Plan B loses it’s effectiveness on women over 165lbs!! lol Think before you go whaling son!
It seems like body fat percentage would be a better indicator than a set weight?
TNation needs a Public Service Announcement forum… and this belongs in it.
That’s why I don’t bang fat chicks.
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
That’s why I don’t bang fat chicks. [/quote]
So if it did you would?
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Plan B loses it’s effectiveness on women over 165lbs!! lol Think before you go whaling son!
It seems like body fat percentage would be a better indicator than a set weight?
It’s not a given that the factor is body fat. It makes sense that increased body weight, fat or otherwise, would need an increase in dosage.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
That’s why I don’t bang fat chicks. [/quote]
So if it did you would?
[/quote]
lol
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Plan B loses it’s effectiveness on women over 165lbs!! lol Think before you go whaling son!
It seems like body fat percentage would be a better indicator than a set weight?
It’s not a given that the factor is body fat. It makes sense that increased body weight, fat or otherwise, would need an increase in dosage.[/quote]
Dr Diana Mansour, a spokeswoman for Britain’s Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, said that in overweight and obese women the drug probably gets absorbed into their fat more quickly and doesn’t have enough time to work in their bodies.
“It has less of a chance to delay ovulation and there are lower levels [in the blood] of the drug to have an effect,” she said. Mansour said there wasn’t enough information to know if simply giving obese women a higher dose of the drug would solve the problem.
It seems to be a complicated issue.
You knock up any fatties lately deb? LMAO
It’s nice they discovered this now, after the thing has been on the market how long?
I don’t think of 165 as obese, either.
These women are all 154 pounds. Not the body I strive for, but not obese and they wouldn’t be with 10 extra pounds, either.
Edit: well, maybe the shortest two would be.
I need to lose weight for my wedding…
or I think it will be ugly when I wear the wedding dress…
Another great reason to practice anal sex
lol
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
It’s nice they discovered this now, after the thing has been on the market how long?
I don’t think of 165 as obese, either.
These women are all 154 pounds. Not the body I strive for, but not obese and they wouldn’t be with 10 extra pounds, either.
Edit: well, maybe the shortest two would be.[/quote]
But they would all look better if they lost some fat. Maybe not the last one since 6’1" is pretty tall. The second to last one looks okay since she seems to carry most of her fat in her hips and thighs, but she’d still do better if she lost it. The middle one is fairly cute (she also looks the youngest), but she could probably be a 7-8 if she lost 10-20 lbs (instead of the 4-5 she is now). The first two are overweight by definition and are solidly unattractive. They’re also too old to really ever be very attractive, but dropping 20-30 lbs of fat would be great for both of them.
Am I the only one seeing this: the one on the left is really disproportionate. Like her left arm is way bigger than the right, and her right leg is way bigger than the left?
I would describe all of those women, except for the one on the far right, as “overweight”. The tall one is average, but would be smoking if she gained some muscle in the right places. The one next to her as well. The middle one would be a stretch. Two on the left are old and all kinds of messed up.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t think of 165 as obese, either.
These women are all 154 pounds. Not the body I strive for, but not obese and they wouldn’t be with 10 extra pounds, either.
[/quote]
This makes me ask myself where we as the human species ended up.
First of all let me say that 154 for all but the 2 women on the right is not an acceptable weight.
I’d actually still go with the caucasian woman. Those wide, birth giving hips…
Damn that’s hot.
second:
In what world is 165lbs for an average woman not overweight? unless she has a large frame (like our 2 candidates on the right) or a significant amount of muscle? A 165lbs skinny fat woman is definitely considered obese as her bodyfat percentage goes through the roof.
The average american chick is arround 1,62 meters, so even the vastly inaccurate BMI calculation puts her at 28,6 which is considered overweight by medical standards.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Plan B loses it’s effectiveness on women over 165lbs!! lol Think before you go whaling son!
It seems like body fat percentage would be a better indicator than a set weight?
It’s not a given that the factor is body fat. It makes sense that increased body weight, fat or otherwise, would need an increase in dosage.[/quote]
As I understand the reason this is turning into a problem is precisely because its not just a factor of increasing the dosage for a higher weight.
something to do with the higher bf% alters the pharmacokinetics of the drug. so its not quite a simple as having a double dose for fat women.
[quote]Quiet Warrior wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t think of 165 as obese, either.
These women are all 154 pounds. Not the body I strive for, but not obese and they wouldn’t be with 10 extra pounds, either.
[/quote]
This makes me ask myself where we as the human species ended up.
First of all let me say that 154 for all but the 2 women on the right is not an acceptable weight.
I’d actually still go with the caucasian woman. Those wide, birth giving hips…
Damn that’s hot.
second:
In what world is 165lbs for an average woman not overweight? unless she has a large frame (like our 2 candidates on the right) or a significant amount of muscle? A 165lbs skinny fat woman is definitely considered obese as her bodyfat percentage goes through the roof.
The average american chick is arround 1,62 meters, so even the vastly inaccurate BMI calculation puts her at 28,6 which is considered overweight by medical standards.
[/quote]
I was 165lbs as a lean, above average height male when i was a skinny 17 year old.
The average woman being 165lbs? thats fat for sure.
I’ve seen this article discussed all over the internet, its amazing to me how many women dont seem to grasp the concept of averages, each one tries to argue against this article with some personal anecdote of “so many” women she knows who are tall and couldnt possibly be fat.
[quote]Quiet Warrior wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t think of 165 as obese, either.
These women are all 154 pounds. Not the body I strive for, but not obese and they wouldn’t be with 10 extra pounds, either.
[/quote]
This makes me ask myself where we as the human species ended up.
First of all let me say that 154 for all but the 2 women on the right is not an acceptable weight.
I’d actually still go with the caucasian woman. Those wide, birth giving hips…
Damn that’s hot.
second:
In what world is 165lbs for an average woman not overweight? unless she has a large frame (like our 2 candidates on the right) or a significant amount of muscle? A 165lbs skinny fat woman is definitely considered obese as her bodyfat percentage goes through the roof.
The average american chick is arround 1,62 meters, so even the vastly inaccurate BMI calculation puts her at 28,6 which is considered overweight by medical standards.
[/quote]
I didn’t say not overweight, I said not obese. And I’m also not arguing that those are attractive bodies (mine has nothing in common with any of them, unless perhaps a scaled-down far right) but rather noting that since that’s not an unusually high weight in today’s world it’s surprising that they didn’t realize the stuff is compromised.
[quote]Quiet Warrior wrote:
In what world is 165lbs for an average woman not overweight? unless she has a large frame (like our 2 candidates on the right) or a significant amount of muscle? A 165lbs skinny fat woman is definitely considered obese as her bodyfat percentage goes through the roof.
The average american chick is arround 1,62 meters, so even the vastly inaccurate BMI calculation puts her at 28,6 which is considered overweight by medical standards.[/quote]
You’re right about that. There are obviously outliers though 
brute_fury is 5’8", around 165 exactly, and she is nowhere near fat, she’s just fucking jacked.
(GAL shoutout, check out her log in the powerful women section)
1980: Average AMERICAN female, 5’4" and 125#
2010: Average AMERICAN female, 5’4" and 160+
Damn women have gotten FAT and sad !
M a y b e 160# would look good on a 6"+ tall amazonian women with good muscle developement ! ! !
Otherwise…aarrgghh !!!
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
I’ve seen this article discussed all over the internet, its amazing to me how many women dont seem to grasp the concept of averages, each one tries to argue against this article with some personal anecdote of “so many” women she knows who are tall and couldnt possibly be fat.
[/quote]
This is so spot on man, the females talking shit like this are exceptionally unexceptional, e.g. fat.
American women are by far the most dilusional bunch of special snowflakes ever walking the face of this planet. they are not fat? oh yea how come 2/3 of them are considered overweight from a medical point of view? Shit they even refuse to acknowledge that their asses have become so big they can’t wear fucking yoga pants
http://www.returnofkings.com/21645/ceo-speaks-truth-about-fat-women
And you know who they blame for tearing through their XXXXL lululemon pants? The fabric! the company! the fucking CEO for telling them that there is no spandex pant on the planet that will hold the fat thighs of a 250 pound + woman.
Man this shit makes me angry. These days even science is politically incorrect.
But hey, fuck em. they are the ones suffering from killer #1 cardiovascular disease and killer #2 cancer later on. then maybe they can tell us how much of an exception they all were.
As killerDIRK has already pointed out. The female population’s weight has jumped by 40 pounds in 30 years. You can’t blame the pharma companies for not increasing the dosage as such a rapid weight gain happened rather seldom in our history. Or, well “never”.