La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
I'm calling bullshit.

It's the bull-shittiest I've read all day.

Elizabeth Claret wrote:
Because eating cheeseburgers is REALLY good for your heart....

I heard they're good for helping make a shapely ass

Anat Khempler wrote:
23.8 inches for a thigh? That's a load of bs.

Yes, if you carry weight below the waist you have less chance of medical problems than if you carry it on your stomach.

And with that in mind, this thread is motivating me to lose an additional 15 lbs, preferably most should come from the lower half, or 5 inches from each thigh. Man, I wish I had 16 inch thighs....

That's slightly smaller than my 24" waist.  And if I suck my gut in it's 23".

Model Instincts wrote:
Do you have a link to this?  I was under the impression that naturally skinny people are healthier.

If you are talking about anorexia or bulemia, then yes, their heart will stop beating from prolonged abuse.

I'm not buying this.

Naturally skinny does not make healthy. No matter what weight you really are. I know a lot of people who weigh a lot more than I do, but are a million times healthier.  It depends most on what you eat, how much you exercise, your medical and family medical history, and a billion more aspects.

Miss Anthrope 1007 wrote:

That's slightly smaller than my 24" waist.  And if I suck my gut in it's 23".

Exactly. Some people's waists are that small. I mean heck, my waist is 25". If I had 23.8 inch thighs, it would look very weird/unproportional.

Rachel Jay wrote:
I just measured one of my thighs, out of curiosity.

At the widest part (towards the top--about 1" down from my crotch) it was about 21.5".  Maybe less, as I was using a metal measuring tape, so it wasn't perfectly flush against me.

I'm by no means "supermodel thin", with my 39" hips on a 5'3" frame   But still, 21.5" (or so) falls below that "elevated heart failure risk number.  Despite some other health issues, my heart has been deemed to be in wonderful condition (gosh, at least something works right!).

I'm calling bogus on this one.  But really more because some people are just built very tiny.

Anat Khempler wrote:

Exactly. Some people's waists are that small. I mean heck, my waist is 25". If I had 23.8 inch thighs, it would look very weird/unproportional.

Anat Khempler wrote:

Exactly. Some people's waists are that small. I mean heck, my waist is 25". If I had 23.8 inch thighs, it would look very weird/unproportional.

Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote:
And #3 with nice full thighs.

Ugh.. "full thighs" is not a compliment. Full=fat!
Still, my thighs are way less than 23.8 inches. And I will get them down to 16-17. I'm very persistent with what I do.

Anat Khempler wrote:

Ugh.. "full thighs" is not a compliment. Full=fat!
Still, my thighs are way less than 23.8 inches. And I will get them down to 16-17. I'm very persistent with what I do.

Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote:
Full is NOT fat. Full thighs to me means a grown woman's legs as opposed to the pre-teen legs that have a huge gap between the thighs even when the knees are touching, like the model in the article picture.. legs that skinny are just not sexy.
Yours are perfect

Any time the word "real/grown woman" is mentioned, I automatically believe that this is an indication that the person being referred to is "not a model".

People who like huge thighs are few and far between, and I know the solution to making me more modeling work

Less inches on the thighs=more modeling work.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Just because one matches the other does not prove a causal relationship.

+1

You know, ice cream sales and burglaries in the United States are higher in July than in January.  Does this mean Ice Cream causes burglaries?

(answer: No, it's hotter so more people want ice cream, and more people are out of town on vacation in July than in January)

Anat Khempler wrote:

Any time the word "real/grown woman" is mentioned, I automatically believe that this is an indication that the person being referred to is "not a model".

People who like huge thighs are few and far between, and I know the solution to making me more modeling work

Less inches on the thighs=more modeling work.

Steven Aiello wrote:
This is no joke, all though I do find it funny...

Tonight on my (Michigan) local channel 7 news they did a story on thigh to heart health ratios.

Apparently if you measure LESS then 23.8 inches around at your thigh you have an elevated heart failure risk.

If you measure LESS then 18 inches around, your hearth failure risk sky rockets.

I have found this on the newspaper too, this morning.
But it came with an interview of an heart specialist who said that this stuff isn't already confirmed by medicine world.

Scott Burton wrote:

+1

You know, ice cream sales and burglaries in the United States are higher in July than in January.  Does this mean Ice Cream causes burglaries?

(answer: No, it's hotter so more people want ice cream, and more people are out of town on vacation in July than in January)

Good to know...but the conclusions of this study were not just based on correlations - that wouldn't be good science and I doubt very seriously if the British Medical Journal would be publishing it if weren't based on sound scientific procedures.

BTW: the "Conclusions" section of the abstract for this study begins:

"We found that having smaller thighs was associated with development of cardiovascular morbidity and early mortality. The increased risk was independent of abdominal and general obesity and lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors, such as blood pressure and lipids, related to early cardiovascular morbidity and mortality..."

Steven Aiello wrote:
Peace and eat a cheese burger,
Steven

Eating a cheeseburger wont so anyone any good... its not to do with having fat legs theyre talking about greater muscle mass,
theyre talking about muscular legs versus thin legs with no muscle,
they dont mean legs that are thick but with all fat and no muscle versus stick thin legs..
Theyre not talkign about people getting fat and not ebing skinny anymore I hate when people see these kinds of things and tell people they should let themsleves go and that they can get fat and eat crap, its about building muscle, exercising and being healthy, not an excuse to eat and sloth your way to huge fat thighs!


Thigh size equals activity

Associate Professor David Cameron-Smith, of Deakin University in Melbourne, says this is very powerful research.

He says a growing body of research is showing the increased risk of heart disease associated with living a sedentary lifestyle.

According to Cameron-Smith, thigh circumference is a broad indicator of physical activity and muscle mass is related to how much exercise you do.

"[If] you don't use it, you lose it," he says.

Cameron-Smith says using muscles has a very strong protective effect against heart disease and diabetes.

"It's been known for a long time that muscle mass and strength are important determinants of longevity and health," he says.

"Even moving from no activity to some activity has a dramatic effect."

Cameron-Smith says muscle mass also protects people, particularly older people, from falls


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/sep03_2/b3292
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 … 676609.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news171225922.html

Broken Doll wrote:
I have found this on the newspaper too, this morning.
But it came with an interview of an heart specialist who said that this stuff isn't already confirmed by medicine world.

That IS true - there aren't other identical studies to compare results with presently (though the results of this study do go along with the results of other studies in the same area: weight/size and heart disease/morbidity).

But also realize that this study was more comprehensive than a heck of a lot of studies: 2800 people were followed for 22.5 years (10 year incidence of cardiovascular and coronary heart disease, then 12.5 years of follow-up for total death).  You don't find many samples that large, that are followed for that long...

Saffron G wrote:
... its not to do with having fat legs theyre talking about greater muscle mass,
theyre talking about muscular legs versus thin legs with no muscle,
they dont mean legs that are thick but with all fat and no muscle versus stick thin legs..

Yes...if you read the actual abstract for the study, this is what they are talking about. 

It's not saying that heavy people with fat thighs are healthier than fit people with thin thighs - their conclusions are that people with thicker, more muscular thighs are healthier than people with thin, poorly muscled thighs.

I think the actual circumference numbers are throwing everyone here off - because this is a population of (mostly young) models...whereas this study was done with middle-aged "average" people.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Studies show men get stupid around women with big tits. Therefore big tits causes male stupidity.

I think they do. And judging from the guys coming out of strip clubs, big tits also cause pot bellies and pattern baldness.

RSM-images wrote:
.

Over 97% of those surveyed will die.



.

The other 3% will live for ever. Was one called MacLeod?

Marcia Wood wrote:
smoking will cause you a bigger health risk than your thigh measurements.

and drinking, crossing the street, playing football, taking a shower...

Marcia Wood wrote:
smoking will cause you a bigger health risk than your thigh measurements.

Not according to the study.  They, supposedly, found that smoking was not a contributing factor to their analysis.  Read the study.  It is as interesting as it is comical.

Marcia Wood wrote:
smoking will cause you a bigger health risk than your thigh measurements.

Digitoxin wrote:
Not according to the study.  They, supposedly, found that smoking was not a contributing factor to their analysis.  Read the study.  It is as interesting as it is comical.

That's actually NOT what the study said.  For all the people who keep saying that correlation doesn't equal causation, let's look at what they did in the study (I'm going to paraphrase to simplify):

For analysis purposes, they put the participants into multiple groups and looked at the results within each group.  Here are some of the groups they divided the participants into:

- smokers
- non-smokers
- people with diabetes
- people without diabetes
- obese people
- thin people
- people with family history of heart disease
- people without family history of heart disease
- and many more groups in a similar vein

What they found was that within each group, the ones who developed heart disease and/or died were the ones with the thin thighs.

In other words, no matter what OTHER factors are present - whether you are a smoker, have diabetes, have a family history of heart disease, etc. - you are at a higher risk for heart disease and death if you have thin thighs (they didn't say that smoking was not a factor in getting heart disease or dying, they said that whether you smoked or not - having thin thighs increased your risk).

AND they discuss that what they are talking about is thick, muscular thighs (like someone who walks for 30 minutes every day) versus thin, non-muscular thighs (like someone who just sits around and watches TV every day and never uses his legs).

It appears to me that the biggest problem with the study is how the media has reported it (it was just published on Thursday).  In their rush to produce something sensational - they have been guilty of some sloppy reporting (IMO).  If you read the abstract, it is not quite as cut and dry as the media is reporting it.

dod kalm wrote:
I thought it was a nice, positive thread - well the message at least.

If nothing else, let's just take it as healthy is beautiful, no matter what size you are.

Healthy is beautiful. But throwing out measurements and claiming that men just aren't attracted to skinny girls is just laughable.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:

Marcia Wood wrote:
smoking will cause you a bigger health risk than your thigh measurements.

That's actually NOT what the study said.  For all the people who keep saying that correlation doesn't equal causation, let's look at what they did in the study (I'm going to paraphrase to simplify):

For analysis purposes, they put the participants into multiple groups and looked at the results within each group.  Here are some of the groups they divided the participants into:

- smokers
- non-smokers
- people with diabetes
- people without diabetes
- obese people
- thin people
- people with family history of heart disease
- people without family history of heart disease
- and many more groups in a similar vein

What they found was that within each group, the ones who developed heart disease and/or died were the ones with the thin thighs.

In other words, no matter what OTHER factors are present - whether you are a smoker, have diabetes, have a family history of heart disease, etc. - you are at a higher risk for heart disease and death if you have thin thighs (they didn't say that smoking was not a factor in getting heart disease or dying, they said that whether you smoked or not - having thin thighs increased your risk).

AND they discuss that what they are talking about is thick, muscular thighs (like someone who walks for 30 minutes every day) versus thin, non-muscular thighs (like someone who just sits around and watches TV every day and never uses his legs).

It appears to me that the biggest problem with the study is how the media has reported it (it was just published on Thursday).  In their rush to produce something sensational - they have been guilty of some sloppy reporting (IMO).  If you read the abstract, it is not quite as cut and dry as the media is reporting it.

Thank goodness someone else stated the obvious. I thought the study couldn't have been clearer myself.

LORA wrote:

Healthy is beautiful. But throwing out measurements and claiming that men just aren't attracted to skinny girls is just laughable.

LORA you're a bit off base:  Notice

"This is no joke, all though I do find it funny..."

"I was never really into the skinny ladies, guess science backs the guys who likes those athletic girls = )"

Notice the "I find it funny"
and the token smiley face after my skinny girls comment. 

I'm an equal opportunity guy.  Sandra Bullock SMOKIN WOW, and I think she's all of about 110lbs.  Mila Kunas (am I spelling that right)  like 90lbs? I would give a toe to be her.

Don't take things to personally, jokes people jokes. 

Women of all sizes are can be lovely, sexy, and amazing  = )

Steven

Digitoxin wrote:
You drink omega acids by the bucket?

You drink wine by the case?

You eat fish by the trawler load?

Omega what?

I like wine but I can't buy it

I hate fish



Mystery.... wooo spooky fingers for this one

Steven Aiello wrote:

LORA you're a bit off base:  Notice

"This is no joke, all though I do find it funny..."

"I was never really into the skinny ladies, guess science backs the guys who likes those athletic girls = )"

Notice the "I find it funny"
and the token smiley face after my skinny girls comment. 

I'm an equal opportunity guy.  Sandra Bullock SMOKIN WOW, and I think she's all of about 110lbs.  Mila Kunas (am I spelling that right)  like 90lbs? I would give a toe to be her.

Don't take things to personally, jokes people jokes. 

Women of all sizes are can be lovely, sexy, and amazing  = )

Steven

I wasn't talking about you.