Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FBO wrote:Whats wrong with a size 10?

Not saying there's something wrong with it. But today's "10" is actually a 14-16, easily.

What does that mean, though? According to who? Modern sizes are what they are for better or worse.

According to the measurements on older clothes vs clothes now. It even changes from store to store.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_sizing





http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/10/06/vanity-sizing/

Anonymous wrote:Hey! Her butt looks my my ass, celluite and all. (I am a size 10 btw)

I feel so much better now! I am going to celebrate with a bowl of icecream

Ha! I was just about to mention her cellulite. Her upper thighs are pretty out-of-shape.

Hey! Her butt looks my my ass, celluite and all. (I am a size 10 btw)

I feel so much better now! I am going to celebrate with a bowl of icecream

Re Marilyn. Whatever size she "really" was, she certainly wasn't one of today's idealized emaciated sticks:

Anonymous wrote:

FBO wrote:Whats wrong with a size 10?

Not saying there's something wrong with it. But today's "10" is actually a 14-16, easily.

What does that mean, though? According to who? Modern sizes are what they are for better or worse.

Its been stated a couple times here that Doritos are less expensive than apples. I don't think that's true! A bag of doritos is probably around $3.50 to $4.50. Apples can be purchased for under $1 per pound. There are at least 2 apples in a pound. So for about $4, you could buy one bag of Doritos or about 8 apples.

I often find that the idea that processed foods are cheaper than whole foods to be bunk.

Mark Bittman has this to say:

"THE “fact” that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli ...” or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my mom's generation, my body type would have been considered quite average. Today, I am considered skinny. People often comment how "unhealthy" I look. I've been called anorexic, too-thin, vain, and in need of gaining 10 pounds to fatten up so that I'm "healthier" "especially if I get sick". It's ridiculous. And don't get me started on vanity sizing.....

Just the opposite. There were no tiny celebrities like Angelina Jolie in the 50s. When someone that skinny came along, she was dubbed "Twiggy"! Women were thin, yes, but not skinny. Look at Marilyn Monroe. She was considered an ideal beauty.

I HATE vanity sizing. People often throw out "Marilyn was a size 10." No. Not in today's world.

Marilyn Monroe's measurements:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D

Yeah, my mom has some size 10 clothing from 30+ years ago that I cannot squeeze into. I'm a size 2 at JCREW.

Jeez, i wonder then what a size 2 looked like 30 years ago?!

There was no such thing.

Are you saying that sizing started directly from 10? not trying to be snarky, just curious.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, lets ban cars too!

There were no friggin' cars 150 years ago.
Just think, with all the exercise people will get, how the health of the country will improve!

Lazy asses.

Actually, the health of the country would improve if certain suburban areas were built to be more walkable, so that people don't need to get into their cars to go grocery-shopping.

Anonymous wrote:I read two pages of this and all I see if a bunch of self-congratulating bored women. You're thin, GOOD FOR YOU. I'm glad it gives you the higher ground to observe all of use fat asses from.

I'm an OP, and I'm definitely not thin. However, I do want to see some changes in public policy. I think that obesity is a national epidemic and I worry about my kids. I worry about the health problems that I've seen in my own family due to obesity and I want to make sure they don't go down that same road. But, honestly, some days it is TOUGH. The deck just seems stacked against you when the kids meal at some restaurants is sometimes so large and comes with so much fat/calories/sodium.

Anonymous wrote:I read two pages of this and all I see if a bunch of self-congratulating bored women. You're thin, GOOD FOR YOU. I'm glad it gives you the higher ground to observe all of use fat asses from.

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I (as the OP) can tell you that wasn't my purpose. I have had so much trouble with my weight. I'm still overweight (but lost a lot of weight over the last 5 years). I don't judge fat people. I think about how we can change it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my mom's generation, my body type would have been considered quite average. Today, I am considered skinny. People often comment how "unhealthy" I look. I've been called anorexic, too-thin, vain, and in need of gaining 10 pounds to fatten up so that I'm "healthier" "especially if I get sick". It's ridiculous. And don't get me started on vanity sizing.....

Just the opposite. There were no tiny celebrities like Angelina Jolie in the 50s. When someone that skinny came along, she was dubbed "Twiggy"! Women were thin, yes, but not skinny. Look at Marilyn Monroe. She was considered an ideal beauty.

I HATE vanity sizing. People often throw out "Marilyn was a size 10." No. Not in today's world.

Marilyn Monroe's measurements:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D

Yeah, my mom has some size 10 clothing from 30+ years ago that I cannot squeeze into. I'm a size 2 at JCREW.

Jeez, i wonder then what a size 2 looked like 30 years ago?!

There was no such thing.

Exactly. I always get peeved when I hear about women talking about how MMonroe was chunky when she would like tiny today. They always say--oh she was a size 8-12...completely forgetting that is about a size 2 today. I wear smaller sizes than I did in the late 80s in my early teens...and I am not as tiny as I was at 13 and hadn't gotten curves. I wear a size 2-4 at jcrew and banana republic. I would prob have been an 8 back in the 80s

I read two pages of this and all I see if a bunch of self-congratulating bored women. You're thin, GOOD FOR YOU. I'm glad it gives you the higher ground to observe all of use fat asses from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my mom's generation, my body type would have been considered quite average. Today, I am considered skinny. People often comment how "unhealthy" I look. I've been called anorexic, too-thin, vain, and in need of gaining 10 pounds to fatten up so that I'm "healthier" "especially if I get sick". It's ridiculous. And don't get me started on vanity sizing.....

Just the opposite. There were no tiny celebrities like Angelina Jolie in the 50s. When someone that skinny came along, she was dubbed "Twiggy"! Women were thin, yes, but not skinny. Look at Marilyn Monroe. She was considered an ideal beauty.

I HATE vanity sizing. People often throw out "Marilyn was a size 10." No. Not in today's world.

Marilyn Monroe's measurements:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D

Yeah, my mom has some size 10 clothing from 30+ years ago that I cannot squeeze into. I'm a size 2 at JCREW.

Jeez, i wonder then what a size 2 looked like 30 years ago?!

There was no such thing.

FBO wrote:Whats wrong with a size 10?

Not saying there's something wrong with it. But today's "10" is actually a 14-16, easily.