout the country. She describes attempting to eat healthy, nutritious food and then giving up and eating crap like everyone else when she realized just how difficult and expensive it is to obtain good food when you are the working poor.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

303. I've read it. Biology PhD gets bored, and being a wealthy white woman who thinks--wrongly--that

she can write well, she becomes a writer. She tells people what they want to hear, and she becomes successful.

Anyway, yes, it's difficult to find inexpensive, healthy food. Obesity doesn't follow from that. Bread is not expensive. Oatmeal isn't expensive. Generic brand cereal is not expensive. Eat these--which is not a healthy diet by any means--in moderation, which, if you are truly poor, will be necessary, and you will not become fat.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

312. Your ad hominem attacks against Ehrenreich don't invalidate her points

And I suspect you didn't read the book, given what you just said. Either that, or you skimmed over the part where she talked about trying to get groceries using public transportation, and then realizing you can't cook them when you don't have appliances or cooking implements.

Honestly, with your myopia and judgemental attitude, I suspect you accidentally ended up on the wrong board. That "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality isn't usually too well-received on DU.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

316. I think her book is simplistic.

I can't address her own psychological state. Maybe she did think it was tough. It is tough, and it would be especially tough for someone from her background. That doesn't mean it's impossible to find inexpensive, relatively healthy food. It can be done. A lot of things were tough when I was a kid. When you are poor, things are necessarily tough, even things that are simple for everybody else. I'm glad no one told me, "It's tough not having a coat, not eating for days, and so on. That excuses anything you do!"

It's understandable why so many Americans are obese. But obesity is not like Leukemia, MS, Cancer, or a real disease. It is in people's control--most of the time.

I'm probably considerably to the left of you.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

326. If you're such a lefty you might want to cut back on the RW talking points

And your explanation for obesity in the U.S. is the definition of simplistic.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

328. What RW talking points have I used?

US culture explains obesity. Maybe it's simplistic, but it's the truth.

[truedelphi]

386. All the foods that you are mentioning- unless purchased as "organic" are laden

With MSG. Read the label of your cheapest load of white bread, or store bought oatmeal.

Modified corn starch = MSG. Modified tapioca starch = MSG

MSG often causes a person to not have the ability to dampen their appetite.


And in the poorest neighborhoods, there are not even any groceries - ntohing but fast food places.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

392. If you don't eat them excessively you will not gain weight.

Oatmeal is very filling.

[Bluebear]

395. You continue to hijack the thread I see. On your "America is fat" lecture series.

Why not start your own thread?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

394. In addition, a banana costs less than a candy bar.

How much is a candy bar? 85 cents to a dollar usually? A banana is like a cheap candy bar. It's also much healthier.

How much is a bag of Doritos? $4 or so?

[XemaSab]

430. I read the book, and I was really underwhelmed

It seemed to me like she didn't live in each place long enough to develop a "home" there.

Everyone knows that moving is expensive, and whenever you move you're in the hole for a bit. She didn't stay in any place long enough to get out of the hole and get like, a place with a stove and a fridge so she could do her own cooking. If you're living in a hotel room, you have no choice but to eat fast food.

Every hippie knows, however, that brown rice and vegetables is CHEAP and HEALTHY.

(now back to your regular programming :hide: )

[Chomskyite]

257. I'm a skinny guy . . .

. . . and the patronizing sarcasm you're using is annoying the hell out of me.

"Somehow obesity was never a problem for me, my sister, or my mom. Interesting how you don't gain weight when you don't eat excessively."

Good lord. I bet you were pleasant to grow up with.

[Bluebear]

261. She's no bargain in the present tense.

[mzmolly]

310. Familiar with "genetics" and evolution?

If you had a extended history of poor people in your lineage, you'd be more likely to put on weight very easily and have a very difficult time taking it off.

I recently watched a documentary about weight and there was a woman profiled who did two hours of aerobics daily and ate 1000 calories in order to maintain a weight of 150 pounds at 5'4" inches tall.

So glad you have genes that work well for you in these times, not everyone does.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

342. ...

Genes do not explain the average American's obesity.

I know someone who was born with no arms. But if I cut my arms off, I'm not going to point to him and say, "Hey, don't blame me. It's in my genes!"

[mzmolly]

348. WRONG AGAIN. Genetics are an important PART of the picture.

You, your Mom and your sister, have "good" genes, unless of course, there is a famine.

One of many studies on this subject:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/escan.fcgi?db=PubMed&uid=12383024&dopt=Citation&field=Title&DateField=MeshDate

Obesity is a typical common multifactorial disease in which environmental and genetic factors interact. In rare cases of severe obesity with childhood onset, a single gene has a major effect in determining the occurrence of obesity, with the environment having only a permissive role in the severity of the phenotype. Exceptional mutations of the leptin gene and its receptor, pro-opiomelanocortine (POMC), prohormone convertase 1 (PC1) and more frequently, mutations in the melanocortin receptor 4 (1 to 4% of very obese cases) have been described. All these obesity genes encode proteins that are strongly connected as part of the same loop of the regulation of food intake. They all involve the leptin axis and one of its hypothalamic targets; the melanocortin pathway. Pathways of bodyweight regulation involved in monogenic forms of obesity might represent targets for future drug development. Successful leptin protein replacement in a leptin-deficient child has contributed to the validation of the usefulness of gene screening in humans. However, the individual variability in response to leptin treatment might be related to genetic variability. The efficiency of leptin itself or of small-molecule agonists of the leptin receptor should be studied in relation with genetic variations in the leptin gene promoter. The most common forms of obesity are polygenic. Two general approaches have been used to date in the search for genes underlying common polygenic obesity in humans. The first approach focuses on selected genes having some plausible role in obesity on the basis of their known or presumed biological role. This approach yielded putative susceptibility genes with only small or uncertain effects. The second approach attempts to map genes purely by position and requires no presumptions on the function of genes. Genome-wide scans identify chromosomal regions showing linkage with obesity in large collections of nuclear families. Genome-wide scans in different ethnic populations have localized major obesity loci on chromosomes 2, 5, 10, 11 and 20. Susceptibility gene(s) for obesity may be positionally cloned in the intervals of linkage. The candidate gene and positional cloning of major obesity-linked regions approaches are discussed in this paper.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

351. I'm afraid you're the one who is wrong.

[mzmolly]

353. I'm afraid science backs me up on this.

Sorry "slim" but themz the facts. ;)

[AnotherGreenWorld]

355. They don't support the conclusion you think they do.

"These studies determined that genetic factors contribute to about 40 per cent of obesity variance in twins. Although genetic factors alone can not explain the large increase in the prevalence of childhood and adolescent obesity..."

Do you understand what that means?

[mzmolly]

356. Yes, I understand that when is said "genes are part of the problem" and you said "genes don't play a

role" that I was correct and you were not. I have said that genetics and environment contribute to obesity, you said genes were not a factor PERIOD.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

357. I said that genes don't explain American obesity.

[mzmolly]

362. That statment is not correct. Genes play a role in American obesity rates.

I've proven that in our conversation. Genes do "explain" obesity for many who suffer from it. Google "thrifty gene" for more information.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1110/features/fighting.htm

[mzmolly]

352. More:

http://depts.washington.edu/cgph/centergoals/obesity.htm

http://www.bookrags.com/research/obesity-genetic-factors-wog/

A genetic link to obesity was strongly inferred by the results of studies involving twins who were raised apart. The study allowed the influences of genetic make-up and environment to be distinguished. These studies determined that genetic factors contribute to about 40 per cent of obesity variance in twins. Although genetic factors alone can not explain the large increase in the prevalence of childhood and adolescent obesity, interactions between genetics and environmental factors are likely. A person with a genetic disposition towards obseity, raised in an environment where consumption of high-fat food and little exercise are the norms, is likely to become obese. Susceptibility to obesity is largely a function of genetics, but the environment determines phenotypic expression.

...

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020810/safari.asp

Obesity and Genetics

Studies show that genes are a significant factor in developing obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide an online guide to the problem of obesity and insights into current research on the genetics of obesity.

...


How might genes contribute to obesity? A “thrifty genotype” hypothesis
Any explanation of the obesity epidemic has to include both the role of genetics as well as that of the environment. A commonly quoted genetic explanation for the rapid rise in obesity is the mismatch between today’s environment and “energy-thrifty genes” that multiplied in the past under rather different environmental conditions. In other words, according to the “thrifty genotype” hypothesis, the same genes that helped our ancestors survive occasional famines are now being challenged by environments in which food is plentiful year round.

No one is saying that a fat person can't starve to death, but we are saying that the obesity epidemic is far more complex than you'd like to believe.

Google genetics and obesity, there is a wealth of information. :hi:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

354. Genes do not explain most obesity. That is absurd.

Why are Americans' genes so different?

[mzmolly]

358. I said genes PLAY A ROLE. Many Americans ancestors fled various areas due to famine and

poverty or were forcibly brought to the US from poverty stricken areas. Remember when I mentioned evolution? Areas that have not experienced poverty in mass numbers are not going to have the same issues with obesity as those who come from a lineage of famine. Again, it's part evolution, environment, genetics, diet, lifestyle etc. It's idiotic to dismiss any factor as a non-factor. Also the notion that Americans are suffering greater rates of obesity than other developed nations is somewhat controversial, though I don't dispute that "fact" personally.

On example I know of = my aunt, who I lived with for a time. She ate about 1200-1300 calories daily, she was very active around her home etc and weighed 180 pounds. I know others who weigh about 120 with the same lifestyle. We are all different.

Again, there are a variety of factors that play a role.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

359. Do you know how long it takes for evolution to occur on the scale you need it to

for your argument not to be prima facie absurd?

[mzmolly]

361. Huh? That's part of the problem. Our enviorments changed quicker than

our bodies can adjust.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

363. Our environment =

now people have a sedentary lifestyle and eat shitty food in excess.

Evolution is never going to adjust for that.

[mzmolly]

364. According to science, we will adjust.

I believe I heard that it will take about 4000 years however. Seems to me you and yours don't have to worry? You're already "evolved" to deal with current environmental conditions.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

367. I wish you knew how absurd your starements are.

Thanks for the laugh.

[mzmolly]

368. Which particular statement do you find "laughable?"

Got a specific quote that's humorous?

[MissMarple]

401. Rice, beans, whole grains....gardens. Who cooks collard greens anymore?

Even with the understanding that some people will always, or almost always, be thin, we do have a serious obesity problem in this country. And as our "American style" diet becomes more available in other countries, the problem is, shall we say, spreading.
A lot of folks know how to cook and feed their families healthy food. But, it seems like a lot of them don't. Even folks who can buy pretty much what they want have horribly unhealthy diets. The changes in the food industry in the 30 or so years have taken a toll, as well.

We rarely had soft drinks except for kool aid when I was growing up. My mom was always proud that she could feed us all for really very little money. None of us were fat. Several of us are now over weight, however. I'm working on my excess poundage, exercise and healthy carbs, "more leaves" less meat.

It is amazing, though, how our food habits as a nation have changed: more fast food, processed foods, and sugary drinks, less fiber, good veggies, and fruit. Restaurant portions are often huge, enough for two or even three people. And fatty fast food hamburgers and fries are easy cheap and "tasty". Excessive sodium and high fructose corn syrup are in the darnedest things.

Obesity is a real problem, a genuine public health issue. Even our schools are ignorant about this. Many installed soda machines in the 90's. And a lot of school cafeterias began to compete with fast food outlets. How ignorant is that? Emergency personnel have more problems than ever giving aid to obese people, opening an airway can be a real problem, not to mention moving the person.

Hmm.... who dragged in that soap box? :)

[mzmolly]

289. Ever hear of type 1 diabetes?

:hi:

[iverglas]

369. I tried this already and got ignored - maybe you'll respond this time?

I linked to a rather complex discussion of the results of a study of the relationship between socio-economic status and body mass index / abdominal girth in New Zealand. Perhaps you didn't follow. Here's some simpler stuff.


You may have a reason for this fixation on France and New Zealand; you may have pulled them out of a hat. I dunno. If you had a reason, it seems not to have been a good one in the case of New Zealand at least; if NZ was chosen at random, bad luck.

http://www.moh.govt.nz/obesity
(with my emphases)

Obesity in New Zealand

Evidence is emerging to suggest that the prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing worldwide at an alarming rate. New Zealand is no exception. In 2002/3 one in three adults was overweight (excludes obese) and one in five adults was obese.

The World Health Organization has estimated that the cost for obesity is 2 to 7 percent of the annual health budget, which equates to $303 million in New Zealand.

So let's try France, shall we? Ah, maybe you were reading that popular book ...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/03/news/obese.php
(with my emphases)

PARIS: Doctors here are perplexed by the runaway success in the United States of the best-selling advice book "French Women Don't Get Fat."

... In fact, France is suffering something of an obesity crisis, with rates here rising "at an alarming rate," particularly among young people,Bellisle said.True, absolute rates are still lower here than in the United States and most other European countries: 11.3 percent of the French are obese and nearly 40 percent overweight, compared with more than 50 percent overweight in Britain and the United States.

But the sudden sharp rise - 5 percent annually since 1997 - is causing great alarm in a society renowned for thinness, a country that long seemed exempt from a worldwide epidemic of obesity.

... Italy and England are also battling serious obesity problems, but the issue is particularly striking here because, until recently, the slenderness of the French has been so mythic that some scientists theorized that it must have genetic roots.

In fact, in France, as in much of the world, the culprit is changing eating habits, experts said, as France's powerful culture of traditional meals has given way to the pressures of modern life. The French now eat fewer formal meals than they did just a decade ago and they snack more. Another cause is the rising availability in France of fast food and prepared foods, which tend to be higher in fats and calories.

Food companies say that France is one of the most promising international markets for prepared items like frozen pizza, as well as for outlets like McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken, both of which are planning to open dozens of new stores in the country this year.

It seems the US was just ahead of the curve, eh? Any comment?

[mzmolly]

396. Good info thanks.

:hi:

[iverglas]

400. but destined to be ignored!

I mean, not by you, of course, but then you weren't likely in need of it. ;)

I doubt that anyone would deny that "changing eating habits are the culprit" -- the plain fact is, however, as I said, that the US is simply ahead of the curve. The corporatization of food, like of everything else, just started there first. If there is a profit to be made by getting people to buy something that has high profit potential - at least when sold in enormous quantities to large numbers of people - that's where it will be made first. There really is a lot of truth in the picture of a nation of burger-flippers, and burger-eaters.

This is a whole huge complex set of issues. The creation of an economy based on the production of low-cost goods and services, provided by a large pool of low-skilled workers, has been the economic downfall of the US. While a country like Sweden kept wages high and thus forced capital/employers to produce high-quality goods and services that warranted the payment of high wages, the US raced for the bottom. The fast food industry is a significant contributor to this phenomenon, as well as to widespread ill health.

You can't add much value to a stick of celery or a piece of brocolli, such as would get people to pay 3x the cost of the raw materials if it's packaged in styrofoam and shoved through a drive-through window. But you can take a lot of empty carbohydrates and fat and whip them up into something that people want to eat -- we LIKE sugar and starch and fat, and they used to be not too bad for us, when we worked in the fields -- and get them to pay enough for the tasty treats that they now don't have to spend hours making for themselves that there is a, er, healthy profit to be made. Whether it's sold with sugar frosting in a box, or packed in styrofoam to contain the grease.

But no. It's all each individual's own damned FAULT if s/he participates in this nation-wide economy by buying and consuming the things it produces. The fact that certain kinds of people -- in many cases, like here, the relatively poorer -- are relatively more prone to certain kinds of behaviour doesn't suggest that they're being exploited, by getting them to buy lousy but profitable food, and doesn't demonstrate anything that might be useful to think about if we want to find solutions. I mean, we want to find solutions, right ...?

No, the fact that people make lousy food choices just proves that they're stupid and unworthy. At least, that's all I can figure out from any of the noise here. And the only way to get them to make better choices is to point at them and call them stupid and unworthy. Although why anyone would care about what stupid and unworthy people eat, I don't know. Strikes me (as usual) that some people just need to point fingers at other people and call them stupid and unworthy, although I've never figured out what makes that so much fun.

Maybe New Zealand will figure out a way to address the problems in New Zealand; one can only hope that Jerry Springer doesn't become as popular there as lousy food has become.

[CTyankee]

160. My sister in law is a diabetic and has gained a lot of weight. This must be what you mean.

It is a terrible situation. My husband is prediabetic and I am worried that because of his sister's problem, he will have it too. He is overweight even now. I try with him to provide less fattening foods but he feels deprived...

[Warpy]

35. Try reading that post again

and try to understand it. It's not that simple. If it were, there would be very few obese people in this country.

Of course, you won't get it for another 20 years or so. You will get it, though, eventually.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

42. It's simple for most people. They just don't understand basic science.

Instead, they think a magical electric belt is going to make them lose weight as they sit, eating processed foods watching TV.

[Bluebear]

67. .

[treestar]

186. That's what I used to think

In my teens, 20s and 30s when I could eat whatever I wanted to and didn't gain weight.

I eat about half as much now and exercise twice as much and weigh much, much, more.

Middle age is going to do it to you. It usually does. Then you won't be so judgmental.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

350. Amen to that!

I find it much harder to maintain a reasonable weight than I did in the past. I still consider myself lucky because I remain "normal-sized" and not subject to the meanness directed at people who aren't. The women I know who are skinny and over-35, almost to a woman, practice the most whacked-out and extreme diet and exercise regimens I have ever seen. I'd can't imagine living like that, and for what? So that you get the 5 extra seconds of attention that being "hawt" gets you, and approbation from judgemental people like the one who has hijacked this thread. Not worth it to me. I'd rather enjoy good food and wine, along with an occasional decadent dessert! ;)

[mzteris]

85. not necessarily that "simple" for everyone

Some body types are just larger.

And then, there's menopause. :sigh:

And I just found out that the Advair I have to use - can cause weight gain.

I was a stick my whole life without trying (except for pregnancy) - until menopause.

Nothing else changed except that and meds I have to take.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

100. Yeah...I said there are exceptions.

Menopause doesn't explain why the average American is obese. Nor do medicinal side-effects. The major health problems in this country are obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. And diabetes and heart disease follow from obesity.

Regardless, obesity is not a major problem in Africa. And there's a reason for that.

Even going through menopause, if you ate a severely calorie-restricted diet, you would lose weight. Some of it would be muscle, some of it would be fat. But you would lose weight.

[Bluebear]

114. I have cited 5 different articles on the relationship between income level and weight

You are choosing to ignore them.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

121. They don't show that low income level causes obesity.

[iverglas]

143. gee, if only someone had said it did.

[XemaSab]

432. Go to the dictionary.

Look up "correlation."

Learn something.

[Mutineer]

127. It's the disdain you apparently hold large people in that is the problem

Your posts reveal a certain "attitude" towards the obese. And the original post was about how the society's obsession is with size 0's and 2's and the "lollipop" head syndrome so often seen in fashion magazines and on the fashion runway and in celebrity magazines that was the original topic of discussion. You threadjacked so you could bash fat people. Congratulations! You, and people like you, are the reason that this country is obsessed with making women virutally vanish before our eyes, popularizing body sizes that are just as unhealthy as the "fat" people you love apparently to bash.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

134. False dichtomy.

Not being obese does not entail being a skeleton.

[iverglas]

I wish you'd explain, for us stupid people

Regardless, obesity is not a major problem in Africa. And there's a reason for that.

What is it, already?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

144. When you don't eat excessive calories, you don't become obese.

Eating excessive calories is not a problem for the average African citizen.

[iverglas]

145. gee, is that all you're trying to tell us?

Maybe you're done now.

[Bluebear]

164. One can only hope.

[slampoet]

163. And here's annother biggot displaying their ignorance like it's something to be proud of. BRAVO.

[wellstone dem]

173. my daughter's medication

makes her gain weight. Sadly, she finds it a tough choice to take the medication that keeps her healthy or to be thin.

[DemBones DemBones]

258. Sure it's simple if you have a fast metabolism, don't

have to take insulin, prednisone, certain anti-depressants, don't have a chronic disease that causes extreme fatigue so you can't exercise, don't have arthritis so bad that you can't exercise, etc.

Wait until your metabolism slows down with age and/or you develop a disease that causes fatigue and requires you to take medication that causes weight gain.

Then you'll see that it is not simple at all. If it were that simple, everyone would be skinny. You think people choose to be obese? In a culture that worships anorexia?

I guess bald men choose to lose their hair, too. :eyes:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

259. I do have a disease that causes fatgue, I take medicines that cause fatigue, and I take medicines

that cause weight-gain. Still, I'm not obese, and not even close to it, though I understand if someone in such a situation were obese.

But here is the thing. Most Americans are not obese because they have a disease. Most Americans aren't obese because they take medicines that make it easy to gain weight. The only major health problem most Americans have is their obesity. Then, as a result, they get other health problems.

It's pathetic that when the subject of health care comes up in a debate, the focus is obesity. Why? Because it really is the biggest health-related problem in this country. It's also the simplest to solve.

I don't think people choose to be fat. But if they did I wouldn't care, so long as they didn't pretend they desperately wanted to be thin. People can do what they want.

The fat people I know love food, never exercise, drive their car everywhere, and never walk. They consider walking from their computer to their bed exercise. They watch the Food Network whenever they get a chance, and are generally obsessed with food.

[pookieblue]

318. The fat people you know...

The fat people I know love food, never exercise, drive their car everywhere, and never walk. They consider walking from their computer to their bed exercise.

You are judging everyone by those you know. Wow.


So, you would see me and automatically think that i was like the people you know. But you would be wrong.

You would not know that I try to walk at least 4 miles a day and watch what I eat. But still I struggle with the weight. I have hypothrodism which ended up causing me to gain some weight. To top that off, I have to deal with depression and MS. So I'm stuck taking meds that can put on the weight.

It wasn't until my doctor finall ran a test on my thyroid that we found out about the hypothyroidism. So it's now being treated. But before, no matter what I was doing...the weight was not coming off. We had to do some major medication changes..before I did lose some weight. BUT it's a slow process.

It's not always just as simple as stop eating so much etc..to lose the weight.

It just burns me up to have people like you judge me...when they don't even know me. You don't know every fat person. You don't know what they are going through, what kind of medical issues they may or may not have.

No one really has to right to judge another.

I'm sick of the school of thought, of where if you are not a size 6 you are not good enough.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

327. No, I would not automatically judge you.

And you are an exception. Most Americans do not have thyroid problems. This keeps coming up.

Also, "watching your diet" doesn't mean you're actually eating healthy foods and eating the right amounts. Walking four miles/day also isn't that much.

[pookieblue]

334. walking 4 miles a day is very good for me...

especially considering this time last year, I could barely walk. It took all that just to walk...period. See you were judging me.

I have to watch what I eat and try and maintain a healthy diet. Had to cut out the beef and pork. stay away from fried foods too. Not too just watch my weight...but to help with keeping the MS in check. (seems to have worked somewhat) . That's what I mean by watching my weight. I am losing weight...it's coming off very, very, very slow.

I've tried to bump up my walking to five miles..and I had a set back. I was told by my doctors to not push myself to hard. But those who don't know anything about MS, would think that I was just 'being lazy'. But I am doing what I can. I am proud of the fact that I can walk those four miles. especially since I was walking in the 90 + degree heat (plus the heat index). I think that was pretty damned good, if I do say so myself.

The only ones who has the right to judge me and lecture me about my health, my weight are the ones I pay to do it...my doctors. Not you, not the guy down the street...no one.

Yes there are some people who are overweight to do being lazy...not getting the exersize and eating too much. But unless you know those people personally...you don't know what is going on in their life. You can't judge all people by the ones you know.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

337. If I were peralyzed all my life,

then suddenly became able to walk, walking even ten steps would be an accomplishment. But it would be foolish to think that walking ten steps is going to make me lose weight.

When I said walking four miles wasn't very much, I was saying walking four miles/day isn't going to make you lose weight.

In your situation, walking four miles is a big accomplishment, and you should be proud.

Most Americans aren't like you, and despite being physically able, they do far less.

[pookieblue]

380. but the thing is...

I have lost weight. It's going very slowely. I'm doing what I can...when I can.

My point is, though you can't just point to some person you see on the street and say "Hey you, you are fat because you eat too much." (not saying that you would actually say that mind you to the person) but in a sense you are assuming that person is just lazy. a person at first first glance see someone like me and probably think as you think. But they would be wrong.

No one person is alike. There can be several different factors in a person's weight gain. Stress can be one of them. Or just not having the time to get the proper exercise. And though they don't eat too much, they do eat on the go, not having to the time to cook healthy meals.

Also there are several illnesses that can make a person heavier.

Hypothyrodism (which is said that 25 million people in the US have been diagnosed). Cushing's syndrome and PCOS are others.

Medications, like steroid medications, some antidepressants, high blood pressure drugs, and seizure medications can cause weight gain.

By the way, just in case you are intersted... my doctors think I am doing well with the weight loss. And that my four miles a day (plus diet)is plenty. They are very proud of the progress I have made so far. So please don't sit there and tell me that I am not doing enough...when my doctors think that I am doing great. Losing 35lbs is nothing to sneeze at. I still have more to lose..and I am told (by my doctors) that I am doing the right thing...that it just takes time.



There are people out there who can eat all they want and barely exercise and be a 'perfect' size 6. Then are those of us who are a size 12 and over,who do exercise and watch what they eat. But in this society, it's the thinner people are thought to be more beautiful than the heavier.

Personally I think that Queen Latifah is far more beautiful than someone like Paris Hilton. I don't care how if 'thin is in'. There is more to a person than the numbers on the scale.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

412. One out of five American women is estimated to have a thyroid problem.

And it's undiagnosed and undertreated.

www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

I wouldn't call that a small number of people.
I take Armour Natural Thyroid which is cheap and argued with doctors to get it, too, instead of their expensive synthetic stuff.

[baby_mouse]

273. Not really.

If you've been put on fad diets by your parents as a kid, for example, it biases your metabolism towards putting on weight when it probably doesn't need to. In such cases, sometimes just eating normally results in weight increase.

[mentalsolstice]

146. Actually, I know people who have good results w/surgery

Many of them at 5+ years out, and still within 5-20 lbs. of their lowest weight. However, they have all been pretty motivated at changing their eating habits (eating fruits and veggies, instead of candy and chips), and being active.

on edit: I keep my own weight down by watching sugar content and fat, which is similar to many diets. However, it's more expensive for me to buy fresh fruits, veggies, and lean proteins. I would love a good bowl of cereal in the morning, but it's too expensive. My mom was a state social worker and worked in food stamps for a number of years (before she went over to job training), and she would tell me that you can't buy fresh vegetables, fruit and lean meat for a family of four on food stamps.

Then you have to factor in prep time for preparing healthy meals and making them satisfyingly tasty for the whole family...pretty impossible for parents working 2-3 jobs, or extra long hours on one job.

[CTyankee]

158. Actually, the most recent stats say that obese people who have the

bariatric surgery have greater longevity than those who don't.

It is very interesting. I recently had to have several abdominal surgeries, due to repeated attacks of diverticulitis. When I literally didn't eat (had IV "feeding") I lost weight, even tho I was supposed to be consuming 3,000 calories a day IV. Now, because I lack a lot of my digestive "material" as my surgeon says, I will always be thin. I lost 30 lbs. in the process. I simply can't eat a lot at one time so I eat several small meals a day.

I realize this is not a true analogy to people who didn't have my digestive disorder, but it seemed to me that if you truly don't consume the same amount of calories you expend, you will lose weight. I don't know why this doesn't work for people who are obese, but don't have my situation.

[JNelson6563]

281. Good points but

I'd like to add that atheism is one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry. Not only is it acceptable in the case of athiests, it's encouraged.

Julie

[Cha]

25. I grew up thinking I always

had to be thin thin thin and then I got wise. Good, cause I love to eat!:P :9

[qdemn7]

212. Size 14? Really?

Never knew that. And yes, I like a woman with some curves, and not just boobs.

[Colorado Progressive]

222. weighed 140 in Some Like It Hot at 5 ft 5, after dieting

and she looked gorgeous in that movie

[Katherine Brengle]

287. Once again, a size 14 at that time would be closer to a size 6 today.

Better than a 0 or 2, but still not the voluptuous real-life woman we all want it to be.

[Blue Belle]

317. Thank you for pointing that out....

I kept reading down this thread and wondered when someone would mention the propensity for American designers to bump up the larger clothing to the smaller size. Liz Claiborne has been doing this for years.

[Ilsa]

297. Size 14 then and now have changed. Clothing manufacturers

keeping bumping the numbers down to sell more clothes as many women will skip buying a 14, telling herself that all she needs to do is lose a few pounds. But the same woman will buy the size 12, same dress, different size tag. "0 is the new 8".

But I totally agree with your statement, "Let's hear it for those of us gals who have some MEAT on our bones!"

[girl gone mad]

338. No, not by today's standards.

Monroe was tiny. She was abut 5'3" with a 19 inch waist. She knew how to accentuate her curves, but she would be about a size 4 or maybe a 6P in today's clothes.

[minerva50]

406. self delete

[MrMickeysMom]

411. You can't be serious about that-

I'd maybe believe a size 10, but not 14. Unless, a size 14 used to be what a size 10 is now, that is...

[Starlight]

451. That's bs. Marilyn was tiny. 5'5" and only 117 pounds. Even less when she was younger.

Sizes have changed dramatically since the 50s.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I have certainly had enough of it. Although I do think maybe

sizes ran smaller back then. I can remember being in high school and wearing my grandmother's skirt for 50s day. It was labeled a 10 but I was wearing a 6 or 8 in modern clothes.

[cui bono]

84. Yeah, I heard that they have made size 0 bigger since so many young women

strive to be that size.

[Stephanie]

yeah, go to a thrift shop and try a 50's dress in your size

it will be too small. the sizes were cut smaller then.

[iverglas]

180. but you know the funny thing?

Go to a high-end clothing store today and try on a dress in your size -- and you'll find it's too big.

All those "size 14" celebrities would be wearing size 24 if they shopped at the KMart.

[MorningGlow]

162. They did indeed

Sizes have been going up steadily in order to make us feel better about ourselves and consequently buy more clothes. If I had any energy tonight, I'd look up an article or two about it with the google. But since I don't have any energy tonight, I'll just share a personal anecdote: When I was in college (20 years ago) I was a size 7 or 8 (oh, those were the days!) I bought a gorgeous green velvet dress for a formal dance--got it at a thrift store--it was from the early 1960s, fit me perfectly as long as I didn't breathe...and it was a size 11.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

181. Well, last year my friend and I were in Rome. She is a very willowly size 8, tall and thin.

In a Roman clothes shop she had to get one of their largest sizes (at the time I was a size 14 so I didn't bother!) in order for it to fit! The Roman women are tiny! And this was a shop that catered to European women (mostly Italian), NOT to Americans.

It was a little depressing...

[DemBones DemBones]

266. They have definitely changed sizes.

I think today's size 2 was a size 5 in the mid to late Sixties, because I wore a 5 then. In the Fifties and early Sixties I wore a 10. I lost 10-15 pounds in 1964 when I had surgery but that shouldn't have taken me from a 10 to a 5. Of course when I wore a 5, some of my clothes were a 3 and some were a 7; different brands, different sizing.

It's so annoying that women's clothes are not standardized in size, as men's clothes are. When will the fashion industry stop fooling around and standardize women's sizes?

It's also silly that you can wear a smaller size if you go to an expensive store. I think all women know this from experience.

But Dateline or one of those shows did a special years ago on this, to show that it's not a myth. They had a model whose measurements were a perfect size 8. They found an expensive dress in an upscale store, a knock-off of the dress at a mid-level store, and a knock-off in a low-priced store.

The "size 8" dress in the cheapest store was too tight, probably was really a size 6. The size 8 in the midlevel store fit the model perfectly, it really was an 8.

But in the expensive store? The "size 8" was huge on her. I think they measured it and found it was really a size 12.

Rich ladies pay to be able to say they wear a smaller size than they really do.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

434. Men's slacks are standardized. I love it.

I wear a 36-30 in men's slacks and they fit me perfectly. I found this out when I started wearing my boyfriend's old slacks he'd outgrown.

He's five foot eight and I'm five foot three. However we have the same inseam. I got no hips and no ass, and a big waist as you may have figured out.

[wtmusic]

3. Only women who are stupid enough to buy into it nt

[Bluebear]

7. Stupid? Hardly. The gift of strength isn't given to everyone. nt

[Richard Steele]

23. Bull- it's the MEN who "buy into it" that have altered our culture's concept of beauty.

Young girls aren't starving themselves as an "end" in and of itself, y'know.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

47. I don't know any men who find the skeleton look attractive.

Nice try though.

[Richard Steele]

57. You don't know ANY men who find our nation's "top" singers, models, and actresses attractive?

Not one? I find that difficult to believe.

"Difficult" hell...I find that IMPOSSIBLE to believe.

Therefore, I do not believe it.

[Bluebear]

58. withdrawn

:)

[Richard Steele]

69. Don't do it man!

You KNOW that the bullshit comes and goes here;
this is just another wave that needs to be ridden out.

DU is a powerful force in the world, but it's only a force for GOOD
as long as the good people stay here. We've lost too many good DUers
already; we need EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU good, decent folks to hang
on and keep fighting the good fight.

[Bluebear]

71. Dude, whatever thread it is lately, someone has to just prove how much "more" they know than you.

Maybe I just need a break.

[Richard Steele]

103. People like that have always been here. You know that.

And "breaks" are really good things; I recommend them highly.

I took a bit of a break this week, what with the "porn" nonsense-fests
morphing into the CRAIG nonsense-fests. It was all just too much
monkey business for me to be involved with, so I took a couple days
off.

If things are getting to be "too much" here, a break is the best tonic
in the world. Even a SMALL one can work wonders.

Go out to some place where you can discuss anything with REAL people
face-to-face for an hour or two. It's goddamn REFRESHING, I tellyawhut!

[iverglas]

73. you know you gotta expect it

It's amurika. Land o' the FREE. If anyone admitted that anyone else wasn't what they are purely because of the exercise of their own absolutely unfettered choice from the infinite number of options that are available to every one of them, well, they might have to accept some responsibility for something ...

It's easier for me. I'm not there. It still saddens me.

[LiberalAndProud]

102. Bluebear...

Please don't go.

Please?

[Bluebear]

106. Eccch

You know me. I'm here. :hug:

[LiberalAndProud]

119. Whew!!!

:yourock:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

60. By "top" I'll assume you mean popular. Brittney Spears? Angelina Jolie?

They're hardly skeletons.

[JVS]

65. But brittney is now hated for having "trucker ass" or something like that

[AnotherGreenWorld]

72. By whom?

Also, none of the American Idol singers are skeletons. Jennifer Aniston isn't a skeleton.

Most popular actresses, singers, etc. are skinny--especially relative to the average American--but they're hardly skeletons.

In France and New Zealand, the average woman is that size.

[JVS]

78. Here is a thread where some people comment on her ass and it's implications concerning...

her ability to raise children

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1691403

[Lilith Velkor]

284. How disingenuous

The questioning of her fitness as a parent has nothing to do with the size or shape of her ass and you should bloody well know that.

It's about the fact that she wasn't wearing anything on it.

Now, I don't know where those pictures were taken, so if she were in a part of the world where it's socially acceptable to walk around with your ass and genitalia hanging out, more power to her, but if not, she's being stupid because she could lose custody of her kids.

[Richard Steele]

77. Because Angelina Jolie's measurements are completely average, and typical of a woman her age?

Pull the other one- it's got bells on!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

94. Her weight is pretty much average for a woman in New Zealand or France.

[GRLMGC]

108. Apparently, the average weight for

a woman in New Zealand is 68.7 kgs which is about 150 lbs.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=average+weight+in+new+zealand&btnG=Google+Search

Angelina Jolie is not 150 pounds.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

120. I can't tell the difference between 150lbs and 130lbs. And of course I don't ask people how

much they weigh. I'm merely talking about how a person's weight appears. To me, depending on height, and from limited travel to New Zealand and France, 110-150lbs is pretty average. Rarely does a person see anyone in the neighborhood of 300lbs or more.

[gollygee]

128. From what I've seen, there aren't as many obese people in other countries

but Angelina Jolie is currently around 100 pounds, and she's not short. That certainly isn't average in New Zealand. I can't speak for France. To be fair, Angelina Jolie has been losing a lot of weight, enough that there have been rumors that she could be sick.

[GRLMGC]

130. I'd be willing to wager that most women in NZ

do not look like Angeline Jolie. Maybe obesity isn't as big of a problem there, but most women are not as thin as Hollywood stars who have access to trainers and the healthiest foods.

[gollygee]

109. Really?

I've been to New Zealand and I didn't see that. I haven't been to France.

[Richard Steele]

135. I didn't refer to her WEIGHT; I said MEASUREMENTS. Your attempted obfuscation is a SILLY THING.

Are you actually arguing that the AVERAGE 40-year-old
woman residing in New Zealand has a rippling washboard
stomach like Angelina Jolie?

Wow! Are you dumber than dirt, or do you just assume that I am?
Do you imagine that I've never been to France or New Zealand?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

142. Angelina generally wears clothes. Personally. I've never seen her stomach.

What I am talking about is the fact that, with clothes on at least, the average woman in France or New Zealand is pretty much the same size as Angelina.

The average woman in New Zealand and France does not look anything like the average American woman.

[iverglas]

154. why don't you just admit you don't have a clue

and stop spouting nonsense?



The only places in the world where the "average woman" is pretty much that size -- 5'8" and 100 lbs or less -- are places where people are dying of starvation.

(Remember to suck the silicon and collagen out of the corpse before taking the final weight.)


http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5330/$File/embodying-social-rank.pdf

Embodying Social Rank

How body fat varies with social status, gender and ethnicity in New Zealand

Method

The 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey was used to derive kernel-smoothed estimates of the population’s body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) distributions. The percentiles of these distributions were then used to create Tukey mean–difference plots to graphically analyse the difference in body fat distributions between socioeconomic groups, stratified by Māori and non-Māori ethnicity and by gender. Age confounding was adjusted for by direct standardisation. Three different measures of socioeconomic position (SEP) were used: educational qualifications (individual-level measure), household income (household-level measure) and New Zealand Deprivation Index (neighbourhood-level measure).

Results

Overall, in 2002/03 both BMI and WC distributions were strongly associated with SEP, whether measured at the individual, household or neighbourhood level. Furthermore, the association was similar in direction and magnitude for both markers of body fat, with the inverse gradient increasing at higher BMI or WC percentiles. However, the association was modified by both gender and ethnicity. Non-Māori females showed a strong inverse socioeconomic gradient for BMI and WC, non-Māori males a much shallower inverse gradient, Māori females little if any relationship, and Māori males a moderately strong direct gradient (ie, among Māori males, higher SEP was associated with larger BMI or WC).

... It is only non-Māori females that are found to exhibit a pattern of strong inverse gradients (for both body fat measures and all three SEP measures). That is, it is only for this population group that lower SEP is clearly associated with a progressively heavier body weight and wider abdominal girth.

Translation: among non-Māori women in New Zealand, the poorer they were, the fatter they were.

Other New Zealand documentation on the subject can be found here:
http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/stats/nz_pacific/nzsourcesm.htm#Obesity
http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/stats/nz_pacific/nzsourcesv.htm#weight
(to read them, you need to take the title to google and find a publicly accessible version, as I did)

You can look up France for yourself.

[Richard Steele]

165. Clearly, you've had a VERY sheltered life, and need to get out more. Or at least get cable TV.

Unlike you, who apparently has Ms. Jolie drop by for afternoon tea
on a regular basis, most people on this planet are familiar ONLY
through her performances in various motion pictures.

And she has yet to complete a film contract fully clothed.

If you say you've never seen her stomach, you are either a popinjay
who speaks of things you know NOTHING about, or you are a
damnable LIAR attempting to LIE your way out of a conversation
that has spiraled out of your ability to control.

Personally, I lean toward the second explanation: You are not being entirely HONEST right now.



edditid fer spellin.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

184. I don't own a TV. I don't watch Hollywood movies--for the most part.

Some people don't like TV and find it dumb.

[PeaceNikki]

187. Are you this guy?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

[AnotherGreenWorld]

191. haha

:D

I love the onion.

[Richard Steele]

190. So you ADMIT that you have no idea of what you're talking about here. Kudos to you for HONESTY.

"Kudos" to the extent that you actually shut the fuck up, of course.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

193. I don't need to watch TV to see pictures of Ms. Jolie.

Several people have posted pictures on this thread. And I've posted one myself.

[Richard Steele]

206. Yeah. Just keep trying to deflect attention from your primary statement. That ALWAYS works!

:silly:

[Richard Steele]

211. And yet you expect us to consider your opinion of "media personalities" to be valid. How remarkable!

I know it's "remarkable" because I REMARKED upon it.

"How goddamned pig-sucking STUPID is this ridiculous pile of self-contradictory nonsense?", I remarked.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

214. There's nothing contradictory about not watching TV and knowing

of actresses, popular singers, and the like.

[Richard Steele]

216. Lots of people with very strong uninformed opinions agree with you. They voted for Bush alot.

We here at DU, however, prefer to actually KNOW what we're talking about.

You should try it sometime.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

219. That's not an argument.

Show the contradiction in these statements.

(1) I don't own a TV.
(2) I don't watch Hollywood movies that often.
(3) I have seen pictures of Angelina Jolie, Brittney Spears, and other popular actresses and singers.
(4) I have an opinion about the way Angelina Jolie looks.

Do I need to watch a whole movie to have an opinion about Brittney Spears's appearance?

I have never seen Brian Eno on TV. I've never seen him in person. I've never seen him in a movie. Yet I have an opinion about his appearance. To you, apparently, this is contradictory.

What's more, although I do not have a TV, I have watched TV before.

[Richard Steele]

277. No, it's a FACT. Do try to keep up.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

305. You still haven't pointed out the contradiction.

Hint: there isn't one.

You're the one who needs to work on critical thinking.

[shimmergal]

295. I really doubt that, about New Zealand at least.

I lived there for a year some time ago, and the women were a range of sizes, but few extremely skinny and petite ones.

And this was at a time when they still had rationing of butter, etc. Doesn't seem likely that there'd be a drastic decline in the average body weight afterwards.

[Stephanie]

98. Angelina Jolie is a skeleton.

She is way too skinny.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

112. I've never seen her look like a skeleton.

[gollygee]

117. That's an old picture

[girl gone mad]

387. I saw her in person..

a couple of weeks ago and she looked absolutely stunning. Some people are naturally thin - her parents were both thin their youth. Her face is like a work of art and she would turn heads whether or not she was famous.

[Contrary1]

123. Delete

[Mutineer]

132. Have you seen Angelina Jolie lately?

I'd hate to see what you deem fat if you think she's not skinny.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

136. I think she's skinny, but not a skeleton.

And no, I haven't seen her lately. I really couldn't care less about popular culture.

[Hippo_Tron]

319. The problem is that when they are performing they are made to appear attractive

For example, when the tabloids get pictures of anorexic Lindsay Lohan I honestly can't say I've found a single guy who thinks those are more attractive than when she was a healthy weight.

However, I'm sure that when she is doing a movie they find a way to cover it up.

[mzmolly]

375. My very attractive friend, who is 5 feet 7 inches tall and about 125 pounds

dared to gain ten pounds after three children and 20 years of marriage. Her husband was "disgusted" with her and they are now divorced after he justified several affairs because of her "letting herself go."

I remember him "bragging" about her losing a weight and being really "skinny" after a stressful time about ten years ago. Indeed, there are many who find the heroine chic look attractive and some will punish their significant others for not being borderline anorexic.

[cui bono]

90. How about men who find big breasts attractive?

How about men who find big pouty lips attractive? It's not just about weight. This is a male dominated society and through ads women are constantly bombarded with how they should look in order to be desirable. And it happens that most of it is controlled by men.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

129. You could also ask what about women who find height attractive?

What about women who find blue eyes attractive? And so on.

[cui bono]

137. Yes you could. That doesn't negate the point, to the contrary.

The same advertising tells men they need to have that sports car if they want to attract that sexy woman. It works towards everybody, but women are affected more, probably mostly because of the way they are raised, objectified and devalued in this society.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

139. So the problem is advertising or something similar, not men.

[cui bono]

192. Well it's the men who are stupid enough to buy into it.

Just kidding!

Yeah, it's mostly advertising and entertainment/media, but it's also society as a whole, and it is a patriarchal society, and men do control and run most of it, although there's women in charge of things that also propagate the same standards. You'd think it would have come a long way by now, but unfortunately it hasn't. But young women are definitely being influenced and bombarded by that perfect image that they are supposed to attain.

[last_texas_dem]

133. I don't believe, in many cases, this has anything to do with men

Based on my limited experience discussing this with people I know, it has been women who constantly think they need to be drastically skinnier. Discussing the subject with men, very few men desire women at the size most women seem to consider ideal. Additionally, I remember someone linking to a study here on DU a couple of years ago where men and women had been asked, through looking at pictures of women, what size of women they considered to be "ideal" or most attractive, and women chose a significantly skinnier size of women than the men did.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

140. That's been my experience, too.

[bliss_eternal]

155. But have you considered where women get such ideas...?

Who's (and what sex/gender) is in charge of advertising or was in the early days of advertising?
How have the messages changed? Or not changed?
What sex is the predominant force in women's fashion?

(clue, it isn't women)...

Why blame women for buying into the messages that are put out in every source of media--news, ads, commercials, magazines, billboards, etc., etc.?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

208. Are you suggesting we should blame men?

And not just the men involved in advertising agencies that you find suspect but all men?

What about the women involved in such advertising agencies?

Hint: It's not a male/female issue.

[Matariki]

414. Creating insecurity to sell things

and creating insecurity about something damn near impossible to achieve, well, jackpot for someone.

[Richard Steele]

156. I think you and I are on the same page, but just disagreeing over numbers.

Women aren't obsessed with "thinness" because they think
it's somehow "good" in and of itself; they've been SOLD the
idea that being thin makes them more attractive to MEN.

And a certain percentage of MEN have been obsessed with that
because they have been totally SATURATED with the propaganda.

Men are gaga over the skinny ladies because those are the ladies
that TV, movies, and magazine ads have been showing us half-naked
for 30 years.

Women, being generally unable to "dumb down" to the male plane,
mistakenly assume that we enjoy viewing those women because they
are THIN. (And our propaganda-saturated environment reinforces this error)

They miss the SIMPLER point: We aren't looking at those ladies because
they're THIN, we're looking because they're showing a bunch of NAKEDNESS.
And they're doing it in sexy poses while they make sexy faces.

If the various Ad-Agencies had deliberately decided to start using
200-lb ladies for their "naked but no visible nipple" campaigns
30 years ago, us guys would all be chasing the big ladies today.

Because that's what we would have been fantasizing about back when
we were 13, and spending 30 minutes a day locked in the bathroom
with Mom's latest issue of Cosmo, knowhutImean?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

308. Yes, women will often bemoan their own weight

However, with the exception of my grandmother a long time ago, I've never had another woman tell me I needed to lose weight. More than one man has, though.

A few years ago I lost 20 lbs, rather rapidly. A few women commented on it or complimented me. But it was nothing compared to the sheer number of men, many of whom I barely knew or didn't know at all, who felt compelled to let me know that they noticed how much weight I lost and that they definitely approved of it. While looking me up and down. One guy had the audacity to tell me he now considered me "date-able". Aren't I lucky. :eyes: I should tell you that I went from about 150 lbs. to 130 lbs., at 5'8". I was hardly what you would call overweight before and I was really on the underweight side after. But the guys I worked with and knew socially thought I was "hawt" after I lost the weight, and were not shy about informing me of it.

That experience, and my observation of male behavior over most of my life, tells me that men have a lot more influence over how women perceive what size they should be than they like to let on. Furthermore, I think most of you know it. I wish guys would acknowledge their role in the pressure on women to be slim and look a certain way. Stop with the "I like women with a little meat on their bones!" and the "Duh, I dunno why women are so worried about how they look!" act, while your actual behavior belies it.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

311. Gross generalization.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

325. Funny that YOU should accuse someone of that.

Pretty much EVERYONE who is obese is just a lazy ass who eats too much, right?

Anyway, I think my description of my own experience with men was adequate to explain the 'generalization' of which you accuse me.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

329. That's verging on an analytical truth.

It's like saying every triangle has three sides. When you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight.

You describe the behavior of a few men, and then you accuse all men of that behavior. It's different.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

336. Admittedly, it's anecdotal, but it was WAY more than a few men

The number of guys who made unsolicited remarks about my weight loss, along with their appreciation for my trimmer figure, was easily in the hundreds. I daresay that's enough of a sample, albeit self-selected, to draw a conclusion.

Hey, maybe you live in a Happy Land full of perfect, self-aware guys who wouldn't think of objectifying women or judging them on anything other than their inner character. And maybe it's a place where nutritious, non-chemically altered, organic food is cheap and plentiful. Where everyone has a gym membership and time to exercise. Where the air is so clean that 30% of the kids don't have asthma, like they do in my city. Maybe that's the source of those flawless personal anecdotes about how you came out of poverty, therefore everyone else should be able to as well.

But the rest of us live in the real world, where it's messy. Where there are constant, contradictory messages bombarding you about how you should eat, eat, eat, but still be a size 2 if you are a woman. Where every discussion of that insanity has to have the obligatory interupption by someone condescending to everyone else to aggrandize themselves.

Tell me, AnotherGreenWorld, what possessed you to come on to a thread where the OP showed a picture of a skeletal young girl and use that as an opportunity to bash fat people?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

340. Strawman

You're right that nutritious, non-chemically altered, organic food is not cheap. I doubt most skinny people even eat such food. I know I don't. However, there is inexpensive relatively healthy food available. (Even junk food isn't cheap, btw.)

To not be obese a person doesn't need a gym membership. Really, a person doesn't even need to exercise. Just stop taking your car everywhere. It's also better for the environment.

As far as why I commented on the thread, I objected to this comment: "There is no cure for obesity, no long term solution."

[Left Is Write]

33. 28 years ago, I was anorexic. I had never even heard the word.

I didn't know what afflicted me. Neither did my parents.

I can assure you that I am not stupid now, nor was I stupid then. Anorexia, bulimia, and BDD are not caused by stupidity.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. Since you are remarkably immune to it, why don't you share your secret with the rest of us?

And while you're at it, why don't you explain to us how the correlation between a woman's weight and her earnings works, since it's our own fault for buying into it. :eyes:

[wtmusic]

346. No secret

Anyone who relies on runway models as a guide for what is physically attractive has other issues. And I would wager that anorexic women suffer the same wage discrimination that overweight women do.

[gollygee]

89. Stupid? You have no idea

We live in this society. We all see the same images. We all see beautiful women called "fat" and normal-sized women used as plus-size models. Women's reaction to this is not "stupidity" and I find that very dismissive.

[Bluebear]

101. Thank you.

I thought I was in the Twilight Zone, being called disingenuous and people dismissing this problem so easily.

[gollygee]

115. Please don't leave!

:hug:

[cui bono]

96. You don't have to be stupid to be affected by advertising.

Why do you think people pay so much for it, because it works. And unfortunately, through advertising and entertainment/media women are being given ideas about what is a desirable way to look.

Low self-esteem also has something to do with it. If you don't have good self-esteem you're going to be more easily influenced from outside forces. And there's a lot of extremely smart women with low self-esteem.

[supernova]

4. That pic is obscene!

:puke: How grotesque that we allow and sometimes applaude our young women to do this to themselves.

[malaise]

24. Obscene is a kind word

What frightens me is that she believes she is perfect.

[Olney Blue]

6. That young woman is ill. I can't believe she is on the runway.

[Richard Steele]

8. Great post, Bluebear! recommended

[Vinca]

9. OMG - I've never seen anyone that skinny who wasn't dead. nt

[tammywammy]

10. That's disgusting

I feel bad for her.

[azurnoir]

11. That pic

is that a real model? What kind of fashion show was it, "summer at Dachau"? There is not any way that is attractive

[SeattleGirl]

12. OMG, that woman looks like she's one step away from death.

This obsession with thin has gone way too far.

[PeaceNikki]

13. Sizes have changed since the 50's. A 50's 12 or 14 is about 6 or 8

by today's standards. The gaudy skin and bones look is awful, but let's be clear that Marilyn Monroe was NOT a modern day size 14.

American women are much heavier in general than they used to be and the sizes have been changed to flatter their vanity. She was shaped like the proverbial hourglass. A woman with a waist as small as her's is going to have her pants fall off if she put on a modern size 14.

[Bluebear]

18. Well, it's Lucille Ball, not Marilyn, but sizes be damned, look at the video

American women may have gotten heavier, but the "ideal" has shrunk.

[PeaceNikki]

29. Lucille Ball had a 22 inch waist. As did Marilyn.

By today's sizing standards, a waist that small is hardly a size 2!!
http://www.usatourist.com/english/tips/womens-sizes.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000840/bio
Lucille Ball:
Measurements: 33-22 1/2 -34 (Source: Celebrity Sleuth magazine).


http://www.blurtit.com/q533890.html
And Marilyn Monroe:

Height: 5'5"
Bust: 37"
Waist: 23"-24"
Hips: 35"

Think about that waist -- it was tiny. It even went down to 22" in some of her adult life; she was a perfect hourglass -- she was not skinny - -but she was not plump, either.

In modern US clothing sizes Marilyn Monroe would probably need a size 6 dress for her waist and hips, and a size 10-11 for her bust. Equivalent modern UK sizes would be 12-14 in the bust, 8-10 in the waist. In the 1950s she sometimes wore what was then a size 12 (now called a "vintage 12") with extra room in the bust.

Monroe mostly wore custom-made dresses during her famous days.

[Bluebear]

34. OK, so pop culture does not encourage anorexia, or shall we continue debating Lucy's waist size?

"Celebrity Sleuth"?

[PeaceNikki]

40. I agree. But a disingenuous argument followed by a jab doesn't prove your point.

[Bluebear]

43. Oh, whatever "PeaceNikki". Go pick a fight elsewhere.

"Disingenuous argument" my fanny.


What do people do, open up every thread to see how they can be contrary to it?

[PeaceNikki]

Comparing women's sizes of 50+ years ago to today is disingenuous.

And it doesn't help women who are size 14 today wondering why they don't have the figure of Lucille Ball and Marilyn Monroe.

[Bluebear]

48. Yes, that is me, DISINGENUOUS. I sat around thinking "how can I hurt women today"??

And voila! I came up with this post.

BWAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!! Take THAT, all you sized 14 females who were wondering why they didn't look like Marilyn Monroe!!!!1111

[PeaceNikki]

52. I think I see something you don't.

I think your video along with Lucy's measurements and today's sizing charts proves the opposite point of your intention.

She was about a size 2 or 4 by today's standards. Even that small, she/they felt she needed to lose weight to BE ideal.

[JVS]

62. Disingenuous does not mean that you want to come up with ways to hurt women....

it means that you are arguing with numbers that upon scrutiny don't support your point. If I said, "Wow in 1938 you could get a Rolls Royce for £1700 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Wraith), but now you'd be unable to buy any new car for such a small amount. See how our standard of living has declined?" it would also be disingenuous because it doesn't actually provide data that is useful in determining the truth of my claim.

[PeaceNikki]

63. Thank you, JVS.

[Bluebear]

104. LOL yeah, that settled THAT!

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

64. The women in that clip are NOT size 2 by today's standards.

And the three models I referred to in the OP are still dead.

[JVS]

74. But they aren't size 12 either. Frankly this whole size thing is Bullshit. Measure in inches and..

pounds, or centimeters and kilograms. But when people bring up dress sizes, which vary both over time and also by maker at any particular, the whole conversation is about as useful as quantifying the amount of food in a meal in number of pieces without accounting for size of the piece. I think your basic idea that the "ideal figure" is thinner today than it was then is probably correct. However, there are still questions about how this can be established. For one thing, comparing TV to the fashion industry is not keeping within the realm of like comparisons. If we are going to compare something with "I love Lucy" why not choose something with a similar level of mainstream status such as "American Idol"?

[Bluebear]

76. Oh let me fucking up, if you think this is about "comparing dress sizes"

"I think you're (sic) basic idea that the "ideal figure" is thinner today than it was then is probably correct." - - -

then could you. FOR ONCE. Just let go of it? For once?

[JVS]

79. Whatever, if you want to be the Nigel Tufnel who says "this dress goes to 11" have at it.

[Bluebear]

81. I don't know your reference and whatever. later.

[JVS]

83. The reference is to a Rock Musician who thinks his amp is louder because...

it is modified to have extra volume the dial has settings from 0 to 11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akaD9v460yI

[gollygee]

105. He's saying that the actual number on the size is irrelevant

and he's right. What is considered "beautiful" has changed dramatically. What number they put on it isn't the point. I don't understand why this has turned into a thread about vanity sizing. It's a "can't see the forest for the trees" thing.

OK, so what was size 12 is now more like size 8. Size 8 women don't get modeling contracts these days either. Nor do size 6 women. I read something about Courtney Cox being a size 4 and going on a diet at one point, so size 4 is apparently too big too. If size 4 women are photographed and seen as beautiful they're called "curvy" or "voluptuous".

[JVS]

110. Yup. And to paraphrase Pontius Pilate "Size 4? Quid est size 4?"

I move that in the future these things always be discussed in terms of inches and pounds so that it won't become vanity sizing discussion and so that everything is clearly on the square.

[Left Is Write]

148. I think Blubear's point was that whether the girls in the clip are vintage size 12

or modern size 4-6, they would still be considered "fat" by today's Hollywood standards.

Put any one of them next to Victoria Beckham, Ellen Pompeo, or Angelina Jolie, and you might agree.

[tabasco]

50. The photo in your post is photoshopped.

I call that disingenuous.

[Bluebear]

51. You know what? I didn't know it was, and I took it out.

Thank you for piling on and questioning my motivation for making the original post too, i appreciate it.

[Left Is Write]

147. If Lucille Ball's waist was 22 inches at the time of "I Love Lucy"...

I'll eat my size 3 jeans.

[CTyankee]

194. Likely, her clothes were tailored to her exact measurements. I have found that tailoring

is the best thing you can do for your wardrobe. Get some good quality clothes and have them tailored to fit your exact size. It works!

Movie stars of Monroe's status did NOT just wear "off the rack" clothes...

[mzmolly]

229. I had a 24 inch waist at 105 pounds and 5-5 inches when I was 24.

Sorry, don't buy it.

[Ilsa]

299. The video looks like after Lucy had her baby. She is almost as

think in the center as Ricki in the video. I am not dissing her, but she doesn't have a 22 inch waist and 34 inch hips in that video.

[XemaSab]

433. Those women in the video...

what is that roundness, that fullness in their bodies? I do not understand...


:sarcasm:

[azurnoir]

22. The waist has gotten bigger in most womens sizes

but the bust and hips have remained the same. also in Marilyn's day it was standard for women to wear a torture device known as "THE GIRDLE" it painfully squished in your tummy and waist, the closest modern equivalent would be control top panty hose and they don't even come close.

[Rose Siding]

183. True. I see vintage clothes at flea mkts and they're *tiny*

You can REALLY see it in shoes. People are bigger today due to nutrition, I believe I've read.

[TahitiNut]

14. Reminds me of concentration camp photos.

Yechh. :puke:

Here. Any thinner than this is NOT attractive.

[robinlynne]

15. where is that photo from? It can't be a real fashionshow.

[Bluebear]

20. It certainly is. Here is a Chanel model:

[robinlynne]

82. oh my. I thought it was from an article about eating disorders.... I'll take my

big bertha butt any day....

[cui bono]

116. I heard something fairly recently about how they are now rejecting runway models

that are too thin. I don't know if it's just some of the designers or the fashion industry as a whole.

Here, found these:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14748549/">Spanish fashion show rejects too-skinny models
Women with very low body-mass index not allowed on runway>

MADRID, Spain - Spain’s top fashion show has turned away a slew of models on grounds they are too skinny — an unprecedented swipe at body images blamed for encouraging eating disorders among young people.

Organizers of the pageant, known as the Pasarela Cibeles, used a mathematical formula to calculate the models’ body mass index — a measure of their weight in relation to their height — and 30 percent of the women flunked, said the Association of Fashion Designers of Spain.

The association said Friday it wanted models at the show running from Sept. 18-22 to project “an image of beauty and health” and shun a gaunt, emaciated look.

-----

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9277338">France Won't Reject Gaunt Runway Models

Morning Edition, April 2, 2007 · France says it will not ban models from Paris fashion shows for being too thin, but will introduce a voluntary program to make the design industry more aware of health risks posed by extreme dieting. Many fashion makers and modeling agencies around the world have pledged not to hire paper-thin women.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Eeew.

[proud patriot]

17. Today's society has me feeling fat as a 12

:(

[MelissaB]

118. Ditto!

:hi:

:hug:

[fizzgig]

124. me too

:(

[SoCalDem]

234. In some places , "Plus Sizes" start at a 12

:grr:

of course for women MY age, the same measurements of that "12" would have been a 6 or 8 , not all that many years ago..

Current sizing is all smoke & mirrors..

It's too bad that women's sizing is not like men's sizing.. Inches are inches..and that's IT.

When I was young, my aunt owned a boutique ( I was her slave labor)..

We stocked a line of slacks that had waist & inseam sizes. they also references a numerical size.. a 23" waist was a size 7/8..a 24" waist was a 9/10...25-26" was 11/12..etc..

Blouses were also related to bust sizes.. 28-30" was an 8...32" was a 10...33-34 was a 12...35-36 was a 14..etc..

[Left Is Write]

237. Was that in the 1970s?

I have a pair of vintage Sears jeans in a juniors size 11 (designed, of course, to sit at the natural waist), and the waistband measures exactly 26 inches. The jeans are circa mid 70s.

[SoCalDem]

240. From 1964-70

:)

[mentalsolstice]

19. Vanity sizing

Back in Lucy's day sizes ran bigger. When I was in college, I wore an 8/10, and usually a medium. Twenty-five years later, at pretty much the same weight, I wear a small, or 2/4. I'm petite, but I'm far from being bone-thin.

As for models, yes they're way too thin! Real women have curves!

[JVS]

21. Is this really fashion or are these people engaged in a type of body building?

I'm beginning to think that the world of "super models" and fashion is becoming less and less about demonstrating clothes to a consuming public, than it is about realizing a designer's vision. Think of it as some kind of living sculpture performance art.

[dogday]

27. It is an unreal, unattainable idea of a body image.

and this worry of obesity has spread to very young girls that are grade school age.. It is very sad what the world expects from women... The body image looks like a stick figure with two lumps of clay....

[Left Is Write]

28. To be fair, in the 1950s, size 12 was considered "ideal."

A 1950s size 12 is not the same as a modern size 12.

My mother told me that a size 10 was impossibly tiny, and a size 8 virtually non-existent in the mid-50s.

[Bluebear]

31. Watch the video. I don't care what size they called it, these women would be fat by today's standard

[Left Is Write]

41. Probably, but I was responding to the idea of "dieting down" to a size 12.

It's pretty comparable with saying today that you want to "diet down" to a size 6 or 8.

[AZBlue]

32. I don't understand the fascination with anorexic looking women.

Kate Moss has a pretty face but the body of a 12-year old boy.

I am currently too heavy, but at no time in my life would I allow myself to go below a size 8. And if I'm a size 10 or 12, that's ok too (and I'm only 5'6"). I'm a woman and women have curves. Throughout history, the curvier figures were idolized and skinner women were encouraged to gain weight. When and why did this change? Seems to have occured during the 20th century, as women competed more and more with men. Did we decide we needed to look more like them too? It baffles me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

93. Rareness

Before food was plentiful, due to factory farming and mass production, being fat was a sign of wealth and leisure. The sex goddesses were plump. Now the reverse is true. Slenderness is a sign wealth and leisure, and obesity is directly proportional to poverty. Rich people have the time and money to go to expensive gyms and hire personal trainers and chefs. So people aspire to be like them, and women being the official sex objects are under more pressure to be slim.

[AZBlue]

131. And, interestingly, poverty today breeds obesity.

The cheap foods these days are the ones that aren't good for you, the fattening ones filled with preservatives and chemicals that have been proven to play with your body's metabolism and your health. Unless you can grow your own food, today it actually costs more to eat healthy.

[Bluebear]

167. Please read upthread, I was trying to tell that to somebody.

I in fact gave several articles in proof. But the smart aleck would have none of it.

[AZBlue]

199. Thanks for the heads-up!

I put in my two cents.

As an overweight person, I've discovered quite a bit about obesity in America that most people don't realize. I'm actually writing a book about it, both my personal experience and the general issue in this country.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

244. Ideals of beauty vary more than you make it seem.

Also, Aphrodite and Venus weren't all that plump. And the gods of antiquity were generally slender.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

296. This from someone who thinks

That weight is a simplistic equation of calories in vs. calories out. A lot of things vary more than you make it seem. Take your own advice.

Oh, and spend some time walking around affluent areas and poorer ones and notice the difference in the physiques, particularly the women.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

306. Even if I were wrong about all that, that doesn't invalidate the post to which you replied.

[BlackVelvet04]

36. Besides being unattractive....

what they don't tell you is how painful it is to be excessively thin. I went down to 88 lbs. about 10 years ago due to hyper metabolism and it was physically painful. It damn sure wasn't attractive. I was wearing a size 0.

I was told to give up physical activity until I gained weight but it still took me about a year to go up to 97 lbs. I'm now a much healthier 115 lbs.

I can't imagine why any woman would want to look like that.

[Triana]

39. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! OMG that's scary!

Now, I'm a size 2-4 just because I'm "petite" but I know when too skinny is. THAT is too skinny.

I think sizes have gotten smaller. I used to wear size 4 - 8 but over the years had to go for "smaller" sizes to get clothes that fit.

They've definitely changed.

[GRLMGC]

44. That is actually photoshopped

You can scroll down for the real pictures

http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/models.asp

Regardless, she is still too thin in the real picture and obviously had a problem if she was trying to live off of diet soda and lettuce. I don't doubt some models are naturally thin, but if there are women actually dying on runways, then there is clearly a problem.

[Bluebear]

53. Thank you

I removed it, it was just for illustrative purposes.

I thought the point was strong enough, but now I'm being called disingenuous and that was never my intention.

[BlooInBloo]

168. Good to know, but the originals aren't substantially better than the fakes.

[treestar]

200. Wonder if they are touched up

That was another factor in all this. There are those sites out there showing that the models we try to be like aren't even like that themselves!

[depakid]

46. There's a difference between being lean and athletic and having anorexia

And quite frankly, it's disturbing when people drag these sorts of pictures out to rationalize for the fact that so many are overweight and out of shape.

[treestar]

202. If people are overweight and out of shape and don't feel guilty about it

Why is that "disturbing?"

It has no effect on other people.

[Totally Committed]

54. I challenge anyone to tell me there's even a comparison

between these two women:



And this one, if "sexiness" is the object:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/17/marilynmonroe_narrowweb__300x362,0.jpg

It's not even close. There is nothing wrong with being a "Size 12"!


TC

[The Straight Story]

59. The wife is a size 12, you be the judge:

[Bluebear]

61. And she's lovely.

[BlooInBloo]

68. I'll take Whatever Size Monica Bellucci is, for the pwn, Dick.

[EFerrari]

95. Enough is right.

What kind of sick sabotage turns someone against their own skin? K&R

[cui bono]

113. The really sad thing is there are sites that are "for" anorexia and bulimia

promoting it as a "lifestyle". I've seen a few of them when I first heard of them. These poor women think that you should see every bone, that's their goal. And now I just read that you can actually buy those bracelets in support of anorexia and bulimia. Ugh.

[smoogatz]

138. Are women's clothing sizes historically constant?

Isn't one of the secrets of the Gap's early success their trick of "sizing down," calling what was really a size nine a size eight, and so on?

Not that I'm arguing with the substance here; it sucks that there's so much pressure on people to conform to some goofy artificial ideal body type.

[bettyellen]

141. uhm, todays size 6 WAS a 12- 14 back then.... of course it depends on who you buy from

the more you pay, usually the samller you can fit into. i had size 14 vintage Rangler clamdiggers i cannot get into -and i'm an 8 or 10 at most.
the whole scale has changed a great deal- stores used to carry a 16 or 18 all the time- those are now called 10 and 12.
i have smalls mediums and larges i my closet, go figure.
women- and americans in general are bigger than they were 50 years ago.
not sayig the culture is not fucked- but it's my job to know this stuff. :shrug:

[last_texas_dem]

150. I think the OP's point is more about the size that is considered to be "ideal"

(Not trying to put words into his mouth or anything, but...) I understand your point about Americans and women as a whole being bigger than they were fifty years ago, but I think at the same time a sizeable gap has developed between the average size of a woman and the size that the media, and particularly the fashion industry, promote as an ideal. While it is true that sizing has altered a bit, it is also most definitely true that the famous women who are considered to be beautiful have gotten significantly smaller, particularly in the last couple of decades. The only way I have of measuring this is my own observations, but it seems undeniable. Why is the size of the "ideal" woman, at least as promoted by the media, becoming an excessively skinny size that most women are incapable of attaining?

[zalinda]

161. If you've ever seen Project Runway

you would see that designers design for skinny women. They want bodies that they can "hang" their clothes on. When a group had to design for larger woman, what they did was trite and not very good looking.

When these skinny "hangers" become super models is when we start to have trouble. The first one Twiggy, is probably the person who started it all, back in the 60's.

zalinda

[bettyellen]

170. size #s are misleading-a size 2 being 5 feet tall is waaay different body than a 6 foot model

actresses are very often fairly short- models never are, equating the two- just like equating the fit of two size 8 garments (made the same year, in the same store- let alone 50 years apart) is a false comparison.
i understand what he is trying to say and i agree, but technically he is wrong, the ideal shape has changed much more so than the ideal weight. it's more about the structure people used to force their bodies into giving the appearance of major T + A. you need a wasp waist- a girdle -to get the look. no woman will put up with that shit- thank god.


(PS BLUEBEAR- Sorry doll, pls forgive me- you know I love you!- just being a geek. )

[Bluebear]

171. Not at all, bettyellen. The crux is body image, not what the dress size is

XO

[bettyellen]

179. what i think is interesting is these days boys getting hung up on it too....

dying their hair, waay concerned about their abs.... it's a different world than when i was a kid. i hope their (inevitable) inability to look like a magazine cover will make them think twice about what they expect from women. i doubt it though.
and you're right, today's ideal is impossibly thin. the actresses who are not as thin as models force people to photoshop them to look it.
people have ridiculous expectations- of course JLO has got to have a bit of cellulite, she has a real ass for fuck's sake.
all this airbrushing has blinded people to real life!

XOX

[Left Is Write]

236. It reminds me of a website that once existed showcasing Playboy models.

It showed most of the centerfolds from 1955 through sometime in the 2000s.

The earlier models all looked like individuals, and some had belly pooches, some had hints of cellulite (even though the photos were, presumably, retouched!), and all of them had hips.

The later models all looked exactly alike, with narrow hips, enormous artificial-looking breasts, and identically tanned, glistening skin (not to mention the obligatory "landing strips"). Many of them were so airbrushed that they no longer looked human.

[ourbluenation]

198. yep - it's called vanity sizing, the idea being if we like fitting in smaller sizes ...

we'll buy more.

[Cleita]

152. I saw Lucille Ball once in a store. She was tall and a

size twelve was almost too skinny for her. Of course the sizes back then were smaller than today. A six or seven was considered very small, probably what a two or three is today.

[ThatsMyBarack]

189. I wear pants size 6. but.....

....since I'm only 5'2", some people would think of me as chubby/fat/meaty/whatever. But what do I care? I was anorexic in my teens, and there's no way I'm ever dieting/starving myself again! ;)

[snowbear]

272. I'm taller, but still... we average out about the same, huh?

5'7".... and at around 140 lbs..

It's because I know how to whip those boys when I'm out on the ice playing hockey with them..

Because yes, girls can play hockey too!

[w8liftinglady]

205. maybe this isn't a DU topic,but size acceptance has always been a big thing with me

as you can tell by one of the links in my sigline.I battled an eating disorder for years,from overeating,to bulimia,to steroid use.Contrary to popular belief,men DO suffer from eating disorders,too.It's not just a woman thing.

[CTyankee]

207. I was trying to copyBotticelli, the Renaissance artist, "Birth of Venus"

but my crappy computer won't let me. Go look it up. Venus has a belly! She ain't no size 1!

It's in the Uffizi in Florence. Lots of other women of the Renaissance there too. The ideal of beauty was a bit different in those days (15th century).

Sorry I couldn't provide her on this post. Maybe someone will. It is worthwhile looking at her and others of that glorious era to give us all perspective on this entire discussion!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

210. Here...

[AnotherGreenWorld]

220. Most people on this thread would not want that as an ideal of beauty either.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

233. Venus is still pretty skinny, definitely not a 200-300lber.

[CTyankee]

315. OK here's Rubens "Rape of the Sabine Women"

Rubens women are a bit heftier, esp. their bellies and legs.

[madmom]

370. Oh I get it now, you're Nicole Ritchie right?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

390. I'm pretty sure you actually don't get it with that question.

[madmom]

397. actually I do get it,some people like to tell other people how they

are suppose to live, and if they don't stand up to their expectations, there has to be something wrong with them,So you don't like fat people, get over it, that's you're problem, not their's! I don't like people who thing they are better than everybody else for what ever reason, and being skinnier is about the lamest.:nopity:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

402. I don't dislike fat people.

And I am not even saying fat people should want to lose weight. That's their choice. If they want to, it is in their control.

[XemaSab]

435. That's the kind of body I have

Small tits, narrow-ish waist, huge hips.

I am 500 years behind the times. :(

[Rosemary2205]

218. A 12 in 1970's and a 12 in 2000 is not the same size.

I have been within 5# of the same weight and size for 30 years. I wore a 12 1975 and I wear a 6 or 8 now. People are getting bigger but for the sake of vanity they are making the clothes bigger too so women can say "I wear the same size I did in college" - despite the fact she may be 20-30# heavier.

[Bluebear]

223. I don't suppose you glanced through the topic yet, have you?

[Rosemary2205]

227. ????????????????

:wtf:

[Bluebear]

231. This is NOT about "what constitutes a particular size on 2007"

[Rosemary2205]

232. Um -- OK.

?????????????????????????

[Skittles]

270. yes

No way was Marilyn Monroe a size 14 by today's standards. NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH A SIZE 14. But women back then looked great AND healhier than the weight-obsessed gals of today.

[Rosemary2205]

294. Healthy women today are going to be bigger than their grandmothers

Americans are just getting bigger. I don't know if it's simply a matter of more plentiful food available in childhood, or the hormones we put in everything or what but girls are growing faster and they are starting puberty earlier than their grandmother's generation. A young 5'5" woman in 2000 at her ideal weight is going to be slightly heavier than a young woman of the same height in 1950.

In 1970 Lulu Roland of Hee Haw fame was considered a "big woman". She was 5'9 and 160# with a 33" waist. In the 80's Delta Burke was the "big girl" on Designing Women and she was wearing a 12 at the time. Hollywood has always been ruthless on women and weight but fortunately in this day and time "reality TV" has taken over for at least a generation now and our young women are looking at something on TV that is at least a little more realistic in terms of body image for today's American world.

[Left Is Write]

314. I'm having a tough time believing those stats on Lulu.

I am NOT disparaging Lulu. I just doubt that she was 160 pounds with a 33-inch waist.

[Rosemary2205]

398. I'm talking Hee Haw

She was much smaller then. Like other "showbiz" women who struggle with weight Lulu moved up and down the scale. If you can get your hands on an early episode of Hee Haw you'll see that she's certainly stockier than the other girls on the show but if you really look you'll see it's not by much.

BTW thanks for the album cover. My family has always referred to this wonderful woman as "Lulu Roland" and it surprised to find her name is "Roman". Can't wait to inform the fam!

[Left Is Write]

403. I watched Hee Haw growing up.

That album cover looks like it was late 60s, early 70s.

[Skittles]

343. I'd hate to think "reality TV" is the solution

I detest reality TV more than I do the pressures on us gals to be thin :o

[cmkramer]

407. FWIW

I've also read that a star of Marilyn Monroe's stature would not have bought too many clothes off the rack. More than likely, she had her clothes made.

[mzmolly]

226. I love you Bluebear.

That is all.

:hi:

[Bluebear]

228. I love you back.

:hug:

[AlCzervik]

238. while i'll agree with your op not all eating disorders are because someone buys into the media hype.

i'm speaking for myself.

[Bluebear]

239. Of course they are not.

Continued health and healing to you.

[frazzled]

243. This is a crucial point for people to understand...

As a survivor of anorexia nervosa myelf (I was hospitalized at 68 pounds in 1967; they didn't really even have a name for it back then), I can also attest that anorexia is not a function of media influence. Neither is it a death wish, as so often described; au contraire, it is a (distored) way of attempting to gain power and control of self and the world--it is an oddly positive, spiritual endeavor. It is about (distorted) ways of trying to acheive transcendence; it is about losing one's sense of reality. It's about a lot of things. It can begin by going on a diet, but if the mental preconditions are not there, you will not starve yourself. It is caused by inner issues ... not issues of fashion magazines. Let's be honest: it is a mental disorder.

I highly recommend a class feminist book on the subject by the British author Sheila Macleod: The Art of Starvation. It is the only book I ever read that captured my own perspective on my previous situation.

Good luck to anyone who suffers from this difficult illness. I am one of those success stories who overcame the disorder through therapy and heaven knows what else ... and I've been enjoying food (and a relatively consistent size 6) for the last 40 years.

[LostinVA]

307. Correct -- anorexia is an illness

[Bigjoe7734]

247. Dress Size Article From Wikipedia

Not to stoke the fires any, but thought someone should post this.

US standard clothing size
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

US standard clothing sizes were developed from statistical data in the 1940s-1950s. They are similar in concept to the EN 13402 European clothing size standard.

However, as a result of various cultural pressures, most notably vanity sizing, North American clothing sizes have drifted substantially away from this standard over time, and now have very little connection to it. Instead, they now following the more loosely defined standards known as US catalog sizes. These are on average 6 sizes larger than the original standard. So, for example, a size 12 on the old standard would today be described as a size 6, while a size 6 on the old scale would be what is today known as size zero.

In the UK, a deriviative of the US standard clothing sizes was developed and applied during the 1980s. These sizes are still in use today, although they too have drifted away from the original (though not by anywhere near as much). UK sizes are roughly 4 sizes out from the original standard (or 2 sizes different from the modern American one). Thus, a UK size 2 is equivalent to a US size zero, or an old size 6.

[Bluebear]

260. Yes, vanity sizing has been mentioned upteen times. It is not about that,

I don't care what a size 12 was in 1920 or 2002. The important point (I thought) is body size, self-image, and popular culture, no matter what number "size" you are talking about.

Simply put, a size 12 in 1951 would NOT be a size 0-2 now, no matter what you call it, and that is the size that models and dancers tend to be now.

[DemBones DemBones]

283. Thanks for posting the articles.

Good work!

[Katherine Brengle]

286. Confusion on vintage sizing --

While Lucy was a perfectly normal looking woman who would probably land on the thinner side of average in the US today, being a size 12 in the 1950s would have meant closer to a size 4 in current US dress sizes.

[w8liftinglady]

288. while most suffers of ED are women,there is a growing number of males with an ED

Having been entrenched in the weightlifting world for years,I know this first-hand.

http://www.something-fishy.org/cultural/issuesformen.php

[WinkyDink]

302. Hence, the rise in breast augmentation procedures.

[LWolf]

304. Bluebear, I'm going to skip past

the endless subthreads here to say that I viewed and recommended this post when you first put it up, although I didn't comment.

Thank you. I grew up watching I Love Lucy, and I know that the standards for female beauty have changed during my lifetime. I see my middle school students obsessing over diet and size, and taking pride in toothpick-like bodies.

I'd like women and girls of all ages to be healthy and secure in knowing that beauty is not about size.

[suffragette]

313. The new Size 0 says it all

Zero - to nullify, to erase, to disappear

What else, really, is a size zero except self-erasure?

What's next - going to negative sizing?

No. I want to be here, to exist, to take up room.

Thanks Bluebear, for posting this. K&R.

[pookieblue]

320. women are too often judged by their looks

If you have any extra weight whatsoever... you are called "Fat".

I can't count how many times I have read or heard people calling Kelly Clarkson "Fat". Well yes, I guess if she were standing next to a woman who is a size "0" she would look fat. But actually...I just see a healthy woman with curves when I see her.


Women like Lucy and others would be also considered fat in hollywood today.

[truedelphi]

321. The burqua of "thinness" is just as awful as the

Burqua of shawls and veils

At least beneath the shawls and veils you can eat food several times a day.

[treestar]

378. Good point. I've seen articles on that concept.

That female "freedom" does not really exist in our culture.

In fact, in the 80s when I was young, you were pressured to be successful at a career too!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

324. Great OP and had lots of laughs with Lucy! I have had an eating disorder

since I was a kid. I drew the short end of the genetic straw when it came to this. I was on the long end when it came to other things. My mother's side of the family always had a problem with weight gain and it didn't trickle but flowed down to myself and my brother. And frankly, I also love good food. That is a terrible combination.

In my life I have lost and gained 100s of pounds. I recall at my sister's first wedding, at age 12, I was already a size 13 junior. At 14 my mother sent me to a diet doctor who lived around the corner from us, and he gave me amphetamines and barbiturates. I lost weight and then regained more when I went off the pills. Then I went to another diet doctor. Same thing. I hated the way the pills made me feel and I eventually tried every diet in the book, practiced strategic bulemia and until after years of this battle, I just stopped trying. My metabolism is entirely screwed up and it is impossible for me to lose weight now, especially since menopause entered my life. If I look at food I gain weight. As to exercising, I had always been very active. Riding bikes, walking, swimming, weight training later on, and yoga, but now it's not easy to do with all of the weight on me and that's stopped. So I eat as healthily as I can and just live with it, at least for now.

Ironically, the Size 12 thing hit a nerve, as that is the size that I always looked the most attractive, and even at size 16 would turn heads. I am not tall (5'4") but large boned, and the last time I got down to a six, it wasn't flattering.

I'm very fortunate that I don't seem to be discriminated for my size or treated as an invisible person as I have heard many fat women have been treated. Men still open doors for me.

BTW..Bluebear! Thank You! :hi:

[treestar]

377. When I was young, I was really skinny

and NEVER turned heads and never got asked out. I also had "prettiness." But my personality was not good enough. That's what cracks me up. You're told all your life if you are just beautiful and thin, it'll be all you need. In reality, men want the right personality (whatever that is) and being "good" in bed and being young. You can figure this out too late.

[Nikia]

332. Thank you for this

I am recovering from anorexia.
While anorexia is not directly caused by pop culture, I think that it encourages disordered eating, makes identifying young women with this problem difficult until they are at a dangerous weight, exacerbates bad body image thinking, and makes recovery more difficult.
One of the things that I have to fight hard against is the all or nothing thinking that appears to be evident in this thread. One is not either underweight or overweight and healthy weight is not an exact number or even a 5 pound weight range. I, and evidently many other people, must accept that just because I am not underweight (anymore) or at the lowest weight that is considered healthy does not mean that I am overweight or fat. Even if I was overweight, it does not mean that I am a bad person or less worthy of anything.
I don't completely believe the paragraph I just wrote, of course. I think that it takes time. While cleaning the other day, I found a pair of size 7 shorts that I had worn before I lost a lot of weight. I felt compelled to try them on and was relieved when they fell off of me. Would it really have been so horrible if they had fit, even a little bit? Yes, it would have been terrible for me just like it would have been terrible for other young women, some of who don't have eating disorders but whose success depends on their thinness.

[Bluebear]

419. Good health and continued recovery to you, dear.

:hug:

[Quantess]

344. Lucy would be a size -2 today

I call it size inflation. The numbers shrink, but the fabric grows bigger.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

347. I'd say closer to a 6. She was tall and, IIRC, about 135lbs when she did the show.

Which is very slim, you're right. But I'm 5'8" and at my absolute skinniest I could never wear anything smaller than a 6. Those tiny sizes just aren't scaled to a longer torso and legs. I'd probably be in a 14 or 16 back in those days.

[Quantess]

349. Just go to a vintage clothing shop.

Pick out some clothes that fit, then, if you can bring yourself to look at the size tag, prepare for sticker shock! I'm a single-digit in modern clothes, and a double-digit in vintage clothes. Even going back to 1980s clothes can give you a dramatic size jump.

It can really give a dose of humility to know that if I hopped into a time machine and hopped out in 1960, I'd be plump. Better get my big ass back to 2007, where I'm fairly slim (definitely slimmer than average).

[Feron]

345. Elizabeth Taylor in the movie "Giant" would be considered..

too fat for Hollywood today.



Which is a shame because she looks beautiful.

I've discovered that men really don't care about weight. When I was at my all-time high weight and a size 22, men continued to hit on me.

Really it all boils down to confidence. Unfortunately there is an entire industry devoted to making up problems and picking at insecurities that will be only solved by buying their products.

Once you stop buying into that nonsense it is absolutely liberating. And yes I use beauty products because I enjoy them, but I don't need them in order to be beautiful or attractive. More often than not, I go out in public sans makeup.

I normally wear a 16 in pants and I'm at a healthy weight for my body. Short of shaving bone or a skeletal replacement, I'm not getting any thinner. It's annoying when people act like anyone over a size 14 cannot possibly be healthy and it's even more annoying when designers stop at a size 12-14.

But more importantly, women's rights will not go anywhere unless we reassert control over our bodies and minds. We are not consumers, we are people. (and yes this applies to men too.)

[pink-o]

371. Boy, has this thread degenerated from its original point or what??

...Listen, maybe you're all young, but in Lucy's day a size 12 was like a size 6 or 8 today. I know--I'm a 6'1" woman who weighed 150 in high school and wore a size 14 to 16. 34 years later, I weigh 155 and wear a size 10. Hmmmm...must be magic, eh?

Point is: women's sizes have gotten more realistic and now accomodate many more body types than they did when I was a teenager and would cry cuz I could never find anything to fit. So at my healthy weight, I starved myself, smoked cigarettes, lived on coffee and tequila sunrises instead of food, and of course lost a crapload of weight.

Which came back tenfold when I started eating again. Duuuh!

In my 20's and 30's I ballooned up to 200 pounds, and embarked on a research project to find out what exactly was up about women, food and weight. I tell you the personal stories because this is what I have learned:

It is amazingly good for the economy to have obesity in America. Let's start from childhood, and go along chronologically. The fast-food companies can manufacture that crap for pennies, sell it cheap to the public and with all the kid tie-ins insure that their target market will remain loyal. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if down the road we find out there's some addictive substance in McDonald's french fries (other than the fat, I mean) like nicotine in cigs. I'd put nothing past this corporatocracy.

Okay, into young adulthood now. All the kids that grew up on fast food are running to Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers, or buying this or the other product that promises to make you beautiful. They buy the fashion magazines that promise quick fixes, they buy books on the South Beach or the Zone or whatever. More money being dumped into the market.

But the best comes when they get older. Because usually when you reach your 30s or 40s, you've given up the beautiful, thin dream, you have a mate that loves you the way you are, and you continue to sit in front of your big-screen telly you just bought for big bucks, or use your cars cuz it's harder and harder to walk or bike anywhere. So after so many years of this lifestyle, guess who's gonna own you? That's right--your friends and mine, Big Pharma.

So you spent a crapload on blood pressure, cholestrol, and acid reflux meds, possibly insulin and syringes as well. And once again The System triumphs, because the more we are dependent, the more we suckle at the breast of the Market Economy, the more the Corporatocracy flourishes.

After so many years, I no longer believe obesity is the fault of the individual. Yes, there is personal responsibility involved, but those in charge of our health don't make it easy to get the facts. I've spent a lifetime finding out what I know, and I feel very lucky that I dodged a bullet. My sister, who is 53, weighs 400 pounds and what I've described above is pretty well her story. I happen to love sports, biking, and I'm vegetarian with a very low tolerance towards crap food. But even with that, I screwed up and got pretty fat.

What's to remember here is that it's the same as everything else us smart lefties know. Your government is not here to help you with your nutritional needs. All they care about is profit. It's up to us to do the same kind of research we've done on the Iraq lies and to understand that everyone has an agenda. We owe it to ourselves to be educated enough to avoid it.

[Bluebear]

373. A wonderful post

And you are quite correct. After all, look above and you will see about 100 posts from somebody who says Americans are too FAT. Talk about missing the original point!

I actually doubt that many watched the Lucy clip that i linked to, which is a shame, cause it's funny :)

But to look at the chorus line with their healthy legs and say those women are size 0-2 in today's sizes is absolutely ridic. :)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

374. Great post. Thank you.

I especially liked the way you tied the concept personal responsibility to education. It has been thoroughly perverted and bastardized by the right wing to the point where it is nothing more than a handy cudgel to beat scapegoats and a way to deny systemic problems. Enlightenment and education are essential to personal responsibility. You can't take ownership of a problem if you don't know what it is or what caused it.

[treestar]

376. Applause!

Wonderful post.

I also notice that many are on anti-depressants - and the early SSRIs have weight gain as a side effect. The media does all it can to inflame depression. It is always negative and always seeking out the lack of perfection in society. Perfectionism leads directly to depression.

[mzmolly]

379. Very well said.

:toast:

[DemBones DemBones]

388. Great post! nt

[MadAnne]

382. What was a size 14 then is probably a 10 now.

Check out some vintage clothing.

[Bluebear]

393. Yes thank you, that has been pointed out.

A size 10 would still not get a job dancing or modeling now.

[Clark2008]

399. While I whole-heartedly agree with your premise, the problem

is that a size 12 back then isn't the same as it is today. It was more like an 8 to 10. Heck, a size 8, which I wear, varies from one clothing manufacturer to another. Sometimes I have to get a 6 and sometimes a 10. I'd lobby that we change women's clothes to match men's sizes and go by the waist size, inseam and, especially for women, the bust size.

[Bluebear]

405. Thanks, a size 8 today would not be a model or dancer either

The women in that video would be considered too heavy for Hollywood, no matter what you call the size :(

[SarahB]

404. Anyone who has a problem with my size 12-ness can kiss my fat ass!

I hate many of the responses to this thread regardless of whether my size 12 equals that of a 18 back in the 50's. I'm 35 years old and gave birth 4 times. I've never been a tiny girl and never had a problem with men or felt so insecure I had to starve myself, but I do the best I can to stay healthy and this is where my body wants to be. This is me a few months ago on my husband's journal:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Finnfan

Love yourself, stay healthy, and screw the judgmental bastards!

[Missy Vixen]

423. SarahBelle, that photo is gorgeous

You are beautiful. I remember thinking it the first time I saw the photo, and it's absolutely still true.

I hope that you and Finnfan have a lifetime of happiness.

Julie

[SarahB]

427. Thank you.

I sounded a bit ticked off in my post, so I appreciate that, but I guess I wanted to get my point across. I think I'm an attractive woman and I've never been a tiny girl. No matter what the size (be it a 2, 8, 12, or 20!), if a person is healthy and takes care of themselves, they can look beautiful. Angelina Jolie is beautiful, but so is Queen Latifa!

[Odin2005]

415. I'm a 21yo guy and I think being skin and bones is NOT attractive.

Marylin Monroe was a hell of a lot hotter then the stick figures that are popular now days.

[Toucano]

417. It should be noted that women's sizes have changed over time.

In 1968 for example, a size 12 Misses fit a women 32-24-34. In 2001, a 12 misses fit a women 37-29-40.

Obesity is a real epidemic and Americans are too fat - especially children. That should not be taken as an endorsement of body obsession and anorexia, of course.

[Bluebear]

418. Thank you, that has been pointed out. The point is body image.

You will find a friend who has been bitching about obese Americans throughout this thread. My point was, no matter what women's sizes were, the women in the video would not be considered "ideal Hollywood" these days. Did you scan the video?

[BlooInBloo]

420. Hey bb - did you realize that women's clothing sizes have changed over time?

(snicker)

[Bluebear]

421. No! Link????

:eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

422. heeheehee!

[Missy Vixen]

424. BlooInBloo, you're naughty, aren't you?

:hi:

Julie

[BlooInBloo]

426. it was FUNNY!

:hi:

[Toucano]

425. I understand that.

I'm sorry if I didn't express that more clearly.

I simply wanted to point out that it isn't a choice between accepting obesity or becoming anorexic. Both extremes are unhealthy.

Considering that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight, a wave of Hollywood influenced anorexia would appear to be the least of our concerns.

As was noted, poverty plays a huge role in this. Attention should be focused there. I think fast-food establishments' movement away from trans-fats will help. Not the poverty, but the obesity among the impoverished.

Hollywood seems to have very little influence on the behavior of the majority of people, or we'd be reporting that 80% of women are underweight. Even before Hollywood, women squeezed themselves into corsets and other contraptions to achieve a look that was regarded as desirable.

Body image issues aren't new to society. The obesity levels (which lead to far more premature deaths) are.

Thus, the question shouldn't be "Am I too fat or too thin?" but rather "Is my weight healthy?"

[SarahB]

428. 37-29-40 are not measurements of an obese women.

Just an FYI. :eyes:

[Toucano]

429. I didn't intent to imply that they were.

I just cited that example of the changing of sizes over time.

Sorry for the confusion.

[jpgray]

431. Audrey Hepburn? Louise Brooks? Thin has been in for a long time

:shrug:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

436. You cannot go for a walk every day in Texas due to the heat.

that's good advice -- go for a walk every day -- but between June and October, it's too goddamn hot to go outside without the threat of heat exhaustion, due to the heat and humidity.

Hell, I have gotten heat exhaustion INSIDE from playing racquetball in an air conditioned gym. My BF had to take me to the Emergency Room so I wouldn't die from barfing and dehydration. That was NOT fun.


So it's all personal responsibility, huh?? Some of it is, some of it isn't(poverty, lack of time and money to prepare good food, metabolic problems). We have to do the best we can.




So if people like Rush advocate personal responsibility, then why hasn't he turned into a svelte Adonis? Huh? Or taken responsibility for his drug addiction which he was not indicted for, thanks to the corruption of the justice system?

[Bluebear]

440. Um, i never told anyone to take a walk every day :0

[Arkansas Granny]

438. Clothing sizes have changed a lot over the years. When I was in

high school I was the same height that I am now, weighed 120 lbs and wore a size 12. Now, at age 60, I am 20 lbs heavier and I wear a size 8. Does that make any sense at all to you?

[Bluebear]

441. Oh, yes that makes sense! Thank you, I didn't know clothing sizes had changed!

:crazy:

[AlCzervik]

442. Hey were you aware that sizes have changed in women's clothing?

:evilgrin:

[Bluebear]

443. No, I hadn't the slightest idea. When did that happen?

Shoot. Me. Now. :rofl:

[AlCzervik]

444. well sometime in the past few decades, i figured since no one had pointed that

out yet i should.

:rofl: :rofl:

back in my day there were no sizes when i had to walk 5 miles in the snow to a one room school house---and we liked it!

[Bluebear]

445. Somethimes you wish that you hadn't started a particular thread.

I've got one that has 100 messages about how we're too FAT, missing the point of females who have problems with their body image entirely, and the other half pointing me to vintage clothing stores to prove Lucille Ball had an 18 inch waist. :silly:

[pookieblue]

447. I think this video is great

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6bGuP7iig4

[Bluebear]

455. WONDERFUL, Pookie! Thank you!

[BlooInBloo]

448. Dammit all to HELL! WHY WON'T ANYBODY TELL ME IF WOMEN'S SIZES HAVE CHANGED????

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Bluebear]

456. Well . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1714013&mesg_id=1734448

[Arkansas Granny]

449. Sorry if I was being redundant. I hadn't read all 400+ replies

when I wrote that. All I saw for the first 200 replies or so was a flame war on what caused people to be fat.

[Bluebear]

450. XOXO

Joshin ya. I have learned all about vintage sizes this week :)

[KitchenWitch]

446. Where oh where is The Princess when you need her!

:P

:evilgrin:

[SarahB]

453. .

:spray:

[LittleClarkie]

452. I don't even know if you can compare the sizes back then to the sizes now

It seems like the industry's been monkeying with them, renaming sizes so that people will feel less fat. Like a size 6 used to be a size 12, that sort of thing. Anyone else hear that?

[Bluebear]

454. No, that's very insightful!! I wonder what size those dancers in the video would be now?

Zero? Two?

[charlie]

457. Yes

Not just size inflation, I've heard women complain about wild differences in size between different brands of clothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_sizing

[Bluebear]

458. These women would surely not be size zero to two now, would they?

[charlie]

459. I'd expect not

But women's clothing sizes are an unfathomable mystery to me. "Ideal" women were certainly more, what's the word... zaftig, back then. No, strike that -- more normal, more human.

[Bluebear]

460. Exactly the premise of the whole thread.

These women looked fantastic, but they would not be considered thin enough now.

From which one poster tells everyone we are too fat, and others say it is just a matter of clothing sizes changing :hi:

[charlie]

462. It's even worse than we know

The fashionable, skeletal skinhangers are still neither skinny nor perfect enough. None of them appear on magazine covers or publicity shots without a thorough photoshopping. The most common adjustments are waist-cinching (yes, they're still thick waisted, short of the rarified ideal) and boob enhancements. It's really bizarre.

[LittleClarkie]

463. They might be a 4 or 6 now though

I keep thinking of the movie "The Devil Wore Prada" where they sort of reference this and call the size 6 heroine "fat".

[sendero]

461. Just a comment...

.. on the oft-stated idea on this thread that poor = obesity.

Where I work, on the 7th floor of a swanky office building, about 1/3 of my co-workers are seriously overweight if not obese. These are not poor people, the jobs where I work are well-paid solidly middle class office/technical jobs.

Where my wife works, in a similar field with similar pay, it is even worse. About a quarter of her coworkers are morbidly obese, we're talking 80 lbs plus overweight, with almost another quarter seriously overweight.

Poverty might well be one factor in this equation, but it is by no means the only, or IMHO, even the predominate factor.

People eat junk because junk is tasty and easy to prepare. Not just because they are poor.