First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!

[Anonymous]

maybe next year SI will have bruce jenner on the cover

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end of an institution. Sad that SI has caved to this sort of pandering.

I'm a straight woman and find this revolting. I have an obese son, who struggles with thyroid issues as well as my family's endocrine issues. I know the pain and health issues he's suffered over the years due to his obesity. It should not be celebrated.

I agree.

Size 16 is not a healthy weight.

With the obesity epidemic in this country, we should not be normalizing a size 16 as a desireable body.

But we've been normalizing and celebrating size 00 for years. Why is it only disgusting and pandering only on one side of the BMI scale?

A lot of suffering comes from trying to fit an unrealistic (and equally unhealthy) body "ideal".

Excuse me, I'm a size 00 and am perfectly healthy, thank you. Asian and fine-boned will give you those kinds of sizes, with enough fat to add curves into the bargain. My friend is Irish and has the same size, it's not just Asians!

It's bad enough that I can barely find any clothes to fit me in this country without looking like a teenager - I don't need ignorant idiots like you blathering that size 00 is disgusting, pandering, unrealistic and unhealthy. All wrong on all 4 counts! You're moronic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they should not make bikinis in that size. the sad part for us guys is all the fat ladies are now going to be wearing these on the beach and at the pool this summer so bring lots of beer in that cooler and sit back and watch the show.

I love you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

Someone who is a size 0 or 2 or 4 is likely a petite framed person to begin with. People are growing taller these days and their body frames are bigger. Size 12 isn't fat - usually. Although a naturally small framed person wearing a size 12 might indeed be obese.

If I was a size 2 I would be skeleton thin and not healthy at all. I prefer myself at a size 9/10 but I doubt I'll ever be that size again since having kids. Fact is I look really good at a size 11/12 or 13/14. I actually look o.k. at a size 16 and can be eating very healthy and exercising every day at that weight. That's me though. Maybe you are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

Someone who is a size 0 or 2 or 4 is likely a petite framed person to begin with. People are growing taller these days and their body frames are bigger. Size 12 isn't fat - usually. Although a naturally small framed person wearing a size 12 might indeed be obese.

If I was a size 2 I would be skeleton thin and not healthy at all. I prefer myself at a size 9/10 but I doubt I'll ever be that size again since having kids. Fact is I look really good at a size 11/12 or 13/14. I actually look o.k. at a size 16 and can be eating very healthy and exercising every day at that weight. That's me though. Maybe you are different.

Indeed I am! Size 0 here, healthy at 5'4". I believe you, but I also know most people don't know what's healthy anymore, just as people have lost all sense of what a portion size is. That's the danger of showing overweight models (and she is overweight, you can't deny it). It's just one more visual to reassure people that what they see is normal and that normal is healthy. Unfortunately nowadays, normal is not healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

Someone who is a size 0 or 2 or 4 is likely a petite framed person to begin with. People are growing taller these days and their body frames are bigger. Size 12 isn't fat - usually. Although a naturally small framed person wearing a size 12 might indeed be obese.

If I was a size 2 I would be skeleton thin and not healthy at all. I prefer myself at a size 9/10 but I doubt I'll ever be that size again since having kids. Fact is I look really good at a size 11/12 or 13/14. I actually look o.k. at a size 16 and can be eating very healthy and exercising every day at that weight. That's me though. Maybe you are different.

Indeed I am! Size 0 here, healthy at 5'4". I believe you, but I also know most people don't know what's healthy anymore, just as people have lost all sense of what a portion size is. That's the danger of showing overweight models (and she is overweight, you can't deny it). It's just one more visual to reassure people that what they see is normal and that normal is healthy. Unfortunately nowadays, normal is not healthy.

If stats are correct (5'10 185lbs), she is all of 12 lbs overweight. Hardly anything I would classify as seriously overweight or even concerning. She has curves and full breast, maybe even a little muscle mass. She is not as overweight as many are indicating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

I watched the video of her on the today show and am surprised that she's only 185. I don't believe it. She looks to me like she's about 205, and I say that as someone who is also 5'9 and has weighed 185 and 205. She looks like 200+

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

Someone who is a size 0 or 2 or 4 is likely a petite framed person to begin with. People are growing taller these days and their body frames are bigger. Size 12 isn't fat - usually. Although a naturally small framed person wearing a size 12 might indeed be obese.

If I was a size 2 I would be skeleton thin and not healthy at all. I prefer myself at a size 9/10 but I doubt I'll ever be that size again since having kids. Fact is I look really good at a size 11/12 or 13/14. I actually look o.k. at a size 16 and can be eating very healthy and exercising every day at that weight. That's me though. Maybe you are different.

Indeed I am! Size 0 here, healthy at 5'4". I believe you, but I also know most people don't know what's healthy anymore, just as people have lost all sense of what a portion size is. That's the danger of showing overweight models (and she is overweight, you can't deny it). It's just one more visual to reassure people that what they see is normal and that normal is healthy. Unfortunately nowadays, normal is not healthy.

If stats are correct (5'10 185lbs), she is all of 12 lbs overweight. Hardly anything I would classify as seriously overweight or even concerning. She has curves and full breast, maybe even a little muscle mass. She is not as overweight as many are indicating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

Someone who is a size 0 or 2 or 4 is likely a petite framed person to begin with. People are growing taller these days and their body frames are bigger. Size 12 isn't fat - usually. Although a naturally small framed person wearing a size 12 might indeed be obese.

If I was a size 2 I would be skeleton thin and not healthy at all. I prefer myself at a size 9/10 but I doubt I'll ever be that size again since having kids. Fact is I look really good at a size 11/12 or 13/14. I actually look o.k. at a size 16 and can be eating very healthy and exercising every day at that weight. That's me though. Maybe you are different.

Indeed I am! Size 0 here, healthy at 5'4". I believe you, but I also know most people don't know what's healthy anymore, just as people have lost all sense of what a portion size is. That's the danger of showing overweight models (and she is overweight, you can't deny it). It's just one more visual to reassure people that what they see is normal and that normal is healthy. Unfortunately nowadays, normal is not healthy.

People can absolutely be healthy at a size 0 or 2. The problem comes when all of media is showing bodies who look the same--some runway shows cast "clothes hangers" to make the clothes lay flat--and people who are not healthy at a low weight struggle to get themselves there in less than healthy drastic ways.

People can also absolutely be healthy at higher weights. Check out, for example, Jessamyn Stanley (http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Plus-Size-Yogi-Jessamyn-Stanley-37635102?slide=opening-slide) who is incredibly strong--especially because yoga uses body weight for strength building. Again, if someone yes unhealthy means to get her body to look like hers, that's an unhealthy body type.

I see nothing wrong with the media embracing a variety of body types. The problem is when all media shows everyone looking the same. We shouldn't be putting down thin women, nor bigger women: we should be celebrating health.

- 5'1", 115 lbs, curvy woman

[Anonymous]

The thing is, her overweight body has been airbrushed and photoshopped to hide her bulges and cellulite and to make her sking look smooth and taut, when it is not. You can see the difference when you look at unedited pictures of her.

This woman's picture is not what a size 16 looks like, or even what her body looks like. It is just as deceptive if not more than the waif skinny model pictures edited to be skinnier than they are.

Her body might be a size 16 but her picture is not what a size 16 body looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, her overweight body has been airbrushed and photoshopped to hide her bulges and cellulite and to make her sking look smooth and taut, when it is not. You can see the difference when you look at unedited pictures of her.

This woman's picture is not what a size 16 looks like, or even what her body looks like. It is just as deceptive if not more than the waif skinny model pictures edited to be skinnier than they are.

Her body might be a size 16 but her picture is not what a size 16 body looks like.

I have pictures of myself when I was doing a 5K every day, strength training, avoiding processed foods and wearing a size 16. I do not look fat in the pictures at all. I even looked good in a swimsuit. Granted I was not wearing a bikini and I never will again after having kids. I had good muscle tone and I was fit and still had fat in all the right places. So I can believe that a woman who has never been pregnant can have those curves and a more or less flat stomach.

Is she a typical size 16? No. But most women, regardless of size, are not model perfect. I think we just need to appreciate the fact that THIS particular woman looks good at her bigger size. Some of us really can pull it off.

[Anonymous]

^I also have pics of myself at size 16 when I'm not working out and I don't look nearly as good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, her overweight body has been airbrushed and photoshopped to hide her bulges and cellulite and to make her sking look smooth and taut, when it is not. You can see the difference when you look at unedited pictures of her.

This woman's picture is not what a size 16 looks like, or even what her body looks like. It is just as deceptive if not more than the waif skinny model pictures edited to be skinnier than they are.

Her body might be a size 16 but her picture is not what a size 16 body looks like.

I have pictures of myself when I was doing a 5K every day, strength training, avoiding processed foods and wearing a size 16. I do not look fat in the pictures at all. I even looked good in a swimsuit. Granted I was not wearing a bikini and I never will again after having kids. I had good muscle tone and I was fit and still had fat in all the right places. So I can believe that a woman who has never been pregnant can have those curves and a more or less flat stomach.

Is she a typical size 16? No. But most women, regardless of size, are not model perfect. I think we just need to appreciate the fact that THIS particular woman looks good at her bigger size. Some of us really can pull it off.

But there are pictures of her (including on this thread) that show she has cellulite and bulges and is not smooth and firm/flat/toned like the cover picture.

Very, very rarely is a size 16 going to be fit, trim and flat stomached. Very rarely is a size 16 going to be a healthy body.

And, a young, 20-something woman who has not yet had kids and is that big that young is on a fast path to obesity.

I think many of you are arguing the wrong points. A size 16 at your middle ages and post child bearing is very, very different than a young woman who has never been pregnant being a size 16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, her overweight body has been airbrushed and photoshopped to hide her bulges and cellulite and to make her sking look smooth and taut, when it is not. You can see the difference when you look at unedited pictures of her.

This woman's picture is not what a size 16 looks like, or even what her body looks like. It is just as deceptive if not more than the waif skinny model pictures edited to be skinnier than they are.

Her body might be a size 16 but her picture is not what a size 16 body looks like.

I have pictures of myself when I was doing a 5K every day, strength training, avoiding processed foods and wearing a size 16. I do not look fat in the pictures at all. I even looked good in a swimsuit. Granted I was not wearing a bikini and I never will again after having kids. I had good muscle tone and I was fit and still had fat in all the right places. So I can believe that a woman who has never been pregnant can have those curves and a more or less flat stomach.

Is she a typical size 16? No. But most women, regardless of size, are not model perfect. I think we just need to appreciate the fact that THIS particular woman looks good at her bigger size. Some of us really can pull it off.

But there are pictures of her (including on this thread) that show she has cellulite and bulges and is not smooth and firm/flat/toned like the cover picture.

Very, very rarely is a size 16 going to be fit, trim and flat stomached. Very rarely is a size 16 going to be a healthy body.

And, a young, 20-something woman who has not yet had kids and is that big that young is on a fast path to obesity.

I think many of you are arguing the wrong points. A size 16 at your middle ages and post child bearing is very, very different than a young woman who has never been pregnant being a size 16.

Her "bad" pictures look a lot better than most of what we size on the beach regardless of size. This woman clearly works out and she takes care of herself. She's a bigger size and much closer to the size of the "average" woman. Good for her.

Size 2 is simply not a realistic size for the average woman. But if that is your natural, healthy size then it is fine for you to be 10 or more sizes below "average". It is also o.k. for a woman who naturally gravitates bigger to be a couple of sizes above average.

Size 12/14 and even 16 is not unhealthy UNLESS you are a small framed individual.