Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Okay, there's no way on earth that that ass was naturally formed. If a woman gains weight, it's going to go to her abdomen, thighs, face, arms, everywhere. The distribution of fat on her body is completely unnatural. You can't eat an unhealthy diet and will your body to gain weight in one localized area while the rest of you remains thin. That's simply a myth.
There has to be some kind of surgical enhancement either with silicon implants or a Brazilian butt lift. The procedure involves liposuction of fat from one area of the body and injection into the rear end. She could even have a combination of both.
I'm still convinced that the butt is what's natural--it's the rest of her which has been whittled down by Photoshop.
It's sickening how most of pop America, instead of waking up and moving their fat asses with exercise, is opting out for the easy was of trying to make fat asses the "new normal." All you have to do is look at the health statistics for Black women to see that walking around with an ass the size of a house is deadly. And who is going to pay for the healthcare for these fatsos when they all have diabetes in their 40s?
So, just because some athletes have BMIs over 30, and they're not obese, we are to conclude that the BMI is worthless as a measure of anything?
I just did some noodling around on a BMI calculator that I found online. On my 5'6" frame, 186 pounds would give me a BMI of exactly 30. This is 54 pounds more than I currently weigh. Believe me, if I gained 54 pounds at my current fitness level, I would be obese, and I would be unhealthy.
Most of us aren't athletes (unless you really stretch the definition). So, here's a helpful hint: If your BMI is over 30, and you're not an "athlete", you probably weigh more than is healthy for you.
Is the BMI the one and only factor that should be used to assess one's health? Of course not. But, neither is it completely worthless.
Unless accompanied by a measure of body fat (e.g. Body Fat Percentage (BFP)), BMI is indeed a measure of limited utility. BMI makes no distinction between salutary body mass and deleterious body mass. If one is active - not a professional athlete, but someone who keeps workout trim - it is quite easy to become overweight according to the BMI scale. The BMI scale works for people who are sendentary; it does not give a proper assessment of people who are active. Most people who work out will look like sprinters (usual body type - muscular), and not marathon runners (usual body type - slender).
It thus follows that BMI is useful only as a second measurement. The first measurement taken should be the BFP - "How fat are you - are you mostly muscle or mostly fat?" The BMI can then be taken as a second measurement which will confirm or deny the findings of the BFP measurement.
'sedentary', not 'sendentary'
Where do you people get this shit? Did I miss the email or something that got out a message that black me are attracted to big women?
I'm a black woman and trust me, black men do NOT want big/large/fat women. Maybe after marriage a black man doesn't mind too much if Lashondra puts on a few pounds, but trust me - when a black girl is single, if she's fat she is invisible to men, all men, PERIOD.
I'm totally aghast at the article. I was harrassed and insulted from kindergarden right up through high school because I was fat (not even obese, just fat). I was not, nor am I ugly, nor was I 'weird' in any way, just fat. Where the eff were the black men that 'like' fat arses when I was growing up?
What a bunch of steriotyped bullshite.
According to the World Health Organization:
The proportion of adults who are sedentary or nearly so ranges from 60 to 85%.
And, by her own admission, Buffie is sedentary.
I think we are in deep, deep denial about where we are headed.
The point Jeanette D. earlier made about the usefulness of the BMI was that it is useful. It is not useful if people take an interest in their true health and become active. At that point BMI conflates muscle and fat and becomes invalid. One solution is BFP measurements; a much more rough solution is an honest look in a mirror - it's probably okay to be big, but not to jiggle (the female breast excepted).
Reliance on the BMI outside of a select physiological set (those people who are both fat when sedentary and skinny when active) is faith based science. It ignores that muscle is denser than fat, that exercise builds muscle, and that people who are in shape are overweight according to the BMI.
The BMI is simply too unreliable for application to the population as a whole, especially since it doesn't work for people who are healthy. It says people who are skinny fat are of healthy weight, and that those who are muscular are of unhealthy weight.
It is important to take care in being aware of the meanings of measurements, and their limitations of use. Without such care, confusion over real states of affairs is engendered. The fact that BMI is only reliable after it is known how much body fat there is means that BMI is, perforce, a secondary measurement.
should read: It ignores that muscle is denser than fat, that exercise builds muscle, and that muscular people who are in shape are overweight according to the BMI.
Fatties, watch out! Liberals are out to get YOU! They're even willing to:
1. Villify the marginally overweight so that they can capture a greater number of "sinners." (What is different about categorizing Buffy as fat than pointing fingers at Jordan Sparks? MeMe Roth and Dickerson are one in the same.) Who's next to be labeled "fat"? Paris Hilton? When the range of what is normal is so limited that only a very few can actually achieve it, it's time to read this as a moral panic, not reality. Progressives' fat hate rhetoric=evangelical rants against homosexuality. Both are disgusting.
2. Mask their utterly disgusting prejudice of fat bodies by suggesting fatness is a "health issue." Evidence: Even the CDC's data shows that moderately overweight bodies (BMI's of up to 29 or so--I can't remember the exact number) outlive thinner counterparts. Look it up for yourselves and see the sheer incongruity between what gets reported in the media and the actual data. This is no different than worries that Japanese Americans were going to take over after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I wouldn't be surprised if fat folks were rounded up soon and taken to their own interrment camps. The only difference between then and now is that there wouldn't even be a small minority of rational, progressive thinkers who would support their release.
3. Believe, contrary to any evidence whatsoever, that fatness can be "cured." I dare any of you fat haters to find JUST ONE STUDY ANYWHERE that illustrates that more than 5% of any study population's weight can be significantly reduced and maintained over five years time. No diet, lifestyle change or any other name for calorie/food restriction has ever produced significant weight loss in a significant segment of the population. Weight loss is a THEORETICAL idea, as likely to be achieved in the near future as TIME TRAVEL. Belief in supernatural cures/fixes also signals a moral panic.
Unfortunately, rising rates of fatness occurs from the psychological deprivation diets cause and the resulting binge eating. That's why dieters almost always gain the weight back and then some.
Yikes.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
