ONTD

3:07 am - 12/02/2012

Vegan Anne Hathaway flaunts 25-lb weight loss

Actress Anne Hathaway, who lost 25 pounds on a crash diet for the film, "Les Misérables," looks sporty and sassy in the January 2013 issue of Glamour.





The slender 5-foot-8 Anne dons a white tank top and black underwear that accentuate her lean thighs. Hathaway, 30, admitted she essentially starved herself to look the part of the emaciated Fantine in the tragedy, "Les Misérables."

"I had to be obsessive about it; the idea was to look near death," Hathaway told Vogue. "Looking back on the whole experience, it was definitely a little nuts. It was definitely a break with reality, but I think that’s who Fantine is anyway."

Anne lost 10 pounds before shooting began, and then lost another 15 pounds during a two-week break in filming by eating only two thin squares of dried oatmeal paste a day. Hathaway's competitive personality enabled her to stick to her extreme low-calorie diet.

"I like to fight for a job," she says. "You feel like you've emerged from the scrap, and you're like, 'OK, this one's mine. Did it. Done.' "

Transforming herself physically is nothing new for the dedicated Anne, who worked out five days a week to play Catwoman in "The Dark Knight Rises." In addition to gym workouts, Hathaway underwent stunt training, did strength exercises as well as 90 minutes of dance every day.

Anne, who switched to a vegan diet while training for "The Dark Knight Rises," has really embraced the plant-based eating plan.

"I don't go the soy-meat route; I have a really plant-based diet," she said. "So I wind up cooking at home a lot. Kale is amazing. Spelt [a kind of wheat] pasta is amazing. I can't do the white-flour stuff. It makes me really ill."


source
alouds 2nd-Dec-2012 04:56 pm (UTC)
adopting a pet cause it's fun and you love animals isn't immoral though as long as you treat the pet with love and respect until it dies naturally
ladyvoldything 2nd-Dec-2012 04:59 pm (UTC)
but you just told someone upthread that owning pets is against abolitionists then spouted a bunch of abolitionist stuff

you can't say that owning pets is against the belief then say that it's okay if you're nice to them
alouds 2nd-Dec-2012 05:02 pm (UTC)
if you read the link i gave you you'd see that yes owning pets is against abolitionists but letting the thousands of animals who depend on animals die cause of lack of human interaction isn't exactly preventing suffering so thats more important than objectifying animals until they have all died out
ladyvoldything 2nd-Dec-2012 05:09 pm (UTC)
so basically when you told that girl upthread that owning pets is against abolitionist belief

you were effectively full of shit

because this caveat is so broad that it covers all speutered adopted animals
alouds 2nd-Dec-2012 05:13 pm (UTC)
it is against abolitionist belief but domesticated animals are a creation of humans so we have to take responsibility for it the best way we can
ladyvoldything 2nd-Dec-2012 05:14 pm (UTC)
so it actually isn't against abolitionist belief because said belief acknowledges the need to clean up the mess we made

so it isn't against the belief at all. the belief advocates non-breeding, humane pet ownership.

you suck at arguing.
alouds 2nd-Dec-2012 05:19 pm (UTC)
lol uh you suck at reading. did you even read the article i linked you to? of course pets are against abolitionist belief, but if everyone drops all their pets out on t he street they will all die and suffer, so thats why we have to make an exception and humanely clean up the mess we made just like you said. sometimes you have to go against abolitionist theory in order to reduce suffering in the case of companion animals.
ladyvoldything 2nd-Dec-2012 05:23 pm (UTC)
i told you that i didn't read the link, because i'm not interested enough in what you have to say. is that clear enough?

make your argument on your own. you're arguing two things and doubling back on yourself.

either:

1. abolitionist theory is unrealistic and condemns all pet ownership, and you're going against it with human pet adoption

or

2. abolitionist theory only condemns buying pets in ways that feeds into the industry, and supports human pet adoption as long as they're still around, and you aren't going against anything.

Pick. One. Just pick one. I'm not doing your work for you. Make an argument clear. Just once. Maybe your English teachers weren't as hard-ass as mine were, but making a coherent argument is not this complicated.
alouds 2nd-Dec-2012 05:28 pm (UTC)
abolitionist theory is unrealistic in the case of companion animals that need to be adopted and that already exist obviously
This page was loaded Jul 12th 2014, 6:26 am GMT.