Sports Illustrated Pitches Three Different Looks on Swimsuit Covers

For the record I am not - nor ever have been - into fat chicks..

By curves, I mean Kate Upton as opposed to Kate Moss.

 

Except few medical professionals still use body-mass index as an indicator of overall health. It only considers height and weight, not overall body fat. Also that chart hasn't been revised in years, and is not reflective of the present population.

 

I can't imagine the present population would help that scale.

 

Oh please. The SI swimsuit issue is itself a gimmick. It's a woman in a bikini on a cover. She's there. She's not there for any other reason than the rest of them were are or will be: SI deems her beautiful.

 

I find it all rather disgusting. If Dick Whitman wants to proposition other guys on the Internet, he shouldn't do it here. But maybe it's a cry for help.

 

Words should matter, to journalists and lawyers. I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere...

 

Who says 5'9" 175 is overweight? Maybe she's just thick-boned? Maybe she has big people in her genetic history and cannot help it?

The shaming of people for their physical attributes is one of the reasons that we have set such a bad environment for our kids in self-esteem and is a direct corollary to the high incidence of suicide amongst the youth in our country. We need to do better.

 

Who's shaming her? Some guys like the bigguns. I myself have opened my heart and my loins to a full-figured woman a time or two. I was just asking for a usage clarification.

 

Just because we're getting fatter as a society doesn't mean the parameters for good health move.

Artery disease doesn't go, "Everybody's getting fatter, so I'll move up my criteria for striking by 20 lbs."

We're eating too much sugar, processed food, unhealthy fats and garbage.

Did I mention sugar ?

It's not about "thick boned"-- it's about body mass, pure and simple.

Maybe my family history of early death has put the fear into me. But I'm much more concerned about perpetuating the myth that something like 5'9"/175 is "healthy" than the fat shaming problem.

The science is there. The statistics are there. It ain't hard.

 

I can't figure out where we're going here.

I don't know whether 5'9"/175 can be called healthy, but look at the sizes of Victoria's Secret models. Is 5'11"/119 giving your body the nutrition it needs?

VICTORIA'S SECRET

 

Are there posters here defending that? I missed it.

 

If the world were starting to look too much like Victoria's Secret models, I might be concerned we're getting unhealthfully thin.

But when I step outside and look around, I'm much more concerned about my kids becoming diabetic than Victoria's Secret-like.

And the stats back up my concerns.