Nude Eliza news
POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2009 23:30
VIEWED: 16141
PAGE 4 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:Quote:
Originally posted by asarian:
Nah, I'm with SigmaNunki; it's really what women are supposed to look like. :) Eliza, at least. She simply has a perfect figure. Sierra, arguably, is probably a mite too thin; still frakkin' attractive, though, and her thinness is endlessly better-looking than, say, Mellie's chubbiness.
Mellie's chubby? Really? I see her as more of the realistic body type and I'm a 21 year old health conscious San Franciscan who studies the nude figure most of the week.
My, I really stepped into a hornet's nest here, didn't I? :)
But please, define 'realistic.' Do you mean realistic, as is an attainable goal, doable without taking too many extraordinary steps? Or more like 'normal'? Problem with the latter of course is, that then apparently being chubbier is currently the norm. Which it might very well be (and probably is). Doesn't mean that's necessarily a good thing, though: it just means it's 'normal.'
Quote:
I used to look like Eliza. 5'7", 120 lbs, 5% body fat, between a size 3 and 5 with all lean muscle. It took ALOT of work to get down to that and maintain it as a woman.
I'm sure it does. And I can fully understand how one could be a mite touchy around a topic like this. And what I said wasn't really meant as a judgement, either. According to Seinfeld, only 5% of the world's population is really attractive: the rest is totally undateable. :) So, seriously now, practically none of us makes the 5% cut. Big deal. It really would be totally unrealistic to expect every woman to have Eliza's figure (or, say, Victor's bod' -- whichever one prefers). So, chances are, in real life, you'll run into a Mellie far more often than an Eliza. And when you DO find an Eliza, and you happen to be a Producer, you'll hang on to her for dear life and build a show around her, because hers is apparently a figure men like to see (I can vouch for the latter).
But, lest we forget, this is showbiz. Our Firefly BDH's are assuredly above-average looking too. So, TV gives us a Saffron, whilst the world is filled with Mellies. And the women get to swoon over Mal, whilst in real life you get to see your sisteren getting paired off with ugly men, vicious or blubberous, men with appetites too unseemly to speak on. :) Or somewhere in-between, most like. Point just is, there's a big difference between 'ideal' and 'real.' They're probably not even in the same boat.
--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(I apologize in advance for the length of this post.)
Alright, starting from the very tippy top, these are my four major rebuttals to your comments, SigmaNunki. They are:
1) Thin =! healthy, and fat =! unhealthy; in fact, being overweight or obese may even be protective.
2) Calories in, calories out is bunk.
3) We’re not eating more trans fats (or “bad foods,” or calories in general) than we have in the past (and trans fats may not even be bad for us, anyway).
4) Average weights aren’t significantly higher than a few decades ago, and our health continues to improve.
I also have a fifth point about the BMI, which, while you didn't mention specifically, is a relevant point, IMO:
5) The metric that determines “overweight” and “obese,” the BMI, is bullshit. It is a crude measurement that only takes height and weight into consideration, nothing else - not muscle mass, body type, age, or gender. It assumes that all people’s bodies are, essentially, the same.
Now, those are the reasons why I think you're wrong. The reason why I find your views to be repulsive is that they imply that all the non-thin people I know - no less the wonderful people who frequent this site - are either lazy, or gluttonous, or both, for failing to conform to what your opinion of the normal body type should be. An opinion of normal which seems to "conveniently" and "coincidentally" conform to the current female beauty standards - standards which are catered directly to the average male heterosexual.
Now, I've got evidence to back up my first five claims. This is the part that gets really long, but I think it's important to show that I'm not just disagreeing with you out of conjecture or spite. Note: all underlining emphasis within quotes has been added by me; pretty much everything else is from the original text.
1) Thin =! healthy, and fat =! unhealthy; in fact, being overweight or obese may even be protective.
Quote:
Claim #2: ‘Mortality rates increase with increasing degrees of overweight, as measured by BMI.’—WHO, 2003 (p. 61) 2
This claim, central to arguments that higher than average body mass amount to a major public health problem, is at best weakly supported by the epidemiological literature. Except at true statistical extremes, high body mass is a very weak predictor of mortality, and may even be protective in older populations. In particular, the claim that ‘overweight’ (BMI 25–29.9) increases mortality risk in any meaningful way is impossible to reconcile with numerous large-scale studies that have found no increase in relative risk among the so-called ‘overweight’, or have found a lower relative risk for premature mortality among this cohort than among persons of so-called ‘normal’ or ‘ideal’ [sic] weight. Among the obese, little or no increase in relative risk for premature mortality is observed until one reaches BMIs in the upper 30s or higher. In other words, the vast majority of people labelled ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’ according to current definitions do not in fact face any meaningful increased risk for early death. Indeed the most recent comprehensive analysis of this question within the context of the US population found more premature deaths associated with a BMI of ,25 than with a BMI above it. This was largely owing to the finding that lowest death rates fell within the BMI range of 25–29.9—some 86 000 fewer ‘excess’ deaths than was observed in the referent group, the so-called ‘normal weight’ BMI range of 18.5–24.9. Additional analyses that controlled for potential confounders such as length of follow-up, weight stability, weight loss caused by illness, or smoking status did not change the results. For this nationally representative cohort of US adults—National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys I, II, and III—the ‘ideal’ weight for longevity was ‘overweight’. 6
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/saguy/IJE.pdf
6: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/293/15/1861
Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: Normal MPS was associated with low risk of [cardiac death] iNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME