Kelly Osbourne Lost 10 More Pounds
September 9, 2010 in Celebrity Weight & Measurements, Kelly Osbourne by Versus
Last week, Kelly Osbourne stepped into sexy lingerie and performed in a burlesque show with The Pussycat Dolls – check out the pictures! If Kelly looks even slimmer to you, that’s because she lost an additional 10 pounds:
‘Losing another 10lbs since splitting with my ex Luke and becoming a size 6 has given me the confidence to dress up! I cannot believe all the positive comments I got.’
… says Kelly.
However, her mom seems to be worried, according to the Daily Mail:
‘Sharon is desperately worried,’ a source reportedly told New! magazine.
‘Kelly is naturally a bigger girl but she’s taken the whole skinny thing too far.’
The unnamed source adds that her split from Luke may be the root of the problem.
It’s no coincidence that she looks gaunt and skinny since she split from Luke – she makes out like it’s all fine but that couldn’t be further from the truth.’
P.S.: In February 2010, (after losing 42 pounds) Kelly was the proud owner of a 118 pounds figure at 5’3”– or 160 cm and 54 kg. If she lost 10 more pounds, she must be around 108 (BMI 19) – does that seem accurate to you?
)
She doesn’t look too thin to me – I would say that 108 pounds is a little low. Maybe her original weight was more than reported or she hasn’t lost another 10 pounds.
I think she looks pretty good – but she shouldn’t lose any more weight, that would be going too far.
Agreed!
I second that.
her legs might be thick…but her torso/everything else is TINY….have you seen her emmy pictures?
Agree with Maddie, these guys obviously haven’t seen how small she looks in other pictures.
it is also entirely possible that she isn’t actually 5’3, but is only 5’1 or something. A lot of celebs (and non celebs, actually) lie about their height. I could totally believe that she is 5’1 108 pounds.
yeah 5’2 look at the website….celeb heights
Hmm, it does not sound right to me at all. She is very muscular girl and at 108 she would have looked just horrible and ultra thin not like this at all. Kinda Kim K story
She looks alright to me in those pics.
she looks alot more then 108 more like 125+..and everyone keeps talking about this kim k story what is that all about?
I agree. She is pretty musclular, so it’s unlikely that her weight is that low.
Kim’s story – she claimed that she was 109, most people did not believe
http://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/kim-kardashian/kim-kardashian-109-pounds.html
125lb? I highly doubt it, you should see some of the others pics of her taken recently. She looks tiny!
I wouldn’t doubt 125 at all actually. I’m the same age as Kelly, and, like Kelly, I recently took up a new form of physical exercise. (For her it’s dancing, for me, roller derby). When you work out a lot, you put on a lot of muscle. At 5’4”, I’m 125 and a size 4, She’s shorter than I am and claims to be a 6. So 125 is a good estimate.
She means a UK size 6, not US.
there’s NO WAY she is a UK 6
Well it’s not clear from these pics but if you see the photos of her in the short silver dress or at the emmy’s it’s obvious how narrow she really is, esp. her hips they are tiny.
im 5’2 and 110 . i am WAY thinner than her. (not from muscles)
all lies. ill tell u that.
i say 120 +.
I couldn’t agree more.
When my BMI was 19, I looked so much smaller than her.
I was around Alessandra Ambrosio’s size (except shorter, of course).
Her limbs aren’t slender enough for her to have a BMI of 19. Her legs are muscular, so they must be quite heavy.
Even if she does look like she weighs more than she does, she still is almost definitely not 108.
i really like her hair
You can tell just by looking at her that this is not her natural weight. Her head looks huge and her legs still look chunky compared to the rest of her body.
I’m not saying she looks bad, I’m just saying that it must take a lot of effort on her part to push her body to this weight, and if she starts to get even a little lazy, her weight will eventually edge back to where it was.
It’s only natural – Our bodies are comfortable at a certain weight, and unless she keeps up her eating habits/exercise habits for the rest of her life, her body will go back to how it wants to be.
That being said, I think she looks cute.
thats proportions. my cousin is 5’7, and has the tiniest head, not matter what her weight. she makes everyone else look pumpkin headed. kelly has big hair here and along with her narrow shoulders that makes her head look larger.
sorry i had to comment again. you say if she changes her eating/exercise habits again her body will change- em yeah thats how she lost it in the first place. and how she put it on in the first place.
your body isn’t comfortable at a certain weight- YOU are comfortable at a certain weight, eating a certain diet and doing a certain amoount of exercise. the interesting thing i found as a former binge eater, is that you can be equally comfortable eating a lot less, something most people don’t believe. the point as i try to tell friends trying to lose weight is not to go to silly extremes and do fad diets. Cut out a few small things, less sugar in your tea, have one slice bread instead of two (or three!!), swap some chips for salad. its amazing how making these changes makes a difference, equally with exercise, its not all about going to the gym.
the problem i would say with kelly is that she appears to have inherited her family’s tendency to excess, and she seems without direction. food can very easily become addictive in those circumstances.
Actually, doctors have proven that people DO have a set point that their dna/genetics has given them. Its usually why when someone gets slim and wants to loose even more weight to look skinny it takes major extremes to achieve their goal. they usually gain it back unless they cont. to starve or workout in excess. Look at J. Simpson, her set point is clearly not what she was in Daisy D. days. Look it up, its a true fact.
Wrong. Doctors haven’t proven anything. It’s a theory, which is why it’s called the “set point theory”.
No, it means doctors HAVE proven it. That’s why it’s a theory and not a hypothesis.
But like many things, doctors can’t dimiss disproving it, so it has to stay a theory and not a natural law.
Like the evolutionary theory. There’s thousands of studies that support it, varying from fossils, to plant mutation, to DNA and protein synthesis. But because we can’t fail to disprove it, definition-wise it will always stay a theory.
Basically, a theory in scientific terms does stand for A LOT. It’s not the same as the term theory in everyday talk.
Gravity is a “theory” too, but would you dispute that?
Hmmm….well, when I majored in public health in college, we were taught that weight is in fact determined by genetics. Whether the individual decides to take steps to lose weight or gain it is up to them.
Isn’t there also something that says you can lower your set point by maintaining a lower weight for over 6 months.
@Fader: That’s really, interesting, I wonder if it’s true??
Not that I’m aware of.
em i don’t know what studies you have been reading but everything i have heard and read about studies into set points have concluded that factors other than metabolic rates are responsible for regainging weight, and primarily that was an inability to maintain a lower calorie intake long term. ie lifestyle!
and moreover you cannot LOOK at someone and decide what weight they should be.
And what I’ve found observing others and hearing others talk about their diet is that there is variation in how flexible people’s weights are. Some people can easily gain or lose weight depending on their eating habits and exercise.
But on the other hand, some people can drastically change their diet, and their weight stays immovable.
Also, there’s plenty of genetics involved that make it clear people have specific frames and weights that are optimal. Muscle development and bone development for an example. If you carry too much fat, it will show, because it will burden your muscles and bones. If you carry too little, it will show, because your muscles and bones will clearly be visible.
I think what the OP is trying to say is she’s not in that optimal range that her body can support. To me, it looks like that too. She went from one extreme to the other, but neither is optimal to the frame she was born with.
a theory has not been proven. a theory is a set coherent propositions that can generate hypotheses to be tested. only scientific laws have been “proven”.
For a theory to become a theory, it has to have been a hypothesis, whose null hypothesis has been rejected with some form of evidence. So in layman terms, a theory is a proven hypothesis.
It just hasn’t been proven to be true in all cases ever, which is why it is not a law. Most theories (evolutionary theory, someone mentioned gravity) are, practically, natural laws. But you cannot call them a law because you can’t prove that they’re not wrong and that they won’t be wrong in some case in the future.
But my point was simpler than that. My point was simply that a scientific theory has a lot of credibility behind it. It is not the same as when we say theory in day-to-day terms.
having a weight that is optimal is not the same as being ‘meant’ to be a certain weight. the two words have entirely different meanings. And again overall this ‘optimal’ weight where you are healthy fit and happy, and can maintain easily, is still primarily i would argue determined by your mental attitude towards your diet and lifestyle and image. get all those in line whether you are a size 0 or a size 12 and you are a pretty lucky individual.
I agree. Optimal is not the same as meant to be, but I think when people say “meant to be” they mean optimal.
And like I said, people vary in terms of how much their weight is influenced by outside factors just like they vary in height or hair color. Some people’s weight easily responds to diet and exercise changes, and some people’s weight doesn’t.
Diet and lifestyle are certainly contributing factors. If you eat 5000 calories, no matter who you are, you’ll gain weight. And if you eat 0 calories, no matter who you are, you’ll lose weight. But the extent of their contribution varies from person to person. Some people can make themselves gain or lose weight simply by changing their diet by 500 calories. Others have to cange their diet by 1000 or 1500. So clearly, it’s not the ONLY contribution. There’s something else at work as well.
And yes, if you can get everything to line up…your optimal body weight, and your diet and lifestyle..then you would be a very lucky individual indeed.
Lollypop head…
if she does weigh 108 pounds then she really doesn’t carry her weight well. It is possible that she gained some weight back after dancing with the stars, and then lost 10 pounds…
Also, I assume she is talking about US sizes, and I find it hard to believe that someone who is 5’3 108 pounds would wear a US size 6…I would expect a person that size to wear a size 2 or even 0 (and I’m 5’3, so I should have some idea..)
she means a uk 6, which is the smallest size
well there is a 4 but that only came about after the whole size zero thing
and its mostly for young girls
or very petite women
There is absolutely NO WAY she is a UK size 6. I live in the UK and I have a small rib cage and a very flat stomach and my size 6 tops are very tight, I’m usually an 8. Size 6 is very thin, and although Kelly obviously looks slim, she is definitely not a 6.
guant? she looks beautiful. she doesnt need to lose anymore though.
She looks great! Though she shouldn’t lose more. My myself am a curvy girl and I don’t look good as skinny person.
Is not possibile: i’m 5’3 and i weight 108 lb and… i’m a size 2 but i also can dress some 0, so is not possibile! i was size 6 at 120 lb!
you can’t see how narrow her hips and torso are in this picture because of the jacket she’s wearing….it shows on other sites when she has it off her weight’s in her legs and no where else
I’m 5’3″ at 125 pounds and I wear a size 0-2, never bigger, so not everyone weights at least 120 lbs to wear a size six. I’m not saying she is 108 lbs because she looks a little bigger than that to me, but yeah. I don’t think weight always determines size of clothing.
se look 120 lb, not less!
Hrm i dunno, A UK 6 which is AU6? , she looks like a size UK8 in these pics but i just seen these other pics of her and she has quite thick muscular legs but her waist and torso is tiny! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1308830/Kelly-Osbourne-shows-toned-legs-slim-figure-day-performing-Pussycat-Dolls.html?ito=feeds-newsxml so i believe she is a 6
I think she looks amazing! So confident and really glowing. And the Daily Mail “source” is just BS!
i don’t want to comemnt on weight cause most celebs official weights baffle me, but i am 5’1, weighed myself the other day at 102 pounds, 105 is where i normally sit, but i feel like i look a little slimmer, at least in my limbs, and certainly less muscular than kelly. I’m definetly not unhealthy, and she certainly doesn’t look it
There is no chance on earth Kelly is a size 6.She looks about a size 10.Especially on the bottom half!
Have you seen how smaller her hips are in other pictures? I’m a UK size 10 on my bottom half and her hips are much narrower than mine.
She is not 108 lb at all!
wow, she looks so happy and confident… never found her pretty at all, but now… she’s really looking good!!
but she should not lose more weight!
She looks great but not 108. 115-120.
people under that jacket you dont realise that there is NO meat….she has no hips and no meat on her torso…..she isnt that tall either….i think it is believable, maybe she was dehydrated when she weighed herself or it was like 49.9kgs and she just said ok so im 49kgs….
Maybe my attitude is not just, but this girl will never be thin no matter how hard she tries. Her weight is perfectly normal, but her appearance still makes an imppression of a big fat girl. Sorry.Even though she looks happy and confident.
There is another pic of her in a silver sparkly dress and she looks absolutely tiny. Honestly i don’t know what her body shape is but she’s got a tiny midrif.
dont know if i can post this here but here it is http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2010/09/02/kelly_osbourne_is_a_pussycat_doll
I don’t like her body. And her face too.
No way she is 108lbs at 5ft3. I’m 107 at 5ft2 and I look waaaaaaay skinnier than her. Can’t even see her clavicles! She’s a slim girl, yes, but I’d say she isn’t under 115.
I have friends who have bmis of 22 and their clavicles are popping out and i know skinny girls who have barely visible ones. Who made this the ultimate skinny factor?
Word ^^^
clavicles don’t mean sh*t
Agreed, my clavicles don’t pop out at all but I’m deffo not fat. I carry weight like most pear shapes, but my clavicles seem to be in hiding.
It’s so terrible to say this, but she still doesn’t look good. She really has lost some weight, but I don’t like her at all, nor face and body.
Also there really is no pleasing some people, she looks better, she’s worked hard. Lets leave it at that.
If she is 5’3″ and 108lbs I think she would be much smaller than a size 6. I’m basing this off my height and weight. I’m 5’2″ and weigh 120lbs. I wear sizes 2 and 4.
That being said, I think she looks great! And I want that jacket in my closet.
She is definitely either smaller than a size 6 or not 108 lbs!!! She looks good but I’d almost say that she looks around 118 in these pics which is perfect for her height. I’m an athletic 5’3″ at 125 lbs and I wear a size 2!
I’m pretty sure she’s talking about the UK size 6, which is a US size 0-2.
she is a UK 6….which is a US 2
Idk, hard to tell, i think speculating someone’s weight is kinda pointless. (but if i do add my own opinion here, i might say 108 lbs on a 5’3 figure isn’t always a size 0-2, at that weight i’m a us 4, even a 6 at times, yupp. For size 2, i have to get almost down to 100 lbs, so, what has been said before, we all have different builts)
What i can see is that she’s a lot smaller than she used to be, but doesn’t look sickly skinny to me. However, it is different to always be that size and to get down to that weight from a basically lifetime of chubbiness, so i can see why a mother could be worried, if the quote is true. She’s got a big head with strong jaws so she looks a tad gaunt quite easily i think. I think, apart from the make-up, she looks great in that pic, even though her proportions are slightly odd
oh and someone said she was talking about uk sizes, which would make sense for her, and gotta say, i could believe that too, though she doesn’t really look THAT small to me in that pic, but maybe she is.
Now she’s Kim Kardashian’s size! What’s with everyone claiming to weigh 108 pounds?! Needless to say, I don’t think that this is Kelly’s long term weight.
No I think she is a 108lbs. Shes just about right anymore and shes underweight. You can be skinny and shapely.
The daily mail is a trashy newspaper that prints lie after lie. I do not believe that “source” I think they just made it up.
Kelly looks fine she doesnt look “gaunt” in the slighest. She has worked hard and it has paid off. Good for her.
I’m quite positive she is talking about uk size 6. I am a bit reluctant to believe that, though. She is small and she looks great, but not that small.
A UK 6 is about a 2 here in the US, right? You can tell by the bone structure in her face that she’s not naturally that small. Her skin looks like it’s being pulled across her jawline.
I read somewhere (a book, not the Internet) that the way you can tell if someone is naturally thin, as opposed to going to extreme measures is to look at their heads. If their heads look huge on their bodies, chances are they are under their natural weight. If their heads look in proportion to their bone structure, they’re most likely naturally thin.
I also think that although she’s very thin, thinner than most typical non-celebrities, Kelly’s legs are still a little chunky.
In other pics of her you can see that her waist and hips are absolutely tiny hence why she can be a size 6 (UK sizes)…she might be an 8 on her upper body.
It’s just her shoulders are broad and her arms/legs look big in relation to the rest of her body and this kind of skews things.
People should remember that she is only 5’2″… I believe she could be 110 lbs and (an American) size 4. Her calves are thick and muscular, but her waist and hips are narrow- which is determinant of your dress size. Her calves could be twice as large as they are now, and she’s be the same dress size.
I think she looks great. It is obvious that she is built to be naturally thicker but I don’t think she looks unhealthy. I am just not seeing this is an anorexic version of a thicker girl?
I agree. She still looks soft, I don’t see any bones poking out anywhere.
She is muscular. Not soft. She is quite the opposite of soft. Look, i am not defending her, but hearing things as she is not skinny because you can’t see her clavicles and she is not skinny because you can’t see bones, wth? You can count all my ribs and vertebrae (almost all, someone actually counted), but you know, when i am fully clothed, bones don’t “pop out”. Clothes have a purpose you know.
She is def not 108lb!! And i don’t really lice her!
i think she looks good. she has great legs. i dont know about weighing only 108 but who knows. everybody is different. im 5 5 127 and wear a size 2. when im down to 115 im a 0. people are just different
All I can say is that she looks sad.
Are we looking at the same pictures?
She is thin but not to skinny, not sickly…..
I do believe she will eventually go up again….
I don`t want to sound rude,but for me this girl in every size she is she`s always looks ugly…sorry
mmm.. don’t think she’s to thin… But on this girl a few pounds more just look better. She’s more a girl for a more curvy look. This thin look just looks a bit weird on Kelly, it doesnt suite her.
Kelly looks hands-down amazing. I’m glad Kelly has reinvented her style again and lost all the excess body fat. She looks healthy not sickly.
I’m glad she slimmed down but those photos don’t look like she’s at 108 lbs – maybe more like 120 lbs?
Well, 108….doesn’t sound accurate to me. It’s slightly more believable than Kim K. being 109, that was just plain ridiculously unbelievable. But it still seems too low…
She’s not 108 i am a cm shorter than her and a few months ago I was 108 and I was tiiiiny everywhere so I really, really don’t believe it maybe she is a few pounds heavier but not 108 and I don’t get it what’s the point of lying about it? She still looks pretty to me and no too thin and not on the edge of becoming underweight (as her supposed bmi of 19 shows)
She’s not too thin.. I’m 170 cm and i weigh around 55, doctor told me the weight I should be in between is 52 kg – 72 kg. She’s only 160 cm so she is by far not underweight. However she did lose weight obviously and she looks great!
i bet it’s accurate, she is tiny but has very muscular legs so she looks like she weighs more than she does i bet. on the other hand a bmi of 19 is not underweight so i don’t know what everyone is worried about a size 6 is healthy.
I don’t think she looks gaunt but that maybe because she one of those people with fatter faces
108 sounds a little low. I hope she doesn’t weigh that little, she’s starting to look unhealthy in the face :\
I know from experience that the stress of a breakup CAN kill your appetite and make you crave comfort and control, which losing weight provides. Also there’s wanting to look your best now that you’re single. But she still looks quite healthy to me.
My friend is seeing this sight for the first time and she says, “she looks creepy.”
But I think she looks good.
Shes not 108 pounds! no way! Im 120 lbs and 5 foot 5inches…and im much smaller than this…..celebs always lie about their weights! Shes more likely 115-120 pounds, plus she is WELL short too! I think she looks fine tho…..shes not scary skinny at all, she just looks average.
I don’t care how thin she is, I always get distracted by her face… it changed a lot since she lost weight and I think she wears wayyy too much make up : /
She looks gorgeous! Definitely not in bobble head territory.
shes def not a sizes 6 at 108 thats for sure at 118 shes probly a 6 but at 108 she should be around a 4 at her hight cause in 5’4 and 120 and size 6
I doubt she weighs 108 lbs. My best friend weighs 108 at 5’2″ and is tiny all around. Kelly is most definitely a mesomorph. Look at her legs! So much muscle! I’m going to guess that she’s around 120-125 and there’s nothing wrong with that!
Kelly realistic looking sexy, almost as if someone drew a picture of women’s bodies ultimately sexy. Riley is looking great too!
iPad Case
hahaah i remember her on punckd once and she was asked to try some ,,christina-aguilera-trashy-outfits” and she was like ,,no way, eeew, those clothes are disgusting”. because she didn’t have the body of course. now she is so willing to appear like this. she doesn’t look bad but if she were true to herself, she woulnd’t give a damn about appearances. totally lost respect for her
[...] Kelly Osbourn Loses 10 More Pounds But Is It Too Much?? (Skinny vs. Curvy) [...]
I actually think that at this weight she looks awesome. It brings out her bone structure
I happy for her. you can tell she feels more confident and more sexy.. I think when she was heavier she would go the whole tomboy I don’t give a shit route.. but now she’s enjoying being more girly and taking care of her body.. this is a good weight.. any skinnier would be bad.. but this weight is really good.
I think she looks amazing. This is the best she can do with her body. I hope she’ll be able to maintain this figure! By the way, I expected her to gain some weight back after her split with Luke because I assume she’s a comfort eater. Well, good job, girl! She just shouldnt go too far with the weight loss, she looks perfectly fine now.
By the way, her face looks absolutely gorgeous when she’s slim.
And for the record, some people claim she has a gastric band fitted. Even if this is true, I support her.
Her legs and face are so unfortunate..
she looks great here. plus 108 at her height is not too thin.
hmmmm it can not be-BMI 19 and she is size 6….
there is no way she’s a bmi 19, more like 21ish, considering how short she is
she’s still thick.. not thin at all but she looks fine….. better than ever. She looked horrible before.. she could still stand to lose a few or stay the same but she’s not too thin. Ppl r just use to seeing her fat.
She’s lying.
I’m actually 5’2 and 108 and I’m WAY skinnier than that. She has lots of muscle. There is no way in hell she weighs 108 at 5’3. I have some muscle and I’m a size 0-2 (US size)
She actually looks quite pretty for a change. People used to tell me that I look like her and I was insulted. Now she doesn’t look too bad but she still has those chubby cheeks and that huge grin.
Mmmmmmmm… no. I’m that height and weight and my mum is always nagging at me to put weight ON. She looks way bigger than me… 120, maybe?
Im 5’3″ myself and i weight at around 47kg yet i still look wayyyyy thinner than her. I have thin legs and my waist is pretty small in size. Not forgetting my protruding pelvic bones. Not that im proud being this thin nor that i make myself this thin, its just the way i am. But that’s not the point, the thing here is SHE DOESNT LOOK SHE WEIGHTS 108 POUNDS. There’s never any truth coming from celebrities mouth. I bet she would even say her breasts are real. boring~
Forever Alone