shape
carat
color
clarity

Jessica Simpon...fat?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

luvthemstrawberries

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
2,107
Date: 2/1/2009 5:37:14 PM
Author: Bliss
Also, I wanted to add that some publications ''stretch'' photos of celebrities to make them look ''fat'' when they are not. (And I do not think she looks fat!) I can''t remember which publicist quit because she felt too dirty to keep resorting to such tricks to generate headlines. The camera can make anyone look bigger or smaller depending on lighting, angles, posture and the moment -- someone could be inhaling and singers have powerful diaphragm muscles so your chest and waist naturally enlarge and then *snap* a photo is taken.
To touch on the idea of photos being distorted and messed with... anyone seen this video before? Part of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U&feature=related
 

Clairitek

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
4,881
Date: 2/1/2009 11:21:33 PM
Author: BeGatch!
Rockzilla- Rachel Zoe & Nicole look like bobble head, chihuahua big eyed freaks! lol no thanks

Bobble head is exactly what I was thinking too!

I wouldn''t be surprised if we see Jessica Simpson as the next Nutrisystem or Slim Fast rep.
 

beau13

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,172
Date: 1/31/2009 8:08:01 PM
Author: vespergirl
Maybe she''s pregnant?
That''s what I was thinking!
Doesn''t matter what size or weight she is today..give it a couple months, guaranteed you''ll see a more "fit" looking Jessica! Those celebs are up and down like yo-yo''s!!
The clothing choice is definitely NOT flattering to her more curvy figure!
 

tlh

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
4,508
You know who those pants were flattering on....
Pam, from Urban Cowboy.
34.gif
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
Jessica Simpson is pretty irrelevant right now. She''s probably happy to have the press attention. 2 months from now, she will be on the front of 15 mags saying how she lost 60llbs in 8 wks, and 12 year olds will be doing the new J. Simpson diet.

It stinks that out society is this way, but it is. I feel much worse for the typical woman that puts on weight than a celeb that can hire personal chefs and personal trainers, in addition to stylists. Look at Oprah! She looks fab no matter WHAT her size is!
 

fieryred33143

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
6,689
Date: 2/2/2009 2:24:09 PM
Author: trillionaire
Jessica Simpson is pretty irrelevant right now.
That made me laugh
1.gif


I always find it funny when the media makes a big deal about celebrities getting fat. If Jess gained 20 more pounds from where she is now, she''ll still have a better body than me.

P.S. I love Jessica
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Date: 1/31/2009 12:30:39 PM
Author: neatfreak
Date: 1/31/2009 10:59:01 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
I think most people with larger chests usually have larger bottoms, etc. so she was probably keeping herself unnaturally thin before and just isn't able/willing to at the moment. She may be technically 'overweight' according to the BMI chart, but I bet she's around where her body wants to be.
I doubt she is any where near overweight even according to the BMI chart. I bet she was underweight before and now is in a healthy range!
Really? I disagree, actually... the healthy weight range for her height (5'3") is 110-145. I've been 145 in the past (ETA: I'm about 5'4"), and that is not what 145 looks like (especially on her relatively small bone structure vs. my comparatively larger frame). She looks to be 165-70 to me. That straddles the line between overweight and obese on the women's BMI chart.

I don't see what the major issue is with being honest about someone's weight status, though I may be desensitized to it. Weight is something that people can (within reason) control, it's not like saying she has an unattractive face. That's not to say that I think people should go around criticizing celebs for being "fat" (even if they are), I just don't think it's worth discussing at all - but it isn't accurate to say that she is at a "healthy" weight.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but it's not based on my opinion, it's based on the BMI chart.
 

fieryred33143

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
6,689
Date: 2/2/2009 2:40:45 PM
Author: musey

Date: 1/31/2009 12:30:39 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/31/2009 10:59:01 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
I think most people with larger chests usually have larger bottoms, etc. so she was probably keeping herself unnaturally thin before and just isn''t able/willing to at the moment. She may be technically ''overweight'' according to the BMI chart, but I bet she''s around where her body wants to be.
I doubt she is any where near overweight even according to the BMI chart. I bet she was underweight before and now is in a healthy range!
Really? I disagree, actually... the healthy weight range for her height (5''3'') is 110-145. I''ve been 145 in the past, and that is not what 145 looks like (especially on her relatively small bone structure vs. mine which is on the heavy side). She looks to be 165-170 to me. That straddles the line between overweight and obese on the women''s BMI chart.
I''m 5''3 and have been 165/170 and that is not what 165/170 looks like at all. I think its the angle of how the picture was taken AND the fact that she has on "mom jeans" (re: to the SNL skit with mom jeans).
 

Loves Vintage

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
4,568
Date: 2/2/2009 2:40:45 PM
Author: musey



Date: 1/31/2009 12:30:39 PM
Author: neatfreak



Date: 1/31/2009 10:59:01 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
I think most people with larger chests usually have larger bottoms, etc. so she was probably keeping herself unnaturally thin before and just isn't able/willing to at the moment. She may be technically 'overweight' according to the BMI chart, but I bet she's around where her body wants to be.
I doubt she is any where near overweight even according to the BMI chart. I bet she was underweight before and now is in a healthy range!
Really? I disagree, actually... the healthy weight range for her height (5'3') is 110-145. I've been 145 in the past (ETA: I'm about 5'4'), and that is not what 145 looks like (especially on her relatively small bone structure vs. my comparatively larger frame). She looks to be 165-70 to me. That straddles the line between overweight and obese on the women's BMI chart.

I don't see what the major issue is with being honest about someone's weight status, though I may be desensitized to it. Weight is something that people can (within reason) control, it's not like saying she has an unattractive face. That's not to say that I think people should go around criticizing celebs for being 'fat' (even if they are), I just don't think it's worth discussing at all - but it isn't accurate to say that she is at a 'healthy' weight.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but it's not based on my opinion, it's based on the BMI chart.
I think most would disagree with your perception, so the problem is not that the media is being honest about her weight. The problem is that the media is creating a false sense of what an ideal weight looks like or should be.

ETA: And, your post is based on your opinion of what her weight actually is, as you perceive it from the photos, so it's based on a combination of your opinion as applied to the BMI chart.
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Date: 2/2/2009 2:44:14 PM
Author: fieryred33143
Date: 2/2/2009 2:40:45 PM
Author: musey
Date: 1/31/2009 12:30:39 PM
Author: neatfreak
Date: 1/31/2009 10:59:01 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
I think most people with larger chests usually have larger bottoms, etc. so she was probably keeping herself unnaturally thin before and just isn''t able/willing to at the moment. She may be technically ''overweight'' according to the BMI chart, but I bet she''s around where her body wants to be.
I doubt she is any where near overweight even according to the BMI chart. I bet she was underweight before and now is in a healthy range!
Really? I disagree, actually... the healthy weight range for her height (5''3'') is 110-145. I''ve been 145 in the past, and that is not what 145 looks like (especially on her relatively small bone structure vs. mine which is on the heavy side). She looks to be 165-170 to me. That straddles the line between overweight and obese on the women''s BMI chart.
I''m 5''3 and have been 165/170 and that is not what 165/170 looks like at all. I think its the angle of how the picture was taken AND the fact that she has on ''mom jeans'' (re: to the SNL skit with mom jeans).
Regardless, she is certainly not 145 or under. Based on her bone structure especially, she is technically overweight.

I think it''s good to defend celebs who get picked on (obviously, since I do it all the time), but i do think there''s a disparity here: we''ll defend people who are, technically, overweight (ie. not healthy due to their size), but openly criticize people who are underweight (ie. not healthy due to their size). Why is it okay to make fun of people for being what we perceive as too thin (regardless of whether that''s accurate from a health standpoint), when it''s not okay to make fun of people for being what we perceive as too heavy (again, regardless of whether that''s accurate from a health standpoint)? Both carry health risks.

I know lots of women who are criticized for being too thin, but based upon their bone structure and natural size they are not. A lot of these celebs that people tear apart for looking anorexic, etc. are actually well within the "ideal" range as determined by healthy professionals (referring to BMI charts, etc. here).
 

Bia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
6,181
She definitely gained a bit but not enough to be overweight. I''d say 10-15lbs max.

Girlfriend just wore the wrong outfit. But I guarantee you won''t catch JS in ''mom jeans'' ever again.
 

NovemberBride

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
962
Date: 2/2/2009 2:50:54 PM
Author: musey

Date: 2/2/2009 2:44:14 PM
Author: fieryred33143

Date: 2/2/2009 2:40:45 PM
Author: musey

Date: 1/31/2009 12:30:39 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/31/2009 10:59:01 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
I think most people with larger chests usually have larger bottoms, etc. so she was probably keeping herself unnaturally thin before and just isn''t able/willing to at the moment. She may be technically ''overweight'' according to the BMI chart, but I bet she''s around where her body wants to be.
I doubt she is any where near overweight even according to the BMI chart. I bet she was underweight before and now is in a healthy range!
Really? I disagree, actually... the healthy weight range for her height (5''3'') is 110-145. I''ve been 145 in the past, and that is not what 145 looks like (especially on her relatively small bone structure vs. mine which is on the heavy side). She looks to be 165-170 to me. That straddles the line between overweight and obese on the women''s BMI chart.
I''m 5''3 and have been 165/170 and that is not what 165/170 looks like at all. I think its the angle of how the picture was taken AND the fact that she has on ''mom jeans'' (re: to the SNL skit with mom jeans).
Regardless, she is certainly not 145 or under. Based on her bone structure especially, she is technically overweight.

I think it''s good to defend celebs who get picked on (obviously, since I do it all the time), but i do think there''s a disparity here: we''ll defend people who are, technically, overweight (ie. not healthy due to their size), but openly criticize people who are underweight (ie. not healthy due to their size). Why is it okay to make fun of people for being what we perceive as too thin (regardless of whether that''s accurate from a health standpoint), when it''s not okay to make fun of people for being what we perceive as too heavy (again, regardless of whether that''s accurate from a health standpoint)? Both carry health risks.

I know lots of women who are criticized for being too thin, but based upon their bone structure and natural size they are not. A lot of these celebs that people tear apart for looking anorexic, etc. are actually well within the ''ideal'' range as determined by healthy professionals (referring to BMI charts, etc. here).
I have to disagree. I am 5''3" and have almost an identical build to Jessica Simpson (not talking myself up here, it''s actually an incredibly hard body type to have, with curves any extra weight shows, as evidenced by this recent controversy). I''d bet anything that she weighs somewhere between 130-140. No way she weighs over 145. I currently weigh 132 (my heaviest ever) and look very similar to her in that picture and would look about the same if I put that horrible outfit on. My mom is my same height and weighs 170 and is much, much heavier than Jessica in that picture. People really underestimate how much more 5, 10 even 20 lbs shows on someone 5''3" than someone 5''5" or 5''8". On the flip side, when I am working out my hardest I look pretty much like Jessica Simpson does at her best, and I have never weighed less than 112 as an adult. 15-20 lbs is the difference for me between a size 2 and a size 6.
 

Lauren8211

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
11,073
Date: 2/2/2009 2:50:54 PM
Author: musey

Date: 2/2/2009 2:44:14 PM
Author: fieryred33143

Date: 2/2/2009 2:40:45 PM
Author: musey

Date: 1/31/2009 12:30:39 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/31/2009 10:59:01 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
I think most people with larger chests usually have larger bottoms, etc. so she was probably keeping herself unnaturally thin before and just isn''t able/willing to at the moment. She may be technically ''overweight'' according to the BMI chart, but I bet she''s around where her body wants to be.
I doubt she is any where near overweight even according to the BMI chart. I bet she was underweight before and now is in a healthy range!
Really? I disagree, actually... the healthy weight range for her height (5''3'') is 110-145. I''ve been 145 in the past, and that is not what 145 looks like (especially on her relatively small bone structure vs. mine which is on the heavy side). She looks to be 165-170 to me. That straddles the line between overweight and obese on the women''s BMI chart.
I''m 5''3 and have been 165/170 and that is not what 165/170 looks like at all. I think its the angle of how the picture was taken AND the fact that she has on ''mom jeans'' (re: to the SNL skit with mom jeans).
Regardless, she is certainly not 145 or under. Based on her bone structure especially, she is technically overweight.

I think it''s good to defend celebs who get picked on (obviously, since I do it all the time), but i do think there''s a disparity here: we''ll defend people who are, technically, overweight (ie. not healthy due to their size), but openly criticize people who are underweight (ie. not healthy due to their size). Why is it okay to make fun of people for being what we perceive as too thin (regardless of whether that''s accurate from a health standpoint), when it''s not okay to make fun of people for being what we perceive as too heavy (again, regardless of whether that''s accurate from a health standpoint)? Both carry health risks.

I know lots of women who are criticized for being too thin, but based upon their bone structure and natural size they are not. A lot of these celebs that people tear apart for looking anorexic, etc. are actually well within the ''ideal'' range as determined by healthy professionals (referring to BMI charts, etc. here).
IMHO, it''s really hard to accurately guess anyones weight. Everyone carries it differently, and one persons 145 is not another persons 145, even at the same height. I would not be surprised if she WAS at or under 145, considering it''s a photo, a bad angle AND an unflattering outfit.

As far as criticizing people for their weight, Jessica Simpson had a ROCKIN body for a long time, so her weight gain looked drastic. Is she healthy? Yeah, probably. But she''s in the spotlight, and will receive criticism. Same with too thin celebs, but I see your point on being in the ideal range. However, it is pretty suspect when some celeb is healthy for a long time at say, 120 lbs, and then drops to 100 and claims to be healthy because it''s in that "healthy" range. Just because 103 is in your range doesnt mean it looks good on you, or healthy on you.

I''m 5''10" and can technically be healthy at like 135 to 180. For my structure, even though it''s in the "healthy" range, I look disgusting at 135, thin at 150, average at 160, and heavy at 170. I''ve seen other 5''10"ers that look awesome at 135.
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Date: 2/2/2009 2:50:46 PM
Author: Loves Vintage
Date: 2/2/2009 2:40:45 PM
Author: musey
Date: 1/31/2009 12:30:39 PM
Author: neatfreak
Date: 1/31/2009 10:59:01 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
I think most people with larger chests usually have larger bottoms, etc. so she was probably keeping herself unnaturally thin before and just isn''t able/willing to at the moment. She may be technically ''overweight'' according to the BMI chart, but I bet she''s around where her body wants to be.
I doubt she is any where near overweight even according to the BMI chart. I bet she was underweight before and now is in a healthy range!
Really? I disagree, actually... the healthy weight range for her height (5''3'') is 110-145. I''ve been 145 in the past (ETA: I''m about 5''4''), and that is not what 145 looks like (especially on her relatively small bone structure vs. my comparatively larger frame). She looks to be 165-70 to me. That straddles the line between overweight and obese on the women''s BMI chart.

I don''t see what the major issue is with being honest about someone''s weight status, though I may be desensitized to it. Weight is something that people can (within reason) control, it''s not like saying she has an unattractive face. That''s not to say that I think people should go around criticizing celebs for being ''fat'' (even if they are), I just don''t think it''s worth discussing at all - but it isn''t accurate to say that she is at a ''healthy'' weight.

I''ll probably get flamed for this, but it''s not based on my opinion, it''s based on the BMI chart.
I don''t think most would agree with your perception, so the problem is not that the media is being honest about her weight. The problem is that the media is creating a false sense of what an ideal weight looks like.
While that can be true, the biggest issue here is that there is a large range of "ideal" health-wise.

I don''t find that the media, on the whole, is creating a false sense of what an ideal weight looks like (anymore - this was a big problem in the 1980s-''90s). It''s all what you take from it. The people I see "the media" (wow - that is WAY too broad a term) listing as "ideal" are recent Britney, Hayden Panatierre, Eva Mendez, Beyonce, Jessica Biel and Scarlett Johansson (basing a lot of this on the recent Maxim Hot 100 list) - none of whom are outside a truly healthy (as in ideal to healthy BMI, obviously take care of themselves and are absolutely not underweight) weight range. If anything, the media is super-quick to jump on those celebs that lose weight as being "too thin," even if they are still quite healthy.

We also need to revise our concept of "ideal" and "healthy." Are they the same, or are they different? Is "ideal" just anything that looks "nice," or is it literally "the ideal"? Is healthy just anything that doesn''t look unattractively large or small, or does it literally mean healthy - as in someone who is keeping their body in excellent physical condition by eating very well and exercising?

Moreover, do we have to take offense if someone doesn''t fall into "ideal?" Because that''s an awfully tall order! I''m plenty thin, and my weight falls into the "ideal" or "healthy" range on BMI charts, but I would not call my body "ideal." That''s not necessarily a bad or good thing, it just is what it is - and what''s so wrong about not being "ideal?" Isn''t "healthy" good enough?
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
To the whole pictures vs. real life and weight on one vs. weight on another issue... I have seen her in-person not too long ago (w/in the past month) and to my eye, no, she did not look healthy. Regardless of what weight she is (though I still maintain that she looked to be about 160 if not more, and I am almost the exact same height as her), she did not look healthy.

To be fair, I define healthy as "taking care of one's body by exercising and eating well," not just "not obese."

Again, and I can't say it enough, I am not criticizing her. If I'd had no clue who she was when I saw her, then I would have thought (if anything) that she looked just fine. There is nothing wrong with gaining weight now and again, and if she is happy the way she is now, she has every right to maintain this weight without being called "fat." I am not calling her "fat." I am just trying to illustrate that there is a difference between "not fat" and "ideal" or "healthy."
 

tlh

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
4,508
Date: 2/2/2009 2:57:59 PM
Author: NovemberBride
I have to disagree. I am 5''3'' and have almost an identical build to Jessica Simpson (not talking myself up here, it''s actually an incredibly hard body type to have, with curves any extra weight shows, as evidenced by this recent controversy). I''d bet anything that she weighs somewhere between 130-140. No way she weighs over 145. I currently weigh 132 (my heaviest ever) and look very similar to her in that picture and would look about the same if I put that horrible outfit on. My mom is my same height and weighs 170 and is much, much heavier than Jessica in that picture. People really underestimate how much more 5, 10 even 20 lbs shows on someone 5''3'' than someone 5''5'' or 5''8''. On the flip side, when I am working out my hardest I look pretty much like Jessica Simpson does at her best, and I have never weighed less than 112 as an adult. 15-20 lbs is the difference for me between a size 2 and a size 6.
AMEN TO THAT SISTER!!! I am also 5''3" and people always are like, OMG how much weight have you lost! They think I am kidding when I say 3 pounds. 3-5 pounds on me, is 10-15 pounds on someone a little taller. Life is just not fair.
38.gif


And no, I was not blessed with an ample bossom. So when I get a little chunky, it is right around my middle, and would definately fold over some "mom jeans"
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Date: 2/2/2009 3:10:48 PM
Author: tlh
Date: 2/2/2009 2:57:59 PM
Author: NovemberBride
I have to disagree. I am 5'3' and have almost an identical build to Jessica Simpson (not talking myself up here, it's actually an incredibly hard body type to have, with curves any extra weight shows, as evidenced by this recent controversy). I'd bet anything that she weighs somewhere between 130-140. No way she weighs over 145. I currently weigh 132 (my heaviest ever) and look very similar to her in that picture and would look about the same if I put that horrible outfit on. My mom is my same height and weighs 170 and is much, much heavier than Jessica in that picture. People really underestimate how much more 5, 10 even 20 lbs shows on someone 5'3' than someone 5'5' or 5'8'. On the flip side, when I am working out my hardest I look pretty much like Jessica Simpson does at her best, and I have never weighed less than 112 as an adult. 15-20 lbs is the difference for me between a size 2 and a size 6.
AMEN TO THAT SISTER!!! I am also 5'3' and people always are like, OMG how much weight have you lost! They think I am kidding when I say 3 pounds. 3-5 pounds on me, is 10-15 pounds on someone a little taller. Life is just not fair.
38.gif


And no, I was not blessed with an ample bossom. So when I get a little chunky, it is right around my middle, and would definately fold over some 'mom jeans'
I'm the same way. I lost about 4 pounds between my first and final fittings for my wedding gown (not for the wedding, and not on purpose), and the dress went from being a perfect snug fit to hanging off me. It makes a massive difference.

I'm not basing my guess of her weight on my perception of what 160-170 looks on anyone (since I quite obviously know that it looks different on EVERYONE), I'm basing it upon my knowledge of what her weight was compared to what she looks like now, as well as what her natural (comfortably maintained) weight looked like compared to what she looks like now.

We can split hairs about whether she looks heavy or thin based on our own thresholds for such things, but in the end it's meaningless. All that matters to her and her weight is what her healthy, comfortably maintained size is - which is not where she is now.


Also, you are all zeroing in on my weight guess, which is the least important (and inherently least accurate/important) of the things I've posted
2.gif
 

Lauren8211

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
11,073
Date: 2/2/2009 3:15:34 PM
Author: musey

Date: 2/2/2009 3:10:48 PM
Author: tlh

Date: 2/2/2009 2:57:59 PM
Author: NovemberBride
I have to disagree. I am 5''3'' and have almost an identical build to Jessica Simpson (not talking myself up here, it''s actually an incredibly hard body type to have, with curves any extra weight shows, as evidenced by this recent controversy). I''d bet anything that she weighs somewhere between 130-140. No way she weighs over 145. I currently weigh 132 (my heaviest ever) and look very similar to her in that picture and would look about the same if I put that horrible outfit on. My mom is my same height and weighs 170 and is much, much heavier than Jessica in that picture. People really underestimate how much more 5, 10 even 20 lbs shows on someone 5''3'' than someone 5''5'' or 5''8''. On the flip side, when I am working out my hardest I look pretty much like Jessica Simpson does at her best, and I have never weighed less than 112 as an adult. 15-20 lbs is the difference for me between a size 2 and a size 6.
AMEN TO THAT SISTER!!! I am also 5''3'' and people always are like, OMG how much weight have you lost! They think I am kidding when I say 3 pounds. 3-5 pounds on me, is 10-15 pounds on someone a little taller. Life is just not fair.
38.gif


And no, I was not blessed with an ample bossom. So when I get a little chunky, it is right around my middle, and would definately fold over some ''mom jeans''
I''m the same way. I lost about 4 pounds between my first and final fittings for my wedding gown (not for the wedding, and not on purpose), and the dress went from being a perfect snug fit to hanging off me. It makes a massive difference.

I''m not basing my guess of her weight on my perception of what 160-170 looks on anyone (since I quite obviously know that it looks different on EVERYONE), I''m basing it upon my knowledge of what her weight was compared to what she looks like now, as well as what her natural (comfortably maintained) weight looked like compared to what she looks like now.

We can split hairs about whether she looks heavy or thin based on our own thresholds for such things, but in the end it''s meaningless. All that matters to her and her weight is what her healthy, comfortably maintained size is - which is not where she is now.


Also, you are all zeroing in on my weight guess, which is the least important of the things I''ve posted
2.gif

LOL, You''re right. I seriously can''t fathom JS being 160, and I totally honed in on that comment. I wish I could just put her on a damn scale and get an answer.
3.gif



5 lbs is nothing to me! My weight fluctuates that much from day to day. It is the difference between pants are a hair too tight, or a hair too loose. 5 pounds would not drop me a size. 10 *might* but I honestly think it''d have to be 15 lbs before I dropped a size.

Also, IMO, ideal media size is not the same as ideal real life size (at least where I''m from). Most guys I know don''t dig super thin, a la Nicole Richie. Thank goodness, because even if I lost every ounce of fat on my body, I''d never wear a 0!
 

VegasAngel

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
1,533
Date: 2/2/2009 3:27:46 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 2/2/2009 3:15:34 PM
Author: musey


Date: 2/2/2009 3:10:48 PM
Author: tlh


Date: 2/2/2009 2:57:59 PM
Author: NovemberBride
I have to disagree. I am 5''3'' and have almost an identical build to Jessica Simpson (not talking myself up here, it''s actually an incredibly hard body type to have, with curves any extra weight shows, as evidenced by this recent controversy). I''d bet anything that she weighs somewhere between 130-140. No way she weighs over 145. I currently weigh 132 (my heaviest ever) and look very similar to her in that picture and would look about the same if I put that horrible outfit on. My mom is my same height and weighs 170 and is much, much heavier than Jessica in that picture. People really underestimate how much more 5, 10 even 20 lbs shows on someone 5''3'' than someone 5''5'' or 5''8''. On the flip side, when I am working out my hardest I look pretty much like Jessica Simpson does at her best, and I have never weighed less than 112 as an adult. 15-20 lbs is the difference for me between a size 2 and a size 6.
AMEN TO THAT SISTER!!! I am also 5''3'' and people always are like, OMG how much weight have you lost! They think I am kidding when I say 3 pounds. 3-5 pounds on me, is 10-15 pounds on someone a little taller. Life is just not fair.
38.gif


And no, I was not blessed with an ample bossom. So when I get a little chunky, it is right around my middle, and would definately fold over some ''mom jeans''
I''m the same way. I lost about 4 pounds between my first and final fittings for my wedding gown (not for the wedding, and not on purpose), and the dress went from being a perfect snug fit to hanging off me. It makes a massive difference.

I''m not basing my guess of her weight on my perception of what 160-170 looks on anyone (since I quite obviously know that it looks different on EVERYONE), I''m basing it upon my knowledge of what her weight was compared to what she looks like now, as well as what her natural (comfortably maintained) weight looked like compared to what she looks like now.

We can split hairs about whether she looks heavy or thin based on our own thresholds for such things, but in the end it''s meaningless. All that matters to her and her weight is what her healthy, comfortably maintained size is - which is not where she is now.


Also, you are all zeroing in on my weight guess, which is the least important of the things I''ve posted
2.gif

LOL, You''re right. I seriously can''t fathom JS being 160, and I totally honed in on that comment. I wish I could just put her on a damn scale and get an answer.
3.gif



5 lbs is nothing to me! My weight fluctuates that much from day to day. It is the difference between pants are a hair too tight, or a hair too loose. 5 pounds would not drop me a size. 10 *might* but I honestly think it''d have to be 15 lbs before I dropped a size.

Also, IMO, ideal media size is not the same as ideal real life size (at least where I''m from). Most guys I know don''t dig super thin, a la Nicole Richie. Thank goodness, because even if I lost every ounce of fat on my body, I''d never wear a 0!
I''d like to see her in person or weigh her too, lol
emembarrassed.gif
from the pictures & video of her I definitely dont think she is over weight, & those add some lbs.
 

Bia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
6,181
Date: 2/2/2009 3:15:34 PM
Author: musey

Date: 2/2/2009 3:10:48 PM
Author: tlh

Date: 2/2/2009 2:57:59 PM
Author: NovemberBride
I have to disagree. I am 5''3'' and have almost an identical build to Jessica Simpson (not talking myself up here, it''s actually an incredibly hard body type to have, with curves any extra weight shows, as evidenced by this recent controversy). I''d bet anything that she weighs somewhere between 130-140. No way she weighs over 145. I currently weigh 132 (my heaviest ever) and look very similar to her in that picture and would look about the same if I put that horrible outfit on. My mom is my same height and weighs 170 and is much, much heavier than Jessica in that picture. People really underestimate how much more 5, 10 even 20 lbs shows on someone 5''3'' than someone 5''5'' or 5''8''. On the flip side, when I am working out my hardest I look pretty much like Jessica Simpson does at her best, and I have never weighed less than 112 as an adult. 15-20 lbs is the difference for me between a size 2 and a size 6.
AMEN TO THAT SISTER!!! I am also 5''3'' and people always are like, OMG how much weight have you lost! They think I am kidding when I say 3 pounds. 3-5 pounds on me, is 10-15 pounds on someone a little taller. Life is just not fair.
38.gif


And no, I was not blessed with an ample bossom. So when I get a little chunky, it is right around my middle, and would definately fold over some ''mom jeans''
I''m the same way. I lost about 4 pounds between my first and final fittings for my wedding gown (not for the wedding, and not on purpose), and the dress went from being a perfect snug fit to hanging off me. It makes a massive difference.

I''m not basing my guess of her weight on my perception of what 160-170 looks on anyone (since I quite obviously know that it looks different on EVERYONE), I''m basing it upon my knowledge of what her weight was compared to what she looks like now, as well as what her natural (comfortably maintained) weight looked like compared to what she looks like now.

We can split hairs about whether she looks heavy or thin based on our own thresholds for such things, but in the end it''s meaningless. All that matters to her and her weight is what her healthy, comfortably maintained size is - which is not where she is now.


Also, you are all zeroing in on my weight guess, which is the least important (and inherently least accurate/important) of the things I''ve posted
2.gif
Who us?! NEVER!!!!
2.gif
3.gif
4.gif
5.gif
9.gif
10.gif
12.gif
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Date: 2/2/2009 3:27:46 PM
Author: elledizzy5
IMO, ideal media size is not the same as ideal real life size (at least where I''m from). Most guys I know don''t dig super thin, a la Nicole Richie. Thank goodness, because even if I lost every ounce of fat on my body, I''d never wear a 0!
That''s my point, though (well, one of them) - I honestly have not seen anyone in the media (but again, "the media" is SUCH a broad, broad term) cite Nicole Richie as "ideal." The people who are, again and again, chosen as "hottest" or "best beach bodies" etc. etc. are people who are quite healthy.

I really think that it''s how you look at it. There are plenty of pictures of way-too-thin celebs floating around, but are they being photographed because they''re thin, or because they''re celebs? If it''s the former (that they''re being photographed because they''re thin), is it really presented in a positive wow-her-body''s-perfect way? I say no, because I just don''t see that happening.

Getting a little more into it, those celebrities have the same body issues that everyone else has - they''re just amplified because they are inundated with pictures/video of themselves on a regular basis. If they would have had a tendency to be body-conscious anyway (as most people who make a living as performers are), then they''ll be the ones putting a great amount of effort into making themselves "look great" (whatever that means to them).

The ones that take it too far - IMO, that is not the media''s fault. When is the last time you saw a celebrity go from overweight to inhumanly anorexic after being referred to as "fat" by the media? I''ve honestly never seen that (obviously in the time I''ve been old enough to be aware of such things, so, in the past 8-10 years). I''ve seen plenty of celebs get criticized for their weight and go on to become more healthy (again, defining this as "eating well and exercising, taking care of one''s body"), and plenty of celebs who dropped to an inappropriately small size without any encouragement from "the media."
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Also, I should probably have disclaimed this from the beginning (I forget that people won't necessarily know/assume this of me):

I'm speaking from a purely detached standpoint. My weight/size/appearance (and that of other people) holds no kind of emotion to me, no feelings around the issue. It's a completely subjective issue for me, based only upon aesthetics and health. So if I seem like I'm being argumentative or taking things personally, please trust that I am not
1.gif
. It just happens to be a subject that I have a lot of experience with and interest in, since it's something that so strongly influences my own life.
 

VegasAngel

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
1,533
Date: 2/2/2009 3:39:25 PM
Author: musey


Date: 2/2/2009 3:27:46 PM
Author: elledizzy5
IMO, ideal media size is not the same as ideal real life size (at least where I'm from). Most guys I know don't dig super thin, a la Nicole Richie. Thank goodness, because even if I lost every ounce of fat on my body, I'd never wear a 0!
That's my point, though (well, one of them) - I honestly have not seen anyone in the media (but again, 'the media' is SUCH a broad, broad term) cite Nicole Richie as 'ideal.' The people who are, again and again, chosen as 'hottest' or 'best beach bodies' etc. etc. are people who are quite healthy.

I really think that it's how you look at it. There are plenty of pictures of way-too-thin celebs floating around, but are they being photographed because they're thin, or because they're celebs? If it's the former (that they're being photographed because they're thin), is it really presented in a positive wow-her-body's-perfect way? I say no, because I just don't see that happening.

Getting a little more into it, those celebrities have the same body issues that everyone else has - they're just amplified because they are inundated with pictures/video of themselves on a regular basis. If they would have had a tendency to be body-conscious anyway (as most people who make a living as performers are), then they'll be the ones putting a great amount of effort into making themselves 'look great' (whatever that means to them).

The ones that take it too far - IMO, that is not the media's fault. When is the last time you saw a celebrity go from overweight to inhumanly anorexic after being referred to as 'fat' by the media? I've honestly never seen that (obviously in the time I've been old enough to be aware of such things, so, in the past 8-10 years). I've seen plenty of celebs get criticized for their weight and go on to become more healthy (again, defining this as 'eating well and exercising, taking care of one's body'), and plenty of celebs who dropped to an inappropriately small size without any encouragement from 'the media.'
When my sister started acting & modeling her manager said that if she wanted to look & be "Professional" she would need to drop 10-15lbs cant remember which. She is/was already skinny. In her pictures & videos she looks small but ok in real life she looks
emotion-41.gif
 

tlh

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
4,508
Date: 2/2/2009 3:32:25 PM
Author: VegasAngel

Date: 2/2/2009 3:27:46 PM
Author: elledizzy5


Date: 2/2/2009 3:15:34 PM
Author: musey



Date: 2/2/2009 3:10:48 PM
Author: tlh



Date: 2/2/2009 2:57:59 PM
Author: NovemberBride
I have to disagree. I am 5''3'' and have almost an identical build to Jessica Simpson (not talking myself up here, it''s actually an incredibly hard body type to have, with curves any extra weight shows, as evidenced by this recent controversy). I''d bet anything that she weighs somewhere between 130-140. No way she weighs over 145. I currently weigh 132 (my heaviest ever) and look very similar to her in that picture and would look about the same if I put that horrible outfit on. My mom is my same height and weighs 170 and is much, much heavier than Jessica in that picture. People really underestimate how much more 5, 10 even 20 lbs shows on someone 5''3'' than someone 5''5'' or 5''8''. On the flip side, when I am working out my hardest I look pretty much like Jessica Simpson does at her best, and I have never weighed less than 112 as an adult. 15-20 lbs is the difference for me between a size 2 and a size 6.
AMEN TO THAT SISTER!!! I am also 5''3'' and people always are like, OMG how much weight have you lost! They think I am kidding when I say 3 pounds. 3-5 pounds on me, is 10-15 pounds on someone a little taller. Life is just not fair.
38.gif


And no, I was not blessed with an ample bossom. So when I get a little chunky, it is right around my middle, and would definately fold over some ''mom jeans''
I''m the same way. I lost about 4 pounds between my first and final fittings for my wedding gown (not for the wedding, and not on purpose), and the dress went from being a perfect snug fit to hanging off me. It makes a massive difference.

I''m not basing my guess of her weight on my perception of what 160-170 looks on anyone (since I quite obviously know that it looks different on EVERYONE), I''m basing it upon my knowledge of what her weight was compared to what she looks like now, as well as what her natural (comfortably maintained) weight looked like compared to what she looks like now.

We can split hairs about whether she looks heavy or thin based on our own thresholds for such things, but in the end it''s meaningless. All that matters to her and her weight is what her healthy, comfortably maintained size is - which is not where she is now.


Also, you are all zeroing in on my weight guess, which is the least important of the things I''ve posted
2.gif

LOL, You''re right. I seriously can''t fathom JS being 160, and I totally honed in on that comment. I wish I could just put her on a damn scale and get an answer.
3.gif



5 lbs is nothing to me! My weight fluctuates that much from day to day. It is the difference between pants are a hair too tight, or a hair too loose. 5 pounds would not drop me a size. 10 *might* but I honestly think it''d have to be 15 lbs before I dropped a size.

Also, IMO, ideal media size is not the same as ideal real life size (at least where I''m from). Most guys I know don''t dig super thin, a la Nicole Richie. Thank goodness, because even if I lost every ounce of fat on my body, I''d never wear a 0!
I''d like to see her in person or weigh her too, lol
emembarrassed.gif
from the pictures & video of her I definitely dont think she is over weight, & those add some lbs.
If any of you ladies watch the Biggest Loser, Jillian Michaels, the mega hot female trainer on the show... soo buff! Is 5''3" and 120 pounds.
Nichole Richie is reported at 5''1" and at her dealthiest 85 pounds (when she was arrested a couple years ago.) she supposedly weighed 120 pounds during season one of A simple life when everyone called her fat.
Jessica Simpson during her video These Boots reportedly weighed only 112 pounds at 5''3"... which based on her body I would vote was unnatural for her body weight... but because of her breasts, it was deemed- OK. Linday Lohan is 5''5" and has had her weight plumet also. Both of these ladies shrunk their size, and their ample bossom also depleted a little. They are fighting their natural weights, because of a hollywood image.
Do I think she looks unhealthy? No. I think it was a poor outfit choice, and maybe a media blitz. But does anyone want to have everyone calling them a fatso? Probably not... not even from the media attention that they want. This was a show in Texas, not a trip to the Vine in Hollywood. She doesnt have an album she''s dropping a movie she''s promoting, and I doubt she wants this negative attention esp when she seems so happy to be w/ the Dallas Cowboys (last I checked football was big in TX) quarterback.
I feel bad for her. I have seen other angles that don''t look as bad. I mean I think it was a chilli cook off, I dont think she thought she''d get this kind of press.
I think hollywood is wrong to srutinize her so closely. I would honestly put her weight at 127-140. I think the high waisted pants just sort of exaggerate it. I would say she''s gained a little bit of weight because, well her face is just fuller... that also happens when you are preggers... but most preggo people dont wear super tight tops... and I doubt she is, seeing how she was the poster child for being a virgin until she was married. Umm... so what was my point???
Oh yeah, hollywood and the paparazzos are evil. I''d hate to be judged right after the hollidays too. Jessica... HUGS!
35.gif
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
Date: 1/31/2009 4:32:50 PM
Author: merrymunky
I am a UK size 26 on bottom and anywhere from a 20=26 on top.
Hey ... at least you have Evans over there! Have you checked out this fun blog? I love to see what she puts together & brush up on French.
3.gif
 

Tacori E-ring

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
20,041
I am not a JS fan at all and think she is famous based on her looks not her talent but even this seems unfair. The outfit WAS horrible, we all agree on that! Plus she probably has gained a few pounds but it is sad the media is so obsessed with this "news."
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Date: 2/2/2009 3:49:37 PM
Author: VegasAngel
Date: 2/2/2009 3:39:25 PM
Author: musey
When is the last time you saw a celebrity go from overweight to inhumanly anorexic after being referred to as 'fat' by the media? I've honestly never seen that (obviously in the time I've been old enough to be aware of such things, so, in the past 8-10 years). I've seen plenty of celebs get criticized for their weight and go on to become more healthy (again, defining this as 'eating well and exercising, taking care of one's body'), and plenty of celebs who dropped to an inappropriately small size without any encouragement from 'the media.'
When my sister started acting & modeling her manager said that if she wanted to look & be 'Professional' she would need to drop 10-15lbs cant remember which. She is/was already skinny. In her pictures & videos she looks small but ok in real life she looks
emotion-41.gif
Vegas, that is the industry, not the media
2.gif


I'm told constantly that I "need" to do this that or the other thing in order to be "successful." I have a very detached and objective view on my own body, so I can take them seriously or not based upon what I know about myself objectively, as well as what I know about others whose careers I respect.

The thing is, everything a casting director, agent, etc. tells you is simply their own opinion (which is what they will admit themselves, anyway). I've been told that I need to lose ~10 lbs. and that I need to gain 5, all within the same week. Any industry "professional" (and I use that term VERY loosely) can have a certain image of what actors/models/etc. needs to look like in order to be marketable, but that has little to nothing to do with the rest of the industry.

Just look at Scarlett Johansson, she is an easy example. She has never been unhealthily thin in her career. I'm sure she got "advice" daily in her early days about how she "should" lose weight in order to find success. She is a size 6 (yes, 6), and no one calls her "fat." If she is finding success with a size 6 figure, then I can (could, if I were a 6), too. If Kate Winslet can find success as an 8, so can I. If that's what's healthy for me. By the same token, my size 00 friend shouldn't be criticized for being too thin just because she's a size 00. That is her healthy weight. It would look like death on me, if it were possible (it's definitely NOT with my frame), but it looks healthy and vibrant on her.


ETA: Every case is different, but I do still maintain that if celebrities are dropping to an unhealthy weight, it is not due to media pressure. They are picked apart all over the place, but for every 1 person they have calling them "fat" they have 100 others telling them they look great, including the people they are closest to (whether that be the ones they work with or friends/family), and the 1 person calling them fat is usually over on theSuperficial
20.gif
(ie. not a prominent force in their lives). If they're dropping weight, it's to do with their own insecurities amplified by random bloggers and their followings, not Entertainment Tonight and the Elike. Overall, this industry pushes for healthy beauty, not bony limbs. That fad has passed.
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
Date: 2/2/2009 3:08:26 PM
Author: musey
To the whole pictures vs. real life and weight on one vs. weight on another issue... I have seen her in-person not too long ago (w/in the past month) and to my eye, no, she did not look healthy.
With all due respect, and you know I heart you Musey ... you are looking at her with "Hollywood" eyes. Your perceptions of "healthy" and "normal" etc are VERY skewed (believe it or not) by being in the biz & by living where you do. Most of the media has that same bias. The other 99.5% of the country''s residents would likely have a more lenient definition of "healthy".

I can''t imagine what you think of Christina Hendricks?

madmen1.jpg
 

VegasAngel

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
1,533
I dont agree with you that media doesnt play a part Musey, why do they even bother bringing up weight? I consider Rag Mags, Entertainment Tonight etc.. all media.
 

musey

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
11,242
Date: 2/2/2009 4:07:56 PM
Author: decodelighted
Date: 2/2/2009 3:08:26 PM
Author: musey
To the whole pictures vs. real life and weight on one vs. weight on another issue... I have seen her in-person not too long ago (w/in the past month) and to my eye, no, she did not look healthy.
With all due respect, and you know I heart you Musey ... you are looking at her with 'Hollywood' eyes. Your perceptions of 'healthy' and 'normal' etc are VERY skewed (believe it or not) by being in the biz & by living where you do. Most of the media has that same bias. The other 99.5% of the country's residents would likely have a more lenient definition of 'healthy'.
Of course I do, because those are the only "eyes" I have
2.gif
But that doesn't mean that it can't be an accurate view in terms of medical health, nutrition and wellness. I cant imagine that anyone would say that the "lenient" definition of healthy is the best definition, since we are one of (if not THE) most unhealthy countries in the world when it comes to nutrition and exercise.

But as I said, my perceptions of "healthy" and "normal" are very VERY different. To me, "healthy" means someone who obviously eats very well and takes care of their bodies by getting more than the recommended (read: minimal) exercise. Someone taking very good care of themselves. "Healthy" means keeping one's weight/body fat (I depend much more on the latter) within the recommended range. "Healthy" also means, to me, that one needn't change a thing in the eyes of reasonable health professionals (nutritionists, personal trainers, etc.) unless they simply had a desire to. Jessica, were she to go to a trainer/nutritionist as a normal person (not a celeb), would be put on a program to getting healthy. They wouldn't say "looks great - don't change a thing!" and send her on her merry way.

"Normal," to me, means "average." And as we all know, "average" does not mean "healthy" in this country. I may be average/normal at 155 lbs., but I am absolutely hot "healthy" at that weight (by my own standards of healthy).

I can't imagine what you think of Christina Hendricks?
I don't know what she used to look like vs. what she looks like now, so I don't really have an opinion (since, like I was saying, my only concern with Jessica is that I know what "healthy" looks like on her and this isn't it). Out of context, though, Christina Hendricks looks lots healthier to me than Jessica does. She's plenty proportional and shapely, so I can't imagine a single person realistically deeming her "fat." Whether she's healthy or not? I don't know, I don't know her weight history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
    Did You See January 2023's Jewels Of The Weeks?
    Did You See January 2023's Jewels Of The Weeks? - 01/28
    Did You See January 2023's Throwback Thursdays?
    Did You See January 2023's Throwback Thursdays? - 01/25
    Top 5 Jewelry Trends For 2023
    Top 5 Jewelry Trends For 2023 - 01/22
Top