Chocolat Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) I'm glad your not my doctor. You should refrain from giving people advice like this over the internet. Some one may actually follow it. Advising someone to eat 1282 calories a day is just insane! You may want to read my post as well as the one to which I was replying again. OP stated she would have to eat 1000 calories a day in order to lose weight. I replied that, at the very least, she would need to eat ~1300 calories a day, which is not so little for a totally sedentary woman of 5'. My recommendation would be to move out of sedentary category, which would bump maintenance calories up and allow weight loss to occur on a consumption of ~1500 or so. I'm sorry, but there's no angle manipulation in the picture in the link I posted. That's close-to straight on in the mirror of a dressing room. You can see her ENTIRE figure, totally unlike the link of FB/MySpace angle-manipulation you posted. Here's a truly straight-on photo of me at 5'4'' and 155-ish and 22-23% bodyfat (considered "fit"): http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=m97tya&s=7 Yes, there is angle manipulation in the link to the picture you posted. It's taken from above, which totally changes the view of the mid-section and thighs. She wouldn't have taken the picture at that weird angle unless it was to her advantage. As for the pic of you, I have no idea. Are you the one on the left? I am guessing this based on the height. There's no way to tell what your shape is since your top is loose and covers your waist and hips. But really, even if I had an opinion and was willing to share it, who cares? You have to be happy with you and I have to be happy with me. As we've seen in countless threads, there are many different definitions of attractive (or "good body"); there's no universal standard. If you're happy with what you see in the mirror naked, that's all that matters. It is difficult to believe any online photos these days. What with Photoshop and the distorted angles that your attached article pointed out. The subject is 4 inches taller than I, and 62 pounds heavier. It does indeed make it hard to believe the photograph is completely representative of her in real life. Why not simply take a photograph head on? Bingo. Edited July 25, 2011 by Chocolat Link to post Share on other sites
tman666 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 As we know, Tman, BMI really, honestly, doesn't mean much when determining whether you're healthy and fit. Bodyfat % is what counts. Here's a perfect demonstration: http://www.thehealthrabbit.com/714049934/just-coz-youre-skinny-doesnt-mean-youre-healthy/ Oh sweet Jesus... That was my original point: the meaning behind BMI is a purely correlative result (that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone). While we're at it, however, a low bodyfat percentage doesn't necessarily prove health/fitness either. Of course, people with lower bodyfat percentages tend to be healthier and more fit, but again, that's a correlation. As I'm sure you've heard before, correlation does not equal causation. Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolat Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Oh sweet Jesus... That was my original point: the meaning behind BMI is a purely correlative result (that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone). While we're at it, however, a low bodyfat percentage doesn't necessarily prove health/fitness either. Of course, people with lower bodyfat percentages tend to be healthier and more fit, but again, that's a correlation. As I'm sure you've heard before, correlation does not equal causation. Bingo again. Anorexics have very little bodyfat. I really think the best measure is the waist-to-hip ratio, which looks at where fat is clustered. Granted, this is not a perfect tool, but it's more accurate than BMI or BF, imo. Or, rather, it has greater predictive value. Link to post Share on other sites
bslchump Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 You consider that waist and those thighs CHUBBY? Who's your ideal? A waif? I'm sorry, but there's no angle manipulation in the picture in the link I posted. That's close-to straight on in the mirror of a dressing room. You can see her ENTIRE figure, totally unlike the link of FB/MySpace angle-manipulation you posted. Here's a truly straight-on photo of me at 5'4'' and 155-ish and 22-23% bodyfat (considered "fit"): http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=m97tya&s=7 I'm not Ms. Olympia (not by a LONG shot), but my legs are pretty damn solid. My first thought was, "She's hot." Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 She's actually pretty chubby. She's just using the camera at an angle that distorts her mid-section and makes it appear slim; look at the arms. There's been lots written about this angle: http://www.officialdatingresource.com/beware-the-dreaded-myspace-angles-pics/ 5'4" and 162 pounds -- unless she is Ms. Olympia -- is overweight. I find it really sad that a woman is propagating that link. 'In an attempt to rope in unsuspecting victims'? 'Larger than expected dinner date bill'? 'You need more than sake to be able to seal this deal'? While in some instances it really does seem that the girl is doing their darndest to hide her weight, in others the photographer was really just taking the worst possible shot of a girl in order to insult her. I mean, the rolled-back eyes, really? Put Megan Fox in that pose with that fluorescent lighting and she'll look like a zombie too. He has made them out to sound like manipulative bitches, when all they are really doing is trying to make themselves look the best they can in the photo. That is, after all, what makeup and the entire fashion industry is about. What is it about human nature that makes us think it's okay to take photos of random strangers and insult them with frat-boy 'humor'? Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolat Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I find it really sad that a woman is propagating that link. 'In an attempt to rope in unsuspecting victims'? 'Larger than expected dinner date bill'? 'You need more than sake to be able to seal this deal'? While in some instances it really does seem that the girl is doing their darndest to hide her weight, in others the photographer was really just taking the worst possible shot of a girl in order to insult her. I mean, the rolled-back eyes, really? Put Megan Fox in that pose with that fluorescent lighting and she'll look like a zombie too. He has made them out to sound like manipulative bitches, when all they are really doing is trying to make themselves look the best they can in the photo. That is, after all, what makeup and the entire fashion industry is about. What is it about human nature that makes us think it's okay to take photos of random strangers and insult them with frat-boy 'humor'? Hi Elswyth, I don't like the tone of the article, nor is it something I would normally share. However, a picture referenced in this thread uses the same "angle trick" as the one mentioned in the article, hence, my post. Sorry for any offense it caused you. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Bingo again. Anorexics have very little bodyfat. I really think the best measure is the waist-to-hip ratio, which looks at where fat is clustered. Granted, this is not a perfect tool, but it's more accurate than BMI or BF, imo. Or, rather, it has greater predictive value. Still wrong. When I had virtually no body fat (for a woman, I was at like 12%) my ratio was still over .8 - that's because I have NO hips. I'm straight up and down, and gain inches equally in my hips and belly, so my ratio remains the same, above .8. It's my natural body shape. Most men are apple-shaped as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolat Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Still wrong. When I had virtually no body fat (for a woman, I was at like 12%) my ratio was still over .8 - that's because I have NO hips. I'm straight up and down, and gain inches equally in my hips and belly, so my ratio remains the same, above .8. It's my natural body shape. Most men are apple-shaped as well. You seem to be personalizing this issue. It's not about you. The scientific support for waist-to-hip as a predictor of heart health is well-established. The issue is that "apples" tend to have more visceral fat than "pears" (who have more subcutaneous fat), even at the same bodyfat %. Overall, in fact, apples have greater heart health risks than pears. Of course, we can all point to examples of healthy "apples" who, through diet and lifestyle, have improved their risk, as well as to examples of less-healthy "pears," who, also through diet and lifestyle, have increased theirs. But this does not negate the overall health finding. Edited July 26, 2011 by Chocolat Link to post Share on other sites
josie54 Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 You seem to be personalizing this issue. It's not about you. The scientific support for waist-to-hip as a predictor of heart health is well-established. The issue is that "apples" tend to have more visceral fat than "pears" (who have more subcutaneous fat), even at the same bodyfat %. Overall, in fact, apples have greater heart health risks than pears. Of course, we can all point to examples of healthy "apples" who, through diet and lifestyle, have improved their risk, as well as to examples of less-healthy "pears," who, also through diet and lifestyle, have increased theirs. But this does not negate the overall health finding. It's also true that the negative health effects are for women whose waist circumference is greater than 35". The finding is simply a warning for those who tend to gain weight in their in their abdomens--we need to keep it in check, that's all. There is nothing inherently less healthy about being "apple" shaped if we keep our weight at healthy levels and our waists well under that 35" mark. However, this is all far afield from the OP's original question. Is she "fat"? At verhrzn's given height, weight, and measurements, the answer is still "no." Verhrzn, if you're still there (!), you are talking about your perception of yourself, rather than the reality. You have a certain body type, just like you have a certain color of hair and eyes. Just stay healthy, and learn to love who you are--and play up your best features, whether it's your eyes, your arms, your legs, etc. Don't get caught up in some arbitrary ideal of beauty! True beauty is 90% attitude and 10% everything else. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Here's a truly straight-on photo of me at 5'4'' and 155-ish and 22-23% bodyfat (considered "fit"): http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=m97tya&s=7 why is your face all black? Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolat Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 It's also true that the negative health effects are for women whose waist circumference is greater than 35". The finding is simply a warning for those who tend to gain weight in their in their abdomens--we need to keep it in check, that's all. There is nothing inherently less healthy about being "apple" shaped if we keep our weight at healthy levels and our waists well under that 35" mark. It's true that a waist over 35" is an issue, but the ratio is also important, even with smaller waist sizes. Apples tend to be predisposed to storing visceral fat. Being 15 pounds overweight is of greater health consequence to an apple than to a pear, for instance. We are all predisposed to something... Don't get caught up in some arbitrary ideal of beauty! True beauty is 90% attitude and 10% everything else. Amen! There are so many different ways to be beautiful. The most important thing is to be comfortable in your own skin. A woman who is confident radiates beauty. And there is simply no substitute for inner beauty, imo. Link to post Share on other sites
thehead Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 You seem to be personalizing this issue. It's not about you. The scientific support for waist-to-hip as a predictor of heart health is well-established. The issue is that "apples" tend to have more visceral fat than "pears" (who have more subcutaneous fat), even at the same bodyfat %. Overall, in fact, apples have greater heart health risks than pears. Of course, we can all point to examples of healthy "apples" who, through diet and lifestyle, have improved their risk, as well as to examples of less-healthy "pears," who, also through diet and lifestyle, have increased theirs. But this does not negate the overall health finding. You know your stuff Chocolat. It's good to have some knowledgeable people like you and tman on the board. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts