>Do you mean being able to count your ribs? That's too skiny
>but you should basically see the outline of your rib cage as
>it sticks out the furthest and then drops to your stomach. IE
>the breasts should stick out the furthest, and then your rib
>cage and then your hips. And your tummy should be nice and
>flat.
>
>
>Kit
I think that's a pretty good description of one of the "ideal" body types there. But, most of us don't have that.

Your ribs showing largely depends on your natural fat distribution. At my leanest, my ribs would show only when bending over or stretching ......and very, very slightly. I'm almost there now. Yet, I have little cuts on my hip flexors, some defintion on my obliques/upper abs and some cuts on my right (but not left, gleeckk!) shoulder. We all know some women who have very slight upper bodies, ribs may show and all, and quite the cushiony rump/hips area. So, some women whose ribs show may be too skinny and others who ribs show may not be. I do wish my showed a bit more. Actually, I would love the intercostals and serratus to show. Maybe one day!!!
So, tytbody, your question really depends on what your body wants to do when you lose fat. But yes, having overall muscle with a slight layer of subcutaneous fat is both achievable and nice-looking. Cathe herself posted that she doesn't always stay as lean as she gets while filming; a "girl has to live". Both looks have their aesthitcal pros and cons and mental ones, too. I think the really cut (and veiny) look would be cool to achieve just for the sake of working hard for a goal! My 2 spining instructors have that look and I find it very attractive and very healthful looking.
Face...as I get older, I'm facing the same drawn face thing. I think it's more pronounced in pictures though! As if the face is one place the camera takes away weight instead of adding weight!