Since thick is in, should I stay at 145 on my 5'2 frame
Replies
-
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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
I agree. Even at my thinnest back in high school I was still a DDD/EEE. Damn the women in my family for cursing us with a giant chest. I had a reduction in my early 20's though so it no longer effects me. THank God. However my sister has not had a reduction and her being 5'2 and 150# has boobs so big (natural) that she has to make her own bras otherwise they are hundreds of dollars and can only find them online. Her band is only a 32 but she is in the H or I department. It's sad really and uncomfortable.
The fake stuff...I agree are not sexy. I think the real parts of women should be loved and appreciated more than fake idolized. I do realize I'm not all real anymore but I didn't have a reduction to look sexy I did it because my back and neck hurt when I wasn't overweight and I was 20....I couldn't imagine what it would feel like today if I hadn't had one.
Dyemysoul, I can't believe your sister is making her own bras. She must be really talented! Another option she may want to consider is Ewa Michalak http://www.ewa-michalak.pl/About-me-cabout-eng-3.html . She makes a large range of sizes. I like that I can get a half-cup, plunge, or padded bra in my cup size (which is larger than your sister's). For some reason, bra makers think that if you have big boobs you must want unpadded. I already have big boobs. If you can see my nipples on top of it, it's just ridiculous! It's not like the little bit of padding in a bra is going to make me look any bigger, but it will make me less self conscious. They are very reasonably priced, but it does take about a month usually to get them--she makes them to order.
Awesome thank you for the site...i will pass it along to her. She is incredibly talented with a sewing machine!!0 -
angellll12 wrote: »quote="Daiako;31956547"]Amber Rose has fake boobs tho.
Ain't nothing wrong with that, of course. But let's call it what it is.
Her butt is fake too. That's the look I like, curvy, but not so flabby, yet not so toned.
I like her boobs, they're fake but they look natural.
[/quote]
lol but if you like the fake butt and the fake boobs then you cant have real results. That doesn't go together.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
TIL- I am not womanly.
@rainbowbow you certainly have a womanly figure IMHO
I completely agree with you on your posts.
I'm not here to judge the OP or some of the other posters claiming thick. If you are happy calling yourself thick or toned then so be it. I just can't see carrying so much weight at that height and still using curvy as an adjective. But I still call myself fat at the 200lbs I am right now.0 -
I am 5'2" and was 145...it's NOT a good weight for me at all, but everyone is different. I look pudgy and a couple of months pregnant. I now weigh 138 and heading to 125 - 130. I have seen heavier women that are in total proportion, with no belly...so I can't say if 145 is a good weight or not for the OP. Strozman....I have to agree, 145 is a little much at that height...but again, everyone is built differently0
-
Another thank you to @dyemysoul for the renttherunway recommendation!
I've got pretty much no curves other than those in my hair. That's just my body type and I'm fine with it. I do find it interesting how different the same weight at the same height can look, based on body shape so this thread has been fun to follow.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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.0 -
Those big ol butts are nasty lol. If you feel healthy and are happy stay where you are at, but your BMI says otherwise, regarding your health0
-
roostking1 wrote: »Those big ol butts are nasty lol. If you feel healthy and are happy stay where you are at, but your BMI says otherwise, regarding your health
This is false. It depends on how your weight is distributed. I have a healthy BMI - 21.6 and large hips/butt at 39.0 -
"since thick is in".... huh?? We must live in different countries.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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
personally, i don't care what ordinary civilians do, i don't think the bodies discussed look "trashy", and i have no issue with surgery per se.
i do think though that what famous people do to their bodies matters more, inasmuch as they might set up unrealistic expectations. like OP is trying to work out her dietary and personal body and fitness goals according to an aesthetic that was achieved with money, so that's just going to set her up for frustration if she's not going to be doing surgery (most likely - some women do have naturally big bums, obviously, or the genetic potential to build them up without surgery).
in that way i don't see a difference between the curvy fad and fitspo or thinspo.0 -
I'm 5'6" and 159 lbs. (considered overweight on the BMI scale). I go to the gym 6 days a week. I can run a 7:30 mile. I run 2-5 miles (8 min pace) about 4 days a week. I lift heavy things 4 times a week. My blood pressure is low and I'm completely healthy. So the BMI chart can kiss my a**. If a doctor examines me and takes note of my excellent stats and observes my fitness level and still tells me I need to lose 5 lbs. to get to "normal" BMI in order to consider me healthy...I'm finding a new doc.
0 -
angellll12 wrote: »Since I've lost weight, I also lost weight in my boobs I went from a C cup to a B cup, a big B cup though. I still want curves, and an *kitten*. i feel like if I lose anymore weight I lose my boobs, I'm not into that skinny skinny look. What do you think about 145 pounds on a 5'2 frame? Maybe ten more pounds? I'm scared to lose my butt and boobs.
Plus I'm having a hard time losing anymore weight
I personally don't think it's a good idea to change your appearance to whatever is in vogue or considered to be beautiful by society's standards at the time. If you are happy with the way you look and feel confident, then that's all that really matters and who gives a *kitten* about anybody else's opinion.0 -
It all just comes down to how you are feeling. If you have great energy and you are feeling good about yourself, that's what should help you decide if you want to lose more or maintain
this is me at 5'0 and 180 pounds. Everyone carries weight differently
edited to say: I am trying to lose weight, but I like how I am regardless. It starts with loving yourself0 -
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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
To everything Daiako has said so far in this thread...
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
To everything Daiako has said so far in this thread...
+10 -
I'm 5'6" and 159 lbs. (considered overweight on the BMI scale). I go to the gym 6 days a week. I can run a 7:30 mile. I run 2-5 miles (8 min pace) about 4 days a week. I lift heavy things 4 times a week. My blood pressure is low and I'm completely healthy. So the BMI chart can kiss my a**. If a doctor examines me and takes note of my excellent stats and observes my fitness level and still tells me I need to lose 5 lbs. to get to "normal" BMI in order to consider me healthy...I'm finding a new doc.
You look great!!!
Goodness... I'm working up my speed with running. A 7:30 mile? You're fast! When I run for speed, I've done a mile in just under 8:30 and I felt like I was running like a cheetah! Go you!
When I run distance... I average just under a 10 minute mile.
Working on improving that!
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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
personally, i don't care what ordinary civilians do, i don't think the bodies discussed look "trashy", and i have no issue with surgery per se.
i do think though that what famous people do to their bodies matters more, inasmuch as they might set up unrealistic expectations. like OP is trying to work out her dietary and personal body and fitness goals according to an aesthetic that was achieved with money, so that's just going to set her up for frustration if she's not going to be doing surgery (most likely - some women do have naturally big bums, obviously, or the genetic potential to build them up without surgery).
If people want to look at women who are known to have had surgery and still hold that as their aesthetic goal then nothing anyone says here is going to help them. And, honestly, delusions about bodies come not just from famous people: people think that they can shrink wrap, tea drink, andnciffee enema their way to thinness so at least trying to emulate Amber Rose or Kim K will get you in a gym.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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
Don't you think what people do with their money should be no one's issue.
I mean what you do with your money should never be my issue.0 -
I'm 5'6" and 159 lbs. (considered overweight on the BMI scale). I go to the gym 6 days a week. I can run a 7:30 mile. I run 2-5 miles (8 min pace) about 4 days a week. I lift heavy things 4 times a week. My blood pressure is low and I'm completely healthy. So the BMI chart can kiss my a**. If a doctor examines me and takes note of my excellent stats and observes my fitness level and still tells me I need to lose 5 lbs. to get to "normal" BMI in order to consider me healthy...I'm finding a new doc.
Preach and testify.
My GP and I are in a Mexican standoff regarding my weight. He doesn't like that I'm vaguely overweight because reasons and I don't care because reasons and so we're both displeased with the other.
PS: hello. Your calves tho.
0 -
What puzzles me the most is what'll these people do once big butts are "not in".
Are they going to go and do another surgery?
This is just WOW!!! Is Friday here yet?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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
personally, i don't care what ordinary civilians do, i don't think the bodies discussed look "trashy", and i have no issue with surgery per se.
i do think though that what famous people do to their bodies matters more, inasmuch as they might set up unrealistic expectations. like OP is trying to work out her dietary and personal body and fitness goals according to an aesthetic that was achieved with money, so that's just going to set her up for frustration if she's not going to be doing surgery (most likely - some women do have naturally big bums, obviously, or the genetic potential to build them up without surgery).
If people want to look at women who are known to have had surgery and still hold that as their aesthetic goal then nothing anyone says here is going to help them. And, honestly, delusions about bodies come not just from famous people: people think that they can shrink wrap, tea drink, andnciffee enema their way to thinness so at least trying to emulate Amber Rose or Kim K will get you in a gym.
true about diet fads. is the AR/KK look getting people to the gym? i'm thinking maybe the waist training fad is related to it...
agree about any individual's personal issues, but on the other hand, there have been studies that have shown that women tested worse on self-esteem measures after being exposed to images in women's beauty magazines. media matters a lot in terms of setting up cultural norms.0 -
LilLuLu4....you are officially my inspiration! You look wonderful, and your fitness stats are outstanding!!
To OP: I'm 5'3" and hanging right around 140-142 and pretty satisfied with myself proportionally. There are a couple full pics in my profile if you'd like to look. I lost most of my boobs as well. I was sad at first, but actually things are working out proportionally. I still have hips and a butt. You body is going to settle into it's natural state. Sure, I'd like to lose another 5 or so lbs. but honestly, I know it's not really going to make that much difference.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
To everything Daiako has said so far in this thread...
+1
I'll be here all day, repping big booties and supporting a woman's right to spend her money on her body as she sees fit!!!
well not all day. I gotta go jog and maybe do some resistance band stuff. You know. One does not catch up to Amber Rose by playing on the internet all day.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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
personally, i don't care what ordinary civilians do, i don't think the bodies discussed look "trashy", and i have no issue with surgery per se.
i do think though that what famous people do to their bodies matters more, inasmuch as they might set up unrealistic expectations. like OP is trying to work out her dietary and personal body and fitness goals according to an aesthetic that was achieved with money, so that's just going to set her up for frustration if she's not going to be doing surgery (most likely - some women do have naturally big bums, obviously, or the genetic potential to build them up without surgery).
If people want to look at women who are known to have had surgery and still hold that as their aesthetic goal then nothing anyone says here is going to help them. And, honestly, delusions about bodies come not just from famous people: people think that they can shrink wrap, tea drink, and coffee enema their way to thinness so at least trying to emulate Amber Rose or Kim K will get you in a gym.
This. Focusing on aesthetics is tricky because body types and heights make dimensions look very different on different people. But w/e. From what I have seen on this site there a lot of people with unrealistic goals, this is just a particularly polarizing one.
Lulu you look great. I also love your hair. I chopped mine off last year and it just won't grow, maybe one day.0 -
Although the only extent to which I think what celebrities do to their bodies matters is the impact they have on younger women when they lie about getting work done.0
-
RosieRose7673 wrote: »I'm 5'6" and 159 lbs. (considered overweight on the BMI scale). I go to the gym 6 days a week. I can run a 7:30 mile. I run 2-5 miles (8 min pace) about 4 days a week. I lift heavy things 4 times a week. My blood pressure is low and I'm completely healthy. So the BMI chart can kiss my a**. If a doctor examines me and takes note of my excellent stats and observes my fitness level and still tells me I need to lose 5 lbs. to get to "normal" BMI in order to consider me healthy...I'm finding a new doc.
You look great!!!
Goodness... I'm working up my speed with running. A 7:30 mile? You're fast! When I run for speed, I've done a mile in just under 8:30 and I felt like I was running like a cheetah! Go you!
When I run distance... I average just under a 10 minute mile. Working on improving that!iRun_Butterfly wrote: »LilLuLu4....you are officially my inspiration! You look wonderful, and your fitness stats are outstanding!!
To OP: I'm 5'3" and hanging right around 140-142 and pretty satisfied with myself proportionally. There are a couple full pics in my profile if you'd like to look. I lost most of my boobs as well. I was sad at first, but actually things are working out proportionally. I still have hips and a butt. You body is going to settle into it's natural state. Sure, I'd like to lose another 5 or so lbs. but honestly, I know it's not really going to make that much difference.
Thanks guys! I've always been a runner and being "overweight" doesn't slow me down one bit, nor does it make me "unhealthy". I think people should focus more on fitness and the body will adjust as needed. But I don't think "normal" on the BMI scale is the holy grail of fitness and beauty. Thanks for the compliments!0 -
You find the weight you feel comfortable and healthy at and stay there. Don't worry about what body type is currently in. Since that changes from year to year, what people like now, they won't next year. You can't live your life trying to conform to what 'society' thinks is hot. You are given the shape you have through genetics and can work to tone up and build a little muscle definition but that's it. Unless surgery is an option for you. Focus on health and how you feel. That's what's important.
Also, please do some research and speak with your doctor about waist training. It can cause some serious health issues, it restricts your breathing as well. That can be dangerous if you are wearing it during exercise. These celebrities who think this is the latest, greatest thing are also working out with trainers and have chefs to prepare their meals. Try yoga or pilates and lifting weights to 'waist train' and also eat properly, fruits, veggies, protein, whole grains. The better the fuel that goes in, the better your body will feel. Good luck!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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
personally, i don't care what ordinary civilians do, i don't think the bodies discussed look "trashy", and i have no issue with surgery per se.
i do think though that what famous people do to their bodies matters more, inasmuch as they might set up unrealistic expectations. like OP is trying to work out her dietary and personal body and fitness goals according to an aesthetic that was achieved with money, so that's just going to set her up for frustration if she's not going to be doing surgery (most likely - some women do have naturally big bums, obviously, or the genetic potential to build them up without surgery).
If people want to look at women who are known to have had surgery and still hold that as their aesthetic goal then nothing anyone says here is going to help them. And, honestly, delusions about bodies come not just from famous people: people think that they can shrink wrap, tea drink, andnciffee enema their way to thinness so at least trying to emulate Amber Rose or Kim K will get you in a gym.
true about diet fads. is the AR/KK look getting people to the gym? i'm thinking maybe the waist training fad is related to it...
agree about any individual's personal issues, but on the other hand, there have been studies that have shown that women tested worse on self-esteem measures after being exposed to images in women's beauty magazines. media matters a lot in terms of setting up cultural norms.
It gets me in the gym so why not other women; I live me some big booty inspo. Waist training/the desire for a smaller waist has been around far longer that KK or AR so I wouldn't be too quick to give them credit for that.
And none of those women control the media nor should they be expected to alter their lives because some women let their self worth drop or want to aspire to that which they cannot achieve. That ish is called self esteem not "Pretty people make me sad esteem". I am never going to look like Kate Upton but I'm not letting that impact myself worth.0 -
marissafit06 wrote: »Although the only extent to which I think what celebrities do to their bodies matters is the impact they have on younger women when they lie about getting work done.
This is true. Every time KimK says her butt is real I weep a little inside. It isn't the size that's the issue, its that her thighs don't match. You don't get a booty like that without thighs to match, that just isn't how the human body is built.
I say just come clean. If every soccer mom in California can admit to a boob job these ladies can admit to butt enhancement.
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).
Well you still lose a cup size.
I lost 80 pounds, I'm 5'5" and 132 pounds and I'm in 34D (or 36C). I was in 36 DD before. We're just pretty busty in my family.
For what it's worth, I shake my head at those huge artificial bums, personally. And yes I do judge the persons who do it as 'trash'.
Realistically someone probably feels the same way about something you do.
Personally I'm not bothered by such things but large butts are my aesthetic preference. I spend actual hours in the gym striving for a bigger backside even tho mine is already large. I'm sure someone thinks that makes me trashy but I probably don't much care for their aesthetic either.
My issue is people spending money to make it big enough to look like a cartoon character. Not with people with a naturally larger butt (even if they go to the gym to make it bigger - it still won't look as huge as the pictures above).
I think taking issue with how people spend their money or what others find to be asthetically pleasing is pretty silly, tbh. It is interesting tho, If I dedicate my life to a bigger butt than nature gave me it's fine (even tho even now my proportions are such that theres a 12 inch difference between waist and largest part of my butt which isn't that far off from those paid for ones. Amber Rose for example is 27-41, vs my 27-39) but if I buy a butt bigger than nature gave me it's trashy based off the totally subjective opinion of what's achievable. (That 2 inches makes all the difference I guess)
I mean you're entitled to think something is trash. Undoubtedly there is someone who holds the same opinion about something you do.
personally, i don't care what ordinary civilians do, i don't think the bodies discussed look "trashy", and i have no issue with surgery per se.
i do think though that what famous people do to their bodies matters more, inasmuch as they might set up unrealistic expectations. like OP is trying to work out her dietary and personal body and fitness goals according to an aesthetic that was achieved with money, so that's just going to set her up for frustration if she's not going to be doing surgery (most likely - some women do have naturally big bums, obviously, or the genetic potential to build them up without surgery).
If people want to look at women who are known to have had surgery and still hold that as their aesthetic goal then nothing anyone says here is going to help them. And, honestly, delusions about bodies come not just from famous people: people think that they can shrink wrap, tea drink, andnciffee enema their way to thinness so at least trying to emulate Amber Rose or Kim K will get you in a gym.
true about diet fads. is the AR/KK look getting people to the gym? i'm thinking maybe the waist training fad is related to it...
agree about any individual's personal issues, but on the other hand, there have been studies that have shown that women tested worse on self-esteem measures after being exposed to images in women's beauty magazines. media matters a lot in terms of setting up cultural norms.
It gets me in the gym so why not other women; I live me some big booty inspo. Waist training/the desire for a smaller waist has been around far longer that KK or AR so I wouldn't be too quick to give them credit for that.
And none of those women control the media nor should they be expected to alter their lives because some women let their self worth drop or want to aspire to that which they cannot achieve. That ish is called self esteem not "Pretty people make me sad esteem". I am never going to look like Kate Upton but I'm not letting that impact myself worth.
I agree with a lot of what you've said, but being a style icon for young girls is what KK is about. And she heavily promotes waist training.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions