Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: A letter to Lululemon [edbikebabe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think I was appalled by the original comment. But if you watched the Colbert report thing, I wasn't happy he blamed women getting the birth control pill on the increase in divorces. Or the fact he named Lululemon so the Japanese would have a hard time pronouncing it. For me, it was about several things he said over time. And 'appalled' isn't the correct word. If I know there are two companies that have the same product, and one is lead by a jerk like he seems to be, I'm going to buy from the other. I don't think that's an over-reaction. I think it just makes sense.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [nad] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fair enough. I haven't seen the Colbert piece or done that much research into the founder. In the beginning the company had some really good things going for it. The bigger a company gets, the more it seems to stray from its roots.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [edbikebabe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I do agree with you that in general, people seem a little too politically correct these days.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [Push] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just a note to remember, also, that their true target market isn't what we necessarily consider "athletes". Their target (& history) is in yoga, pilates & most recently venturing into the running. The predominant body type in the die-hard yogi & yogi-turned-runner is going to be very thin & lithe, lean & narrow.

Maybe I'm the outlier - I say kudos for doing what he wants with his company & saying whatever he thinks. Now, I totally agree that it was classless & he might have thought just a smidge more before he said it but hey, if it's what he really thinks...then go for it.

I own many lulu products (most purchased on sale) & I definitely don't have the body type they're originally intended for. BUT - I buy the things that do look good on my body & I've put this stuff through some serious torture & it's stood up. I've not had anything pill overly, nothing is shiny unless it's "intended" to be when stretched over my reasonable-sized self (a la wunder unders with a high lycra content).

We also have to understand, to a degree, the huge increase in popularity that the brand has gone through in the past 2-3yrs. That has shot their production requiremens through the roof - you're going to wind up with at least some questionable inventory at some point. I think back to the quality of Old Navy products about 10-12yrs ago vs today. Same can be argued with Gap (even though they're in the same family)...Further, with more people wearing it comes more people that maybe shouldn't be wearing it but are...and those are going to be the ones that cry the loudest.

I just read that the average weight of women over 20 in the US is 166....I'm guessing that the "average" woman isn't in their target demographic anymore.

AW
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [AWARE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, I don't think the "average" US woman has ever been their demographic :) I have read that the average US woman is a size 16, so if they stop at 12, she's out.

The Colbert piece posted is really quite good. The guy's an ass.

Sure, he can do whatever he wants with his company. It's up to consumers to decide if they want to support him. Actually, I bet this won't hurt his business and will probably even boost it. There are plenty of women who will take pride in fitting into the Lulu demographic. I know lots of women who think like that--I don't hang out with them, but I know the type.

Everybody makes decisions about what they buy based on a bunch of different inputs. If people hear this stuff and they still want to give this guy their money, they process information differently than I do.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [ABarnes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This article is almost 1.5 years old, but fits in nicely with this discussion:
http://www.businessinsider.com/...ululemon-2012-4?op=1
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [Push] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 

Everybody makes decisions about what they buy based on a bunch of different inputs. If people hear this stuff and they still want to give this guy their money, they process information differently than I do.[/quote]


x2
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [edbikebabe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Right there with you. I can't for the life of me figure out why there is such outrage about this. It was a stupid thing to say but it's the truth. Not all pieces of clothing are made for all bodies or body types. If they want to make clothes that cater to women whose thighs don't rub, good for them. It seems like they would be well advised to make pants that fit other sizes and body types as well but that's their business decision to make. I don't expect everything everywhere to fit me.

I don't own any of their stuff and am most likely not their target body type and I didn't find those comments even the least bit offensive.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [mtbchick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the bottom line is that the CEO is enforcing an unhealthy women image upon women who want to wear their clothes. A thigh Gap is a sign that you are underweight, too thin.

http://www.cbsnews.com/...ng-eating-disorders/


I am a size 4, athletic, slim waist, but my thighs touch. That what happens when you have muscles. How can they be selling athletic clothing -- running, biking, yoga.. all stuff that builds your leg muscles, and expect someone to look like unhealthy anorexic models...with a thigh gap. Talk about reinforcing women's body images issues.

I can just see it now, teenagers walking around harassing other girls who are wearing lululemon because they don't have said thigh gap.

Sorry.. rant over. I think it's appalling, and I used to love my lululemon clothes. I agree not all clothes work for everyone, but don't tell me I need to become anorexic to wear your clothes.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [ABarnes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lululemon isn't made for fat women like Lane Bryant is isn't made for skinny chicks. People need to get over it and stop catering to the obese/fat/overweight which is exactly what society is doing. From a Marketing/PR standpoint his comment was a little brazen but it's the truth.



"Though she be but little, she is fierce" ~Shakespeare | Powered by HD Coaching | 2014 Wattie Ink Triathlon Team | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [kmh1225] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, it's not the truth. Lots of women are slim and fit and don't have a thigh gap. His comments were ridiculous, IMO, but they don't offend me at all.

I don't wear LLL, but my girls do for volleyball. They are pricey, but most of their stuff lasts. My oldest daughter has worn a couple of pairs of LLL spandex shorts for volleyball for 6 years now. Their stuff just doesn't fit me well and I don't like a lot of it, but I'm fine with that. If their pants are wearing out or pilling prematurely then they should work on their quality control. The reason why many people pay the high prices is for quality. If the quality isn't there, then people will find alternatives.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [ABarnes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm a size 6, 5'8 yoga teacher and my thighs rub against each other...it's called muscle and fat (curves). I've had a bird's eye view of their recruitment of (popular) yoga teachers in each community they are present in, and they call them ambassadors. Their job is to promote their products, teach free classes in parks etc., and receive (some) free product. Something always rubbed me wrong, and it wasn't my thighs (ok maybe it was), and I declined all offers. The whole thing felt clique'ish and that's not my gig. Although this may not bother some people, and they like their products just fine (I do have 1 pair of tights that are not see-through and fit great except the slight balling of fabric on my inner thighs...gag!) I think we all make concrete votes with our pocket book. I regularly wear Prana--who promote to athletic and outdoorsy types, and my tights never ball up between my thighs--and at 1/2 the price. I generally don't like to give money to offensive types...It helps to discourage them.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [kmh1225] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kmh1225 wrote:
Lululemon isn't made for fat women like Lane Bryant is isn't made for skinny chicks. People need to get over it and stop catering to the obese/fat/overweight which is exactly what society is doing. From a Marketing/PR standpoint his comment was a little brazen but it's the truth.

"Catering to the obese/fat/overweight which is exactly what society is doing."

ARE YOU JOKING ME. Society shames fat people. Constantly. Every day. Fat people are devalued, less like to earn promotions, get jobs, and get help from service workers. People deemed "too fat" by arbitrary standards get ridiculed, kicked off planes and publicly humiliated. Fine, maybe you might be a heartless person who thinks "well that's what they deserve," regardless, society does absolutely nothing to cater to fat people. There might be certain brands of clothing who "cater" to fat people, but that's not catering. From your Marketing/PR standpoint I hope you can see that's business. People need clothes. All people.

Let me bring my eyes back from the giant roll they just did to the back of my head, and point out a few things.

1) I'm pretty sure 100% of people pointed out on this thread that thighs rubbing together does NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL fat, obese or overweight.

2) obese and overweight are medical definitions that the media throws around, without properly citing their source of definition. One definition that is commonly used is BMI. Which of course, as we all know, as athletes, is not the most accurate portrayal of health/fitness. But it is the most common way to define these terms, so everyone should know what they mean. http://www.cdc.gov/...adult_bmi/index.html

3) studies show being overweight (defined by a BMI of 25- 29.9) or obese (defined by a BMI of over 30) does NOT necessarily indicate any kind of health problems. http://www.health.harvard.edu/...obesity-201309246697. in fact, some studies go as far to say that mortality rates are less for those who are overweight versus those who are normal. http://www.digitalnewsrelease.com/?q=jama_3867

4) fat people exercise. it's a shocker, I know. But they do. just because you see a person and deem them "overweight"- how do you know they didn't run three miles that morning and eat a healthy lunch? you don't. so don't judge.

This world would be a better place if people stopped making snap judgements about a person's health, worth, work ethic and abilities based solely on their appearances.

As athletes, we often put ourselves in the moral righteousness seat. Fair enough. Not proud of it, but I've done it too. But, we can be respectful and helpful, or we can judge. I hope you can see the benefits of the former.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [npda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My opinion isn't going to change. America is grossly overweight and driving up my healthcare costs. We need to heavily tax fast food and soda like we do cigarettes and alcohol. Stop airing shows like The Biggest Loser, that show disgusts me. Anyway, we won't see eye to eye on this.



"Though she be but little, she is fierce" ~Shakespeare | Powered by HD Coaching | 2014 Wattie Ink Triathlon Team | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [kmh1225] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with you, except on the Biggest Loser part. Have you ever watched the BL? I think the BL does a great job of showing obese people it is possible to lose weight and literally "get a life". I love me some fat people "getting it", and becoming fit and no longer a potential drain on the health care system. If the BL gets 100 people off their asses and into a gym or serious dieting, its a win for everyone.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [sto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sto wrote:
I agree with you, except on the Biggest Loser part. Have you ever watched the BL? I think the BL does a great job of showing obese people it is possible to lose weight and literally "get a life". I love me some fat people "getting it", and becoming fit and no longer a potential drain on the health care system. If the BL gets 100 people off their asses and into a gym or serious dieting, its a win for everyone.
I did watch it, for approximately 28 min. I don't really get Americas fascination with the show. I also wonder if there are people who feel they can't do it w/o the show. I'd also love to know what percent of the contestants keep the majority of the weight off. I'll admit I make fun of Color runs, Electric runs, etc...but at the end of the day if they are going to get people off the couch and away from the TV, they are GREAT! I just hope it entices those same people to take it a step further and do a real race even if it's just a 5k and go from there. I know when you're overweight let alone obese running a mile seems impossible, but it can be done. America is just so lazy and we have to start making better food choices. Everywhere I turn I see fat children shoveling fast food into their mouth or drinking soda; it's just so sad and quite frankly tragic.. And we need to stop with the super sizing of meals, it's horrible! No wonder we are the fattest country!



"Though she be but little, she is fierce" ~Shakespeare | Powered by HD Coaching | 2014 Wattie Ink Triathlon Team | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [npda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
npda wrote:
kmh1225 wrote:
Lululemon isn't made for fat women like Lane Bryant is isn't made for skinny chicks. People need to get over it and stop catering to the obese/fat/overweight which is exactly what society is doing. From a Marketing/PR standpoint his comment was a little brazen but it's the truth.


"Catering to the obese/fat/overweight which is exactly what society is doing."

ARE YOU JOKING ME. Society shames fat people. Constantly. Every day. Fat people are devalued, less like to earn promotions, get jobs, and get help from service workers. People deemed "too fat" by arbitrary standards get ridiculed, kicked off planes and publicly humiliated. Fine, maybe you might be a heartless person who thinks "well that's what they deserve," regardless, society does absolutely nothing to cater to fat people. There might be certain brands of clothing who "cater" to fat people, but that's not catering. From your Marketing/PR standpoint I hope you can see that's business. People need clothes. All people.

Let me bring my eyes back from the giant roll they just did to the back of my head, and point out a few things.

1) I'm pretty sure 100% of people pointed out on this thread that thighs rubbing together does NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL fat, obese or overweight.

2) obese and overweight are medical definitions that the media throws around, without properly citing their source of definition. One definition that is commonly used is BMI. Which of course, as we all know, as athletes, is not the most accurate portrayal of health/fitness. But it is the most common way to define these terms, so everyone should know what they mean. http://www.cdc.gov/...adult_bmi/index.html

3) studies show being overweight (defined by a BMI of 25- 29.9) or obese (defined by a BMI of over 30) does NOT necessarily indicate any kind of health problems. http://www.health.harvard.edu/...obesity-201309246697. in fact, some studies go as far to say that mortality rates are less for those who are overweight versus those who are normal. http://www.digitalnewsrelease.com/?q=jama_3867

4) fat people exercise. it's a shocker, I know. But they do. just because you see a person and deem them "overweight"- how do you know they didn't run three miles that morning and eat a healthy lunch? you don't. so don't judge.

This world would be a better place if people stopped making snap judgements about a person's health, worth, work ethic and abilities based solely on their appearances.

As athletes, we often put ourselves in the moral righteousness seat. Fair enough. Not proud of it, but I've done it too. But, we can be respectful and helpful, or we can judge. I hope you can see the benefits of the former.

I just wanted to thank you for this post. It is excellent, as are many others in here. Points 3 and 4 are really important to remember :)
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [Push] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But the latest information says that it might not be true you can be fit and fat.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/02/you-cant-be-fit-and-fat/


Cites a study by Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto
I haven't actually read the study, but will be as it is in my scope of study/possible research for my MPH.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [GhiaGirl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's interesting. Thanks for posting that. I looked up the article, a meta analysis, which reviewed relevant studies and reported:

Data Synthesis: Eight studies (n = 61 386; 3988 events) evaluated participants for all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular events. Metabolically healthy obese individuals (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55) had increased risk for events compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals when only studies with 10 or more years of follow-up were considered. All metabolically unhealthy groups had a similarly elevated risk: normal weight (RR, 3.14; CI, 2.36 to 3.93), overweight (RR, 2.70; CI, 2.08 to 3.30), and obese (RR, 2.65; CI, 2.18 to 3.12).

So, in comparing metabolically healthy patients, this analysis found that obese patients were more likely than normal weight patients to have a cardiac event. It did not, however, find that overweight patients were more likely than normal weight patients to have an event.

Interestingly metabolically unhealthy patients--regardless of BMI category--all had similarly elevated risks. In other words, you can be thin and be at risk for a cardiac event too.

So, I'm inclined to stress that we use established definitions for the conversation. Time magazine can say something like "you can't be fit and fat," but we need to define "fit" and "fat".

You absolutely can be fit and overweight, as determined by BMI. To determine otherwise would require some original research that has yet to be done. Even this meta analysis found no difference between healthy weight individuals and overweight individuals for risk of cardiac events. They had to go out to a normal v. obese comparison.


Now we are definitely pretty far afield from the Lululemon conversation :)

I do think we have an obesity problem in this country. I am very concerned by the number of obese kids I see. I also would have no problem with a fast-food or a soda tax. Bring it. This is really a different issue entirely than having your thighs touch in yoga pants that don't even go up past a size 12.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [Push] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Push wrote:
That's interesting. Thanks for posting that. I looked up the article, a meta analysis, which reviewed relevant studies and reported:

Data Synthesis: Eight studies (n = 61 386; 3988 events) evaluated participants for all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular events. Metabolically healthy obese individuals (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55) had increased risk for events compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals when only studies with 10 or more years of follow-up were considered. All metabolically unhealthy groups had a similarly elevated risk: normal weight (RR, 3.14; CI, 2.36 to 3.93), overweight (RR, 2.70; CI, 2.08 to 3.30), and obese (RR, 2.65; CI, 2.18 to 3.12).

So, in comparing metabolically healthy patients, this analysis found that obese patients were more likely than normal weight patients to have a cardiac event. It did not, however, find that overweight patients were more likely than normal weight patients to have an event.

Interestingly metabolically unhealthy patients--regardless of BMI category--all had similarly elevated risks. In other words, you can be thin and be at risk for a cardiac event too.

So, I'm inclined to stress that we use established definitions for the conversation. Time magazine can say something like "you can't be fit and fat," but we need to define "fit" and "fat".

You absolutely can be fit and overweight, as determined by BMI. To determine otherwise would require some original research that has yet to be done. Even this meta analysis found no difference between healthy weight individuals and overweight individuals for risk of cardiac events. They had to go out to a normal v. obese comparison.


Now we are definitely pretty far afield from the Lululemon conversation :)

I do think we have an obesity problem in this country. I am very concerned by the number of obese kids I see. I also would have no problem with a fast-food or a soda tax. Bring it. This is really a different issue entirely than having your thighs touch in yoga pants that don't even go up past a size 12.
Pretty sure this is EXACTLY what I said a few posts up.

And I'll stand by my statement there is nothing wrong with lululemon wanting slimmer/athletic people trotting around in their apparel.

Personally, I don't even like Lululemon. I don't need to look that coordinated and put together when I got for a run and sweat like a pig. I wear Nike and Oakley workout clothing. I swear by the fit and longevity of Nike Dri-Fit clothing.

Incidentally, Nike makes clothing for overweight women and men starting at 1x going up.

I come from a family of doctors, and the topic of obesity/overweight is often heavily discussed. Recent studies show a person cannot be both overweight/obese AND healthy.

Why are people so sensitive and defensive when it comes to the feelings of Fat America? If you are obese or severely overweight and you are shoving a Big Mac and super size fries in your mouth, you bet I will look you directly in the eye with pure disgust. If you are going to allow your overweight child with type 2 diabetes to slurp down a coke and eat Oreos, you bet I'm going to think you're not a very good parent.



"Though she be but little, she is fierce" ~Shakespeare | Powered by HD Coaching | 2014 Wattie Ink Triathlon Team | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [kmh1225] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kmh1225 wrote:

Why are people so sensitive and defensive when it comes to the feelings of Fat America? If you are obese or severely overweight and you are shoving a Big Mac and super size fries in your mouth, you bet I will look you directly in the eye with pure disgust. If you are going to allow your overweight child with type 2 diabetes to slurp down a coke and eat Oreos, you bet I'm going to think you're not a very good parent.

One possible reason -- rehabilitation is that much harder if people feel excluded/shunned/shamed by individuals in the group they ought to be joining. Athletes especially need to be compassionate -- we're missionaries for a healthy life.
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [kmh1225] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kmh1225 wrote:
Push wrote:
That's interesting. Thanks for posting that. I looked up the article, a meta analysis, which reviewed relevant studies and reported:

Data Synthesis: Eight studies (n = 61 386; 3988 events) evaluated participants for all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular events. Metabolically healthy obese individuals (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55) had increased risk for events compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals when only studies with 10 or more years of follow-up were considered. All metabolically unhealthy groups had a similarly elevated risk: normal weight (RR, 3.14; CI, 2.36 to 3.93), overweight (RR, 2.70; CI, 2.08 to 3.30), and obese (RR, 2.65; CI, 2.18 to 3.12).

So, in comparing metabolically healthy patients, this analysis found that obese patients were more likely than normal weight patients to have a cardiac event. It did not, however, find that overweight patients were more likely than normal weight patients to have an event.

Interestingly metabolically unhealthy patients--regardless of BMI category--all had similarly elevated risks. In other words, you can be thin and be at risk for a cardiac event too.

So, I'm inclined to stress that we use established definitions for the conversation. Time magazine can say something like "you can't be fit and fat," but we need to define "fit" and "fat".

You absolutely can be fit and overweight, as determined by BMI. To determine otherwise would require some original research that has yet to be done. Even this meta analysis found no difference between healthy weight individuals and overweight individuals for risk of cardiac events. They had to go out to a normal v. obese comparison.


Now we are definitely pretty far afield from the Lululemon conversation :)

I do think we have an obesity problem in this country. I am very concerned by the number of obese kids I see. I also would have no problem with a fast-food or a soda tax. Bring it. This is really a different issue entirely than having your thighs touch in yoga pants that don't even go up past a size 12.

Pretty sure this is EXACTLY what I said a few posts up.

And I'll stand by my statement there is nothing wrong with lululemon wanting slimmer/athletic people trotting around in their apparel.

Personally, I don't even like Lululemon. I don't need to look that coordinated and put together when I got for a run and sweat like a pig. I wear Nike and Oakley workout clothing. I swear by the fit and longevity of Nike Dri-Fit clothing.

Incidentally, Nike makes clothing for overweight women and men starting at 1x going up.

I come from a family of doctors, and the topic of obesity/overweight is often heavily discussed. Recent studies show a person cannot be both overweight/obese AND healthy.

Why are people so sensitive and defensive when it comes to the feelings of Fat America? If you are obese or severely overweight and you are shoving a Big Mac and super size fries in your mouth, you bet I will look you directly in the eye with pure disgust. If you are going to allow your overweight child with type 2 diabetes to slurp down a coke and eat Oreos, you bet I'm going to think you're not a very good parent.

Kyra, yes, I wrote what I did about obesity in children and the fast-food/soda tax specifically to show I agreed with you about that part of your post. I also agree that parents who feed their kids (overweight or not) things like coke and oreos are not making good choices.

I also come from a family of doctors, I work in healthcare, and I was a personal trainer for years. Could you give me a link to "one of the recent studies" that shows metabolically healthy patients can't be overweight and healthy? I'm not going to argue about obesity; it's unhealthy.

A statement like, "If you are obese or severely overweight and you are shoving a Big Mac and super size fries in your mouth, you bet I will look you directly in the eye with pure disgust" shows not only a lack of empathy, but also no understanding of the the things that contribute to people being overweight and the role that emotional eating can play in the cycle. "Pure disgust" will rarely be something that ever helps an overweight or obese person make changes to their lifestyle.

Now, you wrote, "And I'll stand by my statement there is nothing wrong with lululemon wanting slimmer/athletic people trotting around in their apparel." I don't think anybody took issue with LLL wanting slimmer people in their clothes. That is a wholly different issue than blaming the failure of your athletic pants on women who's thighs touch. I'm going to requote npda here because I can't say it any clearer, "I'm pretty sure 100% of people pointed out on this thread that thighs rubbing together does NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL fat, obese or overweight.


Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [Push] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Push", Yes, I keenly remember you stating you have family who are doctors in your previous threads. AndI believe you work in some kind of academic research.

Emotional Eating... SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH. I'm so tired of excuses and people not taking responsibility. I guess if they are an "emotional eater", they should figure out their issues in therapy or go to Over Eaters Anonymous. I have an Aunt who is obese, she's the only one in my family, everyone else is fit VERY active and an extremely healthy eater. She has REFUSED to seek therapy or get control of her 3x a day fast food habit and gorging herself on desserts/sugar. Yup, even my own family member disgusts me. She whines and whines about being obese (NOT overweight, OBESE), yet she refuses to make an effort to gain control of her obesity. She is the poster child of Fat America.

I'm pretty sure if we made a call to "LLL", and could get the Chip Wilson on the phone he would say what he meant was lululemon clothing wasn't meant for fat/overweight women because their thighs are bulging out of the fabric and touch, that they are squeeeeeeeeezing into clothes that are not designed for them in the first place. He was put on the spot and what came out came out, media decided to take it to the extreme and blow it out of proportion. There was absolutely nothing for him to apologize regarding his below statement. With the media turning this into such a firestorm, this proves as a society we catering to feelings of Fat America. I'm over it.

"Frankly, some women's bodies just don't actually work [for the yoga pants]," Chip Wilson said Tuesday in an interview on Bloomberg TV's "Street Smart" program. "It's more really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over a period of time, how much they use it."



"Though she be but little, she is fierce" ~Shakespeare | Powered by HD Coaching | 2014 Wattie Ink Triathlon Team | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [kiki] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kiki wrote:
kmh1225 wrote:


Why are people so sensitive and defensive when it comes to the feelings of Fat America? If you are obese or severely overweight and you are shoving a Big Mac and super size fries in your mouth, you bet I will look you directly in the eye with pure disgust. If you are going to allow your overweight child with type 2 diabetes to slurp down a coke and eat Oreos, you bet I'm going to think you're not a very good parent.


One possible reason -- rehabilitation is that much harder if people feel excluded/shunned/shamed by individuals in the group they ought to be joining. Athletes especially need to be compassionate -- we're missionaries for a healthy life.
Uhhhh, seriously?
I'm a missionary for MY OWN healthy lifestyle.
I don't remember agreeing to be a global cheerleader for a healthy active lifestyle when I signed the terms and conditions of my USAT membership



"Though she be but little, she is fierce" ~Shakespeare | Powered by HD Coaching | 2014 Wattie Ink Triathlon Team | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: A letter to Lululemon [npda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just happened to be reading an article on a recent study "When health outcomes were tracked for long enough, being significantly overweight with a healthy metabolic status was still worse than being of normal weight and with a healthy metabolic status. "Metabolically healthy obese individuals had increased risk for events compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals when only studies with 10 or more years of follow-up were considered," the researchers wrote."

http://www.runnersworld.com/...hy-overweight-a-myth
Quote Reply

Prev Next