What Is The Actual Reason behind Lululemon and Lorna Jane Sizes?

[Deactivated] on 14/11/2017 - 19:19
Last edited 17/11/2017 - 22:59 by 1 other user

What is the REAL reason why brands like Lorna Jane and Lululemon don't stock bigger sizes?

The stats say that something like 50% of people are overweight - that the average size of the Australian female is 14-16 (not exact but roughly).

Lululemon says it caters to AU16 - but there is much discussion on how these are a small fit, more like an actual AU12.
Lorna Jane is the same.

Is it just a status thing?

I know that people have been crying out for these brands to stock bigger sizes - even marginally bigger sizes. And after all an actual size 14-16 isn't necessarily overweight.

Why don't they do this given this demand would increase their bottom line?

Edit: I'll add that I'm not just talking size 20plus, but actual size 14 or 16 in Australia. Amy Schumer was called plus size by a magazine, which she clearly isn't. I think she would only just fit into these clothes. I think they're similar but slightly different issues.

Ashley Graham is considered plus size.
Lululemon clothes would not fit her either.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5083977/Ashley-…

No fat shaming please.
Telling someone it's not healthy to be fat is not fat shaming. It's all the anger, hate, you're a lesser person and don't deserve all the good things life has to offer that's fat shaming.

Edit again: Sorry to airal3rt. I'm in a pretty bad place from prolonged abuse and I can't handle aggressive men very well. I overreacted. Sorry :/

Fashion & Apparel

Comments

      • popcornready on 15/11/2017 - 16:57
        +5

        Yes, I definitely know that.

        Successful companies stick to their brand values and image.

        They can and will lock out subset of people to ensure those who are not favourable would not buy.

        They can do this in price or design/message etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 17:12

          Thanks popcornready. That's exactly what I wanted to know. It's just baffling when the average Australian woman wouldn't fit into those clothes, so logically, why would you deliberately not cater to what is the most common. I just didn't understand it from an on the surface type point of view.

        • HighAndDry on 15/11/2017 - 17:12
          +1

          Yup. Pricing is the most common way - everything from Gucci's to iPhones to other luxury goods: None of them cost nearly as much as the sticker price to produce, and they could make much more money if they sold a cheaper prices to the masses…… up until their brand is worth nothing and noone wants to buy it anymore.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 17:24
          +1

          Just out of interest. Why don't these brands, Lorna Jane in particular, say that when asked why they don't make bigger sizes - "because if we sold to bigger people, people would stop wanting to buy from us". Why don't they just tell the truth.

        • HighAndDry on 15/11/2017 - 17:38
          +3

          @VivE:

          Because people and the media would be up in arms about "So and so company don't want fat people wearing their clothes because fat people are unattractive!"

          Which would be rather counter-productive when the whole purpose of it is for marketing and PR.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 17:39
          +1

          @0blivion: But why do they care about pissing off fat people if they're not selling to them anyway?

        • HighAndDry on 15/11/2017 - 17:41
          +6

          @VivE:

          Because it's NOT just fat people who might join in on the outrage wagon - you have "do-gooders", friends and relatives of fat people, people who're NOT fat but think they are - not to mention corporate partners, sponsors and celebrity endorsements, etc.

          And to add to that: They have no reason to give a reason at all, any reason, and I'm a little confused why anyone would ask or care. I mean, they don't make it in that size - doesn't matter the reason, it doesn't exist in that size.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 17:47
          +1

          @0blivion: Thanks for your insight Oblivion. The Gucci example put it in simple perspective.

        • FW190 on 15/11/2017 - 20:18
          +1

          @VivE:

          and not only for women, eg most of the brand name jeans for men would not go above size 38 (at least the flag ship models anyway), but yet, say t-shirts from the same brands could go easily to XXL, so do they expect overweight guys to walk around w/o pants on?

          Although if you look at those brand's overseas websites, they usually stock sizes upto 44, so maybe this is an Australian thing?

          I guess the bean counters/marketing people for those brands has crunched the numbers and determined that whatever sales they might gain from catering to fat people, they will loose more from skinny people?

          disclosure: I am overweight too

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 20:53
          +1

          @FW190: Thanks FW190. I do think that's how it works. Nothing above 38 sucks :/

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 22:50
          +1

          @FW190: You're not alone on the overweight factor, 70% of men were overweight upwards in 2014-2015, 56.3% women.
          http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/…

        • stanstho on 16/11/2017 - 15:24
          +1

          @0blivion:

          Marketing / PR student here: seconding this - its entirely the correct answer.

          Another good example is the Supreme tee's. The brand is infamous for having basic, mediocre quality and fit tees but because of the limited quantity releases the demand forces prices sky high. Thus the only people who can buy them are rich - which means reinforces the bands status symbol image.

          LuLu lemon is the same but swaps money for fitness. Just because the average person is unfit doesn't mean they need to cater to them. The brands entire image is fitness, Introducing large or even just sizes closer to the average woman (bearing in mind the average person is far from fit) would be like Supreme releasing all their shirts are every target store for $5.

        • brayhouse on 16/11/2017 - 23:31

          @VivE: The marketing terminology is that they are an "aspirational brand". Rather than cater to a larger segment of the market (more sales), they choose a more exclusive segment, thereby making their clothes a status symbol and allowing them to charge more. It's a pretty common strategy amongst makers of luxury goods (and I would guess that Lululemon count themselves as an "affordable luxury" or "premium" brand).

        • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2017 - 13:57

          @VivE: What people think, and what they want other people to think that they are thinking are probably very different.

          Yes even people who would likely join in the outrage wagon, they probably have a pretty discriminatory mindset as well. Real human nature is shit.

  • Fake News on 15/11/2017 - 08:40
    +3

    Lululemon use Canadian sizes, even in their Australian stores.

    A Canadian 12 is an AUS 16 in women’s clothes, but many of their tights only go up to a CAN 10/AUS 14

  • jacross on 15/11/2017 - 09:14

    Brand image.

    Regular Size 12s fit into size 12-14 in those brands from my experience. The clothes are tight by design.

  • Noblejoker on 15/11/2017 - 17:03
    +5

    I understand the reason for the question OP but guess what - who cares!
    If they don't want to sell clothes in my size, I don't want to buy from them anyway
    Screw 'em
    It may also be that the 'cut' of the clothes don't fit larger sizes well
    But my bet is a branding exercise - make it aspirational

    I think a better question would be
    "What clothing brands sell activewear that is attractive in larger sizes"
    Buy from them and Support those that support you

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 17:37
      +2

      Thanks Noblejoker :)
      At the end of the day for me it's not really about giving a flip about being included or not as an ego thing, I just really like, well made, well thought out clothes.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 18:01
    +8

    It’s all about sex. Sex sells. A slim attractive girl will sell the product because men want their partner to look like that and women want to think that they will look as good and attract a mate.
    That may not be a popular subject for discussion but we are all wired to our primitive brains and no amount of intellectual pondering will overwrite it.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 19:55
      +2

      Thanks 4sure. I've had an eating disorder since I was 13. I keep telling my doctor that this is how guys think, and he keeps telling me that it's not everywhere etc. Now I can go back and tell him this.

      • BartholemewH on 15/11/2017 - 21:36
        +6

        Not sure if you're taking the piss?

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 21:57
          +1

          You made me laugh.
          Yeah bit of both.
          Have had an eating disorder since 13. Do tell my doctor that guys think like this and he does tell me that it's not everywhere in reply. But then I keep hearing it.

        • stanstho on 16/11/2017 - 15:30

          @VivE:

          In your doctors defence, not everyone does think like this - but its a good rule of thumb for marketing.

          Also; just because men (and women) don't like fat people doesn't mean the exact polar opposite is true either way and that assumption is dangerous. This is why fitness instagram models with massive legs/butts and so popular now, if you base your assumption of attractiveness off "finding a healthy partner to reproduce with" - "not fat" is the upper boundary and "not malnourished" is the lower boundary.

          Your doctor isn't lying to you per say, its just a little easier to say that then it is to explain the above, especially when (as people with eating disorders cant properly understand) the person you're speaking to has no concept of "healthy" and interprets beauty as being as close to starvation as possible.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 17:11

          @stanstho: Thanks stanstho. That's a very nice answer and gives some perspective.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 16/11/2017 - 20:24
        +4

        Just make sure you don't include me in your generalisation of all males speech to your doctor.

        • GetOffMyUnicorn on 16/11/2017 - 21:00
          +2

          I'll second that mate.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 21:11

          Why?

        • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2017 - 12:01

          @DisabledUser177650: Denial.

  • freakatronic on 15/11/2017 - 18:01
    +1

    It's a brilliant business model. As a man who wears underpants for training and that's about it (exercise at home), I wasn't aware of this. I saw their stores in the shopping centres and whatever, but I had no idea how well they'd succeeded in creating a desirable product with a clearly defined "in crowd" to whom they cater. Admirable!

  • sahh on 15/11/2017 - 18:02
    +2

    I guess it’s similar to the insane pricing of luxury goods; sure if you lower the price you’ll get more customers but weirdly enough another cohort of people will not want it because it is now more accessible.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 20:44

      Ty :)

  • iFruit on 15/11/2017 - 18:20
    +6

    Don't get me started. Why is there no outcry over large shoe sizes. The iconic stock NOTHING over a 13, I'm a 15 and can assure you have less control over my foot than others do their gut.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 18:40

      Tell me about it. I'm 1.80cm and I can't find a long top that goes to my hips to save the life of me. They're all at Lululemon because they understand good design :P
      If you live around a capital city there has to be a few specialty shops which might help you out.

  • tomsco on 15/11/2017 - 18:32
    +1

    but there is much discussion on how these are a small fit, more like an actual AU12.

    This doesn't sound right. Why would someone want to wear a size 16 when they're actually a size 12. Wouldn't you feel self conscious?

    • GetOffMyUnicorn on 15/11/2017 - 18:53

      Or really bad at maths…..

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 20:42

      Yeah, it usually works the other way. Companies make the sizing bigger so you feel thinner and more likely to buy it - but I guess exclusivity is s hell of a thing.

  • JIMB0 on 15/11/2017 - 20:07
    +6

    Its because larger sizes would require more material to make. They would then have to charge more for them. Fat people would be on A Current Affair complaining about how they have been discriminated against via higher prices.

  • Oliver on 15/11/2017 - 21:14
    +4

    The real reason, which they have openly said, is that they don't want ugly (fat) people wearing their clothes. Harsh, but that's their policy. Support them or don't. It's your choice.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 21:58

      They said that? Where did they say that?

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2017 - 23:16

      And is Ashley Graham "ugly(fat)"?
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5083977/Ashley-…

      • GetOffMyUnicorn on 16/11/2017 - 00:13
        +2

        Who gives a toss.

      • KLoNe on 16/11/2017 - 20:10
        +2

        Yes.

      • jacross on 17/11/2017 - 09:11
        +1

        I wouldn't describe her as fat but she's not personally what I find most desirable (I tend towards athletic with a big butt). A lot of dudes would mark her bodyshape as what they desire.

        She has a pretty face. If you saw her in real life you'd say she was in the top 10% for aesthetics.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/11/2017 - 02:20

          Yeah I think she is exquisitely beautiful.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2017 - 14:03
        +4

        Actually, yes she is fat.

  • GetOffMyUnicorn on 15/11/2017 - 21:17
    +15

    "Amy Schumer was called plus size by a magazine which she clearly isn't."

    The magazine was correct. She's a big woman.

    • OzBugman on 16/11/2017 - 00:49

      U U
      U U

  • Odin on 15/11/2017 - 21:47
    +5

    "Amy Schumer was called plus size by a magazine, which she clearly isn't"

    Really? I don't know much about the definitions, but my understanding is that Amy Schumer definitely would be considered "plus size". Unless something changed recently? I don't know I don't keep up with this stuff.

    I would have thought plus size meant anyone that is overweight?

    Hmmm, after researching, it's poorly defined, basically up to the manufacturer. Generally it's anything over size 14.

    I guess the problem is that even sizing isn't standardised, so the whole clothing situation is a total mess anyway

    • GetOffMyUnicorn on 15/11/2017 - 22:12

      Amy Schumers mouth is definitely a plus size:)

    • Beansbeansbeans on 16/11/2017 - 13:35

      She’s probably like a 14, she just carries a heap of weight in her face. She wouldn’t shop at a plus size store that carries like 18-26 or anything.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 17:13
        +1

        "she just carries a heap of weight in her face"
        That just made me laugh.
        I think if we saw her in the street it wouldn't be a problem. Something about TV magnifies everything.
        She is definitely NOT plus size or overweight at all. I don't think.

        • Ten on 18/11/2017 - 09:04

          You don’t think?

          She looks overweight to me.

        • Beansbeansbeans on 18/11/2017 - 14:33

          @teninchdk: she’s probably overweight by BMI, but she’d still be able to shop in your average 8-16 clothes store no problems.

    • diazepam on 18/11/2017 - 18:04
      +3

      her BMI is most likely at least overweight. I said this in another comment, if you're >=14, your BMI is probably obese, or if you're tall, likely overweight.
      It's not up to OP to decide what she thinks is/isn't overweight/obese

  • sky blu on 16/11/2017 - 02:49
    +4

    I think imma go back to forum posts about car insurance scenarios, bonut advice, and general shopping habits now.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 03:14

      It just sucks is all. Size 14/16 isn't even overweight.

      • jacross on 17/11/2017 - 09:16

        What criterion are you using to define 'overweight'?

      • pogichinoy on 17/11/2017 - 10:38
        +4

        It is depending on their height.

        16 for a height of 160 cm is overweight.

        Reality bites.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 03:26
      -1

      And philosophically it's gross. It's a brand that promotes health and being active, and yoga and mindfulness even - but only for thin people?

      I didn't actually think elitism and status was the actual reason, that people are buying into the belief system that thin people are better than fat people and this is what's gluing us together. I thought it was to do with design control something. But there it is.

      • sky blu on 16/11/2017 - 03:30
        +1

        Don't overthink things. Just don't give them your business if you disagree with the sizings their clothing offers.

        Nike has plus sizes

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 04:05

          Thanks skyblu. I'm not actually that overweight. I just didn't think a brand like that could be like that.

  • vetopower on 16/11/2017 - 06:48
    +3

    People have already provided you with an answer (brand image), but let me explain it a little more.

    The best analogy is luxury brands.

    Louis Vutton are a luxury hand bag maker. They sell very expensive hand bags that only a small percentage of the population can buy. Why don’t they lower their prices, sell more bags and presumably make more money? The reason is that rich people want to buy goods that only rich people can afford. So the rich people will stop buying LV hand bags and move to another brand that sells exclusively to the rich. LV has just lost their most valuable customers — the people willing to pay thousands of dollars for something that probably costs only a couple of hundred to make. Thus, they limit their range of sizes to protect the brand image.

    The same for clothing brands. If the brand caters to all sizes, it will lose its images as a brand that is worn by slim, attractive people. For some brands, especially active wear brands, it is important to be associated only with slim, attractive people as they are the brand’s primary consumers.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 18:22

      Thanks vetopower :P

  • ozeebee on 16/11/2017 - 06:56
    +2

    Less profit margin for a clothing company to sell bigger sizes as you use more material for bigger sizes than small sizes. Plus the whole marketing image strategy that the business needs to stick to. No one wants to be the fat people brand when media tells all of us skinny is what's beautiful.

    • cameldownunder on 16/11/2017 - 08:26
      +2

      I agree with you. I agree with "Skinny people are beautiful", because here in Australia, it seems people are considered "skinny" if they are one size smaller than overweight.

      A 173cm woman should not be more then 70kg and not less then 60kg.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 08:14
    +1

    Going to start the men’s version of the post.

    “I tried to buy Tarocash gear but am stuck with purchasing from Claussen’s Menswear.”

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 08:15

      The good part is all my pants feel like skinny pants.

  • cameldownunder on 16/11/2017 - 08:23
    +5

    Amy Schumer was called plus size by a magazine, which she clearly isn't.
    Ashley Graham is considered plus size.

    For both Ladies, depending on what picture you are looking on Google, I would categorize them as between "plus model" and really overweight.
    And I am considering myself overweight, and I know and admit that I have to do something about it.

    • dufflover on 16/11/2017 - 08:37
      +2

      Pity this attitude doesn't seem to carry with most people. Like all the people who thought the clearly overweight/unfit woman on Biggest Loser who was "only" 78kg wasn't overweight to begin with.

      • cameldownunder on 16/11/2017 - 09:57
        +6

        That was the main reason why Biggest Losers lost viewers, because the contestants were of similar size as the average viewer. And to see them trying to lose weight and do something about it, did hurt the ego of so many overweight people, who say they are happy with what they are.

    • dengziyi on 16/11/2017 - 23:15

      They maybe overweight, but really overweight is a bit of a stretch.

  • krunchymoses on 16/11/2017 - 08:39
    +3

    This all got a bit weird but the lululemon founder is a well known complete (profanity). https://www.fastcompany.com/3021367/a-shocking-retrospective…

    • Fever4shakin on 16/11/2017 - 12:20

      Wow, so glad I didn't end up using that lululemon Amex offer now. Obviously the kind of male that doesn't understand the female body. Criticising females for 'fat thighs' is absurd, isn't it funny that no one criticises a woman for having big breasts.

  • Seraphin7 on 16/11/2017 - 10:08
    +1

    Why don't they do this given this demand would increase their bottom line?

    This is a massive assumption. There is no business out there that thinks to themselves, "I know a great way to reduce profits, let's do it!"

    Someone has worked out, believe it or not, through some level of analysis that the current product range is the best way to maximise the value of the business. Do you have some analysis that supports a different conclusion?

  • foolsgold on 16/11/2017 - 11:29
    +7

    What is the REAL reason why brands like Lorna Jane and Lululemon don't stock bigger sizes?

    I’m going to say the UNDERLYING reason why they don’t stock bigger sizes is because its not their target market.

    Not to sound mean but -

    Girls who are in their size range, buy more of their clothing, more often than girls who are on the fringe of what they have available. (i.e. the bigger women buy less than the target range)

    Being in the gym “scene” for a while, a lot of girls are some of the most image conscious people you meet. They buy a lot of the clothes, but they influence the brand even more.

    What do I mean? If you saw a large person wearing their clothes, and being tight it didn’t fit well, you may subconsciously associate it to the brand.

    Where as if you see a fit girl wearing the clothes you desire to look like them, you buy, reinforcing their brand.

    This is why theres no 60 year olds in Calvin Klien ads, or fat people in Nike mags, it doesn’t represent what their about.

    So in short, lose weight, and become their target market, their clothing alone ain’t gonna facilitate it.

    If your the outlier, who large but healthy, etc etc, theres not enough of ‘them’ to make it feasible going back to the first point of economics of scale.

    Now, this leaves us with a company who is being in your view unethical. So I suggest if you don’t like what they stand for, don’t buy their clothing.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 17:28

      In the stark light of day, this actually makes sense.
      If fit is your aim, then that's more people on the thinner side.
      There is nothing wrong with that I guess
      BUT
      Yeah, from reading this thread, it's more about branding and status really. And why would you want to jepodise that when making money is involved.
      Which is odd, because I think it's more shameful to not stock an Ashley Graham size than it is for her to be publicly associated with the brand.
      But I know I definitely did not always think this way.

  • Beansbeansbeans on 16/11/2017 - 13:36

    I mean Lululemon is going bust so I guess this business model sucked for them at least.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 13:56
    +3

    Thought you were genuine right up until the edit where you said Amy Schumer was not plus sized. .

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 15:52

      She's beautiful man - personally i envy R2D2

      • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 16:34
        +6

        Each to their own, taste is subjective, but that doesn't change her being plus sized. You might just be attracted to larger women.

        Regarding your comment later (and other comments made by the OP), most people aren't a healthy weight because they smoke to suppress eating, or rely on an eating disorder to purge. That's a pretty toxic justification to avoid eating healthy food and engaging in regular exercise.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 16:40
          -4

          …but that doesn't change her being plus sized.

          That's music to the ears of the guys over at Marketing.
          In your case we have what's called 'capture'.
          I'm mostly immune to it all…

          In relation to 'justification', i don't know anyone who claims that, and i haven't commented on it.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 16:46
          +2

          Her weight fluctuates. The size she was in when she did her Netflix special was not a healthy weight. If you think that's a healthy weight, then pursue that standard to your own detriment.

          In relation to your justification. While doing a pretty poor parody of a Lorna Jane rep:
          "As a retailer committed to the bulimia market it would never have worked for us."

        • GetOffMyUnicorn on 16/11/2017 - 16:50
          +1

          @Cubist: well said Cubist. The show was so unpopular that Netflix had to remove the comments section!

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 18:13

          @Cubist:

          Parody? What parody?

          Netflix? Don't watch it. Collect stamps, that's my thing.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 17:30
      -7

      She's not plus sized :/

      • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 18:01
        +8

        Okay

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 18:07
          -6

          Seriously? Really? That's plus sized to you?
          That's taken at an unflattering angle, probably on purpose, that's it.

        • GetOffMyUnicorn on 16/11/2017 - 20:19
          +5

          @VivE: The camera doesn't lie….

      • pogichinoy on 16/11/2017 - 18:05
        +1

        She was when she was a relatively new name in Hollywood, but she sorta succumbed to the pressures and dropped weight.

        Plus size by definition seems to be an opinion. But in mine, she is fat.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 18:12

          It's like people live in parallel world of what they think the world is and what the world actually is. That's what actual girls look like.
          If you're around girls, it will go up and down around that :/

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 18:19
          +3

          It's not though is it? it's just lowering the bar for modern living standards.

          I'm generally not around girls, but I am around a lot of women ranging from their 20s to their 50s. Women in their mid 30s who exercise multiple times a week and eat a relatively healthy diet aren't the same size as Amy Schumer, the same way they aren't like fitness models.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2017 - 18:32

          @Cubist: Yeah. I see your point.

        • pogichinoy on 16/11/2017 - 21:13
          +1

          @VivE:

          Yes you're right, our opinions is based on the experiences in the environment we grew up/live in.

          Unfortunately ladies her size I had few interactions with. Few being I conclude it is not common. I'm sure actual girls look like her, and plenty even larger, but it's not common, which is what the context is. Don't get me wrong. I know there are skinny, slim, athletic, fit, muscly, fat, obese, elephant baby size, etc men and women. But we form an opinion of what is each of those to us.

          My point was in her case, her weight went up and down, but mostly the latter due to the Hollywood requirement/pressures. Similar to how Rebel Wilson has dropped weight to appeal more in Hollywood and be selected for more roles.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2017 - 14:14
          +6

          @VivE:

          I have watched the Leather Special on Netflix, or at least 10 minutes of it. She was not in great shape.

          What frustrates me about this conversion is that I actually have to strive damn hard to keep in a healthy way. I make it my business to avoid buying all the shit in every isle at the supermarket, I've cut out all added sugar from my diet, I don't drink, I quit smoking, I don't have soft drink, I don't snack, and if I do, its fruit or nuts. I don't touch high calorie fast food, and I make sure to get my sport in at least once a week, I take stairs over escalators, I stand when I can, I stretch out when I remember to and there is an opportunity. Physically I have never felt better, and I am in far better shape in my 30s, than I was in my 20s.

          It's not a hooray for me message. It's saying that I am aware of all of these traps, and I have to make the conscious decision to fight these temptations, every singly time, every single day, the same way that the vast majority of plus sized individuals choose not to. It's time for people to stop spinning their failures as the acceptable norm.

        • D6C1 on 17/11/2017 - 23:33

          @Cubist: Height/weight?

        • [Deactivated] on 18/11/2017 - 03:02

          @D6C1: Why?

        • D6C1 on 18/11/2017 - 12:43

          [@Cubist](/comment/5300828/rlts narrtedir): let's marry

        • Aneurism on 18/11/2017 - 17:24
          +2

          @VivE:
          Yes that is what girls actually look like..Which is why guys are starting to get sick of it and go their own way.

      • KLoNe on 16/11/2017 - 20:16
        +6

        Maybe not, but she's absolutely repulsive.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join