J. Welborn wrote:
There seems to be a missing link when some girls put a profile here . For those that do not understand what obesity is I have included a link . They use the term "plus size "

They are not offended when they look in the mirror but they are offended when some one else notices they are obese .

The link to reality is http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/defining.htm

The nation seems to be in real trouble with obesity but the model industry sould not have a category to show and support it .

J. Welborn wrote:
There seems to be a missing link when some girls put a profile here . For those that do not understand what obesity is I have included a link . They use the term "plus size "

They are not offended when they look in the mirror but they are offended when some one else notices they are obese .

The link to reality is http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/defining.htm

The nation seems to be in real trouble with obesity but the model industry sould not have a category to show and support it .

jayedwards wrote:

Huh?  You sidestepped the issue.  You posted about ''having to drink disgusting soda because that's all they sell at the stores.'' which means you are blaming them for not selling exactly what you want and you are ''forced'' to buy their soda.  This is the attitude I was posting about -- you want someone else to provide what you want, complain when they don't and then blame them when you drink the soda.  I'm not talking about throwing a fit -- I'm talking about the lack of personal responsibility for providing for your own dietary needs.

I said I'll go to BK but I never said I will buy the soda.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Eboni. . .sweetie. . .you're not fat.  You're not thick either.  You're representative of what is "supposed" to be "average."  Don't start getting a complex about that.  There's a whole wide world of modeling out there (not that I profess to know all of it) but you have to find what's right for Y. O. U.  Period.  I can't tell you what that is.  No one can.  If you have your heart set on runway fashion and that's all you want to do. . .consider your choices and explore options.

why isn't she thick? I haven't looked at her port, but a size 8 could be considered thick right?

Leo Howard wrote:
thats absolutley false, people do not become overweight only because of THEIR food choices, it is sometimes forced on them as a kid when they are growing up, and when you arent given any boundries it just amplifies and gets worse as the years go on. . .

Now if you want to say that people who grew up skinny their whole life and then became fat, that was a choice, generally I would agree, however, there are medical conditions that will cause people to become fat as well, and im not referring to the old thyroid theory of becoming fat. . .

I am lucky to have a decent income, but it irritates me when I go to the grocery store and spend $200 on groceries because I dont want to buy junk food or packaged foods. . .

If the government would take some of that 1+ Billion dollars per year it claims to spend on healthcare for obesity, and subsidise healthy food so it is affordable, that 1+ Billion dollars would reduce quite rapidly. . .

Do you really believe the government spends 1+ billion dollars per year on healthcare for the obese, I would disagree, they may spend that much, but how much of it is an over inflated price, just like when they pay $1000 for a $12 toilet seat.

A quick Google found this from 1999:

Table 1. Obesity Costs in Relation to the Co-Morbidities
(1999 dollars in billions) 
Disease Direct Cost of Obesity Direct Cost of Disease Direct Cost of Obesity as a Percentage of Total Direct Cost of Disease
Arthritis $7.4 $23.1 32%
Breast Cancer $2.1 $10.2 21%
Heart Disease $30.6 $101.8 30%
Colorectal Cancer $2.0 $10.0 20%
Diabetes (Type 2) $20.5 $47.2 43%
Endometrial Cancer $0.6 $2.5 24%
ESRD $3.0 $14.9 20%
Gallstones $3.5 $7.7 45%
Hypertension $9.6 $24.5 39%
Liver Disease $3.4 $9.7 35%
Low Back Pain $3.5 $19.2 18%
Renal Cell Cancer $0.5 $1.6 31%
Obstructive Sleep Apnea $0.2 $0.4 50%
Stroke $8.1 $29.5 27%
Urinary Incontinence $7.6 $29.2 26%
Total Direct Cost $102.2 $331.4 31%

Source: The Lewin Group, 1999.

The data table didn't paste well but you can see that the direct cost of obesity is listed as $102 billion.  Just a bit more than the $1 billion figure you doubted.

dee740 wrote:
why isn't she thick? I haven't looked at her port, but a size 8 could be considered thick right?

Sorry to go in a different direction but . . .

I just love these shots of you

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=696866
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=531583

Stellar Stina wrote:
It's not always easy to just "earn more money" I've been where it's money going to electricity or veggies. Electricity won out (until I found out that frozen veggies have the same nutritional value)

My husband and I worked HARD just to find minimum wage jobs. That's why he ended up joining the military.(whole other story..)

I agree that it's not always easy to earn more money.  If it was then we would all have ''more money''.  My first job was a dishwasher and then I spent a few years in the fast food industry so I know what it's like to not have that extra money.

BronxBeauty8 wrote:

I said I'll go to BK but I never said I will buy the soda.

Wow, so when you posted: ''having to drink disgusting soda because that's all they sell at the stores.'' what did you mean other than you had to buy the soda because that's all they had?

jayedwards wrote:

Let me see: I sound like an ass because I said if you can't afford what you want then you should go out and earn more money.  Yeah, what an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Yes, incredibly. Why if a person had the opportunity to make more money would they not? That doesn't even make sense and it obviously isn't that simple. There's  no EASY button.

Myopic Earache wrote:
Now driving and eating... sigh... that is another reason obesity is on the rise: food is accepted everywhere.  Ride the train and you'll have people eating chips ALL the time, drive-thru/dashboard dining is everywhere, eat at your desk, lunchtime meetings.. etc.  The tradition of sitting at a breakfast/lunch/dinner table is a notion of the past.  Now people eat everywhere at anytime, acceptance of which is complicit to the problem.

Not necessarily true. A lot of diets tend to want to boost metabolism... hence eating 4 to 6 small meals a day. Think about it.

dee740 wrote:
why isn't she thick? I haven't looked at her port, but a size 8 could be considered thick right?

Are there not supposed to be "ranges?"  Are not 0, 2, 4, and 6 considered "thin" because that's what sample sizes are made in, and that represents "smaller" sizes?  Plus sizes in "stores" start at 14 (some 12 *shudder*) and go up from there.  That would lead me to conclude that "average" should be in the middle. 

In my opinion a size 8 or 10, hell or even 12 (IF properly proportioned) is considered "average."  Why?  Because when I go shopping, most of the sizes left on the racks are those sizes.  Particularly 10's.   To ME, a 14 is "thick".  A "thick" woman will be that traditional 36-24-36 hourglass. . .just with measurements like 38-26-40 or something.  In other words she's got a little somethin extra, but she's not quite what most would call fat.  That's thick. . .bigger than slim, definitely not thin, definitely not fat.  YOU would be thick, and I'm judging by your measurements only.  If you were 6' tall, you would be "slim" with those measurements.  Make sense?

I think a lot of women and men use that term to describe any woman with curves before they start throwing out the word fat.  I just think the term's used too too loosely.

jayedwards wrote:

A quick Google found this from 1999:

Table 1. Obesity Costs in Relation to the Co-Morbidities
(1999 dollars in billions) 
Disease Direct Cost of Obesity Direct Cost of Disease Direct Cost of Obesity as a Percentage of Total Direct Cost of Disease
Arthritis $7.4 $23.1 32%
Breast Cancer $2.1 $10.2 21%
Heart Disease $30.6 $101.8 30%
Colorectal Cancer $2.0 $10.0 20%
Diabetes (Type 2) $20.5 $47.2 43%
Endometrial Cancer $0.6 $2.5 24%
ESRD $3.0 $14.9 20%
Gallstones $3.5 $7.7 45%
Hypertension $9.6 $24.5 39%
Liver Disease $3.4 $9.7 35%
Low Back Pain $3.5 $19.2 18%
Renal Cell Cancer $0.5 $1.6 31%
Obstructive Sleep Apnea $0.2 $0.4 50%
Stroke $8.1 $29.5 27%
Urinary Incontinence $7.6 $29.2 26%
Total Direct Cost $102.2 $331.4 31%

Source: The Lewin Group, 1999.

The data table didn't paste well but you can see that the direct cost of obesity is listed as $102 billion.  Just a bit more than the $1 billion figure you doubted.

I think you misunderstood what I said/meant, and, I was just using the 1+ billion as a number

I dont doubt that there 102 billion being spent on obesity and its directly related issues, what I am saying is that, given the governments way of doing business ( spending $1000 on a $12 toilet seat ) and this is due to the fact that they pay the bill regardless of how much it is, never questioning it, so, is that $102 billion or should it be more like 2.4 billion, regardless of what it is, I truly believe if they were to take part of that 102 billion and spend it on subsidising healthy foods to make it more affordable, and truly educate people, how fast would that 102 billion go down?

Leo Howard wrote:

Sorry to go in a different direction but . . .

I just love these shots of you

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=696866
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=531583

thank you.

dee740 wrote:

Yes, incredibly. Why if a person had the opportunity to make more money would they not? That doesn't even make sense and it obviously isn't that simple. There's  no EASY button.

Of course there's no easy button.  Why should there be?  Most people do have the opportunity to make more money but they choose not to.  How many people do you know who have two jobs?  Three jobs?  Or work more than 60 hours per week?  I work 60 hours per week because I want more money.  Most people choose to work about 40 hours per week, don't they?

Jayne Jones wrote:

Are there not supposed to be "ranges?"  Are not 0, 2, 4, and 6 considered "thin" because that's what sample sizes are made in, and that represents "smaller" sizes?  Plus sizes in "stores" start at 14 (some 12 *shudder*) and go up from there.  That would lead me to conclude that "average" should be in the middle. 

In my opinion a size 8 or 10, hell or even 12 (IF properly proportioned) is considered "average."  Why?  Because when I go shopping, most of the sizes left on the racks are those sizes.  Particularly 10's.   To ME, a 14 is "thick".  A "thick" woman will be that traditional 36-24-36 hourglass. . .just with measurements like 38-26-40 or something.  In other words she's got a little somethin extra, but she's not quite what most would call fat.  That's thick. . .bigger than slim, definitely not thin, definitely not fat.  YOU would be thick, and I'm judging by your measurements only.  If you were 6' tall, you would be "slim" with those measurements.  Make sense?

I think a lot of women and men use that term to describe any woman with curves before they start throwing out the word fat.  I just think the term's used too too loosely.

well that's what I mean. I'm a 10 with the measurements and all. I'm never a 14.  think it just depends.

DigitalSwede wrote:

Not necessarily true. A lot of diets tend to want to boost metabolism... hence eating 4 to 6 small meals a day. Think about it.

Yes, I'm familiar with this style of eating and yes, it's been proven to be an effective way to boost metabolism.  But there is the bigger picture to what I'm saying.  The prevalance of food acceptance everywhere is also complicit to the obesity problem.  One of many layers of contributing factors.

Leo Howard wrote:

I think you misunderstood what I said/meant, and, I was just using the 1+ billion as a number

I dont doubt that there 102 billion being spent on obesity and its directly related issues, what I am saying is that, given the governments way of doing business ( spending $1000 on a $12 toilet seat ) and this is due to the fact that they pay the bill regardless of how much it is, never questioning it, so, is that $102 billion or should it be more like 2.4 billion, regardless of what it is, I truly believe if they were to take part of that 102 billion and spend it on subsidising healthy foods to make it more affordable, and truly educate people, how fast would that 102 billion go down?

Keep looking at the data table.  The $331.4 billion figure includes the indirect costs of obesity for a total of over $400 billion.  It doesn't matter if you think the government overcharges -- if they spent that much money then they spent that much money.  Yes, they may have overpaid for some services but the money was still paid.  Right?

Stellar Stina wrote:
Severe obesity to the point where it is really damaging  to your health, of course, should not be encouraged or glamourized (neither should unnatural thinness), but as long as obese people wear clothes, they should be represented.

I'm not obese, but I'm bigger than the vast, vast majority of manequins out there. I hate that fashions are (in general) designed for boyish figures. All sizes should definitely be represented in fashion modeling.

On the other hand, it's good to have self confidence, but carrying too much extra weight is unhealthy. Even if the health aspects don't matter to a given obese person, I don't think that they should be raised up to be a role model, or an example of what to strive for. That's just the other end of the spectrum from anorexia/bulemia, overeating is an eating disorder, too.

According to "recent studies" a bit of meat on your bones- but not super obesity- is healthier than being super thin. =o)

I love good curves!

What she said! I agree!

jayedwards wrote:

Let me see: I sound like an ass because I said if you can't afford what you want then you should go out and earn more money.  Yeah, what an incredibly stupid thing to say.

It is, because some people cant, its a rut the US is in, you have to get higher education to make more money which in turn put you in debt, and when you are thousands of dollars in debt for your 4 years of school what are you gonna eat? are you and you dorm buddies gonan get together at wegmans and make organic mini pizzas for the whole school? Yeah ok. And what about poor family who live paycheck to paycheck when do they have time to go to school and even so if they dont care they arent gonna do it and they are gonna give their kid doritos and soda everyday, do you think an obese 8 year old is gonna go out and get a job so they can lose weight? Ok sure.

Jayne Jones wrote:

Are there not supposed to be "ranges?"  Are not 0, 2, 4, and 6 considered "thin" because that's what sample sizes are made in, and that represents "smaller" sizes?  Plus sizes in "stores" start at 14 (some 12 *shudder*) and go up from there.  That would lead me to conclude that "average" should be in the middle. 

In my opinion a size 8 or 10, hell or even 12 (IF properly proportioned) is considered "average."  Why?  Because when I go shopping, most of the sizes left on the racks are those sizes.  Particularly 10's.   To ME, a 14 is "thick".  A "thick" woman will be that traditional 36-24-36 hourglass. . .just with measurements like 38-26-40 or something.  In other words she's got a little somethin extra, but she's not quite what most would call fat.  That's thick. . .bigger than slim, definitely not thin, definitely not fat.  YOU would be thick, and I'm judging by your measurements only.  If you were 6' tall, you would be "slim" with those measurements.  Make sense?

I think a lot of women and men use that term to describe any woman with curves before they start throwing out the word fat.  I just think the term's used too too loosely.

Ya know I never got the term "thick" myself.. I don't think I am FAT as long as I can shop in straight sizes I am happy. But am I thick? I am not thin. I am not average, I don't think. I get called voluptious all the time if anything.

Myopic Earache wrote:

Jayne Jones wrote:
Oooohhh!!  What did the five fingers say to the face???  SLAP

HAHA, bring it on!

Jayne Jones wrote:
Lemme guess. . .you are the perfect picture of health.  You run three to five miles a day and never ever eat anything unhealthy.  Give me a friggin breatk.

I acutally do eat pretty healthy.  Sure, I don't always make the best food choices but I'm in good health.  To answer your well worded inquiry regarding my exercise regime, I strength train twice a week, go for hour long walks with my dog daily (weather permitting), play ice hockey once a week... so yeah, I'd say I'm in pretty good health.

EDIT: I also forgot hockey practice as well.

Jayne Jones wrote:
The only reason to "promote" the trivial High School popularity biotches look down on the "fat girl in gym class" BS is to continue to inflate your own ego and the egos of others like you. 

Let's get really real for five seconds.  Why are YOU so concerned with the overall health of the majority of the United States?  Do you feel that your "beautiful person" status is in jeapardy?  Personally, I think it's because knowing you can make someone feel they are a lesser person than you are, gives you just a bit of a rush and somewhat of a confidence boost.  If your own confidence level was high. . .you'd care less about me, how I looked or anything else.

I have 117 billion reasons to be concerned with it.  My beautiful person status?  HA!  You have no idea what I look like and really, no, I don't put people down to raise my own esteem, what a ridiculous notion.  Lesser person, I wish the 60million obese people in the United States WERE lesser people.  The point you conveniently missed here is that obesity should be looked down upon because it affects EVERYBODY negatively.  Unhealthy living should be looked down upon and not embraced and accepted.


Hey, you can argue all you want but obesity is an epidemic.  Do you know how many obese children there are that have severe social issues because nobody teaches them how to live healthy lives?  Do you know how many of them will end up diabetic?  Have joint issues in their toes from carrying an extra 200 pounds?  Will not be able to play catch because they can't run?  That would suck, I would not wish it upon anyone.

Um.... And don't forget grow up to live socially isolated because of people such as yourself who are clearly prejudiced against them - so much that they hide from the world, don't go to the gym, don't get out and get active because of the shame that comes with being morbidly obese...

Hmmmm.... if we were to change the word "fat" to African American or Jewish or Omish, or whatever, would this thread even be permitted to stay up this long?  Why is it ok to bash heavy people?

Ugh,
Caroline

Tikal wrote:
It is, because some people cant, its a rut the US is in, you have to get higher education to make more money which in turn put you in debt, and when you are thousands of dollars in debt for your 4 years of school what are you gonna eat? are you and you dorm buddies gonan get together at wegmans and make organic mini pizzas for the whole school? Yeah ok. And what about poor family who live paycheck to paycheck when do they have time to go to school and even so if they dont care they arent gonna do it and they are gonna give their kid doritos and soda everyday, do you think an obese 8 year old is gonna go out and get a job so they can lose weight? Ok sure.

Wow, you may want to go back and read it again.  I said: ''if you can't afford what you want then you should go out and earn more money.''  So, if you can't afford what you want then what should you do?  And we're talking about adults, of course.

Sarah Deathriage wrote:

Ya know I never got the term "thick" myself.. I don't think I am FAT as long as I can shop in straight sizes I am happy. But am I thick? I am not thin. I am not average, I don't think. I get called voluptious all the time if anything.

that's what I mean. I have been a six at this height and dammit I was still thick because again,  with big breasts and ass there that "something extra" that Jayne talks about.

Caroline Ann Martin wrote:

Um.... And don't forget grow up to live socially isolated because of people such as yourself who are clearly prejudiced against them - so much that they hide from the world, don't go to the gym, don't get out and get active because of the shame that comes with being morbidly obese...

Hmmmm.... if we were to change the word "fat" to African American or Jewish or Omish, or whatever, would this thread even be permitted to stay up this long?  Why is it ok to bash heavy people?

Ugh,
Caroline

all I can say is "damn" to those pics.

jayedwards wrote:

Wow, you may want to go back and read it again.  I said: ''if you can't afford what you want then you should go out and earn more money.''  So, if you can't afford what you want then what should you do?  And we're talking about adults, of course.

Oh yeah your right college kids and children are rich and dont need higher education to get grat jobs! And no matter how fat they are or poor they turn into the Hilton Sisters! I totally forgot how easy it was!

Caroline Ann Martin wrote:
Um.... And don't forget grow up to live socially isolated because of people such as yourself who are clearly prejudiced against them - so much that they hide from the world, don't go to the gym, don't get out and get active because of the shame that comes with being morbidly obese...

Hmmmm.... if we were to change the word "fat" to African American or Jewish or Omish, or whatever, would this thread even be permitted to stay up this long?  Why is it ok to bash heavy people?

Ugh,
Caroline

First off I have to say good for you, it's great to see someone go through such a dramatic weight loss.  You say more with your photos than your words.

I don't know.... who is bashing fat people?  Let me make my position very clear:

I don't hate fat people, I hate obeseity.  My brother is obese, hes 6'2, 320 or so.  Do I hate him?  No.  Do I put him down?  No.  Do I talk to him and encourage him to lose weight?  Yes.

I do hate my tax dollars going towards programs to treat what can be prevented with regular exercise and good diet.

Thats it.

Quite obviously the reason this thread is not locked is because it's and interesting conversation where people are speaking their minds.

jayedwards wrote:

Keep looking at the data table.  The $331.4 billion figure includes the indirect costs of obesity for a total of over $400 billion.  It doesn't matter if you think the government overcharges -- if they spent that much money then they spent that much money.  Yes, they may have overpaid for some services but the money was still paid.  Right?

Absolutley it was paid out, but, how much less would it be, if they were to take 100 billion and spend it on healthy food subsidy and proper education?

Tikal wrote:

Oh yeah your right college kids and children are rich and dont need higher education to get grat jobs! And no matter how fat they are or poor they turn into the Hilton Sisters! I totally forgot how easy it was!

Why didn't you answer my question instead of changing the subject?

jayedwards wrote:

Of course there's no easy button.  Why should there be?  Most people do have the opportunity to make more money but they choose not to.  How many people do you know who have two jobs?  Three jobs?  Or work more than 60 hours per week?  I work 60 hours per week because I want more money.  Most people choose to work about 40 hours per week, don't they?

well it depends on what type of job you have. For instance, I'm in a management posiiton at my job, and my schedule rotates. there would be no real way for me to make any extra money on the side consistently  because of that. I've been looking for a more convenient job for a year now.


I'm single. Imagine someone with pressing responsibilities like children or spouses. Then things get more complicated don't they?

Sirena Scott wrote:
I disagree totally.

The BBW is a HUGE market (no pun intended) and alot of beautiful BBW are making a pretty good living doing plus-size modeling.  More power to them!

Right, because their market is the obese of the world.  Obesity is a serious health problem and this HUGE market encourages it so they may stay afloat.  Without obesity this would not be an issue.

Myopic Earache wrote:

What?  You think I'm a jerk for being honest and not PC about an issue that is plaguing the planet and is only getting worse? 

I may be a jerk about it but the truth of the matter is the problem the more people embace the problem, the worse it gets.  Look at HIV in Africa.  Ignore a problem and it will get worse.  Make the solution as part of the national health care system and eliminate choice on whether to get tested or not will lead to higher awareness and hopefully lead to a cessation of the spread.  That approach should be applied to the USA.

What national healthcare system?  You're not a jerk...you're delusional.

Leo Howard wrote:

Absolutley it was paid out, but, how much less would it be, if they were to take 100 billion and spend it on healthy food subsidy and proper education?

Okay, I have to make a point on this...have you ever watched the documentry called "Super Size Me"? If not it's very interesting. They had a whole section in there about what they are serving at schools. The schools say that the kids should learn how to choose the proper foods from home but seeing as how most students are in school from near 7am to 5-6pm (depending on afternoon activities) I don't see how the parents are supposed to teach their children what to eat if they aren't home to eat. Okay, no big deal but McDonald's and Burger King and Pizza Hut and Pepsi and Coke and most candy companies are invading our schools. We give our kids the choice to have fast food or candy or school food (which normally consists of pizza, french fries, chocolate milk, 2% milk, apple and a salad) which would YOU choose if YOU were 15?

Leo Howard wrote:

Absolutley it was paid out, but, how much less would it be, if they were to take 100 billion and spend it on healthy food subsidy and proper education?

It would be much less, I suspect.  But only if the people will follow the dietary guidelines they are given but I don't see that happening.

jayedwards wrote:

Why didn't you answer my question instead of changing the subject?

Because you want me to say if you dont make enough money get a better job and Im tell you that you dont turn into a Hilton over night and you cant lose weight at the drop of a hat, people are raised that way and not every body can be Bill Gates just because you say so.

dee740 wrote:
with pressing responsibilities like children or spouses. Then things get more complicated don't they?

OMG, let's not even go there.   My mother was the a single mother with three children and while juggling a few jobs here/there while pursuing a child development degree.  She always made sure we ate a good diet and weren't sitting in front of the television.  Everything we had was activity related and we were always doing something.  She taught us good diet and exercise (I wish my brother remembered, he ballooned over the past few years)... so let's not EVEN start down this road.  Single parents can do it, mine is living proof.