Cheryl Tiegs says Plus Sized Models are Unhealthy

I thought she was supposed to be one of the bright ones, with a business career and common sense.  

http://www.eonline.com/news/743236/model-cheryl-tiegs-criticizes-sports-illustrated-for-putting-full-figure-ashley-graham-on-swimsuit-cover

Gagged when I read this. Her quote was that a woman's waist is supposed to be 35 inches or less. Then cited Dr. Oz for agreeing with that measurement. Cheryl is no longer relevant in the fashion game so...but her thinking is one of the many reasons why so many girls/women find themselves with eating disorders and self hate regarding their bodies. 

Reading up on Cindy Crawford recently and she said something very true: if she were starting off today, she would not make it. The fashion industry would consider her too fat, her breasts (natural) too large and her look "too ethnic." 

The SI cover girl is stunning, waist over 35 or not. She seems to be healthy and hopefully is a happy woman. SI didn't choose a cover girl (no pun intended) who was an obese 300 pounds. This girl looks to be fit. Eff Cheryl Tiegs. Let's see how long it takes her to try to walk back from her statement. 

Who quotes Dr. Oz anymore?

marylago said:


Who quotes Dr. Oz anymore?

A woman in bad need of a face lift (ouch, did I say that????? meowwwwwww).

https://youtu.be/l8QNDRbjong

Ashley Graham looks amazing in the SI shoot. She's a beautiful, sexy and HEALTHY woman with curves. Why is it 2016 and this is the first time that SI deigns to promote a woman on the cover that is shaped like most woman you see on the beach? Another reason why the SI swimsuit issue is a cultural dinosaur.

And, I would debate even calling Ashley Graham plus-sized. She's toned and curvy. And probably not actually "plus-sized" - I hate that term, by the way. 

What is "healthy" anyway???  And how do you make that determination from a picture?

That's the problem.  There is no simple definition that applies to all people.  For two people of the same height and weight, one might be overweight to the point of being unhealthy and the other might not be.

erins said:

What is "healthy" anyway???

tjohn said:

That's the problem.  There is no simple definition that applies to all people.  For two people of the same height and weight, one might be overweight to the point of being unhealthy and the other might not be.

erins said:

What is "healthy" anyway???

no doubt.  isn't a 35 inch waist kind of an arbitrary number?  I would think its significance would be different for a 5 foot tall woman than it would be for a 6 foot tall woman.

According to Tiegs, "...she felt the magazine was promoting an unhealthy lifestyle by featuring her [Graham]"

Yeah, because the modeling industry has always promoted a healthy lifestyle, right?   

Just throwing in there that she could be talking about the actual health risks of having an excess of belly fat, which is shown to increase the odds of heart attack and other health issues. 

  http://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/diabetes-13/misc-diabetes-news-181/the-dangers-of-deep-belly-fat-644354.html

{shudder}

looked it up - her profile says she is a size 16 and weighs 201  at 5'9" 

she does look well toned vs out of shape size 16 

C'mom. The pictures of Ashley Graham show a healthy body. She's curvy, yet fit and toned. No flab. No sagging. Even with photoshop, you can tell this is a woman who is healthy. 

Sure, she could be rotting from within, but her skin and hair indicate otherwise. 

erins said:

What is "healthy" anyway???  And how do you make that determination from a picture?

I think she looks gorgeous, but it's not completely shocking that Cheryl Tiegs disagrees.  And I think it's healthy to have this conversation.  If it's really about health risk, I don't condemn her.  If she is just a snooty skinny-snob that's a different story.

http://www.additionelle.com/en/ashley-graham---underwire-bodysuit/736539.html

TigerLilly said:

According to Tiegs, "...she felt the magazine was promoting an unhealthy lifestyle by featuring her [Graham]"

Yeah, because the modeling industry has always promoted a healthy lifestyle, right?  "> 

Good one! And yes, Cheryl does look a bit um, "tired" and not just for a woman her age. Some age better than others. IMO, to be an ex-super model, at 68 years old, she certainly doesn't look better than Christy Brinkley (60+), Carmen Dell’Orefice (late 70's/early 80's?) or Iman (60's?)

This is Ashley from the SI spread. Compare to the image of the model above. Which is the healthy model?

http://www.si.com/swimsuit/model/ashley-graham/2016/photos

I have a hard time believing that Cheryl Tiegs is actually concerned about anyone's health or how the modeling industry influences people's healthy lifestyle. Particularly since she has a set waist size in her head that she believes can be equated to "healthy." It's just stupid.

I don't know, so I won't assume.  But I think Ashley looks gorgeous.   I also think people jumping all over a former model for wanting things to remain as they were when she reigned is kind of silly, in light of the crap we have to deal with right now in this country.

I'm uncomfortable with the body-shaming in any direction, be it Plus-Sized or Negative-Sized, but you probably don't want to be complaining about SI "promoting an unhealthy lifestyle" when you used be the face of Virginia Slims cigarettes. Just saying.

What are the chances that SI paid Tiegs to say that so we would all be talking about it?

I'm sorry, I can't judge "healthy" based on a picture in a magazine.  Many people would look at a picture of Serena Williams and see "fat", especially compared to other female tennis players.  But we all know Serena is FIT and can outrun women half her size.  Maybe its my definition of healthy - I equate it with being physically fit, not a body size.

Hahaha said:

C'mom. The pictures of Ashley Graham show a healthy body. She's curvy, yet fit and toned. No flab. No sagging. Even with photoshop, you can tell this is a woman who is healthy. 

Sure, she could be rotting from within, but her skin and hair indicate otherwise. 

erins said:

What is "healthy" anyway???  And how do you make that determination from a picture?

Weighing in here. How can you say that someone who is 5' tall with a 34" waistline is healthy and someone who is 6' tall with a 35" waistline is not? I never got that. Not that I pay it much (of my 6' tall) mind.

I'm not at all surprised that she said what she said, but I'm ok with saying that it's a misguided thing to say. If that's considered "judgmental" so be it. 

Promoting eating disorders? What percentage of people will end up with anorexia/bulimia? What percentage will end up overweight and suffer from the associated risks? Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, joint degeneration, and countless others.

I'm not thin. I haven't seen a 35" waist since high school. I passed a 40" waist long ago. But just because I'm not sick right now and have normal blood pressure doesn't mean I am going to pretend that my weight is healthy.     

Responding to Tiegs' for her fat-shaming comment by saying she is not aging well and needs a facelift is both sexist and ageist. Jeez, people. I don't agree with what she said, but you don't make that right by insulting her for other things having to do with a woman's appearance. I hope I look as good as her in 10 years. I only wish my face was as beautiful as Graham's, at any age!

PeggyC said:

Responding to Tiegs' for her fat-shaming comment by saying she is not aging well and needs a facelift is both sexist and ageist. Jeez, people. I don't agree with what she said, but you don't make that right by insulting her for other things having to do with a woman's appearance. I hope I look as good as her in 10 years. I only wish my face was as beautiful as Graham's, at any age!

Oh, she just brought out the Donald Trump in me!  It's a case of people who live in glass houses...

PeggyC said:

Responding to Tiegs' for her fat-shaming comment by saying she is not aging well and needs a facelift is both sexist and ageist. Jeez, people. I don't agree with what she said, but you don't make that right by insulting her for other things having to do with a woman's appearance. I hope I look as good as her in 10 years. I only wish my face was as beautiful as Graham's, at any age!

She can publicly body shame a women who doesn't fit her definition of beauty but we shouldn't post anything about her looks on this forum? I say fair game. 

ridski said:

I'm uncomfortable with the body-shaming in any direction, be it Plus-Sized or Negative-Sized, but you probably don't want to be complaining about SI "promoting an unhealthy lifestyle" when you used be the face of Virginia Slims cigarettes. Just saying.

^ Genius ^ 

In the article linked in the OP she didn't mention beauty, she meantioned health. Is there another article I am missing where she talked about weight in terms of beauty?  

Ah, to find the balance between the fact that most people are not fashion models but a lot of people really are too heavy for good health.

spontaneous said:

Promoting eating disorders? What percentage of people will end up with anorexia/bulimia? What percentage will end up overweight and suffer from the associated risks? Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, joint degeneration, and countless others.

I'm not thin. I haven't seen a 35" waist since high school. I passed a 40" waist long ago. But just because I'm not sick right now and have normal blood pressure doesn't mean I am going to pretend that my weight is healthy.