Did The NYT Call Jennifer Aniston Fat?

Courtesy of INFDaily.com

Hollywood Moves Forward, NYT Steps Back

Jennifer Aniston is regularly featured here at LimeLife as having one of the best bodies in the biz. She defies age, she has a classic, simple personal style, and she seems humble, too. Now The New York Times claims that Jen has gotten bigger in the arm area, as if that's what we were looking at.

For the record, this is the second time in a week that the NYT has talked smack about a red-carpet leading lady. Christina Hendricks-- with the cantilevered, lovely bosoms-- was also called a "big girl" in another post. For the record, Hendricks' measurements have been recorded around 36-32-36, and that's not exactly a chubster in the making.

But back to Jennifer Aniston, a woman who needs some defending simply because you know she works hard to maintain her figure. It ain't easy looking like that when you hit 40. All the money in the world won't get your butt to the gym or in the Lunge Pose, so even Jen having oodles of cash doesn't diminish the respect I have for her figure maintenance.

In the post Rounder Golden Globes, writer Andy Port muses: "Maybe it's just me, but I could have sworn that some of the ladies who showed up at the Golden Globes on Sunday had put on a little weight."

To be honest, the intro is much worse than Andy's follow-up, in which she explains that she was happy to see what she thought were extra pounds on the stars.

"It's almost criminal to name names, because the very actresses whose body-mass indexes have been the subject of endless tabloid speculation are the very ones now sporting sexier curves. You could definitely see the difference if you concentrated solely on the upper arms," she wrote.

Still, though, do you think Jennifer looked at all heavy? Did Courteney Cox's arms look big in any way? Seriously.