Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

They Aren't Curves, They're Fat Rolls

1235»

Replies

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited June 2017
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Curves vs. rolls comes down to genetics, age and fitness levels, IMO. Someone gaining weight in the midsection (beer belly) will have more rolls than someone who gains weight on their hips and thighs. The slightly overweight model that was posted early on gained in the hips and thighs. If those extra 20lbs were in her trunk, I doubt she'd be modelling.

    Interesting perception. The model pictured is 5'9", 201 pounds per this site:
    http://healthyceleb.com/ashley-graham-height-weight-body-statistics/40966

    This is a BMI of 29.7, which is much closer to obese at 30.0 vs normal weight at a BMI less than 25. And she is not "muscular".

    And I wouldn't be shocked there was a bit of fudging on the weight so it would not show her as the obese category.

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited June 2017
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Curves vs. rolls comes down to genetics, age and fitness levels, IMO. Someone gaining weight in the midsection (beer belly) will have more rolls than someone who gains weight on their hips and thighs. The slightly overweight model that was posted early on gained in the hips and thighs. If those extra 20lbs were in her trunk, I doubt she'd be modelling.

    Interesting perception. The model pictured is 5'9", 201 pounds per this site:
    http://healthyceleb.com/ashley-graham-height-weight-body-statistics/40966

    This is a BMI of 29.7, which is much closer to obese at 30.0 vs normal weight at a BMI less than 25. And she is not "muscular".

    And I wouldn't be shocked there was a bit of fudging on the weight so it would not show her as the obese category.

    She shows my point. She carries her weight very well- in the hips and legs and not in the waist.

    I am one inch shorter. This is a picture of me at my heaviest of close to 190 lbs. I carried most of my weight around my middle. Where the weight is carried, genetically speaking, largely determines if one has rolls or curves. I had rolls. Hers look more curvy. It's still just fat. Hers is just placed in more desirable spots.

    b9d76a918b461cf5a2b6c7615f3c41564f3f.jpg

    TBH, I would not be surprised if they boosted her weight to make the point that she is an overweight model, like they do with professional athletes. LOL

    Breasts are largely fat too. Though with many models there may have been other stuff implanted. But there can be a few pounds carried there too. Those get called curves and not rolls. LOL

    Age is also a factor, as is fitness levels. Twenty plus years from now, perimeopause may cause her to lose her bum nd gain in the gut too.
  • aliencheesecake
    aliencheesecake Posts: 569 Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    She's very pretty but those are not the legs of a fit person.

    We're talking about fat, though, not fit. And honestly, I don't think we can deduce anyone's fitness by how their legs look.

    Sure you can. The bumpy, lumpy skin on her thighs looks that way due to cellulite. Cellulite is fat. Stubborn fat that is distressingly easy to accumulate and distressingly difficult to shed but it's fat. My legs looked just like that when I was heavier (30%BF) and don't now that I'm fit (23%BF). You'll be hard pressed to find cellulite deposits on fit people.

    Oh really? I have cellulite and I consider myself a very fit person. I also have pretty muscular legs and lower bodyfat. It has nothing do to with fitness.

    Totally! you can be thin and still have cellulite. Women especially are very prone to it, and once it's there, not much short of surgery will remove it. I had an ex (*kitten*) point out the cellulite on my very fit legs when I weighed about 125 pounds.
  • aliencheesecake
    aliencheesecake Posts: 569 Member
    edited June 2017
    I mean, I do have to agree with this. Kinda goes hand in hand with the *unpopular fitness/health opinion" thread. A lot of people on there were saying the same thing.

    Fat is fat, and the political correctness movement has everyone pandering to these people and encouraging them to remain the same and accept themselves instead of change unhealthy ways. I get it. Some people carry weight differently, and I agree with the statement that someone said earlier about fat people that are perfectly hour glass figured and healthy people who have fat rolls (HI! I am one of them!) However, if someone is obese, it should not be glorified. Good for them if they are happy with their appearance, but don't encourage others to be complacent and not live a healthier life.

    I definitely agree "fat is fat." But I also think a person SHOULD love themselves , even when fat. Self-love and health do not have to be mutually exclusive. A person can be trying to lose weight but still love themselves, and since not everyone CAN lose the weight, why should a fat person not be able to "be happy with who they are?" That said, if they want the help, they can ask for it.

  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Society:Be yourself
    Me: OK
    Society: No, not like that

    I say the above to show that Society is full of conflicting messages. I don't think Society is all for or against fat/fat shaming etc..Society espouses both stances simultaneously. One on side you have the body positivity movement that is about self love at any size or shape and it tells you to not to shame yourself or anyone else because of their bodies. Then on the other you have media constantly showing celebrities in their bikinis/swim trunks and being critical of their bodies, indicating that it's ok to criticise others bodies and therefore to have your body criticised if you put it on public view.
This discussion has been closed.