I Trust Star Magazine Way More
Well this is very handy: a compliation of all the diet stories in this week’s National Enquirer. I’d heard some of these tidbits before (for instance, that Star Jones needs a body lift to remove extra skin, which is totally normal if you’ve had weight-loss surgery). And yet here they are, all in one place.
Poor Kirstie Alley is facing yet another weight loss scandal. This time, her reported 74-pound weight loss on the Jenny Craig program has left her with sagging skin on her stomach. She’d like to get it removed with surgery, but unfortunately can’t – it would break her contract with Jenny Craig. Her contract with them clearly forbids “any surgery of any kind”.
Except, now I see that the Skinny Website is really all about being Skinny. They posted an adorable picture of Kelly Clarkson with the comment that she has “totally let herself go.” Gross. Nevermind.
Oh, and per IMDB, Courtney Love is talking about her weight loss in more detail:
[S]he achieved her new look thanks to 1,200-calorie Isopure shakes and fish and vegetables. And her willpower was helped by her determination to squeeze into a pair of Todd Lynn trousers, which she wore to a Beverly Hills party on Monday night. She told People magazine, “They’re Todd Lynn, they’re sample size, they’re from the runway.” Love also explained why gastric surgery wasn’t an option for her: “I’m not eligible for that. It’s illegal for me to get that. You have to be 100 pounds overweight, you have to be grossly obese.”
It is hard to keep up with all this celebrity gossip! Phew! Fortunately, the tabloids only care about women gaining and losing weight, otherwise it would be twice as hard. Oh, I’m sorry, was that sarcasm that slipped out right there?
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Celebrities, Courtney Love, Fatism, Kelly Clarkson, Kirstie Alley, Magazines, Star Jones, WLS
Email us
So if Kirstie Alley needed heart surgery she couldn’t have it because it would violate her Jenny Craig contract? That seems silly if it’s true.
I’m sure they mean cosmetic surgery… right? One would hope?
Isn’t Valerie Bertinelli their new spokesperson? I would think Jenny Craig could give Kirstie some leeway, geez.
Anyway, my real reason for commenting was that I think Kelly Clarkson looks adorable! It seems odd that people have jobs that entail them looking out for Hollywood “fatties”.
Well, I might have to call Kelly Clarkson a fashion don’t in those pictures, but she looks happy and healthy. And who cares if she gains or loses, the girl can sing!
Yeah, and I’m sure crack cocaine and heroin had nothing to do with Courtney Love’s weight loss either.
The Skinny Website isn’t all about being skinny… it’s about reporting celeb gossip about who is gaining and who is losing. Courtney has lost, yes… (who knows the TRUE method she used), and Kelly Clarkson has in fact gained. When I (being the site owner) used the phrase “she has let herself go” I meant she seemed to be letting herself go in all areas, not just weight. (Hair, clothes, etc).
Wow – – – Kelly Clarkson is another one of those designated fat girl cases that just completely goes over my head. If she’s gained or lost any weight, I sure can’t see it, and if she has, she still looks totally thin to me. Granted, in these pix, she really does look kind of normal – – – no glammed-out blonde hair or obligatory halter tops and porny model poses. Is that what’s annoying people? Because I think it’s totally cool if she’s starting to have enough pull in her career to stop doing that crap.
This kind of hair-splitting really depresses me. If Kelly Clarkson gets shit for looking like THAT, I may as well give up right now.
I have to say, I pretty much think it’s 100% the clothes in those photos. Who could wear a caftan-like dress with horizontal stripes over shiny black tights with stubby black boots and look decent? I’m thinking nobody. Put her in jeans and a t-shirt in those photos, and I imagine nobody would be pouncing on her size. She looks fine as it is, but the outfit is bad.
I would expect Kelly is somewhere between a 2 and a 6, maybe an 8, just like pretty much every other slim, pretty celebrity out there. Celebrities are pretty much universally small, and Kelly’s probably smaller than 9 out of 10 commenters on that site. Which I wouldn’t care about if people didn’t believe with such fervor that they can successfully decree a woman fat, chubby, thick, or especially “unhealthy” from a paparazzi photo. It would be funny if it weren’t so infuriating. It must be nice to go through life with such unassailable certainty about your rightness in all matters of appropriate weights for celebrities (size 4? Barely OK! Size 8? Too fat! With the stomping of my foot I have decreed it! Celebrity A appears larger than Celebrity B who I was just looking at and is thusly declared “unhealthily overweight”!) and your ironclad convictions about Kelly Clarkson’s BMI. It just goes to show once again that if you’re a woman, your weight is everyone else’s business and everyone else knows better than you do whether you should be allowed to be comfortable with your size or not. And then they throw in the health argument. To me the health argument is the “Godwin’s Law” of weight issues. It is so not about health and it pretty much never is in these discussions.
This picture of Kelly Clarkson? Less adorable.