Anonymous wrote:She’s 5’0 right? Any weight gain at that height makes you look huge. I just hope she’s healthy and has a good relationship with food. Maintaining weight as a short person is super hard. Reality slapped me in the face when I aged. No more size zero and I had to learn to accept the changes because I wasn’t willing to go to extremes against the natural progression of aging.

Anonymous wrote:her legs are too short on top of her being very short. sure, she is fit and looks good for her age but her body type is not all that great.

Anonymous wrote:her legs are too short on top of her being very short. sure, she is fit and looks good for her age but her body type is not all that great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s 5’0 right? Any weight gain at that height makes you look huge. I just hope she’s healthy and has a good relationship with food. Maintaining weight as a short person is super hard. Reality slapped me in the face when I aged. No more size zero and I had to learn to accept the changes because I wasn’t willing to go to extremes against the natural progression of aging.

She’s lucky because she’s got a long torso. She’s short because she’s got short legs. Your torso usually expands after you have a baby and people with short torsos often lose their waist entirely (see Meghan Markle, who is the opposite — short torso, long legs).

This is one of the most insane though processes I've read on DCUM. No, she's short because she's short. You can be short with short legs and short with long legs. The length of the torso has nothing to do with the postpartum recovery. Some women experience permanent pelvis bone structure changes, however those are not conditioned by the length of the torso.

It has nothing to do with the "pelvis (sic) bone structure". During pregnancy, the ribcage expands -- the cartilage softens and the rib cage moves out to accommodate the growing baby and displaced organs. For most people, it doesn't go back to where it was before after the baby is born. People who are very short waisted have very little distance between their bottom rib and their hip bones and don't have much of a waist indentation to start with. After having a baby, the expanded rib cage makes them look much thicker, and their waist goes away completely. If you have a longer waist, you have more distance between the lowest rib and your hips, and are much more likely to still have an "hourglass" shape, even if your ribs are wider.

https://www.romper.com/p/does-your-rib-cage-expand-during-pregnancy-your-body-goes-through-a-lot-of-surprising-changes-18163366

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s 5’0 right? Any weight gain at that height makes you look huge. I just hope she’s healthy and has a good relationship with food. Maintaining weight as a short person is super hard. Reality slapped me in the face when I aged. No more size zero and I had to learn to accept the changes because I wasn’t willing to go to extremes against the natural progression of aging.

She’s lucky because she’s got a long torso. She’s short because she’s got short legs. Your torso usually expands after you have a baby and people with short torsos often lose their waist entirely (see Meghan Markle, who is the opposite — short torso, long legs).

This is one of the most insane though processes I've read on DCUM. No, she's short because she's short. You can be short with short legs and short with long legs. The length of the torso has nothing to do with the postpartum recovery. Some women experience permanent pelvis bone structure changes, however those are not conditioned by the length of the torso.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s 5’0 right? Any weight gain at that height makes you look huge. I just hope she’s healthy and has a good relationship with food. Maintaining weight as a short person is super hard. Reality slapped me in the face when I aged. No more size zero and I had to learn to accept the changes because I wasn’t willing to go to extremes against the natural progression of aging.

She’s lucky because she’s got a long torso. She’s short because she’s got short legs. Your torso usually expands after you have a baby and people with short torsos often lose their waist entirely (see Meghan Markle, who is the opposite — short torso, long legs).

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she's 47, not because of how she looks, because I'm 45 and in the early 2000's she was five to eight years my elder.

I seriously think that celebrities pay people to silently edit their ages across media platforms in a very slow and strategic way. It's not all at once, but she was definitely more than two years older than me twelve years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be more impressed if she looked like this at 57.

why the eye roll? It's the truth. This is not that hard to achieve at 47! It's just not. 57 however is a whole different story. Menopause and 10 additional years of life have set in and does a real number on a woman's body.

she's also only produced one child. The more you produce the less elasticity you have left. Sagsville.

But she did it when she was in her 40s, when the skin does not bounce back easily. I had children at 38 and 44, and there was a marked difference.

Anonymous wrote:She’s 5’0 right? Any weight gain at that height makes you look huge. I just hope she’s healthy and has a good relationship with food. Maintaining weight as a short person is super hard. Reality slapped me in the face when I aged. No more size zero and I had to learn to accept the changes because I wasn’t willing to go to extremes against the natural progression of aging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree she looks good.

But please be aware that all celebs have plastic surgery in addition to $ for help with diet, exercise, and kids. Don’t compare yourself to surgically enhanced celebrities.

And genetics

Yes, one thing that becomes very clear if you ever spend any time dealing with celebrities like this up close is that many of them were simply born MUCH better looking than the rest of us. This is hard to understand if you only see them in photos or on screens, where they are generally surrounded by people who are either also genetically blessed or who have spent a lot to look genetically blessed. But if you interact with the beautiful people up close you realize that even without the plastic surgery and other enhancements (which they all 100% get, especially after 35, but often even before that), these are beautiful people. Most of them got their "big break" before the age of 25, usually before they've had a chance to do a lot of work. They are better looking than 99% of people.

A good example is Jennifer Garner. She got her first real roles in her late 20s and if you look at photos from then, it's clear she had work done once she hit stardom with Alias (the biggest tell is her mouth -- she had a gummy smile in her 20s and had it fixed). But I met her at auditions back then and she was absolutely gorgeous and definitely had "it" factor even though she'd never done anything. Some people really are kind of born to be stars. They cannot pass as normal people. Never met Longoria but my guess is that she falls in this camp.

No offense but Jennifer Garner is not super gorgeous. She’s pretty average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She looks great, but probably hasn't hit menopause yet.

Winner winner chicken dinner! You can tell who hasn’t hasn’t hit menopause basically by looking at them.

Yep. I looked like this at 47. At 56, very different, even at the same weight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she's 47, not because of how she looks, because I'm 45 and in the early 2000's she was five to eight years my elder.

I seriously think that celebrities pay people to silently edit their ages across media platforms in a very slow and strategic way. It's not all at once, but she was definitely more than two years older than me twelve years ago.

This is the hugest compliment that one could give Eva.

She has always been beautiful.

Probably a combo of good genetics + self-care.