Jennifer Lopez or a Celebrity That You are Sick Of

Wait...you have to be kidding...even better than this...



and this...

 

And certainly not better than this:

 

How did we go from discussing Jennifer Lopez to pictures like this?

Sadly, I contributed to that fact. I apologize.

 

as well you should :-*

 

Um, were you being sarcastic? I think she looks adorable there.

Drapg: no, I'm not confusing 'fat' and 'obese' because as I said, I think these conceptions of 'overweight' have fluctuated wildly over the past century and are not very scientific at all. They have more to do with current mores than science: 'overweight' (10-20 pounds) people are actually *healthier* longterm than 'normal' weight people, as I said. So shouldn't that mean that 'overweight' is actually 'normal' weight, if it makes you healthier? And therefore technically 'obese' people, whose health actually *might* be affected, might just be 'overweight', by these new definitions? That's why I think a lot of these incredibly inconsistent theories about weight are bunk; plus, Isabel is right (hey, I *never* say that! ). Most Hollywood women look like they just came out of the Warsaw Ghetto, so naturally Kelly's going to look freaky. Have you *seen* Lara Flynn Boyle lately? Jesus.

'Fat' is an emotive term, particularly for women. 'Fat' means 'obese' to practically all of us, so that's probably why we're arguing in the first place. It's a question of definitions.

 

To add further to my 'wildly fluctuating definitions of fat' theory:



Look at Jane Russell. By today's standards, thunderthighs! Back then, dangerously hot. And way bigger than one Ms. Kelly Osbourne.

 

I've never heard that theory. In fact, longevity studies have pointed to being slightly underweight as key to a longer life.

In Biosphere 2, the food production went awry and the participants ended up eating far fewer calories than the average American (1200 calories per day for women and 1800 for men). When they finally emerged, they were slightly underweight (15 percent body fat for the women and 8 percent for the men) by current American standards, but dramatically healthier. Their blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels had all dropped.

While I agree that our societal whims dictate what is considered "fat" at any given time, haven't seen any scientific evidence to back up the theory that heavier is better.

 

I think everyone has a different opinion on the 'fatness' level of other people. For example, I may look at someone and say that he/she is fat. And another person may say he/she isn't.
It all depends on how you look at it.

Regarding Kelly Osbourne...I think she is plump. Not grossly obese though. But I definetly don't judge her on her looks (I hope).

 

Don't doubt that the definitions of "fat" vary. Ten or fifteen years ago, it was generally recommended that, to maintain a healthy weight, the average inactive female should consume 2100 calories a day. Since then, I've gradually been hearing these "experts" lower then number to 1800 and then 1600. So, not only are food portions bigger than they used to be, but we can't even eat as much of them.

The Biosphere story reminds me of the study that was done a few years ago. Apparently mice lived 33% longer if their calories were restricted in a similar fashion. (don't know if it just makes all your body's processes slow down, or what) For a while, people were trying it too.

Of course, I don't know how you get enough energy to do what you need to do that way. Or if it's worth it to live that much longer but to be starving and miserable the entire time. Like what I heard my aerobics instructor saying today: "Several of us have decided we're going to start eating healthy - no sugar, no caffeine, and no white flour. We get together to do meal planning and support each other." I don't quite get this - I thought we were all in there doing aerobics so we could burn more calories and wouldn't <i>have</i> to go on a restrictive diet like that! Wonder how their husbands and boyfriends feel now that they can't go out to eat with them anymore.

 

I'm trying to find out where I read that. As I recall, the theory was that women in particular, if they were 10-20 pounds 'overweight', were more resistant to illness, less susceptible to cold and generally less likely to succumb to things like flu - better immune systems. Of course, it's possible that I'm talking out of my ass (always keep that in mind with me ), but on a personal note I've certainly known some very long-term healthy 'chunky' people. (And when I was writing my thesis, I came across a lot of information which made me very sceptical about doctors' ideas about women's health. A lot of this stuff I just don't buy, for sundry reasons.)

I've heard the caloric restriction theory too. But that's about long life rather than general disease resistance, isn't it? Of course, if I was underweight, constantly cold, and survived entirely on small portions of brown rice and steamed vegetables, I wouldn't *want* to live to be 100 years old.

 

Isabel and I just said practically the same thing at the same time. That is so freaky.

 

All these pictures.. .but not until the thread has left J-Lo

 

I don't think they are bigger. They look less flabby, too.

 

The wonder that is 'foundation garments' man. Jane Russell was *certainly* bigger than Kelly Osbourne.

 

No garments here:




Compare this...



to that...



It might not even be the weight difference, it's a style difference. There is a reason for this cover:



Guess what category she belonged to...best dressed?


P.S.: I have nothing against chunky people. Also, I actually like Kelly Osbourne's version of "Papa don't preach" more than Madonna's.

 

Argh.

Here are the links:

(edit: doesn't work)

Guess he is protecting his pictures. Click this link:

http://briansdriveintheater.com/janerussell.html

 

Bigger boobs and hips....yes. But proportionally, Kelly has her beat in the bigger arms, thighs, waist, and face department.

I'm pretty sure that what we've seen in this thread is the most flattering picture ever of Kelly.....and one of the least flattering pics of Jane (at least while she was young enough to still be pretty darn sexy).

 

Dude, if I *ever* start agreeing with People or Joan and Melissa Rivers about what's 'best and worst dressed', you have total permission to shoot me in the head. It would be a mercy killing. *God*, they like some awful ****, and they have no sense of humour or fun or tolerance for anything unusual. Proof: they hated Bjork's swan dress, which I thought was fantastic.

(PS You can bet Jane Russell is wearing old-school corsets, waist cinchers and bullet bras in *all* her shots. Foundation garments! Kelly doesn't have that advantage... but I agree Pole, Kelly is rounder in the face and a few other areas. She's just a different shape - as I said, a round little person. However, don't you think it's also a question of how they're being approached by the photographers? Kelly isn't *meant* to be cheesecake, while Russell certainly is.)

 

Oh, did I mention that I can't stand Björk's music and/or appearance?

 

Oy. Kelly isn't fat. Jane Russell isn't fat... THIS is fat: