"Who's NOT Overweight?"

123457»

Replies

  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    I work from home, so my coworkers are dogs (lol) and one is actually on a diet and one is a healthy weight, so there you go; 1 in three of us is overweight. But seriously, I live between Baltimore and DC and there's a striking difference between the two cities in terms of weights. In Baltimore I am often one of the thinnest in the room while in DC I'm about average. I have a BMI of 22.4. People are used to seeing larger weights. In Baltimore I often get comments when I eat.

    Even within a city I notice a difference. I used to work downtown DC and on the metro I had the regular commuters who were... heavy but it was a rarity to see a morbidly obese person. I mostly saw young professionals in fitted businesswear. On the weekends? I was much more likely to see obese people, people on scooters, people spilling into seats.

    I like using the global fat scale by the BBC to compare nations/ages. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18770328
    "You have a lower BMI than 80% of females aged 15-29 in your country" (USA)
    "You have a higher BMI than 54% of females aged 15-29 in the world"

    When I change my age to 30 (I will be in 5 months)
    You have a lower BMI than 86% of females aged 30-44 in your country
    You have a lower BMI than 61% of females aged 30-44 in the world

    I agree that BMI has limitations but it was designed to compare large populations, so, exactly what the global fat scale site does. It shows just how far off the US is from the world.
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    I have a BMI of 27.5 and I wear a size 10 US. Not until I can wear a size 6, which happened when I weighed 145 to 150, was my BMI in the healthy range.
  • aeloine
    aeloine Posts: 2,163 Member
    leggup wrote: »
    I work from home, so my coworkers are dogs (lol) and one is actually on a diet and one is a healthy weight, so there you go; 1 in three of us is overweight. But seriously, I live between Baltimore and DC and there's a striking difference between the two cities in terms of weights. In Baltimore I am often one of the thinnest in the room while in DC I'm about average. I have a BMI of 22.4. People are used to seeing larger weights. In Baltimore I often get comments when I eat.

    Even within a city I notice a difference. I used to work downtown DC and on the metro I had the regular commuters who were... heavy but it was a rarity to see a morbidly obese person. I mostly saw young professionals in fitted businesswear. On the weekends? I was much more likely to see obese people, people on scooters, people spilling into seats.

    I like using the global fat scale by the BBC to compare nations/ages. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18770328
    "You have a lower BMI than 80% of females aged 15-29 in your country" (USA)
    "You have a higher BMI than 54% of females aged 15-29 in the world"

    When I change my age to 30 (I will be in 5 months)
    You have a lower BMI than 86% of females aged 30-44 in your country
    You have a lower BMI than 61% of females aged 30-44 in the world

    I agree that BMI has limitations but it was designed to compare large populations, so, exactly what the global fat scale site does. It shows just how far off the US is from the world.

    The global difference in age is mind blowing to me. You were higher and suddenly you're lower?? Nuts!!
  • whosshe
    whosshe Posts: 597 Member
    aeloine wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    eliciaobrien1 wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    For the record, many women are not obese at a size 18. On me that's not obese. I wear between a 12 and a 16 currently (depending on brand) and am three pounds off from healthy BMI, with a waist less than half my height. And I'm not all that tall, only 5'8". Plenty of women are taller and can easily have less than a 25 BMI while wearing a 16.

    You'd have to have some crazy hip bones to not be obese in a size 18. It's circumference not height. I'm sure height plays into sizes but not an 18. That is some woo right there.

    Thanks for calling me a liar. At a size 18 I weighed about 190, which is a 28.9 BMI - that's overweight, not obese. But I'm sure you know my body better than I do, since you seem to know everything.

    I dunno dude... I'm just under 5'8 and a size 18. Currently weight 225 and am VERY much in the obese BMI.

    *Light bulb* are you in UK sizing??

    An 18 UK is a 14 US. Hopefully this is the explanation because otherwise it still doesn't make any sense lol
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    leggup wrote: »
    I work from home, so my coworkers are dogs (lol) and one is actually on a diet and one is a healthy weight, so there you go; 1 in three of us is overweight. But seriously, I live between Baltimore and DC and there's a striking difference between the two cities in terms of weights. In Baltimore I am often one of the thinnest in the room while in DC I'm about average. I have a BMI of 22.4. People are used to seeing larger weights. In Baltimore I often get comments when I eat.

    Even within a city I notice a difference. I used to work downtown DC and on the metro I had the regular commuters who were... heavy but it was a rarity to see a morbidly obese person. I mostly saw young professionals in fitted businesswear. On the weekends? I was much more likely to see obese people, people on scooters, people spilling into seats.

    I like using the global fat scale by the BBC to compare nations/ages. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18770328
    "You have a lower BMI than 80% of females aged 15-29 in your country" (USA)
    "You have a higher BMI than 54% of females aged 15-29 in the world"

    When I change my age to 30 (I will be in 5 months)
    You have a lower BMI than 86% of females aged 30-44 in your country
    You have a lower BMI than 61% of females aged 30-44 in the world

    I agree that BMI has limitations but it was designed to compare large populations, so, exactly what the global fat scale site does. It shows just how far off the US is from the world.

    That was enlightening -- I have no idea how accurate the data is, but I was *fascinated* that apparently I'm smaller than 91 percent of women my age in the US, and that I most resemble a woman my age who lives in Bangladesh.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    5'9" - all clothing sizes in US standard Misses’ sizes (ASTM D5585 11e1) (2011)

    155 size 8/6 (36"-28"-37")
    165 size 10/8 (37"-29"-38")
    175 size 10/8 (38"-29"-38") <-- overweight line
    185 size 12/10 (39"-30"-39")
    195 size 14/12 (40"-31"-40")
    205 size 16/14 (42"-32"-42") <-- obese line
    225 size 18/16 (44"-34"-44")
    245 size 20/18 (46"-36"-46")
    265 size 22/20 (48"-38"-48")

    I agree with a previous poster that there's no point in debating based on clothing sizes. I am 5'9", currently about 212, and my best fitting jeans right now are a size 16 (I generally run a 14/16 top & 18 bottoms). But the thing is, I have a 41" waist and 49" hips, which puts me off this sizing chart (freak show, I know ;) ).
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    I do think categorizing women who wear a particular size as overweight or obese is misleading and not very useful. I'm 5'3 and apple-shaped so the pants size here would be relevant. At my highest weight (163, which is overweight) I wore anything from a (US) size 16 to a 20, depending on the cut. At my current weight (in the healthy range) I have a pair of identical pants from two different brands (one cheap, one expensive) that fit the same even though there's a two size difference.

    I think BMI categories are necessarily arbitrary (where 1 lb. makes the difference between overweight and obese), and I think on an individual basis they have to be used in conjunction with a number of other measures to assess the health risk of any particular person in order to be useful. A healthy person who is at the top of healthy weight and gains a couple of lbs. does not suddenly acquire the risks associated with being overweight except in a statistical sense, while a person with risky health markers won't suddenly become more healthy by dropping a couple of lbs. from obese to overweight.
  • Ainadan
    Ainadan Posts: 158 Member
    I just wanted to mention that the "average" size is going to be skewed upwards, because you are going to get a lot more outliers on the heavy end, rather than the light end. Additionally, as the population ages, the average size will probably go up, because teenagers and younger adults haven't had time to become overweight, or their bodies are different.

    As far as the other debate, I'm 5'8, 190 lbs, and a size 10. I don't have problems with "vanity sizing" because I really think it is just the clothing manufacturers trying to make sizing right to fit the general population. The numbers are arbitrary to begin with. I think it is more important to teach women about how to have a healthy lifestyle and body composition rather that tell them "reach size X and you will be skinny".
  • cmtigger
    cmtigger Posts: 1,450 Member
    Strawblackcat wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    Therealobi1 wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »
    kokonani wrote: »
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    kokonani wrote: »
    Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?

    Those two examples have nothing whatever to do with each other, though.

    Portion sizes increasing is a big problem, a contributing factor to obesity, and a hindrance to those of us trying to lose/control our weight. Something should totally be done about that.

    Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?

    No, but they have more larger sizes, with plus size models glamorizing plus sizes, and thinner people are being shamed. I can hardly find xs these days or now they do vanity sizing ( labeling a medium a small) All these things attribute to society's acceptance of overweight or obesity rates.

    I actually think it does contribute to the problem. Size 00/0 used to be meant for very thin people, now most healthy weight people fit into 0. The vanity sizing gives overweight people the impression they really aren't "that big" and reinforces the idea they are normal and that being overweight is normal because "hey I'm only a size ___". And I agree with you I can hardly find clothes that fit anymore. My mom gave me some of her old clothes from the 80s/90s and the size 4-6 fits snug. However, I now have to find 000/00 and xs in today's ridiculous vanity sizing. It disgusts me that as a country we are normalizing obesity more and more every year. I agree vanity sizing and all these 'plus size' campaigns show people "hey this is what normal is and it's completely fine to be this way".

    I agree with this. Nobody wants to force fat people to go naked, that's quite extreme to write that. Just keep clothing sizes true to size. Someone is hurt they are a size 20? Too bad, it's reality. People have made fun of size 00/000 asking how someone can be below a size 0. That's kind of the point. A size 0 was originally meant as just that; for extremely petite people. Being a size 0 was rare, not some coveted number to aspire to. Size 00/000 was created for those who are actually closer to a true size 0 and even then, it's still off. Now because of vanity sizing, you have many people saying things like "I'm 170 pounds but a size 6!" Then they refer to Marilyn Monroe's size, etc as if those sizes are comparable to today's sizing. It's ridiculous.

    is it extremely petite? or extremely skinny?
    and i dont understand the concept of having a size below zero

    i agree with the true to size in stores makes it easier to shop. each shop seems to do their own thing

    Extremely petite and/or skinny, yes. Someone who is quite skinny, yet 5'10" may not have the bone structure to fit into a size 0. The reason a size below zero was created was because an actual size 0 is no longer an actual 0. When vanity sizing became a thing, let's say a true size 4 became a size 0, so what are people who are actually a true size 0 or 2 to do in that situation? What can they do for people that size? Create size 00 and 000 of course, which is just silly.

    ^^^ Size 0's are usually for more petite folks in general. I'm 5'10", 119lbs, and I wear an 8 in certain styles of jeans from American Eagle, 6 at Old Navy, and an 11 at Hollister. And the fact that there's such variance in the numbers that I just spouted off shows just how crazy women's sizing in America is.

    Well, when I was that weight and height, I also wore a 6 at old navy. That was 20 years ago, so it looks like they haven’t changed their sizing.
  • grinning_chick
    grinning_chick Posts: 765 Member
    edited October 2017
    Ainadan wrote: »
    As far as the other debate, I'm 5'8, 190 lbs, and a size 10. I don't have problems with "vanity sizing" because I really think it is just the clothing manufacturers trying to make sizing right to fit the general population. The numbers are arbitrary to begin with. I think it is more important to teach women about how to have a healthy lifestyle and body composition rather that tell them "reach size X and you will be skinny".

    At 31, 5'7.25", and 142 pounds, I wore a size 10 in jeans, too.

    In fact, those very jeans imaged below. Yea, they are some ridiculously vain pictures - in my defense I was still very much in the enamored honeymoon phase of getting my first body piercing when I snapped them. XD Well, okay. And the fact I had been maintaining a 30 lbs weight loss for two years at that point - the precipitating event behind the body piercing.

    The weight four years of _very_ sedentary 20+ hours/semester loads of school had piled on a person who never gave any thought to the subject - didn't even own a body weight scale let alone a food scale - until she "suddenly" realized she was no longer the 125-135 pounds she'd "always been" since springing up to that height at 13. The curse of the habit of wearing clothing 1-2 sizes larger than necessary for looseness as I have never liked and actively avoid form-fitting/tailored/athletic cut clothing since...forever.

    Still have those jeans, in fact, lol, a full decade since the last time I fit in them too. How's that for optimism? XD

    Sorry, no pictures available to show at 190 lbs, I am a size 18 W/38-40 waist M. If things go according to plan, maybe in about six weeks that will no longer be true. Fingers crossed, eh?

    77qij2230b70.jpg
    0aesltcrn3z7.jpg

  • clicketykeys
    clicketykeys Posts: 6,577 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    For the record, many women are not obese at a size 18. On me that's not obese. I wear between a 12 and a 16 currently (depending on brand) and am three pounds off from healthy BMI, with a waist less than half my height. And I'm not all that tall, only 5'8". Plenty of women are taller and can easily have less than a 25 BMI while wearing a 16.

    Many women? Hmmm...maybe a few. I'm 5'7.5" and I would be huge in a size 18. My 5'11" sister would definitely be overweight and probably borderline obese in size 18. My 5'5" sister-in-law is obese in a size 16. But I understand that there are different body types. There are always outliers in all sizes, and I believe you when you say that you can personally wear size 18 and are not obese.

    But most women wearing a size 18 are going to be at least borderline obese, and definitely obese if they are in the average height range. Even at an above-average height, the waist to height ratio in a standard US size 18 is getting a bit risky, unless you are super tall. Not too bad in a 12-16 for the taller ladies, though. :)

    At 6-1 I'm definitely an outlier. But I'm in 16s now at just under 170, and I was comfortable in 18s at 190 and that put me squarely at 25 BMI. Maybe it's just because I'm used to being taller than other women, but I've never seen myself as THAT much taller than they are!
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    Almost all pants nowadays have stretch. No wonder we fit into all of them.

    I used to wear old 501s , old classic men's cut , low rise jeans. I wore a size 31/32 and I was 135 pounds at 5'5". Now, at 170 pounds, i still wear the same size in 501....except they added stretch to it.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories