Cult Icon
2585 replies · 37521 views
^What about the boxing kangaroos? They could give him a fair go... :lullaby:
My favorite SI magazine photos:
I'm not sure what you can do about it outside of putting up Tarantino as the 'Creative Director'!
These are Karlie's Parents. The article is a short bio.
Her mother is considerably shorter than her. Her father looks like Peter Griffin....:-p Neither one of her parents' bone structure resemble hers. I have an old friend that's a bit like that...he's 6 foot 2 and his parents are far smaller people.
Not really I would say but since this past snow storm was being touted as a potential record breaker I was keeping my eye out on it. Plus, with Sandy doing a number to your neck of the woods I had to give a shout out on precautions. And speaking of snow, good lord did your area get a nice dumping of it. Any snow angels yet Andy?
And check this YouTube clip out
I was working on a country breakdown too. My top two Estonians were an everyday woman and a pageant one interestingly enough. The only problem was I don't know half of the Russian one's names and I figured my initial notion of calling half of them Katsia Rassianova 1,2,3 and 4 would be low even for me
. That's not what I intended to say though. What I was going to say was that the only real drawback about the healthy eating thing for me is that I kindof liked the idea of being 300lbs even. Some are 301 or 300 and a half or 299, but I was the real deal. Now it seems somewhat difficult to exceed 295 no matter how much I eat
Don, where did you get that pooh picture? WHAT DOES IT MEAN!!!!? LOL.
Yeah, everyone has their own unique needs since calorie needs vary depending on size and activity level. Being smaller with less time given to it, you obviously don't need as much as you needed back then. Even professional athletes need more during say playoff or Olympic time than the general course of their seasons. I'm around 295 now, but with a four (though I wish 8 
) pack rather than beer belly. I definitely don't have the time or patience to spend hours pumping iron though. I prefer more natural type exercise such as swimming, cycling, walking, climbing, farmer's walks, outside work and pull ups by comparison. I do sometimes use ankle, wrist and body weight straps for resistance during general activities. Of course, when I started doing these things, I was indeed obese so in theory it was like lifting heavy weights . All calories aren't created equal though as there are so many calories that don't even come from fat and all have different chemical compositions and uses (there's even over 20 kinds of saturated fat). Most people don't get enough Omega 3 fats and Monounsaturated fats but obviously more than enough of many others. I don't consume any trans fat calories though as its not only toxic, but its not even old enough for the human body to have had enough time to evolve with it. I'd have to do some research to see how may calories I consume, but I more so try to avoid man made or altered chemicals (hydrogenated foods, pasteurized milk, hormones, homogenized foods, bleached foods, degerminated foods, table salt, sodas, simple carbohydrates, unnatural sugar substitutes, unnatural food coloring, refined white sugar, high fructose corn syrup, monosodium glutamate ect.) than anything else as I'm 300X healthier than I've ever been even though my original approach to dieting was actual more difficult. On top of that, raw foods consist of over 70% of my diet now whereas they probably were 40% when I was a vegetarian and 0.00005% when I didn't care at all .
For me, Natalia Belova is the sexiest current Russian model in terms of the combination of face, body and sensuality. Of course, I mean the commercial one as there is a high fashion model by the same name. Of models with more than ten pages, Kesenia Khakonovich probably has my favorite face. I like Natalia Vadionova's work, but have never been a particular fan of her looks though . I'll probably do lists by category when I get the names down.
So cult, whats your review of this years SI?
Lindsay: 
How did you like it?
One of the problems with this year's SI was the insufficient tans on some of the women (naturally, given the date) and the airbrushing methods that they adopted since 2010.
Adaora: N/A (don't care)
Alyssa Miller: N/A
Anne V: The Chinese theme that she was sporting is...a bit odd to me, as it's the opposite of sexy. The theme is normally graceful and transcendent like Chinese opera and philosophy...and not at all having to do with swimsuits... Anne V. has made a good run in SI but overall, she is little less toned and beach-bodied this year than last.
Ariel Meredith: N/A
Chrissy Teigen: N/A
Cintia Dicker: N/A
Emily Didonato: She's very attractive in her candids and one of the few women that are a lot more attractive without makeup. But nearly every photographer decides to cake her face. I did, however, think that she did some of the best pictures for this year's edition. But physically, she's not my ideal for a top swimsuit model. Her body is not lithe enough.
Hannah Davis: N/A
Irina Shayk: N/A
Jessica Gomes: N/A
Jessica Perez: She was..just okay. Better than most of this year's lineup, but definitely not as good of a swimsuit model as the best SI blondes.
Julie Henderson: I actually like her past appearances in the magazine....due to her body. Her shoots in earlier years were really quite good, but this year the 'Spain' theme didn't really work. Her body also changed a little, and she was too pale. Didn't like it.
Kate Bock:N/A
Kate Upton:
Natasha Barnard: I liked her when she did the below shoot for SI. She reminded me of Daniella S. and her body was just perfect for the job: The tall, well balanced and sporty type (Tori Praver was one of them, as well). But her newer shots, which made it to the magazine, revealed the fact that she lost weight. (unfortunately) due to some of the jobs she did (Guess, etc.) and went the skinny route, which didn't suit her all that much. Natasha's pretty, but too expressionless and not as fun & flirty as Daniella S.
Nina Agdal: N/A
I still think that SI's photoshop is better.......though that's not saying much...!
You know, they did go to some interesting places, but they didn't manage to find the best spots to do their shoot. Unlike in earlier years.. A big problem with recent shots (among many problems, in fact..) is that most of them are 'too close' to the subject, and there's little background.
Ahhh I see, they were in the SI thread all along! I posted mine today in the SI thread, pretty much agree with most things in yours. and hmmm heres a better question...which do you prefer..SI or VS?
These are Karlie's Parents. The article is a short bio.
Her mother is considerably shorter than her. Her father looks like Peter Griffin....:-p Neither one of her parents' bone structure resemble hers. I have an old friend that's a bit like that...he's 6 foot 2 and his parents are far smaller people.
Her dad does look like Peter 
I think she looks alot like her mom with the big smile and the eyebrow arches. Though her dad has the eyebrow arches too 
I personally believe that lifespan, cancers and other maladies (like weak heart, iron deficiency etc.) are established mainly by genetics (although nutrition still plays a supporting role) and what sort of stresses one applies to one's body. (trauma- physical or mental, grueling exhaustion, poor sleep habits, etc.) I'm at risk, for instance, for colon cancer, old age eye problems, and possibly heart conditions due to my family tree. But to my advantage, my elder family members have been living a long time and staying fairly active for their age (80s).
Do you believe that nutrition rather than genetics are the primarily sources of cancers?
As far as stamina and energy goes, I feel a hell of a lot better being 137 than back when I was 200. Less strain on my circulatory system, and I'm digesting a lot less.
Weight lifting is about the same of strenuous running or swimming for me as I do all three until I can't go any longer. I did all three, and I played a lot of basketball. Without weight lifting, I stay around 160-170 or so. I need weight lifting to go up to 200.
Yeah, everyone has their own unique needs since calorie needs vary depending on size and activity level. Being smaller with less time given to it, you obviously don't need as much as you needed back then. Even professional athletes need more during say playoff or Olympic time than the general course of their seasons. I'm around 295 now, but with a four (though I wish 8
For me, Natalia Belova is the sexiest current Russian model in terms of the combination of face, body and sensuality. Of course, I mean the commercial one as there is a high fashion model by the same name. Of models with more than ten pages, Kesenia Khakonovich probably has my favorite face. I like Natalia Vadionova's work, but have never been a particular fan of her looks though
Never heard of the first two, and now have...:-)
I like Natalia V., and I plan on screening her entire thread. Haven't gotten the chance as of late, though.
Ahhh I see, they were in the SI thread all along!
Her dad does look like Peter
There's tons of ways to get it, but case by case, it depends on what kind it is. Lung cancer is often caused by smoking for example. Some are however said to be genetically predisposed to addictive habits which can lead them to smoke. On the other hand, being in an environment where cigarettes are so available at a young age combined with second hand smoke at a young age doesn't help much. There are three primary ways to get cancer anyway. One is genetics, another nutrition and then environmental factors. Its somewhat difficult to separate the three at times. For example, something consumed over several generations (hormones, additives ect.) can then engrain itself in the genetic code and become genetic even if it has its roots in nutrition. One can't then say its one or the other. For example, in the decades since animal growth hormones were introduced into our (and other similar countries) diet, Americans have been starting puberty earlier and earlier every decade. Before animal growth hormones, the average American began puberty around 14-15. After, it went down to around 12 and is now as low as 8. The 10 year olds with large breasts and hairy pits isn't natural but a result of animal growth hormones. It has become genetic now, but has its source in nutrition, so the two are often related.
Also, cancers take longer to develop in different people. In some, the genetic variables may strike them in childhood. In others, their body may take several decades to develop it and they actually have the power to prevent it (unlike the child) and don't take advantage generally due to lack of knowledge. Its of course important to note that 'prevention' and 'curing' are of course different. What can be done to prevent it when its small may not necessarily cure it when its big. To be honest, knowledge of preventive methods isn't as publicized as it should be because more funding goes to solving rather than preventing because more money is to be made in solving or trying to solve.
As to environmental factors, some may have a low resistance to say air pollution and get it from that even if the greater majority of society were unaffected. Most of the current medical journals I've read suggest an overall average of 70-80% nutrition and lifestyle to 30-20% genetics and environment. I would argue that if even 60% were in our power, it would be in anyone's best interest to go for it.
To be honest, the greatest evidence points to nutrition and lifestyle having the largest % because we can see with our own eyes that we have by far the best technology and scientific knowledge ever and yet the percentage of cancer deaths increases every year while our dependence on unnatural foods also increases every year. Also, the populations with the greatest dependence on unnatural foods also have the highest percentage of cancerous deaths. I doubt that all of that is a coincidence. Its not just cancer either, we have higher percentage of children with high blood pressure ect. than ever as well and the numbers just so happen to escalate as our dependence on unnatural foods increases.
As to just general illnesses, I do know for a fact based on experience and countless others I've seen that common (non-terminal) sicknesses can be totally eliminated through nutrition. Every illness I've struggled with all my life (blood pressure, migraine headaches, colds, flus and so on) were eliminated through change of diet. I couldn't every breathe through my entire nose growing up.
The greatest cause of disease, illness ect. as a whole though is weakening of the immune system. Our immune system is very powerful, but is weakened in many ways...
- Having a diet largely void of living enzymes. When you eat foods without many living enzymes, your body has to produce its own. When your body doesn't have to do this, it can put more energy into fighting diseases. Most enzymes are killed through intense heat and processing, so foods with the most living enzymes are of course foods you can eat raw. Steamed would be second place.
- Stress (as you mentioned) has been proven to weaken the immune system as well.
- You also mentioned lack of sleep which I imagine only adds to stress.
- Putting unnatural chemicals into your body. Seeing as how your immune system sees them as invaders, it spends a lot of time fighting them. When you relieve it of that responsibility, it can then spend its time fighting real diseases.
I haven't been to Natalia's thread in awhile as I think she took off to have a family, but she still has a pretty hefty portfolio anyway 
.
Ahhh I see, they were in the SI thread all along!
Her dad does look like Peter
Well, with SI and VS......I liked VS back in 2005-2007 with the Gisele, Ale, Karolina, AnaBB, etc. team the most. I also like the SI magazines 2005-2009 quite a lot. I liked the VS fashion show more than the best SI magazines during these two periods.
But as of right now....really, I'd say that I like VS more than SI but I don't like either all that much. I like fashion weeks better, for instance...:-p How about you?
------
Karlie does look a bit like her mom, but also completely unlike her dad!
I also really liked VS in that era..the later years of Gisele were awesome! Her look was perfect (hair and all) and her body was banging! Those really were the years 
And your a fashion person...I guess thats why ya like karlie too....does both VS and high fashion! And she rocks both! I hate all the hate shes been getting lately...More successful, more haters 
She also seems really sweet and down to earth
You know guys, as fashion weeks goes by, I will be searching for new favorite runway models...have you guys found anybody new as of late?
I am a very greedy person on my own specific terms, and I don't at all want to be a 'hero'. Ever.
I will never impale myself for anybody or anything.
Being a great person...by its nature requires total sacrifice. That's what I learned from living with my uncle. It was the 'definition' of a selfless person. And I haven't seen my uncle in 12 years. As I remember, he was a exceptionally generous person. Generous with both his efforts and his money. When I left his 'bachelor's pad', he put $20,000 in my pocket and sent me on my way.
What made him heroic was the fact that he sacrificed the whole of his emotional life for his patients and his duty to his fellow man. One could see it in his habits and his monk-like/austere living space. He was anti-materialist and anti-self; essentially he lived outwards, and served others. He saw himself as a global citizen, and could speak several languages fluently. But I can't help but wonder if this goal to serve humanity blinded him towards other promises in life. He did not seem all that happy, but rather burdened. He never married or really upgraded his material possessions, and much of his earned income went into gifts. His responsibilities to others diverted him away from fulfilling his own happiness, and naturally this is not only governed by reason, but also instincts.
So when I compare him to your typical luck-of-the-draw philanthropic wannabees/resume-boosters who party much and sacrifice little.......well, these status-seeking impostors fall very short.
^
This sounds vaguely 'Randian', haha. You're right, it's far more complex than that. There are no romantic heroes, magical leaders, or genius supermen: There are people who take big risks, and there people who are more risk-adverse. The majority of those that take big risks drown in a pool of sweat and blood, but the few reach the other side thanks to a combination of effort, institutional-systems-organizational backing (in our world, it's venture capital, major contracts, corporate backing, or universities......)and decisive good luck. And it's sales and marketing in the end! Society is not simply a mass of individuals. :-)
Well yeah, I agree with most of this, but when I say 'nutrition is supporting' I am talking from the perspective of a person who doesn't do drugs, seek out and gorge in bad food, or smoke. I assume that most people around me are not overweight. (most aren't, even though national statistics are saying something else). But I don't think that eating modern processed foods and non-organic products is dangerous enough, in the general case, to eliminate it from one's diet entirely.
A lot of the health problems with children you mention are obviously caused by overeating bad food, and the blame rests on the parent, child, and producers.
There's tons of ways to get it, but case by case, it depends on what kind it is. Lung cancer is often caused by smoking for example. Some are however said to be genetically predisposed to addictive habits which can lead them to smoke. On the other hand, being in an environment where cigarettes are so available at a young age combined with second hand smoke at a young age doesn't help much. There are three primary ways to get cancer anyway. One is genetics, another nutrition and then environmental factors. Its somewhat difficult to separate the three at times. For example, something consumed over several generations (hormones, additives ect.) can then engrain itself in the genetic code and become genetic even if it has its roots in nutrition. One can't then say its one or the other. For example, in the decades since animal growth hormones were introduced into our (and other similar countries) diet, Americans have been starting puberty earlier and earlier every decade. Before animal growth hormones, the average American began puberty around 14-15. After, it went down to around 12 and is now as low as 8. The 10 year olds with large breasts and hairy pits isn't natural but a result of animal growth hormones. It has become genetic now, but has its source in nutrition, so the two are often related.
Also, cancers take longer to develop in different people. In some, the genetic variables may strike them in childhood. In others, their body may take several decades to develop it and they actually have the power to prevent it (unlike the child) and don't take advantage generally due to lack of knowledge. Its of course important to note that 'prevention' and 'curing' are of course different. What can be done to prevent it when its small may not necessarily cure it when its big. To be honest, knowledge of preventive methods isn't as publicized as it should be because more funding goes to solving rather than preventing because more money is to be made in solving or trying to solve.
As to environmental factors, some may have a low resistance to say air pollution and get it from that even if the greater majority of society were unaffected. Most of the current medical journals I've read suggest an overall average of 70-80% nutrition and lifestyle to 30-20% genetics and environment. I would argue that if even 60% were in our power, it would be in anyone's best interest to go for it.
To be honest, the greatest evidence points to nutrition and lifestyle having the largest % because we can see with our own eyes that we have by far the best technology and scientific knowledge ever and yet the percentage of cancer deaths increases every year while our dependence on unnatural foods also increases every year. Also, the populations with the greatest dependence on unnatural foods also have the highest percentage of cancerous deaths. I doubt that all of that is a coincidence. Its not just cancer either, we have higher percentage of children with high blood pressure ect. than ever as well and the numbers just so happen to escalate as our dependence on unnatural foods increases.
As to just general illnesses, I do know for a fact based on experience and countless others I've seen that common (non-terminal) sicknesses can be totally eliminated through nutrition. Every illness I've struggled with all my life (blood pressure, migraine headaches, colds, flus and so on) were eliminated through change of diet. I couldn't every breathe through my entire nose growing up.
The greatest cause of disease, illness ect. as a whole though is weakening of the immune system. Our immune system is very powerful, but is weakened in many ways...
- Having a diet largely void of living enzymes. When you eat foods without many living enzymes, your body has to produce its own. When your body doesn't have to do this, it can put more energy into fighting diseases. Most enzymes are killed through intense heat and processing, so foods with the most living enzymes are of course foods you can eat raw. Steamed would be second place.
- Stress (as you mentioned) has been proven to weaken the immune system as well.
- You also mentioned lack of sleep which I imagine only adds to stress.
- Putting unnatural chemicals into your body. Seeing as how your immune system sees them as invaders, it spends a lot of time fighting them. When you relieve it of that responsibility, it can then spend its time fighting real diseases.
I haven't been to Natalia's thread in awhile as I think she took off to have a family, but she still has a pretty hefty portfolio anyway
I also really liked VS in that era..the later years of Gisele were awesome! Her look was perfect (hair and all) and her body was banging! Those really were the years
I was thinking about this for some time. Your uncle is (in my eyes) a person to be trully adored and respected. Not everyone (barely anyone) can go with such a great sacrifice. But - could this not be done in our everyday lives to some extent? To be less selfish and more oriented at other people/nature/animals - to help more, to learn more, and still keep our lives spinning the way that leads us to our own happiness?
Do you think it´s possible or not? I think I will try. I do it to some extent, but it´s still too little in my eyes. I personally think it IS possible.
Of course it's possible, but little would get accomplished. The activities that contribute the most to a cause are those that focus long term, sustained effort and the greatest possible deployment of resources (labor, capital, time, etc.) towards it.
That's what I see with most attempts at philanthropy. Short term focus, no long term strategic effect..
I´m not talking about short term focus. If more people were doing good (though maybe "little") things all over the world with a long term focus, it could be done. Things like eat less, waste less, be more aware of your environment and more cautious to it, do little good everyday things that don´t cost you that much. Help when you can. I think it is possible.
You know Andy, when I started talking to you I had this opinion that this humanity and civilization is fucked up totally and it won´t take much time until our whole civilization (the way we know it) falls. But you gave me hope with your words and now I think we can make it. There are many good things done all over the world with people trying to preserve nature, to teach people how to live in peace with it, there are so many scientists trying to work out new inventions, new and better ways to energy savings, green buildings, garbage efficiency or it´s total elimination. It´s not global, but I hope that one day it will be. There is, of course, and always will be, lots of "evil" done in this world as well, but I´ve learned that those are mostly well-educated, aware and intelligent people who are able to think about nature and help it, or to think about people and help them. You cannot make a poor or starving individual make ecological decisions or tell him not to kill this or that animal because it´s amongst endangered species - he´ll just look at you like "damn you, I´m starving, I need to eat something".
Once the society is educated (and not starving ) and content, it can do good things for others.
Generally speaking, of course.
As far as 'justice' is concerned, I see it as a totally imaginary concept. Reality goes on regardless of it. That's why seeing this mentioned in various contexts draw no ardor from me. When seeing something foul, I prefer to 'not do as they do' or 'do what I can afford to lose' to help.
But being a consistently generous person has its rewards as well. You'll affirm yourself, and you may attract the reciprocity, attention, and dedication of others
------------------
Reminders for myself of videos I haven't fully watched but want to:
-Lincoln
-House of Cards
-The Master
-The Remains of the Day
-skim 'The Face'
Oh, justice is a human product. Just like many other things. I feel strong about it, though. When I can change it. When I can´t, one just has to deal with reality and go on.
Being a generous person has its´ reward, you´re right. People you help (not all of them, some even won´t say thank you, but whatever) seem to like you, and they mostly try to be just as helpful to you as you were to them. They stand up for you when you need it - a thing I value the most.
Ironically, there are people who dislike even seeing such a generosity from both sides. One of our bosses is like that. No one really likes him, because of his tricky and false nature, and he knows it. Thus, seeing me helping my colleagues or them liking me back and helping me too makes him angry. I once had a problem because of this. It sounds crazy when I´m trying to explain this story to someone - he even "forbade" me to help them. I still do, from time to time, when I can, though - just can´t help it
You know, it's nice that Karlie's back doing fashion weeks. In top form, too.... It almost makes up for the fact that she chopped her hair off and allowed VS to take her away.... 
Also...there is an influx of new 'models of the moment' thanks to fashion weeks. Have you guys found anybody new?