DOLLHOUSE

Nude Eliza news

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2009 13:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4512
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 13, 2009 11:56 AM

WHOZIT

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 12:20 PM

WASHNWEAR


Uh...a beautiful and forthright display of female autonomy...er...uhm...a timely reminder that objectification is in the mind of the beholder...oh, no...b'duh-b'duh-b'duh-b'duh...behold, the empowering spirit of the photographic medium...oh, screw it -

HAWT DAM - NEKKID DAWLS!



W W S L o F D ?
What would Sir Lawrence of Flint do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 2:50 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Fox = daily porn. It's a job requirement.

http://thesun.co.uk
http://page3.com

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 3:19 PM

STINKINGROSE


Somebody get those girls a sandwich!

Nicely shot, though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 4:56 PM

ORPHEUS


...I'll be in my bunk.

____________________

The Front Row Center Podcast: We put today's movies through the critical buzzsaw!
http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/19453

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:07 PM

SCHISM


actually those photos were amazingly tasteful.....for a change...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:33 PM

PHYRELIGHT


Da-shiang bao-tza shr duh lah doo-tze! *storms out*





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 6:08 PM

JRNYFAN


:O

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:45 PM

QUANDOM


Whenever I see a female that beautiful and so displaued, I am almost tempted to accept the teleological argument for the existence of God, and Intelligent Design. I know there are falws in both -- but none I can see in Eliza.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 9:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Wowza, quite appealing in a visual kinda way...

Faith of course, always a hit, yes.

However, I got no idea who Sharon Leal is, but that lady has eyes you could drown in, seriously.

To quote Jayne "Can I know her?"

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:45 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!




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

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:28 AM

QUANDOM


SIGMANUNKI, spot on for the average calorie intake. Some like to blame fast food, but to me that is like blaming alcohol for drunks. Part of the problem in the US at least is the astonishing cheapness and availability of food. In contrast, look at Japan, where before WWII arteriosclerosis was low compared to the US - but so was the average height. During the occupation, the ration for Japanese citizens was about 2000 calories a day, while the US solider could consume over 4,500 calories a day if he so chose. Nowdyas, Japan has death rates comparable to ours for heart disease, as they added alot more meat and alocohol to their diet, but the height of the average Japanese is asymptotically approaching that of the US. Japan is better off, but only on the margin.

I suspect that we are going to have to re-learn how to use food, much the way the country had to re-learn how to use alcohol after Prohibition. In the early 1930s, alcohol became suddenly so cheap and available that there was a tremendous increase in alcoholism and alcohol related deaths. In response to that, AA was conceived and despite its many flaws, has done much good.

I believe that just about all humans are capable of looking shapely and weighing proportionally to their height and build. This gets harder as we age, and many of us will lose the Battle of the Bulge. Of course, there will always be those who keep their childhood tapeworm, and we not so gifted envy them.

So while every one has the potential to look good, not everyone is endowed with Eliza's gift. The existence of Eliza makes me grateful to whatever powers may be that I am a guy who likes girls. As for those of you males who have chosen to be exclusively sly, my humble thanks - less competition for the rest of us!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:49 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

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



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

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:51 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!




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

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



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

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:00 AM

PENGUIN


EXCUSE ME!

Back on topic!!

Nekked wimmin!!!





King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Down the centuries you have slurred the meaning of the words, WE THE PEOPLE...


Quote:

Originally posted by Penguin:
EXCUSE ME!

Back on topic!!

Nekked wimmin!!!


Simple sexual attraction to the purpose of propagating the species.

YOU GO GIRLS!!!!!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:41 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Eh, they're probably all Photoshopped anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:42 AM

RALLEM

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:52 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

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



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

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

This.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:18 AM

LEXIBLOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!




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



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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:38 AM

LEXIBLOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Penguin:
EXCUSE ME!

Back on topic!!

Nekked wimmin!!!



*yawn* - you'll get over that in time ;)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 8:23 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

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





You're confusing ideal with healthy. I'm talking about a healthy women and what that looks like regardless of what is considered ideal. Slim women, such as the ones in these photos, are healthy. They don't "need a sandwich."

Point of fact, healthy diet (i.e. healthy food + exercise) and "you'll" look like that. At least it won't take much effort until one reaches 40. That is assuming that one hasn't totally screwed themselves already. But, who's fault is that.

Of course, age means "filling out" and that will eventually mean going not healthy when it comes to weight. But, that only really becomes an issue when one gets near geriatric.

But, QUANDOM is quite right. We in North America are really going to have to re-learn 1) what food actually is, and 2) what a proper portion size is. Our health really really depends on that. And if you think that there's no financial concerns, just wait a decade or two and see what happens to the health care system.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 8:23 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by LexiBlock:

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




For there age they are completely normal. Again, you're confusing average with normal. These women are normal for the human body that has proper diet and exercise. That certainly doesn't fit what is average today. But, there is a difference between what is normal to the human body and the horror that the average person does to his/her body.

EDIT: I should add that having a tan was normal and encouraged at one point. So, was smoking. So, was a lot of stuff. Then we did this thing called learning. It changes things. It really does.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:17 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


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

::rolls eyes::

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:48 PM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by LexiBlock:
Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!




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



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


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

But that's just me, of course.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:58 PM

TUJIAOZUO


Quote:

Originally posted by asarian:
Quote:

Originally posted by LexiBlock:
Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Somebody get those girls a sandwich!




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



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


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

But that's just me, of course.



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


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

Quote:

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

Um... no?

Granted you can look like Eliza and be healthy, but the perfect figure isn't for everyone. It all depends on body type, metabolism and your genes. (Eliza probably has great genes) Some people aren't built to be the perfectly thin, they never will be. Granted taking out fast food and walking everywhere helps keep trim and healthy (I live in a fairly pro-health city, no drinking, no smoking, try to walk everywhere as well as cook for myself) but I don't think guys understand how difficult it is for most women to get to 'looking' like Eliza.

Men are built differently. You fellas are utilitarian, back in the day you were the hunters and providers. You have high metabolisms for the most part and in your prime you can eat a buffet table and not gain an ounce. It's easier for you to lose weight and stay in shape because you're designed that way.

Women, we are totally different. We were built to bare the fruit of thine loins therefore we are usually programmed to easily gain weight and keep it on. Our body chemistry is very different and it takes a lot more work for us to develop that sexy little six pack because in reality, we weren't really designed to flaunt that. Plus you guys have it easy with the eating thing because you never PMS. Try sticking to lean meats, rice, fruits and veggies when you're on your period for five days and every fibre of your being wants a pint of ben and jerrys and a bacon cheeseburger. And you're extremely growly to the rest of the world because you are denying yourself said unhealthy pleasure.

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. Beyond eating the right portions and foods, it was working out vigorously two hours a day. My brother? It's so easy for him to get ripped it's ridiculous. After various health scares (that had nothing to do with being that thin, in fact the fitness saved my life) I've settled on the fact that while I could go back to that zealous health nut lifestyle, ditch a few curves and slide a perfect ass back into my favorite jeans, I'm content being a little thicker. I'm healthy, I eat right, I walk a average of 3 miles a day, I go to the gym once a week, I don't look like any of those women.

Apologies if I am overstepping my bounds. My posts get a little wonky after midnight and weight always makes me a might techy.

Those pictures though...... ai... ya..... airbrushed for sure but very nice.

Your Indian Pirate Lord,
Ash

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:10 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:

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




Actually, that's medical fact. There ARE certain foods that get that metabolism going. They are natural foods. Those food like substances that people eat today (e.g. at McDonalds, etc) are ones that kill the bodies metabolism. Then there's the trans fats, etc, etc, etc, that are in the more commonly eaten 'food.'

One doesn't get fat when one burns about the same amount of calories that they eat and eats a balanced diet.

Then there's the weird things that happen to the body when one doesn't get a balanced diet (and possibly eats many many calories). As in, those chips that are so popular might give someone the calories, but they certainly aren't healthy and they certainly don't have much nutritional value at all.

This might not be convenient to most people these days, but that's how it is.

That said, this can, depending on how far gone someone is, be reversed to one degree or another. The body is an amazing adaptive system and can recover from grand abuse. So, long as that abuse wasn't in the long term and too grand.


Want to do a comparison. Just take what the average weight was a couple decades ago (two is enough) and compare it to now. The do the same to the diet. I don't think that you'll be happy with the results. Because, they go right along with what I'm saying.

Hell, just look at the high-schoolers today verses a couple decades ago (again two is enough). Back then most were skinny, a couple were between that and chubby and a handful were fat. Now, what we got is most are chubby to fat with some obese and above with skinny getting more and more rare.

Now aside from the diet comparison during these times, take a look at the difference in exercise. An in, 'soccer moms' are kinda more prevalent now than then. So, the kids aren't walking nearly as much. The things they tend to do are becoming less and less active.

Etc.


Seriously. Sedentary lifestyle + poor diet = obesity. Yes, it really is that simple.

(EDIT: Fixed neural misfire in the equation.)


The one aside is when we leave generality and look at certain corner cases. As in, there are some medications that can cause weight gain by various mechanisms. Similarly, there are some medical conditions that do the same. BUT, these are few and far between (understatement) and as such can be safely ignored when speaking in general.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:34 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:53 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

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




No, she is chubby. Perhaps not by todays *average*. But, overall she is chubby.

Why do people keep confusing ideal, average and healthy? They... are... all... different... right... now.


Quote:

Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

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




I'm stopping you here because you are misrepresenting me. You see, you are solely talking about Eliza and I'm not. I looked at ALL of them and constantly referenced ALL of them. And if you look, there is some padding on a couple of them. Did I complain and say that this shouldn't be? No. I said that ALL of these women would be considered healthy. I also mentioned that age was a factor among others.

Seriously, pointing at the best of them and referencing that as what I'm talking about?!?!? Poor form not to mention logical fallacy.


Quote:

Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

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




Three miles isn't really much. I mean, I might walk that in a day when I don't leave my apartment. Once a week also isn't enough. In fact, that wouldn't really have much of an overall effect at all. And if you aren't near (you didn't say how far away you are from these women) what these women look like, I'd say that you aren't eating as healthy as you think you are (stats would tell me portion size is the main issue).

Working out effectively means doing it at least 3 times a week. But, that doesn't have to be at the gym. It can be some yoga in the living room for half an hour per day.

I honestly don't understand why people think that working out needs to be at a gym. Playing football or rollerblading or yoga at home or ... would be just as good and more fun. Not to mention cheaper.

It's about regular (i.e. pretty much daily) exercise. Anything other than that and one get drastically diminishing returns.


As an aside, the no time thing is also total BS. That is assuming that ones life isn't a gigantic cluster f***. Because, if it is, then one needs to fix there life before becoming more healthy (less stress = more healthy as well). Anyway, when one exercises, it has many many benefits. One of them being becoming more efficient overall. So, one might lose that 1/2 hour to exercise. But, it'll also lead to better efficiency that will compensate for that lose. It's positive sum game.


At any rate, this whole thing reminds me of a friend of my wife's parents. She keeps saying how she doesn't understand how she is fat. Because, you know, she eats so little. And seeing what she puts on her plate at meals, one would think that too. But, when you watch her cook, she is constantly nibbling on this that and the other thing. In other words, she 'nickel and diming' herself to death.

Which leads me into something else that I see as a problem in North America (though primarily the US <- changing though). That being the overstatement of what one does right and the understatement of what one does wrong. The real killer though, is that these things don't even seem to be deliberate. These people actually seem to believe it and resist the truth even when confronted absolute proof.

With this sort of mentality, I quake for our worlds future.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:54 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

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



Thank you for showing us just what level you are working on

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:05 AM

ASARIAN


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:30 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


(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] in patients of all weight categories. In patients with known [coronary artery disease] undergoing, obese and overweight patients were at lower risk of [cardiac disease] over three years than normal weight patients.

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


Quote:

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

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

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


Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

http://tinyurl.com/cwsqde


Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

http://tinyurl.com/ck5cxc



2) Calories in, calories out is bunk.

Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

In brief:

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

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

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


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


Quote:

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

...

In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.

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



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).

Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

...

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

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


Quote:

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

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

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

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


Quote:

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

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

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



4) Average weights aren’t significantly higher than a few decades ago, and our health continues to improve.

Quote:

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

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



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.

Quote:

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

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



...

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

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

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

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

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

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



http://kateharding.net/bmi-illustrated

Now, if you've made it down this far, maybe you understand a little better why I laughed at you and your "medical fact."

Edited for clarity.
Edited for clarity some more.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Epitaph.... Beyond!
Mon, May 7, 2012 16:54 - 1 posts
Was Dollhouse generally too bleak (in colours)?
Sat, June 18, 2011 00:59 - 6 posts
White Collar's Third Season Gets a Bit Dushku-ier
Fri, June 3, 2011 02:05 - 1 posts
Free Video Game based on my attempts to save Dollhouse.
Fri, May 13, 2011 09:59 - 1 posts
Dollhouse 2.04: Belonging - Sierra is forced to face her past. Post comments here.
Fri, May 13, 2011 04:49 - 29 posts
Dollhouse relationship with Firefly
Mon, April 18, 2011 13:36 - 20 posts
You should get to know Maurissa Tancharoen Whedon
Sat, April 16, 2011 03:44 - 8 posts
On sale $19.99
Mon, April 11, 2011 09:21 - 1 posts
Dollhouse Epitaphs Comic from Dark Horse
Wed, March 30, 2011 16:52 - 2 posts
Felicia Day: Make Long Term Relationships, Not Booty Call.
Tue, March 15, 2011 00:58 - 1 posts
The Lady Is a Champ: Eliza Dushku Goes a Few Rounds With Fight Night Champion
Mon, February 28, 2011 02:15 - 1 posts
Tahmoh Penikett joins Mortal Kombat.
Wed, February 16, 2011 08:59 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS