Attractiveness is irrelevant if someone should lose weight or not. Health is the point. However, determining health isn't just thin = healthy, fat/anorexic = unhealthy. Several conditions and/or life-situations can influence if someone is able to balance diet, exercise and everything else on their own and without help. Of course, within reason, not supporting this 'health at every size' BS.
That said, if she wants to be that size and doesn't care, that's fine, her life, but she shouldn't be enabled to act like others should do it worry-free either when there are documented health risks to doing so.
i'd hit it. but i like the chunkers.
yes, she's big. big can lead to health problems. but i agree with the cover, her health is none of your business.
don't like it? don't look at it.
i dont believe she is 280... she looks more...
god that's hideous. You can be happy. But I'm not going to pretend she is a beautiful woman.
She is deluded if she thinks she is healthy living like that at that size.
Your health is my business when she undoubtedly pushes for universal tax-payer funded healthcare.
This magazine is supposed to be about health and fitness, and yet they've chosen to be represented by an individual who exemplifies the complete and utter lack of both. Despite the obvious pandering from the usual suspects, I doubt the magazine will survive this with their credibility intact.
Also, only 280p pounds?! That's not much heavier than I am! She must be ridiculously short, lol.
This was in the news the other day, wasn't it? People trying to "normalise" sever overweight and obesity?