Kirstie Alley: Junk OUT the Trunk??

241. She's 55!!!!.......... not many at 55 that looks that good and been in good shape all along.

Posted at 9:50PM on Nov 9th 2006 by Mike Kap

242. MMMMMMMMMMMM I AM NOT SURE SHE IS REALLY 145 LIKE SHE CLAIMS

Posted at 9:46PM on Nov 11th 2006 by CHERYL OTOOLE

243. We've gotten redicoulous TMZ. I'm not sure I appreciate the tone of your entry--when did 145 pounds become fat to you? That is a healthy weight for someone of Kirstie's height. I mean, I think you need to have your head examined. Obviously witnessing too many celebrities vollying for sample sizes has rotted your brain. Celebrities are only the sizes they are because they don't have to pay for designer clothes half the time. Why pay when you can get most of this trendy crap for free? Unfortunately, in order to get into this stuff--you're forced to keep your body somewhere in the zone of a safety pin and a twig. Sample sizes (what the models are actually wearing--before these collections are sent to the factories and massed produced for the public) are essentially made to fit a model's body. Designers prefer smaller sizes for several reasons:

1. The way the clothes fall on the body. Models these days are likened to racks. SERIOUSLY. I'm not being funny. An outfit uninterrupted by curves is a preferred method of displaying the clothes. This is why you don't typically see Victoria's secret models walking high fashion runways by the way. However, this trend is changing slowly as even these models find they must slim down to find more work in this business.)

2. Designers want a walking piece of art when they reveal their collections. The smaller the model (or less attractive the model is) the less likely the focus is to be on the model rather than the clothes themselves.

So there you have it. The reason why, almost every celebrity you see in the mags these days is no bigger than a size 4. If samples were made in a size 6 or a size 8. The celebs and models you see would all be all be a size 6 or 8. It certainly does NOT mean a size 8, 10 or gosh even 12, is FAT. This is the smallest size models have ever been in history.
Christie Brinkley and Cindy Crawford were size 6's in their heyday. Think that's fat? Hell Marilyn was a 14 in the white dress--heard no complains then. Still hear none.

Posted at 3:11AM on Nov 11th 2006 by Y

244. I think she should have left her clothes on. Whenever I see an advertisement for Jenny Craig and her big mouth is running I change the channels or put on the mute. She's nothing but a BIG LOUD MOUTH!!!!!!!!!! She makes me sick with her THUNDER THIGHS!!!!

Posted at 9:07PM on Nov 11th 2006 by I agree

245. Sorry, Kirstie is full of crap that she's 145 lbs. That's just Jenny
Craig propaganda. She is NO 145 lbs. Maybe in her dreams she's 145 lbs. That's a bunch a bull. Yes, she's lost some weight, but she's NOT down to 145. I would guess her weight at least to be 180 lbs especially with those thunder thighs. I hate when the public gets lied to and what is she going out there lying about her weight when weight is such an issue for the American female public. Be honest Kirstie and tell your real weight or shut up.

Posted at 8:36AM on Nov 13th 2006 by MJ

246. The point of the matter is Kirstie HAS been lying about her "highest weight". But because of that she's had to keep shaving the numbers from the original lie when it comes to her weight loss, and now it really shows. At 5'7-5'8 she is nowhere the 145 lbs she claims to be....even taking into account:

1. Odd camera angles
2. Camera "adding weight"
3. Genetically inclined to carry weight in some areas more than most (why she looks so bottom heavy).

And do keep in mind that in her "bikini" she is wearing....SUPPORT PANTY HOSE to girdle all those lumps back in. And no, I'm not making that up, it was listed quite plainly on Oprah's web site. See the odd stripe down the middle? That's the seam of her support hose. According to the website she had originally planned on wearing seamless but the ones she was given were "low rise" so she had to wear the one with the huge stripe up the front. Most of that "taught" tummy people think they are seeing is just the usual flab packed tightly into nylon to make her more presentable, and even taking that into account, she still - flesh toned girdling and all - isn't the 145 lbs she claims to be.

Now I'm all for weight loss....I used to be a hefty 220 myself, and am down to 140 now, and I'm 5'8 too. But please people.....if you are going to flaunt your weight loss to the world at least be honest. She's not healthy, she's not the right BMI (because her figures are a lie), and she's not honest.

Sure, everyone out there says: "But at least she's not like Nicole Ritchie! That girl is a walking poster for anorexia!"

But think about it....who do you think would make more people diet? Nicole? Or Kirstie? My vote is on Kirstie...because once women of a normal weight see Kirstie in her "bikini" and her that she supposedly only weighs "145 lbs" and they compare it to their own weights, they're going to run for the carrot sticks and treadmill in fear that THAT IS THE LOOK OF A TALL WOMAN AT 140lbs. When in reality, it's probably more like 175lbs.

....then again...maybe, just maybe....that's what Jenny Craig has been hoping all along, and why as her sponsor - they haven't made her fess up to the truth.

Posted at 1:18PM on Nov 16th 2006 by Valerie

247. She looks AMAZING then again I think she looked AMAZING even before loosing the weight. The bodies of females who look like these anorexic models utterly disgust me. Why not be a REAL women and flaunt the curves….A man with REAL taste.

Posted at 6:26PM on Nov 14th 2006 by Robert

248. I just off the phone with Jenny Craig and told them that it's OBVIOUS that Kirstie is no 145 lbs. They were being very evasive and would only say she lost 70 lbs. So I said that she's being misleading about her starting weight then which would have had to have been about 260+ lbs because she's looks about 180 -190 lbs. They would only said she lost weight but would NOT commit to a starting number so they're playing word and number games. I told them that Kirstie and Jenny Craig are misleading the public in misleading them to believe she is 145 lbs. They said we never said she was 145 lbs, but I clearly told them they gave a false starting number misleading people to believe that she's 145 lbs. now, which is clearly is NOT.

Posted at 7:19PM on Nov 14th 2006 by MJ

249. I don't think we can buy either the amount of the weight loss or the weight she's claiming. She really looks like she is 185 and I would guess she was 250 before.
Didn't you all notice that in the latest ads --the past four or so -- she hadn't really changed much at all in terms of size? They shot one against a black background so you couldn't see her shape at all. Kinda like those old Pier 1 ads where they just showed her head. It's not about whether or not she's lost a certain amount of weight. She lost a bunch of weight and she looks better. Good for her.

But why lie? We can all see she is no 145 lbs. We should be pissed off if Jenny Craig's outright lying about the results and if the Oprah show is complicit in telling an untrue story to the public.

Posted at 10:42PM on Nov 18th 2006 by bee-log

250. Yes, she looks better.....than an elephant. Her bikini days should be part of her past. Looking at her in the original Star Trek movie, now There was a hottie, but now..... Ever wonder why she is holding her hands at her hips?? Hides a lot of sins. But kudos to her for losing as much as she has - it still is just a start. Why the heck did she ever let herself go?

Posted at 7:29PM on Nov 20th 2006 by Bill

251. Yes, compared to her "before" body, it's much better now. But it was definitely not a tasteful showing of her body.

Plus, I can't stand all those commercials where she's talking so full of herself, & even on commercials, she acts rude to others. She thinks she's the only one who's been able to accomplish this weight loss & she's the only one who can, & everyone will have to respect & follow her. But there's plenty of people who've accomplished similarly but don't need to go on television to flaunt their bodies.

Posted at 2:18AM on Nov 22nd 2006 by dunno

252. 75 pounds is good. She doesn't look 145 though. I'd say between 160-170, & lots of fat on the thighs. The one thing is, that I notice, is people don't really work out or lose weight the right way. Even with Jenny Craig. People don't really work out hard enough, so they lose weight sloooowwwwwwwwwlyyyy. I lost almost 40 lbs in about 3-4 months. I could've lost a lot more at the same rate afterwards too if I still had the free time (like some actresses), but I've been able to lose much more anyway, regardless of the time issue - just by working out hard. And this was without going on some boring vegetarian diets, but rather getting to enjoy fast food or junk food every now & then. You just eat the amount your body asks for, & stop. And when you need a "treat," give it to yourself.

Posted at 2:15AM on Nov 22nd 2006 by du

253. I didn't believe Kirstie when she said her starting weight was "around 200" and I still didn't believe the later admission to 219 pounds, although I think it was halfway to the truth. She's 5'8" and there's no way she still looks that heavy if her true weight is 145 as she claims. I also would not have worn that silly seamed body suit under the bikini; if she needed it, like the size of those thighs, it was another sign she wasn't quite ready. To be fair, she's doing great, and I wish I looked half as good and half as beautiful, but she's got another 25 pounds with gym work to go an an apology owed to the public she's duping.

Posted at 5:48PM on Dec 17th 2006 by Raejean

254. "My God! - If Kirstie Alley were my wife! ... [?!?] ... I'd be the happiest man alive!! ... "

Posted at 7:33AM on Jan 6th 2007 by Mark Jackiw