Search Box

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Caitlyn's sister

You may remember Kelly Lebrock, the 80's sex symbol:

The other day I stumbled across a more recent picture of her:

Some of the change is obviously due to age, which LeBrock certainly can't be faulted for. But some of it is due to weight gain, which can have a weirdly masculinizing effect. When you look at the picture above, or this picture --

-- and then look at that famous Vanity Fair cover shot of Jenner --

-- you'll see a disconcerting resemblance. In fact, the only discernible differences are that Jenner has a thinner waist and arms, and perkier breasts.

With LeBrock, we're not even talking about a high testosterone, muscular female athlete -- the type you might see in the ESPN Magazine Body Issue -- who is touted as "beautiful" in order to make some feminist political point. We're talking about a woman who originally gained fame as an ideal of feminine beauty. There was certainly nothing masculine about LeBrock's waist-to-hips ratio or other contours here:

Back then, you'd certainly never have mistaken her for the young Caitlyn:

I've heard that Europeans mock us for the way so many American women look: masculine, with big implants.

Some of that may just be a matter of perception. But Americans do tend to get fat at a higher rate than Europeans. That may be partly because Americans smoke less. But it's also partly our diet, especially after decades of our government-advocated "food pyramid," which emphasizes carbohydrates and low-fat foods. That, plus the high sugar content of many processed American foods, inevitably lead to more obesity.

People seem to finally be waking up to the fact that a more Atkins-like diet is the way to go.

In the meantime, the only upside seems to be that Kelly and Caitlyn will be able to borrow each other's clothes.


Steven said...

In Britain we also have quite high rates of obesity and high sugar diets. The official guidelines for sugar intake have just been cut in half and there's been a lot of stuff in the media about the high sugar content of many of the things we eat.

Is it not true that what matters is how many calories you eat, rather than the source? (I realise that when you have high sugar intake, like most people, you will invariably be eating too many calories and also craving more hits of sugar).

One of the things I've heard from people who have been to America is that the portions are really large.

Lastly, I've never heard anyone deride American women in England. Although Britain, in a sense, is not Europe proper. I think we have a lot more cultural exchange with the rest of the anglosphere (except in sports).

Steven said...

...even in sports, its only really soccer. But that's a big deal.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Opinions have gone back and forth on various aspects of nutrition, such as how much salt we should have, or how many fats, or how much water, and whether or not coffee is good or bad for you. But one thing there has never been dispute about is how bad sugar is for you, and they seem to be discovering new ways it's bad for you all the time. (Causes cancer, hastens dementia, lowers testosterone, kills brain cells, etc.)

Yes, how many calories you take in counts, but slower-buring complex carbohydrates are far better for you than a sugary rush, because they burn more slowly, you don't have a sudden rush and then collapse, and, as you say, they don't create cravings for more sugar.

I think the people who deride American women are more the Mitteleuropean types, though I've only heard this secondhand.

Steven said...

so how much refined sugar do you have in your diet? Do you eat chocolate, cakes?

John Craig said...

Steven --
I generally stay away from desserts but I'm not religious about it. For instance, I just had a milk shake (banana, protein powder, two scoops of ice cream, and milk). And I usually have a couple of squares of dark chocolate every morning. But otherwise, not much.

Steven said...

There's an American habit- making milk shake with actual ice cream.

How would you recommend somebody lose weight? I'm about 195 pounds and I want to lose 25-30 pounds. I've cut out cakes, chocolate, sweets, anything high in sugar, and I exercise a bit, so hopefully that will do it. I want a way to lose weight without enduring too much hunger.

John Craig said...

Steven --
(You're doing that thing again where you leave a lot of space after your comment.)

From what I've seen, the best way to do it is the Atkins diet. Eat more protein, more fats, and fewer carbs. The protein and fats will make you feel fuller, and take longer to digest. It's the carbs that put on fat; your body needs some carbs, but not as many as most people eat.

Another trick is to keep your metabolism going higher all day. The way to do that is to do a little bit of exercise every hour. I don't know what you do for work, but if you can, once every hour or two, go up and down four flights of stairs, or do 10 pushups, or do a fe deep knee bends, something like that. Not enough to break a sweat, but enough to get your heart pumping a little faster. That will keep your metabolism higher, and even when resting, you'll burn more calories.

Another little trick to quelling your appetite is to drink a lot of water. That dilutes the digestive enzymes and makes your stomach feel full. (You don't want to drink to excess, you'll lose too many electrolytes that way, which is unhealthy, but you can probably afford to drink a little more than you do.) Also, salads will fill you up and don't have much in the way of carbs.

Steven said...

thanks and sorry about the gap.

G said...

John Craig said...

Steven --
Here's another idea a friend just suggested to me:

John Craig said...

Steven --
No problem.

Don Tomas said...

Before I married and had kids with my (13 years younger) wife I was a "cougar hunter", and I would have definitely gone for the current version of Kelly LeBrock.

In fact, no names, but I did have a relationship off and on with a famous TV actress of the 60s when she was 25+ years older than I was. I also had a less lengthy fling with a woman (not quite twenty years older) who had a fairly successful pop music career and internationally still does. I even played bass on a couple tracks on one of her solo albums.

Was I wrong? No. Both women had already made the decision to forego childbearing for career, I was young and had a free pad in Manhattan at a time-the nineties-when it was very expensive to live there but not like it is now.

I'm out of circulation now but just looking at them, most of the current Hollywood/pop music females do nothing for me. No curves. No femininity. Both of my famous former lovers, and most of the other women I dated, were definitely a little over the accepted ideal weight, but not obese, and to put it bluntly the sex was fantastic. I left New York and joined a certain famous church where I met my wife and we are raising our children in that environment but I don't regret a thing I did. I do keep quiet about it but my wife knows everything. It'll make for an interesting story in my old age. (I have to admit I get a kick out of seeing my name on the back cover of that album when I see one in a used record store.)

John Craig said...

Don Tomas --
You're a lucky guy, you've led a full life. It must be gratifying in a way to have a couple of prize trophies like that on your mantelpiece, and you're also lucky that you're attracted to women who are slightly overweight, as there's less competition for them. If I were you I'd get a kick out of watching reruns of that 60's TV show (a lot of which aren't hard to find these days given the proliferation of cable channels and streaming services).

And that free pad in Manhattan didn't hurt, either, I'm sure. My son actually has the same arrangement these days (he stays in my brother's three bedroom apartment), though he doesn't go after cougars.

Anyway, interesting story, thanks. The closest I ever came to something similar was when I was 26, but I blew it:

Random said...
In Britain there is a push for "sugar tax" from Jamie Oliver.