Guys with hang ups on overweight girls.

[yumicecream]

Maybe to you, but not to men. To be so far off the 'ideal' ratio that one's waist is bigger than one's hips is going to be universally physically unattractive to men. Maybe a guy who has found such a woman physically attractive can chime in and prove me wrong? No, pregnant women don't count.

 

Dude, I'm not attracted to women. I was observing other men (because I care about what men are attracted to) and what they showed attraction towards. The Amy Winehouse picture, in my opinion, is a good example of what I'm talking about. Especially among regular women, she'd be considered attractive as she is thin with long hair and unabashed about showing off her body.

[JenniferSNJ]

I suppose a woman with a large waist than hip ratio is considered more cute? Like she isn't curvy and is more straight up and down and she can wear a lot more cute clothes imo.

 

I have a pretty defined waist hip ratio, like 8-9 or so and I have to watch my clothes or I look bigger than I am. (not that I'm small)

[diabolik]

Amy Winehouse is the only thin celebrity female that I can think of that has a waist larger than her hips (or close to it).

 

link removed

 

Not making a judgment, just providing an example.

This is a good example of how hard it is for a woman to actually get to a waist/hip ratio of 1. This is a frontal shot, and her belly sticks out a little, but her low back won't stick out like that (and in fact, from that pic, I'm guessing she's hyperlordotic, so it will curve in quite a bit), and her butt will stick out a little bit, so the *narrowest* part of her waist will be several inches smaller than the *widest* part of her hips. Now if she had the same hips and a waist that was 5" bigger, then she'd be close to a 1:1 waist ratio. And I think we can all agree that would not be attractive.

 

And for the record, I find her very unattractive. She needs to get off the drugs and into the gym.

[servedcold]

Lots of female actors (dushku for example) have no butt and hips to speak of because they have to keep their face as angular and camera thin as possible, and doing so requires very low body fat %. It's all about the camera, which is all about the face. The skinnier the face, provided symmetry and full features are there, the better it looks from any camera angle it might be shot from. Hollywood likes "elven" (see how skinny they made Liv Tyler in LOTR?) highly angular faces in women, few have full faces or are what would be considered "cheeky" with a healthy level of fat on the face. There are exceptions, usually with extremely favorable facial bone structure, Cate Blanchett (who is not stick thin in most of her roles) for example, not many though. After seeing all these camera thin faces for so long, we become accustomed to that as the standard, though the body may be too thin (and this is much easier to doctor with the camera than the face is).

[Knotty]

I don't think the waist hip ratio thing is necessarily true. I've seen plenty of girls who were considered 'hot' who were thin but actually had waists that were larger than their hips.

 

Ewww. Who exactly considered those girls hot?

 

Got any links/pics? I cannot fathom a waist/hip ratio of > 1 being remotely attractive.

I agree, and those links to pics people posted, the women don't have > 1 waist/hip ratio. Even though their stomachs look almost as wide as their hips, because their butts will stick out, their hip measurement will be larger still. A ratio of 1 will look out of shape.

[servedcold]

A ratio of 1 will look out of shape.

 

Crack addict comes to mind.

[dragon lady]

I agree, and those links to pics people posted, the women don't have > 1 waist/hip ratio. Even though their stomachs look almost as wide as their hips, because their butts will stick out, their hip measurement will be larger still. A ratio of 1 will look out of shape.

 

Hmm...not sure I would call this "a butt."

 

link removed

[Knotty]

Hmm...not sure I would call this "a butt."

 

link removed

Well, perhaps she has about a 1 ratio, but I don't find her attractive. Frankly, it looks like there is something wrong with her, like her growth was stunted. Or was it drugs and drinking?

[dragon lady]

Well, perhaps she has about a 1 ratio, but I don't find her attractive. Frankly, it looks like there is something wrong with her, like her growth was stunted. Or was it drugs and drinking?

 

It was the crack.

[servedcold]

One thing I have learned from this thread that is encouraging, my gut and love handles are smaller than amy winehouse's

[diabolik]

Hmm...not sure I would call this "a butt."

 

link removed

OMG! I stand corrected on her. She is much closer to a 1:1 waist ratio than I figured she was from that frontal shot. And I nearly gagged when I saw this picture. That is hideous. I'd prefer a 30lb overweight, but well proportioned, woman any day over her. Gawd, so unfeminine.

[annie24]

i think it's interesting (or upsetting) the way that the media reports women's appearances and not men's. this shows up in all walks of life. a former professor of mine was telling me she was in a faculty search meeting where her department was looking to hire a new professor. while discussing several of the candidates who had interviewed, she noticed that they spoke of 'the man from harvard' or the 'man from yale' but when they talked about the female candidates, they said, 'the woman with the black suit.' she pointed it out that they should be focusing on her credentials as opposed to her appearance.

 

now both of mccain's kids have been in the news lately - his son jack, from graduating from a military academy, and his daughter, for being a bit overweight, if that. it's fine if a man wouldn't date her because she's too big for him. (sure, she would look better with 10 or 15 lbs less, but c'mon, the girl isn't 270 lbs and obese. i think she's cute.) but why is the media reporting it!?!? and what difference does it make? the media didn't report on what his son Jack looks like!!! that's what pisses me off.

[viajera]

Wow, there are a heck of a lot of misconceptions on this thread!!!

 

First, one person's preference is not the same as everyone else's preference. While I don't find every guy attractive, that doesn't mean that someone I personally dislike is unattractive to everyone. Just because one guy may not like overweight women does not mean all men do not like overweight women, nor does it mean it's "biology" (whatever you mean by that). I'm an overweight woman according to the BMI*, and yet many men find me attractive - I've had many relationships (long- and short-term), and regularly get comments on the street. As for those who don't find me attractive - fine by me, I wouldn't want to be with them anyway.

 

Secondly, the BMI has so many problems that it's basically completely useless as a measure of either weight OR health. For one thing, they just revised the measurement down a couple years ago, so you can't compare BMIs over any period of time. Just looking at it visually, would you really call this woman overweight?: link removed Or this woman obese?: link removed

 

Third, and most important, fat DOES NOT always = unhealthy, and there are MANY peer-reviewed medical studies supporting this (see a whole list of them here: link removed, and there are many more). In fact, there are more and more studies coming out showing that overweight people actually live longer, are more likely to survive cardiac problems, recover better from illnesses, etc etc than thin people.

 

Then there's the fact that diets just plain DO NOT work over the long-term (see, e.g.,: link removed). Something like 1-2% of the population is able to maintain weight-loss over the long (5-yr) term. In fact, in many ways, dieting is one of the worst things you can do for your health and would often be more harmful to an "overweight" person than maintaining (see, e.g.,: link removed) - on top of the fact that it may well do you no good.

 

Finally, let me relate my own experience. I'm a field biologist. On any given day, I will bike at least 9 km plus hike another 3-5km, just as part of my daily routine. On top of that I often will jog another 3-5k, bike another 10k, or hike another 10k or so on top of my "base" activity level. I cook and eat healthy foods: whole grains, legumes, vegetables, with little fat, sweets, or alcohol. I eat approximately 1500-1800 cals/day (and I've logged this regularly for years, I'm not underestimating. Actually, for years I used to eat 1200 or fewer calories per day while working out 5-6 days/week, running 20+ miles/week plus weights, and was still overweight per the BMI). Meanwhile, I currently have 2 field assistants who live and work with me. They eat the same food I do, but in quantities usually 2-3x what I eat, plus will often eat junk food in addition to the food that I buy and cook for us. The woman is a size 0-2, and the man is also underweight. How exactly would you explain this within the framework that overweight people are lazy, slovenly over-eaters? It just doesn't work!!! There's natural variation, people! Some people are lucky enough to have fast metabolisms and maintain or lose weight easily - but it's not true for everyone!!

[diabolik]

Secondly, the BMI has so many problems that it's basically completely useless as a measure of either weight OR health.

No doubt BMI is flawed, but at the low and high ends of the range, it's a pretty good indicator, unless the person has an unusually large amount of muscle (e.g., bodybuilders are usually overweight or obese per BMI). In between the ends of the range, I agree that BMI is not particularly useful. Bodyfat % is much more important than weight itself.

 

Just looking at it visually, would you really call this woman overweight?: link removed

Yes. She's so covered up and with that black top, it's hard to see how much muscle she has, but I'd guess that she's at that weight not b/c of lots of muscle. Jeans today are very flattering on bigger women. I'm pretty sure it would be obvious to everyone that she was carrying quite a bit of fat if she was wearing less.

 

Or this woman obese?: link removed

At the very least, she's overweight. At that height/weight, I wouldn't be surprised at all if another pic that showed her midsection and with a slightly tighter outfit on, revealed her to be obese.

 

Finally, let me relate my own experience. I'm a field biologist. On any given day, I will bike at least 9 km plus hike another 3-5km, just as part of my daily routine. On top of that I often will jog another 3-5k, bike another 10k, or hike another 10k or so on top of my "base" activity level. I cook and eat healthy foods: whole grains, legumes, vegetables, with little fat, sweets, or alcohol. I eat approximately 1500-1800 cals/day (and I've logged this regularly for years, I'm not underestimating. Actually, for years I used to eat 1200 or fewer calories per day while working out 5-6 days/week, running 20+ miles/week plus weights, and was still overweight per the BMI). Meanwhile, I currently have 2 field assistants who live and work with me. They eat the same food I do, but in quantities usually 2-3x what I eat, plus will often eat junk food in addition to the food that I buy and cook for us. The woman is a size 0-2, and the man is also underweight. How exactly would you explain this within the framework that overweight people are lazy, slovenly over-eaters? It just doesn't work!!! There's natural variation, people! Some people are lucky enough to have fast metabolisms and maintain or lose weight easily - but it's not true for everyone!!

Sure, different people have different metabolic rates. And people with low metabolic rates will have a tougher time losing weight than people with higher metabolic rates. What you've discovered is that your overall caloric burn (basal metabolic rate + activity levels) is not very high. Consume slightly less than that, and over time, you will lose weight.

[jenny_mcs]

Just looking at it visually, would you really call this woman overweight?: link removed

 

Yes

 

Or this woman obese?: link removed

 

Definitely quite a bit overweight, hard to say if she's obese or not, it's not like we can see her whole body.

 

Third, and most important, fat DOES NOT always = unhealthy, and there are MANY peer-reviewed medical studies supporting this (see a whole list of them here: link removed, and there are many more). In fact, there are more and more studies coming out showing that overweight people actually live longer, are more likely to survive cardiac problems, recover better from illnesses, etc etc than thin people.

 

I've actually read quite a bit about this. Scientists are calling it "the obesity paradox"- basically why obese patients seem to recover from heart disease/heart attacks at a better rate than people of a healthy weight. It's already been explained- the heart disease obese people get is different from the heart disease fit people get. Obese people are getting heart disease from eating foods that block their arteries and gaining tons of weight. It's a different type of heart disease than a fit 30 year old who suddenly drops over from a heart attack. The fit person's heart disease is genetic, and more difficult to recover from than the self-induced heart disease of the obese person.

 

Then there's the fact that diets just plain DO NOT work over the long-term (see, e.g.,: link removed). Something like 1-2% of the population is able to maintain weight-loss over the long (5-yr) term. In fact, in many ways, dieting is one of the worst things you can do for your health and would often be more harmful to an "overweight" person than maintaining (see, e.g.,: link removed) - on top of the fact that it may well do you no good.

 

 

I don't think anyone should ever "diet"- people should make healthy eating choices and get enough exercise to maintain healthy weights and fit bodies.

 

Finally, let me relate my own experience. I'm a field biologist. On any given day, I will bike at least 9 km plus hike another 3-5km, just as part of my daily routine. On top of that I often will jog another 3-5k, bike another 10k, or hike another 10k or so on top of my "base" activity level. I cook and eat healthy foods: whole grains, legumes, vegetables, with little fat, sweets, or alcohol. I eat approximately 1500-1800 cals/day (and I've logged this regularly for years, I'm not underestimating. Actually, for years I used to eat 1200 or fewer calories per day while working out 5-6 days/week, running 20+ miles/week plus weights, and was still overweight per the BMI). Meanwhile, I currently have 2 field assistants who live and work with me. They eat the same food I do, but in quantities usually 2-3x what I eat, plus will often eat junk food in addition to the food that I buy and cook for us. The woman is a size 0-2, and the man is also underweight. How exactly would you explain this within the framework that overweight people are lazy, slovenly over-eaters? It just doesn't work!!! There's natural variation, people! Some people are lucky enough to have fast metabolisms and maintain or lose weight easily - but it's not true for everyone!!

 

Of course it's not true for everyone. Some people have to work a lot harder to get/stay fit. That doesn't mean that being fit isn't the optimum state of being.

[viajera]

Sure, different people have different metabolic rates. And people with low metabolic rates will have a tougher time losing weight than people with higher metabolic rates. What you've discovered is that your overall caloric burn (basal metabolic rate + activity levels) is not very high. Consume slightly less than that, and over time, you will lose weight.

 

Sure, so easy right? Except it doesn't work for me. Did you see the part where I said that for about a year, I ran 20+ miles/week and lifted weights (usually at the gym 1.5-2 hours/day 5-6 days/week), while eating 1200 cals/day (low-carb and low-fat - South Beach-style diet) and still didn't lose weight? My body was literally starving, I wasn't getting enough nutrients, I was anemic, and my joints were wearing out from all the heavy exercise... yet I was still just under the overweight/obese borderline per the BMI.

 

The cliche of "exercise more, eat less" may work for you, but it does NOT work for everyone. Bodies have "set points" or "set ranges". You're lucky in that yours is set at a range that is acceptable per the rules of today's culture. That's not true for everyone.

[JenniferSNJ]

Yes

 

really? I wouldn't.

[DaBladeRoden]

Well not that 100 year old virgin lady

[Sparkly Eyes]

I find this all very subjective anyway. I am trying to get in shape myself and I want to be fit, but not necessarily thin. To me, calling someone "thin" is not a compliment. But guys have their own preferences and they're entitled to them. And there are lots of people overweight and obese that have lovers and lots of thin people that have lovers and loves of average people that have lovers.

 

everyone gets a lover in the end.

 

lol that is true. I honestly recommend girls in this thread to not worry that much, diabolik or some other guys here might be hung up on girl's body fat percentage but many many guys in real world are not like that and I don't mean just fat guys. I have always been worried about my weight. Now my BMI is in healthy range but close to overweight, no guy has ever had a bad comment on my weight/fat, if anything I had some saying that a little bit extra I have makes me cute or sexy.

[servedcold]

Secondly, the BMI has so many problems that it's basically completely useless as a measure of either weight OR health.

 

Agree with this, have recently been obese by BMI standards at 5'10 1/2" after gaining 10 pounds of muscle that put me into that category. Have a 46" chest (with no moobs lol) and 33-36" waist depending on the pants, with a not quite flat middle, -slight- love handles, but hell, I'm 45.

 

As far as the flickr shots, IMO the first woman is not overweight, and the second woman is obese, but well made up and disguising it with angles.

[dragon lady]

BMI is not perfect, but it is a pretty good measure for people who are not overly athletic. It's what doctors use for patients (I've seen charts in almost every doctor's office I've been in) and what the World Health Organisation uses to determine obesity in populations. There may be a few individuals percentage-wise who fall out of the parameters of "healthy" who are actually healthy, but I do not believe that it is the majority. If you look back 60 years, the population had a much lower BMI, on average. People also had much lower rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Today we have much higher BMIs and soaring rates of these diseases. I don't think it is just a coincidence. Today the average person IS overweight and it's starting to look normal to many people. People who are perfectly healthy get called "too skinny." This is quite a scary phenomenon as far as health is concerned.

 

Honestly, I would consider that woman posted above large. I don't think she is unattractive, but then again, I'm not attracted to women. I am not at all surprised that she is in the overweight category. She does look average after all, which is overweight these days.

[diabolik]

I've actually read quite a bit about this. Scientists are calling it "the obesity paradox"- basically why obese patients seem to recover from heart disease/heart attacks at a better rate than people of a healthy weight. It's already been explained- the heart disease obese people get is different from the heart disease fit people get. Obese people are getting heart disease from eating foods that block their arteries and gaining tons of weight. It's a different type of heart disease than a fit 30 year old who suddenly drops over from a heart attack. The fit person's heart disease is genetic, and more difficult to recover from than the self-induced heart disease of the obese person.

I'm over my rep points limit for you. Thanks for explaining that. I had made a note to look into it after reading viajera's post, but you've saved me the trouble.

 

Sure, so easy right? Except it doesn't work for me. Did you see the part where I said that for about a year, I ran 20+ miles/week and lifted weights (usually at the gym 1.5-2 hours/day 5-6 days/week), while eating 1200 cals/day (low-carb and low-fat - South Beach-style diet) and still didn't lose weight? My body was literally starving, I wasn't getting enough nutrients, I was anemic, and my joints were wearing out from all the heavy exercise... yet I was still just under the overweight/obese borderline per the BMI.

 

The cliche of "exercise more, eat less" may work for you, but it does NOT work for everyone. Bodies have "set points" or "set ranges". You're lucky in that yours is set at a range that is acceptable per the rules of today's culture. That's not true for everyone.

First of all, I specifically said that losing weight is tougher for some than others. Second, you are a scientist, so you should know that what underlies the cliche "exercise more, eat less" is the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law applies to *everyone*, the obese, the waifs, and everyone in between. If you are confident that it doesn't apply to you, then prove it, publish a paper and win the Nobel prize.

 

From the sounds of it, you overdid it. I suggest you estimate your total caloric burn. Then consume ~5-10% less than that. And make sure that what you consume is highly nutritious. That will solve the malnourishment issue. And your body will make up for the small deficit by burning fat. Your estimate of your total burn will be just that - an estimate. So by tracking your caloric intake and your weight (or much better, your bodyfat %), you can refine the estimate, and thus what your intake should be. The idea is to lose ~1lb/week, much more than that and you risk exactly what you, and what many people who diet too aggressively, experienced. As you lose weight, your total burn will fall (assuming you haven't added muscle), and you have to adjust your intake accordingly. Rinse, repeat until you get to the shape you're happy with. And that's your new long-term intake amount and exercise level. As your exercise level declines with age, kids, whatever, and your metabolism slows with age, you have to adjust the intake to match.

 

As jenny_mcs points out, a big part of why "dieting" fails is that it is seen as temporary, and not a permanent change in lifestyle.

[dragon lady]

You guys really think she looks over weight?

 

I would say yes. She's got large thighs, probably a big butt, largish arms and a thickish waist. Like I said, I don't think she looks bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was in the overweight category.

[diabolik]

You guys really think she looks over weight? I wouldn't consider her thin, but I would consider her healthy/average.

 

She does look average after all, which is overweight these days.

Ding ding ding.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to hear she works out consistently and eats pretty well too.

Eating all the right foods in all the wrong quantities will make someone overweight, even if they exercise regularly.

 

diabolik- Women's jeans aren't as forgiving as you seem to think they are. Women's clothes in general are A LOT less forgiving than males.

I'm not comparing men's and women's clothes. All I was saying is that, nowadays, the designer jeans are much more forgiving of excess fat than jeans from 15 years ago. More than once, I have taken home a woman who looked a little thick but athletic in jeans, only to discover the jeans basically served as a supportive and compressive bra for her butt and upper thighs. ](*,) Needless to say, I now take a much closer look at a woman who looks good in a pair of Seven, etc., jeans before I make a move.

 

That said, I'd take a woman with her figure over one with that crackhead singer's figure.

[jenny_mcs]

Today the average person IS overweight and it's starting to look normal to many people. People who are perfectly healthy get called "too skinny." This is quite a scary phenomenon as far as health is concerned.

 

 

YES. One of the gals in the IT dept at my office started getting into fitness a few months ago, and we started talking about it when she was working on my computer, because she noticed that my PC wallpaper is running-themed. She used to look similar to that girl in the first picture, and she has lost about 30 pounds and looks great- getting lean, her arms are getting defined, etc. She told me she is getting a LOT of comments from friends and family about how she is getting "too skinny" and "taking things too far." It's ridiculous.