Is a 5 foot 5 165 pound chick fat?

[Captante]

5'5 + 165 lbs means female olympic weight-lifter or fatty ... you tell me.

Ok maybe more like 365!

 

[Dr. Detroit]

5'5 + 165 lbs means female olympic weight-lifter or fatty ... you tell me.
Ok maybe more like 365!

Those thighs could crush a watermelon with ease...

 

[skull]

That puts her well into the "overweight" area on a BMI chart.

This, that chick everyones drolling over if her height and weight is even real shes got a lot of excess flab under those clothes.

 

[QueBert]

y’all apparently I’m too fat then. Most of you shouldn’t be putting it out there that that height has to be fat to be that weight, everybody holds weight differently. Even the way you carry yourself can make you look different. I may be chunky but I don’t think I’m fat.

No you're not fat, what you think is correct. But, here? You will be judged, and judged harshly. And mind you a lot of the dudes on here have only seen females online, or at a family gathering. But SOME of these men who'll judge you on here have actually seen a female in real life - So they have true experience with the female species. For the virgins here you're definitely too fat though, and this is why they'll stay virgins. As my sis would say "Champagne taste with beer money" and not even a good IPA or oak barrel aged Stout. But like a rack of Natty Light at best.

The AT forums aren't a place for females, or people who take selfies. Are you sure you're not lost?

 

[zinfamous]

No you're not fat, what you think is correct. But, here? You will be judged, and judged harshly. And mind you a lot of the dudes on here have only seen females online, or at a family gathering. But SOME of these men who'll judge you on here have actually seen a female in real life - So they have true experience with the female species. For the virgins here you're definitely too fat though, and this is why they'll stay virgins. As my sis would say "Champagne taste with beer money" and not even a good IPA or oak barrel aged Stout. But like a rack of Natty Light at best.

The AT forums aren't a place for females, or people who take selfies. Are you sure you're not lost?

females are their own species? weird

 

[snoopy7548]

5'5" at 165lb. would be considered overweight.

If you can't read this chart, it probably means you're overweight. I can read it just fine.

 

[lxskllr]

I'm not on the chart. I'm exceptional like that :^P

 

[highland145]

I'm not on the chart. I'm exceptional like that :^P

+1 for gutter cleaners.

 

[skull]

females are their own species? weird

Hes fucked a couple fatties and thinks hes a casanova what do you expect.

 

[ponyo]

@Buttercup1443 , Welcome to ATOT. Thanks for posting. You're certainly brave and little crazy for posting your pictures in a declining forum full of virgins and male nerds. I'm curious, what made you decide to post here? Were you longtime lurker or just found us through random google search?

 

[nakedfrog]

What did we miss? Anything good?

 

[BudAshes]

In middle america that is down right anorexic these days.

 

[highland145]

POOF just like that.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

POOF just like that.

Someone forward me the OnlyFans link - I'll buy and pass em around to you horn-dogs!

 

[QueBert]

@Buttercup1443 , Welcome to ATOT. Thanks for posting. You're certainly brave and little crazy for posting your pictures in a declining forum full of virgins and male nerds. I'm curious, what made you decide to post here? Were you longtime lurker or just found us through random google search?

Surely you jest, you really think an actual female would lurk here for a longtime and still decide to make an account, and on top of that post pictures and say she's 165lbs. In a thread titled "is a 5 foot 6 165 pound chick fat? With a ton of replies of basically "hells yes! fattie fattie faaaaaattie!!!"

I suppose she could be a Sadomasochist. It matters not, I believe by her last 3 posts being blank that the good nerds of AT have probably ran off yet another female.

Hes fucked a couple fatties and thinks hes a casanova what do you expect.

I stand behind what I say...

In the weeks following the publication of the article, authors Carrel and Willard promoted their findings as showing that males and females, like different species, have different genomes, that contrary to politically correct visions of a shared, universal human genome, males and females are more genetically different than ever conceived, and that genetics holds the key to these ‘‘deep’’ differences between males and females. A Los Angeles Times piece quotes Willard saying, ‘‘It’s not just a little variation…This is 200–300 genes that are expressed up to twice as much as in a male… This is a huge number’’ (Hotz 2005). And in a New York Times article in which Willard is quoted stating, ‘‘Men and women are farther apart than we ever knew,’’ the Times writer is led to conclude that women are, indeed, ‘‘a different species’’ (Dowd 2005).

 

[nakedfrog]

Surely you jest, you really think an actual female would lurk here for a longtime and still decide to make an account, and on top of that post pictures and say she's 165lbs. In a thread titled "is a 5 foot 6 165 pound chick fat? With a ton of replies of basically "hells yes! fattie fattie faaaaaattie!!!"

I suppose she could be a Sadomasochist. It matters not, I believe by her last 3 posts being blank that the good nerds of AT have probably ran off yet another female.




I stand behind what I say...

In the weeks following the publication of the article, authors Carrel and Willard promoted their findings as showing that males and females, like different species, have different genomes, that contrary to politically correct visions of a shared, universal human genome, males and females are more genetically different than ever conceived, and that genetics holds the key to these ‘‘deep’’ differences between males and females. A Los Angeles Times piece quotes Willard saying, ‘‘It’s not just a little variation…This is 200–300 genes that are expressed up to twice as much as in a male… This is a huge number’’ (Hotz 2005). And in a New York Times article in which Willard is quoted stating, ‘‘Men and women are farther apart than we ever knew,’’ the Times writer is led to conclude that women are, indeed, ‘‘a different species’’ (Dowd 2005).

And I give you a paper refuting that Carrel/Willard paper.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/srichard/files/richardson_2010.pdf

 

[Fanatical Meat]

A female body builder that stands 5'5" at 165lbs will be muscular with a low body fat percentage. All others are just fat so deal with it.

Unintentional bump sorry guys