- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Spinoff, What happened to Kelly Clarkson? Hamburglar edition
Posted on 7/28/16 at 1:43 pm to Corch Urban Myers
Posted on 7/28/16 at 1:43 pm to Corch Urban Myers
Separated at birth?
Posted on 7/28/16 at 3:55 pm to SECdragonmaster
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.
This post was edited on 7/28/16 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 7/28/16 at 4:11 pm to BigB0882
The other problem is they are just bad pictures, very unflattering clothes and no make up. Unfair to compare those to the first pictures over a decade earlier dressed for an awards show/red carpet.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 4:36 pm to HoustonChick86
Lol at the girl coming in making excuses. No, she's fat and no, photo angles are not adding 70 pounds
Posted on 7/28/16 at 4:39 pm to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
She is genetically fat.
She'd have to live and eat like a pro fitness model just to get as fit as pic number 2.
shite out a couple kids and north of 30? It's over. There is no going back to pic #2.
But pounding sausage mcmuffins ain't the way to go either.
This.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:23 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
She'd fit right in with a "people of wal mart" segment now
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:24 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
She always had a case of PTE.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:26 pm to BigB0882
You are just like carlsmann, but your obsession is towards a fat chick. At least he's obsessed with a good looking one
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:29 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
I see an episode of "My 600 pound Life" in her very near future. That is absolutely disgusting.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:30 pm to HoustonChick86
Maybe she consider wearing more flattering clothes and taking some fricking pride in her appearance.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:33 pm to HoustonChick86
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.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:38 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
saw her an episode of the final american idol season and was like WTF? she can still sing but wow!
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:40 pm to MorbidTheClown
People apparently have no clue she was pregnant. Like super pregnant.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:52 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
That's really her? Wow
Posted on 7/28/16 at 5:54 pm to ChunkyLover54
quote:
ChunkyLover54
Should be right up your alley.
Posted on 7/28/16 at 6:16 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
Okay....she's mid 30's and pregnant. I can understand her being large and getting out of shape...but why is she dressed like that with no makeup or apparent concern over her appearance at all?
Posted on 7/29/16 at 1:42 pm to ChunkyLover54
Virtually unrecognisable. Are we positive that's even her?
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. Luckily I've never had a problem with that. But I know a bunch of folks who are always in a battle with their weight. I can imagine it's becomes very tiresome and disheartening always writing about what you eat.
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. Luckily I've never had a problem with that. But I know a bunch of folks who are always in a battle with their weight. I can imagine it's becomes very tiresome and disheartening always writing about what you eat.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 1:47 pm to GoRuckTiger
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.
This post was edited on 7/29/16 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 7/29/16 at 2:05 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
Some say you can still hear the screams of her victims if you stand close to her stomach
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News