re: Spinoff, What happened to Kelly Clarkson? Hamburglar edition

quote:

---

Lies.

She was never medically unhealthy/underweight.
She was active and at a peak level of fitness or her height.

---

You are just assuming she was a normal person. She was not, she was the worlds largest pop star. It was unhealthy because she was not eating due to severe stress and depression. She was touring non stop and hating it. She was going through a battle with her record label that eventually became very public. She may have never been under-weight but you know nothing about her fitness level. Please do not be one of those idiots that assumes thinness=fitness. I am factoring in mental health, not just physical weight. Kelly is much healthier at a slightly larger size because it means she is mentally in a good place. Kelly has also said she does in fact exercise regularly.

Basically, everyone is jumping to insane conclusions based off of pictures of a woman who was probably 7 months pregnant at the time. That's just fricking stupid.

Lol at the girl coming in making excuses. No, she's fat and no, photo angles are not adding 70 pounds

She'd fit right in with a "people of wal mart" segment now

You are just like carlsmann, but your obsession is towards a fat chick. At least he's obsessed with a good looking one

Maybe she consider wearing more flattering clothes and taking some fricking pride in her appearance.

quote:

---

nfair to compare those to the first pictures over a decade earlier dressed for an awards show/red carpet.

---

Very true. No such thing as ugly people. Only poor people.

People apparently have no clue she was pregnant. Like super pregnant.

quote:

---

ChunkyLover54

---

Should be right up your alley.

She is

quote:

---

I know some folks who can just chow down on anything with little to no effect on their weight and then others that if they eat one thing that isn't necessarily healthy for them they put weight on immediately.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.

To give a sense of calories, 200kcal (the difference in metabolic rate in approximately half the population) is approximately equivalent to 2 tablespoons of peanut butter, a single poptart (a package of two is 400kcal) or half of a large slice of pizza. An oreo is about 70kcal, and a chocolate bar in the range of 150-270kcal depending on brand.

---

quote:

---

Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates.

---