Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are people saying Ashley's size has anything to do with her health? We don't know her vital statistics like BP, cholesterol, blood sugar, heart rate etc. To me she appears to be a normal healthy young woman who is larger than the usual models we see on magazine covers especially ones like SI. But her size has nothing to so with health nor does it have anything to do with promoting health either Ashley's or anyone else's.
Size and good health don't always go along together. My sister is very slender. She exercises through vigorous dance classes and eats healthier than most people. Yet her cholesterol is sky high. It's genetic and has to be controlled by meds. I am about ten pounds overweight, not all that careful regarding what I eat although I do try and my cholesterol is perfect.
People are often sold a bill of goods by snake oil salesmen like Dr. Oz who will tell them that losing weight will cure all their ills and that if they try this or that diet coincidentally created by his guest du jour they will be uber healthy and live to be 100. We have been conditioned to believe that anyone who looks like a normal human being needs to lose weight and there are those making millions off this notion.
Ashley Graham looks just fine. She is probably as healthy as can be. It's those who are looking at her and criticizing her size who need to adjust their attitude about realistic sizes of women and just what is healthy.
Meow, Cheryl Tiegs! I think Ashley Graham is gorgeous, and kudos to Sports Illustrated for recognizing that there is no one standard for beauty. Besides, I'm willing to bet that many of their readers appreciate a woman with a little more meat on her bones.
Simple. Other women are chosen because they represent a feminine ideal of beauty. The definition of "model" is essentially an ideal, an example of perfection, a model isn't really supposed to represent the masses but rather the few who through a mixture of genetics, hard work and luck, have an appearance that is considered an ideal.
Ashley was not chosen for that reason, she was chosen for the controversy and the novelty of seeing a fat woman on the cover of sport illustrated. Now, I know some people think she's not fat and it's subjective but let's be honest. She was chosen BECAUSE and only because of the fact the she is larger than the typical model. Yes, she 's pretty. I'm sure their are thousands of young women who are just as pretty but not as large.
Yes. to a degree ALL models are used for marketing. They are often chosen because they represent an IDEAL of beauty though.
As someone else aptly pointed out, I seriously doubt women are looking at Ashely Graham and wishing they had a body like that as opposed to any other typical swimsuit model you'd care to name.
Do you think for a minute, a second even, that Graham would have been chosen had the publishers not anticipated her image on the cover would be well received? Do you think if they had anticipated even a hint of it being a flop they'd have gone ahead anyway? Or do you think they were a little more in touch with the reality that "ideal" beauty is a little more inclusive than the usual models featured. My guess is they're a little more in touch with their market than you or I are. I doubt they'd have risked alienating their readers (or in this issue's case, viewers).
I always admired Cheryl Tiegs, but I was disappointed that she felt compelled to complain about Ashley Graham. Ashley G. actually has a 29 inch waist, not a 35 inch waist. What Cheryl said about 35 inch waist and health issues is true, but she was wrong to say what she did say about Ashley G. without the facts.
ok...to me this is not about sports illustrated. my whole argument, if that is what you want to call it, is that being overweight is being put out there as if it ok and normal. that is what i have been trying to say. it's not about models and who is on a magazine. i am really talking about in general. people in general. it is being more accepted to be overweight. "fat shaming" is happening and it is being blasted as not being ok. i agree...fat shaming is not ok. shaming people for anything is not ok.
but now being over weight is now being touted on magazines. like sports illustrated. being fat is ok now. that is my problem. being fat is NOT ok. that is all i am trying to say. people are trying to nornalize being fat as it if is ok. it is not ok.
i'm not talking about people who are too skinny or smoke too much or eat too much salt or drink too much. we are talking about overweight people being put out there as if this is ok and "normal". it.is.not.normal. being overweight is not normal. it may be common. but that does not make it normal and ok.
One site I checked out said that Graham has a 30 inch waist and 45 inch hips. Another site says 30 inch waist and 46 inch hips. Ashley Graham Wiki, Height, Weight, Measurement and Bio | BodyCeleb Though of course there are all sorts of numbers being used for her measurements. Whatever her measurements are, I doubt that they fluctuate too much, since that's not a good thing in a model.
Let's say for the sake of argument that she has 34 inch waist and 45 inch hips. This is believable, because a 10-11 inch difference between hips and waist is not at all uncommon. You don't have to have a pronounced hourglass figure to have 10-11 inches difference. (And to be honest, her low hip is rather "hippy." )
Also of note is that Lane Bryant's size chart says that a size 16 is 46 inches for the waist. (Graham is listed as being a size 16.) She may be going with a size 16 to accommodate her hips, and having the clothes adjusted to fit her slightly smaller waist. Or, she could be a true size 16, who knows. https://www.lanebryant.com/content_p...Name=SizeChart
In any case, I found this BMI calculator which takes your measurements: Body Fat Calculator And if we give her a 34-inch waist and 45-inch hips, she's just below "obese," at 31%, which classified as acceptable. This is just what one chart says, however. Though, I take measurements more seriously than merely going by weight (pounds) since muscle weighs more than fat, and if you have a lot of muscle, a BMI chart will list you as overweight even if you're not.
In any case, she sounds like she's overweight, but not obese.
If she never got any bigger than she is right now, I don't think she'd be so out of control. In fact, if every person who was overweight never got any bigger than her, then we should all be so lucky! She's really not that fat.
I think a lot of this hand-wringing over her supposed terrible obesity and how it "sends a message" is just because, as a previous poster said, some people don't want to see a fatty. They don't give a rat's patootie about her health, they just pay lipservice to talking about health. The truth is, they're used to a world where it was acceptable to vilify fatties. Now that it has become politically incorrect to flatly state how much they hate the fatties, they fall back on, "But what about health?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think she looks great!
)
