UMM!!! WHy can't I be the new Spokesperson.. Now that is an incentive.. $110,000 a pound.. I'll do it for $1,000 a pound..
Anniegrl
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
Yeah, bad choice here. But I have to comment that she was NOT underweight beforehand; she's just a very fit person.
So, to pay a normally fit person $3M to lose weight, and to have her represent an organization that is supposed to help people with a PROBLEM losing weight is ridiculous. She'll lose that weight with no effort at all.
I would love to have a job like this! He11, I would GAIN weight for $3M!!!!
Danielle&Scott
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
Posted by shamma
I just read it, they are going to pay her and they paid her to gain weight, wait here, hold up, what is wrong with this picture. Shouldn't they choose someone like say Scott who is a real person *shakes head*
Shamma, Why is it always me??? You know, they offered the Spot to me but I am shy and didnt want to be on TV in front of all those people....lol.
stacedz
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
She is maybe 5'5 and 117 pounds! A normal weight for a woman 5'5 is between 138-144, I'd say she is underweight.
Kathy116
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
I'm around that height (5'4), and I was once 135lbs and was told I was overweight by an MD because of my small frame.
Right now I'm less than 117 lbs.(just recently lost an unintentional 8 lbs...but that's on the Newleywed board and is another story) and I wouldn't say I'm underweight ...I think it all depends of your frame...she looks like a small frame also.
I'd venture to guess she's around 105, that girl doesn't, well, didn't have an ounce of fat on her. But she's not skeletal like supermodels, she toned and you see cuts on her.
Bottom line, I agree with you that she's not a good WW spokesperson!
OctBride03
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
How recent is this article??? Wasn't bridget Jone's diary a year or two ago?? After Chicago? Wasn't she very skinny in Chicago?
Maybe I'm confused!
Hey I'd take $110,000 for every pound! Maybe that'll keep me motivated!
wc0143
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
I think she is gross no matter what she weighs!! YUCKORAMA!!!
ChristineC68
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
She regained the weight to make the sequel to Bridget Jones.
I don't want to debate what the appropriate weight is for her height, but I am sure she started well below the WW weight chart and I am sure that's a weigt she plans to go back to.
When I was a member there was a girl that fell 2 pounds below their lowest weight for her height. They sent her home and told her not to come back with out a doctors note because she was too light according to their standards.
stacedz
Posted:
Member since
Re: WW's new poster child
Posted by ChristineC68
I don't want to debate what the appropriate weight is for her height, but I am sure she started well below the WW weight chart and I am sure that's a weigt she plans to go back to.
I totally agree Christine! I read somewhere that whatever her size was with her weight gain, was that she still wasn't 'overweight'. Maybe by the industry's standards though! Which is sad in itself!