Since thick is in, should I stay at 145 on my 5'2 frame
Options
Replies
-
angellll12 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »thisdizzy_dreamer wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »
All I see in that pic is fake boobs and zero curves...
The skin in your profile picture is very nearly orange. I don't think you're in the position to be passing judgement.
WTF @thisdizzy_dreamer???? Are you saying i wear fake tan or something? Never have used it and never will. I live in Australia, don't need it
Take a chill pill little girl :huh:
People are ridiculous on these fourms lmao.
That is definitely true. People on these forums ARE ridiculous.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Hm....thick and curvy. When I hear those words, I think of Celeste Bonin, aka WWE's former diva Kaitlyn:
I agree with what other posters said. Major kudos to being confident in your skin. But at the same time, following trends for what body type 'is in' is not a good idea.
I remember back in the 70s, and again in the 90s, the look was to be nearly emaciated.
All I see in that pic is fake boobs and zero curves...
Wow. Really? What does it matter if she has fake boobs? And I see curves, she might not be as "curvy" as some other people, but she's got them.
I don't agree with what was said about your skin but I think this is also just as negative to point out as you did.
0 -
Fads change. Lose the weight. Buy a push up bra. I know how you feel. I lost my boobs too. Went from a healthy C to a barely B LOL. But the trade off of being able to fit into smaller sized clothes is definitely worth it0
-
PikaKnight wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Hm....thick and curvy. When I hear those words, I think of Celeste Bonin, aka WWE's former diva Kaitlyn:
I agree with what other posters said. Major kudos to being confident in your skin. But at the same time, following trends for what body type 'is in' is not a good idea.
I remember back in the 70s, and again in the 90s, the look was to be nearly emaciated.
All I see in that pic is fake boobs and zero curves...
Wow. Really? What does it matter if she has fake boobs? And I see curves, she might not be as "curvy" as some other people, but she's got them.
I don't agree with what was said about your skin but I think this is also just as negative to point out as you did.
Maybe curvy looks different to different people. To me, curvy is the classic hourglass shape and decent size boobs. Maybe Elle McPherson back in her hay day.
The girl in the picture has no definable waist that I can see anyway.
As for the negative point. ... Wrestler girl will never read my remark. If she was a real life poster here, I wouldn't have said anything
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Hm....thick and curvy. When I hear those words, I think of Celeste Bonin, aka WWE's former diva Kaitlyn:
I agree with what other posters said. Major kudos to being confident in your skin. But at the same time, following trends for what body type 'is in' is not a good idea.
I remember back in the 70s, and again in the 90s, the look was to be nearly emaciated.
All I see in that pic is fake boobs and zero curves...
Wow. Really? What does it matter if she has fake boobs? And I see curves, she might not be as "curvy" as some other people, but she's got them.
I don't agree with what was said about your skin but I think this is also just as negative to point out as you did.
Maybe curvy looks different to different people. To me, curvy is the classic hourglass shape and decent size boobs. Maybe Elle McPherson back in her hay day.
The girl in the picture has no definable waist that I can see anyway.
As for the negative point. ... Wrestler girl will never read my remark. If she was a real life poster here, I wouldn't have said anything
You never know.
But more likely than that particular girl being here, there are a lot of other women here, many of whom might look like or want to look like her. My personal policy is not to make negative comments about other women's bodies. I think it encourages women to tear each other down instead of supporting each other.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Hm....thick and curvy. When I hear those words, I think of Celeste Bonin, aka WWE's former diva Kaitlyn:
I agree with what other posters said. Major kudos to being confident in your skin. But at the same time, following trends for what body type 'is in' is not a good idea.
I remember back in the 70s, and again in the 90s, the look was to be nearly emaciated.
All I see in that pic is fake boobs and zero curves...
Wow. Really? What does it matter if she has fake boobs? And I see curves, she might not be as "curvy" as some other people, but she's got them.
I don't agree with what was said about your skin but I think this is also just as negative to point out as you did.
Maybe curvy looks different to different people. To me, curvy is the classic hourglass shape and decent size boobs. Maybe Elle McPherson back in her hay day.
The girl in the picture has no definable waist that I can see anyway.
As for the negative point. ... Wrestler girl will never read my remark. If she was a real life poster here, I wouldn't have said anything
So it makes it okay to down on another person's body as long as they aren't actively involved in the convo? Not saying it's wrong to not prefer a certain body type or for it to not be your ideal goal, but there is a difference between that and being ugly about it, as well as looking down on that person's preferences and hard work. Just because that person isn't in here, doesn't mean that someone with similar goals or body type doesn't use these boards.
0 -
If you are concerned about losing volume in your breasts, don't go under 140. I am 5'3" and went from 190 to 120 (over the course of a few years). I literally had skin bags which is NOT attractive. I resorted to. . . ahem. . . artificial volume to correct the problem. Having surgery is not much fun and nothing beats real ones!0
-
Wait...what did I miss here? Christine called someone "not curvy" and is now getting slammed? I just had three glasses of wine so sorry if I missed something.0
-
FreedomMK2131 wrote: »If you are concerned about losing volume in your breasts, don't go under 140. I am 5'3" and went from 190 to 120 (over the course of a few years). I literally had skin bags which is NOT attractive. I resorted to. . . ahem. . . artificial volume to correct the problem. Having surgery is not much fun and nothing beats real ones!
On the other hand, I'm 5'4" and went from 170 to 122-123 and mine are fine. Proportionately they're bigger than they were before-- I went from a 36C to a 32D.
It's going to vary from person to person based on a lot of factors (mostly genetics).0 -
lol this thread is so entertaining.0
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »FreedomMK2131 wrote: »If you are concerned about losing volume in your breasts, don't go under 140. I am 5'3" and went from 190 to 120 (over the course of a few years). I literally had skin bags which is NOT attractive. I resorted to. . . ahem. . . artificial volume to correct the problem. Having surgery is not much fun and nothing beats real ones!
On the other hand, I'm 5'4" and went from 170 to 122-123 and mine are fine. Proportionately they're bigger than they were before-- I went from a 36C to a 32D.
It's going to vary from person to person based on a lot of factors (mostly genetics).
True true. I went from 163 to 133, 34 B to 32 B, and mine look funny as hell right now.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »Wait...what did I miss here? Christine called someone "not curvy" and is now getting slammed? I just had three glasses of wine so sorry if I missed something.
I believe it was "all I see is zero curves and fake boobs."
Which isn't really body shaming territory or anything but it certainly doesn't come across as positive.0 -
arditarose wrote: »Wait...what did I miss here? Christine called someone "not curvy" and is now getting slammed? I just had three glasses of wine so sorry if I missed something.
Yeah pretty much. Someone posted a pic of a wrestler woman describing her as curvy. I said I don't see any curves, just fake boobs and no shape, I think.... cant recall.
And here we are about to go round and round on the merry go round!
I still stand by my opinion. I can't exactly back peddle or apologise to this woman....
0 -
-
christinev297 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Hm....thick and curvy. When I hear those words, I think of Celeste Bonin, aka WWE's former diva Kaitlyn:
I agree with what other posters said. Major kudos to being confident in your skin. But at the same time, following trends for what body type 'is in' is not a good idea.
I remember back in the 70s, and again in the 90s, the look was to be nearly emaciated.
All I see in that pic is fake boobs and zero curves...
Wow. Really? What does it matter if she has fake boobs? And I see curves, she might not be as "curvy" as some other people, but she's got them.
I don't agree with what was said about your skin but I think this is also just as negative to point out as you did.
Maybe curvy looks different to different people. To me, curvy is the classic hourglass shape and decent size boobs. Maybe Elle McPherson back in her hay day.
The girl in the picture has no definable waist that I can see anyway.
As for the negative point. ... Wrestler girl will never read my remark. If she was a real life poster here, I wouldn't have said anything
Nah that girl is not curvy period point blank her hips and waist are the same size. People just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Lol.0 -
I pretty much disagreed with the posters opinion and got jumped on0
-
TOTALLY EVERYONE SHOULD CHOOSE THEIR HEALTH PATH BASED ON WHICH ATTENTION STARVED INDIVIDUALS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER CHECKOUT MAGAZINES.
Also, once you hit 30 or so, start shopping for icebergs, so you and your old *kitten* can float out to sea to die with some dignity.-3 -
christinev297 wrote: »I pretty much disagreed with the posters opinion and got jumped on
I'm legitimately curious-- why do you think what the other poster said about your skin tone is different than what you said about the wrestler? Just because the wrestler isn't here to read it? That's really not me trying to be argumentative (and I'm sorry if you think I'm jumping on you because that's not my intention) that's me really not understanding or seeing any difference whatsoever.
eta: FTR I think the skin comment was uncalled for and out of line.0 -
FreedomMK2131 wrote: »If you are concerned about losing volume in your breasts, don't go under 140. I am 5'3" and went from 190 to 120 (over the course of a few years). I literally had skin bags which is NOT attractive. I resorted to. . . ahem. . . artificial volume to correct the problem. Having surgery is not much fun and nothing beats real ones!
Mmhm. Already starting to look like that gahhhhhh I messed my body up! I could've been hot. Can't be perfect right? - well I could've been. Eeks I can't think like that. It's okay.
<\30 -
arditarose wrote: »Wait...what did I miss here? Christine called someone "not curvy" and is now getting slammed? I just had three glasses of wine so sorry if I missed something.
nah it was just a little... harsh. But she's correct the woman does not appear to be "curvey" in the more traditional sense.
But I pointed this out when the original "orange" attack comment was made. apparently glossed over... but that was unquestionably way out of line.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions