Am I the only one who thinks Kate Middleton is anorexic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She may not be Anorexic, but she is more than likely underweight, which is not healthy.

That's debatable. Sever studies indicate underweight people live longer than average sized.

You have it backwards...most studies show that Overweight people live longer than normal people.

Naah. Overwhelmingly low caloric intake is associated with longevity. However, where this gets messed up is when the person is ill and the nutrition declines- having some weight improves their longevity.

Low caloric intake has nothing to do with Overweight/underweight, that is a specialized diet. Get your studies straight and stop twisting the truth because there are people that are "Underweight" that do not follow that diet in anyway whatever. Link me a study that shows that underweight people live longer, because the most recent research shows that overweight outlive their lighter counterparts. You can argue that it doesn't make sense till you are blue in the face, but the data is what it is.

+1

not the PP, but here's some interesting info:


link: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=697876


In the United States, the weight associated with the greatest longevity tends to be below the average weight of the population under consideration, if such weights are not associated with a history of significant medical impairment. Overweight persons tend to die sooner than average-weight persons, especially those who are overweight at younger ages. The effect of being overweight on mortality is delayed and may not be seen in short-term studies. Cigarette smoking is a potential confounder of the relationship between obesity and mortality. Studies on body weight, morbidity, and mortality must be interpreted with careful attention to the definitions of obesity or relative weight used, preexisting morbid conditions, the length of follow-up, and confounders in the analysis. The terminology of body weight standards should be defined more precisely and cited appropriately. An appropriate database relating body weight by sex, age, and possibly frame size to morbidity and mortality should be developed to permit the preparation of reference tables for defining the desirable range of body weight based on morbidity and mortality statistics.







http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=621903

Results: All-cause mortality was significantly increased in obese men (BMI, ?30 kg/m2; RR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.0) and in underweight men (BMI, <18.5 kg/m2; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.9) but not in women. The increased risk in underweight men could be attributed to deaths within the first 5 years of follow-up and to lung cancer mortality among smokers. Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality was about 3-fold higher among obese men and women. About 21% and 28% of CHD mortality in men and women, respectively, could be attributed to being overweight (BMI, ?25 kg/m2). The RR (but not the absolute risk) for CHD among obese men was still significant after adjustment for the presence of smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes mellitus at baseline, and it was more pronounced for CHD among nonsmokers than among smokers (RR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.3-21.7; and RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7, respectively).


Here's another article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016882279090150R
Severely underweight and overweight people do not live longer.

Those "studies" (I wouldn't classify assessment of a life insurance cohort a study) are from 1984, 1996 an 1990. I think the point of the more recent studies is that our understanding of the correlation between mortality and weight has not been accurate -- have you been able to find anything that addresses that?

The age of the study does not invalidate its results. If the experiment is well designed then the results are relevant. What makes a study well designed? Factors like whether it's single variable, uses large sample size, etc

Can you lost the links to the new studies you mention? I'm open minded; I'm not the pp who made the earlier claim. I looked it up as the bickering made me curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She may not be Anorexic, but she is more than likely underweight, which is not healthy.

That's debatable. Sever studies indicate underweight people live longer than average sized.

You have it backwards...most studies show that Overweight people live longer than normal people.

Naah. Overwhelmingly low caloric intake is associated with longevity. However, where this gets messed up is when the person is ill and the nutrition declines- having some weight improves their longevity.

Low caloric intake has nothing to do with Overweight/underweight, that is a specialized diet. Get your studies straight and stop twisting the truth because there are people that are "Underweight" that do not follow that diet in anyway whatever. Link me a study that shows that underweight people live longer, because the most recent research shows that overweight outlive their lighter counterparts. You can argue that it doesn't make sense till you are blue in the face, but the data is what it is.

+1

not the PP, but here's some interesting info:


link: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=697876


In the United States, the weight associated with the greatest longevity tends to be below the average weight of the population under consideration, if such weights are not associated with a history of significant medical impairment. Overweight persons tend to die sooner than average-weight persons, especially those who are overweight at younger ages. The effect of being overweight on mortality is delayed and may not be seen in short-term studies. Cigarette smoking is a potential confounder of the relationship between obesity and mortality. Studies on body weight, morbidity, and mortality must be interpreted with careful attention to the definitions of obesity or relative weight used, preexisting morbid conditions, the length of follow-up, and confounders in the analysis. The terminology of body weight standards should be defined more precisely and cited appropriately. An appropriate database relating body weight by sex, age, and possibly frame size to morbidity and mortality should be developed to permit the preparation of reference tables for defining the desirable range of body weight based on morbidity and mortality statistics.







http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=621903

Results: All-cause mortality was significantly increased in obese men (BMI, ?30 kg/m2; RR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.0) and in underweight men (BMI, <18.5 kg/m2; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.9) but not in women. The increased risk in underweight men could be attributed to deaths within the first 5 years of follow-up and to lung cancer mortality among smokers. Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality was about 3-fold higher among obese men and women. About 21% and 28% of CHD mortality in men and women, respectively, could be attributed to being overweight (BMI, ?25 kg/m2). The RR (but not the absolute risk) for CHD among obese men was still significant after adjustment for the presence of smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes mellitus at baseline, and it was more pronounced for CHD among nonsmokers than among smokers (RR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.3-21.7; and RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7, respectively).


Here's another article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016882279090150R
Severely underweight and overweight people do not live longer.

Both of the articles you linked are very outdated.... 1984 for the first one? 1996 for the second. Both outdated and not in alignment with what much more recent research is showing. The study showing that overweight people live longer was published in something like 2009 I believe (there is a link in this thread somewhere). We have come along way in the ~30 years since that 1984 article came out.

I don't think anyone will accept the 1984 article anymore given the new evidence we have today. And the second article, asides from being 20 years old, is a study on obese people which is clinically different than the "overweight" people we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She may not be Anorexic, but she is more than likely underweight, which is not healthy.

That's debatable. Sever studies indicate underweight people live longer than average sized.

You have it backwards...most studies show that Overweight people live longer than normal people.

Naah. Overwhelmingly low caloric intake is associated with longevity. However, where this gets messed up is when the person is ill and the nutrition declines- having some weight improves their longevity.

Low caloric intake has nothing to do with Overweight/underweight, that is a specialized diet. Get your studies straight and stop twisting the truth because there are people that are "Underweight" that do not follow that diet in anyway whatever. Link me a study that shows that underweight people live longer, because the most recent research shows that overweight outlive their lighter counterparts. You can argue that it doesn't make sense till you are blue in the face, but the data is what it is.

+1

not the PP, but here's some interesting info:


link: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=697876


In the United States, the weight associated with the greatest longevity tends to be below the average weight of the population under consideration, if such weights are not associated with a history of significant medical impairment. Overweight persons tend to die sooner than average-weight persons, especially those who are overweight at younger ages. The effect of being overweight on mortality is delayed and may not be seen in short-term studies. Cigarette smoking is a potential confounder of the relationship between obesity and mortality. Studies on body weight, morbidity, and mortality must be interpreted with careful attention to the definitions of obesity or relative weight used, preexisting morbid conditions, the length of follow-up, and confounders in the analysis. The terminology of body weight standards should be defined more precisely and cited appropriately. An appropriate database relating body weight by sex, age, and possibly frame size to morbidity and mortality should be developed to permit the preparation of reference tables for defining the desirable range of body weight based on morbidity and mortality statistics.







http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=621903

Results: All-cause mortality was significantly increased in obese men (BMI, ?30 kg/m2; RR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.0) and in underweight men (BMI, <18.5 kg/m2; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.9) but not in women. The increased risk in underweight men could be attributed to deaths within the first 5 years of follow-up and to lung cancer mortality among smokers. Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality was about 3-fold higher among obese men and women. About 21% and 28% of CHD mortality in men and women, respectively, could be attributed to being overweight (BMI, ?25 kg/m2). The RR (but not the absolute risk) for CHD among obese men was still significant after adjustment for the presence of smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes mellitus at baseline, and it was more pronounced for CHD among nonsmokers than among smokers (RR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.3-21.7; and RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7, respectively).


Here's another article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016882279090150R
Severely underweight and overweight people do not live longer.

Those "studies" (I wouldn't classify assessment of a life insurance cohort a study) are from 1984, 1996 an 1990. I think the point of the more recent studies is that our understanding of the correlation between mortality and weight has not been accurate -- have you been able to find anything that addresses that?

The age of the study does not invalidate its results. If the experiment is well designed then the results are relevant. What makes a study well designed? Factors like whether it's single variable, uses large sample size, etc

Can you lost the links to the new studies you mention? I'm open minded; I'm not the pp who made the earlier claim. I looked it up as the bickering made me curious.

The fact that all the new studies contradict it's results does invalidate its results however....Someone posted it earlier in this thread, or you could probably bring it up pretty quick in google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She may not be Anorexic, but she is more than likely underweight, which is not healthy.

That's debatable. Sever studies indicate underweight people live longer than average sized.

You have it backwards...most studies show that Overweight people live longer than normal people.

Naah. Overwhelmingly low caloric intake is associated with longevity. However, where this gets messed up is when the person is ill and the nutrition declines- having some weight improves their longevity.

Low caloric intake has nothing to do with Overweight/underweight, that is a specialized diet. Get your studies straight and stop twisting the truth because there are people that are "Underweight" that do not follow that diet in anyway whatever. Link me a study that shows that underweight people live longer, because the most recent research shows that overweight outlive their lighter counterparts. You can argue that it doesn't make sense till you are blue in the face, but the data is what it is.

+1

not the PP, but here's some interesting info:


link: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=697876


In the United States, the weight associated with the greatest longevity tends to be below the average weight of the population under consideration, if such weights are not associated with a history of significant medical impairment. Overweight persons tend to die sooner than average-weight persons, especially those who are overweight at younger ages. The effect of being overweight on mortality is delayed and may not be seen in short-term studies. Cigarette smoking is a potential confounder of the relationship between obesity and mortality. Studies on body weight, morbidity, and mortality must be interpreted with careful attention to the definitions of obesity or relative weight used, preexisting morbid conditions, the length of follow-up, and confounders in the analysis. The terminology of body weight standards should be defined more precisely and cited appropriately. An appropriate database relating body weight by sex, age, and possibly frame size to morbidity and mortality should be developed to permit the preparation of reference tables for defining the desirable range of body weight based on morbidity and mortality statistics.







http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=621903

Results: All-cause mortality was significantly increased in obese men (BMI, ?30 kg/m2; RR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.0) and in underweight men (BMI, <18.5 kg/m2; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.9) but not in women. The increased risk in underweight men could be attributed to deaths within the first 5 years of follow-up and to lung cancer mortality among smokers. Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality was about 3-fold higher among obese men and women. About 21% and 28% of CHD mortality in men and women, respectively, could be attributed to being overweight (BMI, ?25 kg/m2). The RR (but not the absolute risk) for CHD among obese men was still significant after adjustment for the presence of smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes mellitus at baseline, and it was more pronounced for CHD among nonsmokers than among smokers (RR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.3-21.7; and RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7, respectively).


Here's another article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016882279090150R
Severely underweight and overweight people do not live longer.

Those "studies" (I wouldn't classify assessment of a life insurance cohort a study) are from 1984, 1996 an 1990. I think the point of the more recent studies is that our understanding of the correlation between mortality and weight has not been accurate -- have you been able to find anything that addresses that?

The age of the study does not invalidate its results. If the experiment is well designed then the results are relevant. What makes a study well designed? Factors like whether it's single variable, uses large sample size, etc

Can you lost the links to the new studies you mention? I'm open minded; I'm not the pp who made the earlier claim. I looked it up as the bickering made me curious.

The fact that all the new studies contradict it's results does invalidate its results however....Someone posted it earlier in this thread, or you could probably bring it up pretty quick in google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's tiny but doesn't strike me as anorexic at all.

I wonder if all of those describing Kate as anorexic have ever known someone who truly is.

I think it's wishful thinking on their part, trying to justify their own fatness.

As a guy, I find her body very unappealing. There is nothing seductive about a bony frame. Just the typical stereotype reinforced by media/models that underweight = sexy. I don't know any doctors in my field that would look at her and say "that is a healthy weight". My wife used to look like that and her PC physician kept urging her to put on 5-10 pounds. People (like yourself) need to stop perpetuating this fantasy that no fat = healthy.

Its your prerogative to find her boy unappealing. I personally think fat people and chubby people are uneappealing, but to each their own.

OTOH, Kate Middleton's body fat probably hovers around 15%, which is not unhealthy.

http://www.ruled.me/visually-estimate-body-fat-percentage/

The recommended range of body fat for woman that are athletes is ~ 15-25%. Kate is not an athlete or muscular she is just skinny, and for non athletes the normal range of fat is ~ 25-30%. I have no idea where you got the 15% is not unhealthy from, especially in someone that is not athletic, considering that below ~13% woman start to have medical complications. Low 20's is more what someone should aim for unless they are training/require it for other reasons.

This page has some good information on it. http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

"A research paper by Gallagher et. al. in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2000) came to the conclusion that certain low body fat ranges are “underfat”, which implies “unhealthy”. According to this research paper, men who are between 20-40 years old with under 8% body fat are considered “underfat”, whereas a “healthy” range is described as between 8-19%. For women in this same age group, any level under 21% is “underfat” and 21-33% is considered “healthy”."


I checked several sources they all recommend somewhere in the range of 20-30% for a healthy woman, not the 15 you suggested. The perpetuation of unhealthy stereotypes continues.

Essential body fat on a male is 3-5%; for a female it's 8-12%.

Sure, Kate Middleton isn't an Olympic athlete, but you can probably argue that she eats/works out like an athlete to maintain her shape and public image.

By all measures, she appears healthy. She birthed 2 beautiful children, she skis and scuba dives, she plays tennis, she hikes, etc.

She just happens to be skinny, which does not mean at all that she's unhealthy.

I have about 20% body fat, I train a lot, and I watch my diet 80% of the time. I also work 40 hours a week and have an ungodly commute. Given the resources Kate has, I know I can go to 15% body fat without any issues.

8% body fat? On a woman? WHAT are you talking about? A woman would be literally dead with that body fat percentage.

You need to relearn your stats on healthiness levels, lady. Damn.

Are you stupid?? Gymnasts and body builders have this body fat percentage. I'm not arguing it's healthy long term but your assertion is flat out wrong.

[Anonymous]

Whoops..double posted that somehow. Apologies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She may not be Anorexic, but she is more than likely underweight, which is not healthy.

That's debatable. Sever studies indicate underweight people live longer than average sized.

You have it backwards...most studies show that Overweight people live longer than normal people.

Naah. Overwhelmingly low caloric intake is associated with longevity. However, where this gets messed up is when the person is ill and the nutrition declines- having some weight improves their longevity.

Low caloric intake has nothing to do with Overweight/underweight, that is a specialized diet. Get your studies straight and stop twisting the truth because there are people that are "Underweight" that do not follow that diet in anyway whatever. Link me a study that shows that underweight people live longer, because the most recent research shows that overweight outlive their lighter counterparts. You can argue that it doesn't make sense till you are blue in the face, but the data is what it is.

+1

not the PP, but here's some interesting info:


link: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=697876


In the United States, the weight associated with the greatest longevity tends to be below the average weight of the population under consideration, if such weights are not associated with a history of significant medical impairment. Overweight persons tend to die sooner than average-weight persons, especially those who are overweight at younger ages. The effect of being overweight on mortality is delayed and may not be seen in short-term studies. Cigarette smoking is a potential confounder of the relationship between obesity and mortality. Studies on body weight, morbidity, and mortality must be interpreted with careful attention to the definitions of obesity or relative weight used, preexisting morbid conditions, the length of follow-up, and confounders in the analysis. The terminology of body weight standards should be defined more precisely and cited appropriately. An appropriate database relating body weight by sex, age, and possibly frame size to morbidity and mortality should be developed to permit the preparation of reference tables for defining the desirable range of body weight based on morbidity and mortality statistics.







http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=621903

Results: All-cause mortality was significantly increased in obese men (BMI, ?30 kg/m2; RR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.0) and in underweight men (BMI, <18.5 kg/m2; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.9) but not in women. The increased risk in underweight men could be attributed to deaths within the first 5 years of follow-up and to lung cancer mortality among smokers. Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality was about 3-fold higher among obese men and women. About 21% and 28% of CHD mortality in men and women, respectively, could be attributed to being overweight (BMI, ?25 kg/m2). The RR (but not the absolute risk) for CHD among obese men was still significant after adjustment for the presence of smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes mellitus at baseline, and it was more pronounced for CHD among nonsmokers than among smokers (RR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.3-21.7; and RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7, respectively).


Here's another article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016882279090150R
Severely underweight and overweight people do not live longer.

Those "studies" (I wouldn't classify assessment of a life insurance cohort a study) are from 1984, 1996 an 1990. I think the point of the more recent studies is that our understanding of the correlation between mortality and weight has not been accurate -- have you been able to find anything that addresses that?

The age of the study does not invalidate its results. If the experiment is well designed then the results are relevant. What makes a study well designed? Factors like whether it's single variable, uses large sample size, etc

Can you lost the links to the new studies you mention? I'm open minded; I'm not the pp who made the earlier claim. I looked it up as the bickering made me curious.

The fact that all the new studies contradict it's results does invalidate its results however....Someone posted it earlier in this thread, or you could probably bring it up pretty quick in google.

Nope. Wrong. If two studies contradict each other then you pick the one that is better designed - uses more people, longer duration, uses a control group, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's tiny but doesn't strike me as anorexic at all.

I wonder if all of those describing Kate as anorexic have ever known someone who truly is.

I think it's wishful thinking on their part, trying to justify their own fatness.

As a guy, I find her body very unappealing. There is nothing seductive about a bony frame. Just the typical stereotype reinforced by media/models that underweight = sexy. I don't know any doctors in my field that would look at her and say "that is a healthy weight". My wife used to look like that and her PC physician kept urging her to put on 5-10 pounds. People (like yourself) need to stop perpetuating this fantasy that no fat = healthy.

Its your prerogative to find her boy unappealing. I personally think fat people and chubby people are uneappealing, but to each their own.

OTOH, Kate Middleton's body fat probably hovers around 15%, which is not unhealthy.

http://www.ruled.me/visually-estimate-body-fat-percentage/

The recommended range of body fat for woman that are athletes is ~ 15-25%. Kate is not an athlete or muscular she is just skinny, and for non athletes the normal range of fat is ~ 25-30%. I have no idea where you got the 15% is not unhealthy from, especially in someone that is not athletic, considering that below ~13% woman start to have medical complications. Low 20's is more what someone should aim for unless they are training/require it for other reasons.

This page has some good information on it. http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

"A research paper by Gallagher et. al. in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2000) came to the conclusion that certain low body fat ranges are “underfat”, which implies “unhealthy”. According to this research paper, men who are between 20-40 years old with under 8% body fat are considered “underfat”, whereas a “healthy” range is described as between 8-19%. For women in this same age group, any level under 21% is “underfat” and 21-33% is considered “healthy”."


I checked several sources they all recommend somewhere in the range of 20-30% for a healthy woman, not the 15 you suggested. The perpetuation of unhealthy stereotypes continues.

Essential body fat on a male is 3-5%; for a female it's 8-12%.

Sure, Kate Middleton isn't an Olympic athlete, but you can probably argue that she eats/works out like an athlete to maintain her shape and public image.

By all measures, she appears healthy. She birthed 2 beautiful children, she skis and scuba dives, she plays tennis, she hikes, etc.

She just happens to be skinny, which does not mean at all that she's unhealthy.

I have about 20% body fat, I train a lot, and I watch my diet 80% of the time. I also work 40 hours a week and have an ungodly commute. Given the resources Kate has, I know I can go to 15% body fat without any issues.

8% body fat? On a woman? WHAT are you talking about? A woman would be literally dead with that body fat percentage.

You need to relearn your stats on healthiness levels, lady. Damn.

Are you stupid?? Gymnasts and body builders have this body fat percentage. I'm not arguing it's healthy long term but your assertion is flat out wrong.

Not the PP you are responding to, you really do have it wrong. Elite Male athletes are in that range, and females have roughly twice the essential body fat of men. 8% on a male in peak shape is not unheard of and even common. That same number on a female is going to be very hard to find. Most female athletes are in the 14-20% range. I have no idea where you get the 8% body fat for a woman from. Even female body builders that are juicing and look like the hulk are around 10-14%. Keep in mind that many of these woman suffer from infertility because of how low their body fat is. It's not not healthy in the short term or long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's tiny but doesn't strike me as anorexic at all.

I wonder if all of those describing Kate as anorexic have ever known someone who truly is.

I think it's wishful thinking on their part, trying to justify their own fatness.

As a guy, I find her body very unappealing. There is nothing seductive about a bony frame. Just the typical stereotype reinforced by media/models that underweight = sexy. I don't know any doctors in my field that would look at her and say "that is a healthy weight". My wife used to look like that and her PC physician kept urging her to put on 5-10 pounds. People (like yourself) need to stop perpetuating this fantasy that no fat = healthy.

Its your prerogative to find her boy unappealing. I personally think fat people and chubby people are uneappealing, but to each their own.

OTOH, Kate Middleton's body fat probably hovers around 15%, which is not unhealthy.

http://www.ruled.me/visually-estimate-body-fat-percentage/

The recommended range of body fat for woman that are athletes is ~ 15-25%. Kate is not an athlete or muscular she is just skinny, and for non athletes the normal range of fat is ~ 25-30%. I have no idea where you got the 15% is not unhealthy from, especially in someone that is not athletic, considering that below ~13% woman start to have medical complications. Low 20's is more what someone should aim for unless they are training/require it for other reasons.

This page has some good information on it. http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

"A research paper by Gallagher et. al. in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2000) came to the conclusion that certain low body fat ranges are “underfat”, which implies “unhealthy”. According to this research paper, men who are between 20-40 years old with under 8% body fat are considered “underfat”, whereas a “healthy” range is described as between 8-19%. For women in this same age group, any level under 21% is “underfat” and 21-33% is considered “healthy”."


I checked several sources they all recommend somewhere in the range of 20-30% for a healthy woman, not the 15 you suggested. The perpetuation of unhealthy stereotypes continues.

Essential body fat on a male is 3-5%; for a female it's 8-12%.

Sure, Kate Middleton isn't an Olympic athlete, but you can probably argue that she eats/works out like an athlete to maintain her shape and public image.

By all measures, she appears healthy. She birthed 2 beautiful children, she skis and scuba dives, she plays tennis, she hikes, etc.

She just happens to be skinny, which does not mean at all that she's unhealthy.

I have about 20% body fat, I train a lot, and I watch my diet 80% of the time. I also work 40 hours a week and have an ungodly commute. Given the resources Kate has, I know I can go to 15% body fat without any issues.

8% body fat? On a woman? WHAT are you talking about? A woman would be literally dead with that body fat percentage.

You need to relearn your stats on healthiness levels, lady. Damn.

Are you stupid?? Gymnasts and body builders have this body fat percentage. I'm not arguing it's healthy long term but your assertion is flat out wrong.

Not the PP you are responding to, you really do have it wrong. Elite Male athletes are in that range, and females have roughly twice the essential body fat of men. 8% on a male in peak shape is not unheard of and even common. That same number on a female is going to be very hard to find. Most female athletes are in the 14-20% range. I have no idea where you get the 8% body fat for a woman from. Even female body builders that are juicing and look like the hulk are around 10-14%. Keep in mind that many of these woman suffer from infertility because of how low their body fat is. It's not not healthy in the short term or long term.

Yeah, I have never, ever heard of 8%. Even 12% is going to be very, very startlingly low on a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Wrong. If two studies contradict each other then you pick the one that is better designed - uses more people, longer duration, uses a control group, etc

Well besides that 30 years is incredibly old in the medical field, the new studies are not really contradicting your studies. They are presenting new data that your links did not really touch on.

Both of the studies ( I don't know how much of a study the second "insurance experience one" is) you linked came to the conclusion that OBESE people have increased mortality, I didn't see anything regarding a comparison of people in the overweight category...nothing new there, obese people still have an increased risk of mortality. The more Recent studies show that overweight people have lower mortality. Obese and overweight are not even remotely the same.

Some good info on it here: http://www.webmd.com/diet/20090625/study-overweight-people-live-longer?page=1

If you want to get all nitty gritty: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227 and

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20588/full

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't look anorexic to me. She's stunning and her size is perfect IMO.

Totally agree. She's fit and lithe, not bony or gaunt. She looks fantastic. Love the gown too.
Side note - does Harry have a bald spot??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:French PP, if you think a woman with no chest, no hips, and sunken eyes and cheeks is an example of a "normal, healthy body" that comes with walking to their Parisian job in high heels, you're just nuts. I don't know if Kate is anorexic or just professional gaunt, but she is not an example of what a healthy woman looks like. To state this obvious fact is not evidence of obesity brainwashing. Poor Kate, it's a tough job and obviously her predecessor dealt with the pressure in similar fashion.

Wow. NP here. I also have "no chest and no hips" - and I eat like a horse. Kate Middleton looks quite healthy to me. Some of you seem to feel that if a woman isn't well-developed, she must be unhealthy. The truth is, there are many different body types out there, and though you may be on the round or heavy side, that doesn't make you somehow healthier than those of us who are rail thin and have very high metabolisms. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't look anorexic to me. She's stunning and her size is perfect IMO.

Totally agree. She's fit and lithe, not bony or gaunt. She looks fantastic. Love the gown too.
Side note - does Harry have a bald spot??

Lol fit and lithe...gtfo of here. She has bones sticking out every which way. Unlike what the media tells you, thin does not equal fit. Not even close

[Anonymous]

She look like she gon' faint

[Anonymous]

Okay. Several people think she severly restricts food. How would that be different than being anorexic? Where do you draw the line?