Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Ginnifer Goodwin Has Been On Weight Watchers Since She Was 9


What do you think Ginnifer Goodwin weighs? 90 pounds? Maybe? I think she might actually be a few pounds lighter. She is definitely a size zero or less than that if they have such a thing. I mean, we are talking like junior sizes here.

Anyway, she told Health Magazine that she has been on Weight Watchers since she was 9. Let us stop right there for a moment shall we? What parent puts a really thin child on Weight Watchers when they are 9? 9 years old? Why? Now, 23 years later she is still on the program.

She also says she has a happy number and a shooting number which is a number that keeps her from feeling awful about herself when she sees herself on screen. She also told the magazine that she hates the way she looks in a bathing suit and feels fat. Seriously? Has she looked in a mirror?

38 comments:

Dana @ FashionUnder$100 said...

She was a lot heavier when she was in "Win a Date with Tad Hamilton" and "Mona Lisa Smile." Not fat by normal standards at all, but fat by Hollywood standards.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk3NzY5NTA3Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTA1NTA3._V1._SX485_SY323_.jpg

Not the clearest pic, but you

Dana @ FashionUnder$100 said...

Crap - hit enter too soon.

Anyway, you can't really tell that much from that photo, but her face is certainly fuller.

She was cute then and she's cute now, but she's definitely lost a lot of weight since then.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Dana, Ginnifer has been a fuller figured gal by Hollywood standards; it's really only been during Big Love that she's been little, and even then for only part of the series.

Anonymous said...

Size zero girls don't usually have armpit fat, just sayin'.

Mooshki said...

Remember that the camera adds ten pounds. I bet she's super teeny in real life.

FS said...

I am so tired of hearing the phrase 'size 0'. That was a size 3/4 for most of the 80's, but designers wanted to sell more dresses 'in a size 8' to heavier women so everything was resized and screwed up to make money. Absolutely ridiculous (and now nearly impossible for me to find clothes that fit my curves).

SFG said...

I was just going to comment what Dana said. She used to be a lot heavier and it was only in the past year or two that I noticed she started looking all Hollywood bobble head-like. I don't necessarily agree with putting a 9 year old on WW, but I think WW teaches good principles about how to develop a healthy eating plan that you can stick with rather than "eat only this freeze dried food than you can buy from us for the rest of your life." So it might have given her a better understanding of healthy eating than most kids in America have.

MISCH said...

There is also 00 which is smaller..that little bit of fat at the armpit is murder to looses and very thin girls have it also...it usually gets lipo in that area...of all the diets Weight Watchers at least feeds you...
And the pressure of job must be awful.

canadachick said...

@ FS i feel your pain...i'm an XL ...seriously??? NO i'm a medium at best...but not when clothes are designed for 12 year olds

MISCH said...

FS.....right on, a 0 is about a vintage size 4.

Nutty_Flavor said...

I agree with you, FS, about the Size 0 being the formerly size 4.

That said, I like the fact that I've remained a Size 6 since college in the 80s....although I'm sure I've gained plenty of weight since then. The sizes have gotten fat right along with me.

I hate the whole focus on weight, anyway. A lot of BS sold to women so they'll concentrate on their thighs instead of on taking over the world.

Dana @ FashionUnder$100 said...

@SFG - I agree, at first, I was horrified about a 9 year-old being on WW, but you're right that WW is about developing healthy eating habits. It's not a diet per se, it's a lifestyle change.

I still think 9 is too young, though.

amoteafloat said...

"ARMpit fat"????

Um, that expanse of pale skin on either side of Gennifer's clavicle is actually called "flesh."

Sorry, but I see nothing "fat" about this picture, and that includes her 'pits.

I really just wanted to say that I find this story horribly depressing.

Pookie said...

this is sad. O became the new 3/4, and curvy became the pc word for fat. i won't even go into bra cup size. (i realize how un-pc all that sounds, but you get my point, right?) it's crazy. i wouldn't be surprised if this lovely lady had an eating disorder.

jp said...

This is why I took up sewing. Pattern companies kept their sizes constant, while retail companies revamped sizing to fit consumer egos.

Cheryl said...

I'm with everybody about the sizes. I'm short, ethnic, and curvy and shopping is hard. An extra 5 lbs. looks like 20 on me.

I'd have to know the circumstances of her being on WW at 9 but it's not a bad plan. I'm diabetic and sometimes adapt it to my needs.

RocketQueen said...

Agree FS and yeah....what? Where is this "armpit fat" of which you speak?? Fuck. A woman can't catch a break around here. Ginnfer's gorgeous and looks perfectly healthy to me.

jax said...

"Has she looked in the mirror?"

have you looked up body dis-morphia?

KellyLynn said...

It'll take a few years (decades?) for Ginnifer to realize just how beautiful she is right now. Spending time away from Hollywood would do wonders for her body image, too. In any case, I don't really have a problem with her following Weight Watchers since she was 9. Of all of the "diet" programs out there, it is the best at teaching someone how to make balanced food choices for a healthy weight. Weight Watchers also doesn't condone or promote starving yourself.
Even so, Hollywood standards of perfection would mess with anyone's head.

hunter said...

They're all body dysmorphic in Hollywood - yes, the camera does add 10 pounds but still - and we, the media, the readers, are complicit every time we pick up an issue of Us Weekly that reads "Worst Celebrity Cellulite." Normal is no longer acceptable. I can see it in my teenager who is a double zero and obsessed with the gym.

(And yeah, a double zero would've been like a "2" in the 80's. In the 80's I was a 5-6 and now I'm a 2 and I'm more fit but no thinner weight wise now. A "2' in the 80's was practically invisible.))

I agree with what's beens said - of all the mainstream diets out there, Weight Watcher's is probably the sanest and most healthy. It's based on the food pyramid and doesn't encourage starvation or calorie counting obsession or crazy carb-control. I know several people who've managed weight problems using its methods. Probably not so bad to teach a 9 year old balanced - not crazy calorie counting starvation - eating habits.

Sad, though, that she hates herself. She's lovely and so natural looking.

nichole said...

I read the article and she said that she was heavy as a child. She said she didn't know you could eat veggies that weren't fried. It was an interesting read. Back then weight watchers was a lot easier to follow if you weren't a member. I started (and have been off and on since I was 12) when I was younger and you just had to count servings at that point. My mom encouraged me because I wasn't happy with my weight (still not, but that's on me, not my mom or WW). So I can see how she's been on WW since she was a kid. technically she shouldn't have been, but if her mom was it's entirely possible.

valerie said...

I've done WW for the last two years (lost 50 lbs on it!), and even when you reach your goal weight, you never stop doing WW. You switch to their maintenance mode, which gives you more points per day and free meetings. It's critical that you continue to work the program, because WW is about making long-term dietary changes, not about going on a short-term "diet" that then you fail on because you went back to your old eating habits.

I have never heard of a 9-year-old on WW - I'm not sure if they will take someone that young. Who's to say she was thin at age 9? She may have been a fat child. Just because someone looks thin now, doesn't mean they aren't fighting weight. If genetically you were given heavier genes or you were taught bad eating habits as a kid, you are always going to fight an uphill battle.

BTW, as someone who used to weigh over 200 lbs, I can tell you that I *love* when people who didn't know me then just naturally assume that I'm athletic and thin. They're always shocked when I tell them how I used to be obese. Then I show them the photos and they don't recognize me. My point being, don't just assume a thin person is that way naturally and has always been thin. Some of us fight every. single. day. to not return to where we once were.

*off my high horse now*

Maja. With a J. said...

Well, on a positive note, she is probably the only one who has managed to stay with that cult for so long and kept the weight off.


"It's based on the food pyramid and doesn't encourage starvation or calorie counting obsession or crazy carb-control."

Actually, they do count calories and carbs, they just call them "points". And the food pyramid means very little when you can eat all your daily points in sweets and starve for the rest of the day. As long as you've lost weight at the weekly weigh-in, it's all good.

You call it weight watchers, I call it an expensive eating disorder.

jax said...

i heart you Maja

feraltart said...

Congratulations Valerie, I know how hard it is to lose weight.
I am reclaiming FAT as a word. I am FAT and it is just a descriptive term. What I can't stand is the negative assumptions that go with the word. Not everyone who is fat is lazy and slovenly. I write this having come from the gym. Though I will take curvy or my favourite - lush!

Maja. With a J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maja. With a J. said...

feraltart, I totally agree with you. Being fat/ overweight/ round/ lush does not necessarily mean unhealthy!

The Tempestuous Grape said...

I'm one of those fats that has only dieted a few times in my whole life, so I can't comprehend this whole thing, but that dress is adorable!

Mooshki said...

From what I've heard from friends, the success or failure of WW depends almost entirely on how good your group is.

valerie said...

@Maja - WW also teaches about "filling foods" - basically the healthy foods that make up the food pyramid. You track not only points, but also # of servings of dairy, fruits and veggies, whole grains, etc. If someone is using their points on only junk food, they are a) not following the WW program the way it is designed and b) are probably hungry all the time and going over their points, because junk food just isn't filling. If it doesn't work for you, fine. But PLEASE don't go bad-mouthing and giving misinformation about a weight loss program that works for alot of people. Let's celebratethe hard work it takes to lose weight, not make the journey harder for people.

valerie said...

And yes, being fat does not necessarily mean being unhealthy. I'm still at a weight that puts me in the "overweight" category, but I've done a half marathon and four triathlons. So I challenge anyone out there to call me unhealthy!

@Mooshki - Your group (and especially group leader) makes a huge difference, but at the end of the day, you have to be ready to make a long-term change. Just MHO!

lanasyogamama said...

Ginnifer is gorgeous, and I hope she's not starving herself.

equinox said...

she has me beat by two years. I've been dieting since I was 11.

Maja. With a J. said...

I should have clarified: I have been a member of weight watchers.

Three times.



That is all.

Jackie said...

It makes me worry about the younger generation of women. I don't want them to be worrying about weight at such a young age. My friend saw her daughter (who is 7/8) looking in the mirror and sucking in her stomach, stating that she looks fat. That makes me so sad that she is thinking of that so young.

I've been on and off diets since I was 14 or so, and the only one that worked for me was WW.

MCH said...

I agree with @SFG

And, yeah, maybe Ginnifer was a chunky child. You gotta instill good health values early on for them to turn into healthy adults, right? I really don't consider WW to be that extreme of a diet & agree that it is a lifestyle.

I've done WW for over a decade. I've never seen anyone advocating using up all your points in one meal and certainly not on sweets. I always lose weight on the diet & in no way think I'm starving myself. I'm just not eating ginormous portions. I'm sorry but I get irritated when people say it is a sham. Just b/c something doesn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work for everyone.

That is all. :)

Maja. With a J. said...

Yeah, I suppose 2 out of a 1000 WW customers can't be wrong.

That is the actual statistic, by the way.

MCH said...

hahaha. Did you find that statistic on the first Google search you did on "Weight Watchers success rates"? :)

Look, I never said WW would work for *everyone*. Obviously LOTS of people can't don't have the motivation or will power to stick with certain diets. I agree that there are some negatives to WW which might hinder someone for succeeding (ie. keeping up with the points values is a pain in the ass). But you continually saying that something that advocates eating healthy & portion control is a sham & unhealthy is RIDICULOUS.

I have several family & friends who have had great success with WW & are lifetime members. I'm sorry it didn't work for you, but that doesn't make the plan a sham.

Advertisement

Popular Posts from the last 30 days