Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 I saw in the paper yesterday where WW has offered Zellweger $110,000 per pound (or 3.2 million total) to lose the 30 lbs. she gained for the sequel to " Bridget ' Diary " . I have a big problem with this. In the first " Bridget " movie this was the only time I thought Z. EVER looked healthy. In the book Bridget is always bordering on being overweight, but in the movie Z. looked like an average attractive woman, and certainly didn't have a weight problem (she wore her clotes too tight, but that's another issue). In most of her other movies, she has looked gaunt, or in the case of " Chicago " just downright anoerexic. What kind of message is Weight Watchers sending to young girls and women these days? Have they decided to forego a healthy looking Fergie for their spokesperson, for twigs like Z. or Calista Flockhart? We have a real problem in this country about our perception of what is healthy!!!! For instance, when my pcp told me that my goal weight after wls should be 125 (I'm between 5'1 " and 5'2 " ), I nearly died. This weight used to be what I considered way too much, and whenever I went over 120 I was trying to lose 5-10 lbs. But as I've gotten older, and it has been over 15 years since I've been anywhere near 125, my perspective has changed. I'm trying to not think in terms of a set goal weight, but instead think about what feels healthy. I'm really disappointed that a long-established company like Weight Watchers has bought into the current mindset that skin and bones is the hot thing. And it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever shell out $9-11 per week to them so they can weigh me in and tell me what I already know. Just my 2 cents W. Birmingham Dr. Schmitt (waiting on decsion in appeal) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 If they wanted someone weighing more than Zellweger, why did they not pick someone else for the part? I think it is stupid for " stars " to put on weight for parts in movies. They are messing with their body chemistry to do this and it could backfire on them at some point. (Maybe I am just jealous). By the way, I want to tell all of you that I am really learning a lot from your posts. My doctor is for me getting the surgery but I have a couple of issues to clear up first. Have to have scope to check my stomach, and a colonoscopy Dec. 8. This is to find out what is causing dizziness and nausea I have been having for a couple of months. Doctor thinks it may be a result of my diabetes. I have started making notes reference the information required for the insurance. Does anyone know of anyone who was on Medicare, and what it covered? God Bless all of you!!! " If at first you don't succeed, --- redefine success " . Fullhum (sp) Connie, Ohio Thinking about it! kfwilkins wrote: I saw in the paper yesterday where WW has offered Zellweger $110,000 per pound (or 3.2 million total) to lose the 30 lbs. she gained for the sequel to " Bridget ' Diary " . I have a big problem with this. In the first " Bridget " movie this was the only time I thought Z. EVER looked healthy. In the book Bridget is always bordering on being overweight, but in the movie Z. looked like an average attractive woman, and certainly didn't have a weight problem (she wore her clotes too tight, but that's another issue). In most of her other movies, she has looked gaunt, or in the case of " Chicago " just downright anoerexic. What kind of message is Weight Watchers sending to young girls and women these days? Have they decided to forego a healthy looking Fergie for their spokesperson, for twigs like Z. or Calista Flockhart? We have a real problem in this country about our perception of what is healthy!!!! For instance, when my pcp told me that my goal weight after wls should be 125 (I'm between 5'1 " and 5'2 " ), I nearly died. This weight used to be what I considered way too much, and whenever I went over 120 I was trying to lose 5-10 lbs. But as I've gotten older, and it has been over 15 years since I've been anywhere near 125, my perspective has changed. I'm trying to not think in terms of a set goal weight, but instead think about what feels healthy. I'm really disappointed that a long-established company like Weight Watchers has bought into the current mindset that skin and bones is the hot thing. And it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever shell out $9-11 per week to them so they can weigh me in and tell me what I already know. Just my 2 cents W. Birmingham Dr. Schmitt (waiting on decsion in appeal) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.