Fat, the new normal

cjpnh

Wrap your thumb and forefinger around your wrist, if the tip of your finger and thumb overlap you are small framed. If they just touch, you are medium framed. If they don't touch you are large framed.

We have come so accustomed to overweight being the new norm that most people won't accept that these are their healthy weights. They want so bad for it not to be accurate.

Jruzer

I agree that we as a society have become inured to higher weights than previous decades, even unhealthily so.

But why should I accept some unattributed chart as dictating "healthy weights"?

jdlobb

I don't know much about female weights, but 128-147 for a 5'8" woman doesn't seem "fat" to me. (picked that point because it's somewhat "average" height and frame

aeloine

5'7". Why is there a 32 pound difference based on whether or not your fingers touch around a bone. What if my fingers are short... does that mean that I can safely be 30 pounds heavier and still be "normal"?

Seems kitten ridiculous. Bunch of woo.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

GemstoneofHeart

I weigh 183 (overweight for sure), am 5'6" and my thumb and forefinger overlap when around my wrist.

Sooooo your analogy about frame size is just wrong. I have long fingers

Fuzzipeg

Weren't these charts taken from way back, pre WW11 charts when people were smaller and underweight! BMI may be problematic for the very fit, tall or short but not as bad as those ridiculous charts.

Lizakabibbis

I'm 5'6 and 165. I'm not small framed but yet my finger overlaps - and I'll never weigh 123.

EatingAndKnitting

I'm 100 pounds overweight. 45 pounds ago I could barely touch my fingers together using my library fingers. Now I can easily touch my fingers together using my index finger. When I was 12 and weighed 130 pounds I could wrap my fingers around with a knuckle overlap.

Was I large framed 45 pounds ago and average now?

Was I small when I was 12 and still small now?

Will I be large when I hit goal because I'm an apple and I've lost all the fat in my wrist?

Am I going to disappear when I hit goal because I'm obviously a freak of nature who's frame keeps changing? Who knows?

(I know this test is only accurate for people at a more normal weight. I just feel very sarcastic today)

singingflutelady

So according to that chart I'd be overweight at 5'8 132?!? That's ridiculous. The cut off is 131 bmi 19.9. How is bmi 20 overweight in any way except to those with body dysmorphia?

cjpnh

cjpnh

cjpnh

janejellyroll

cjpnh wrote: »

Are you going to respond to what people are saying or just keep posting charts?

singingflutelady

More random charts that say different things. It only takes 5 seconds to plug your stats into a bmi calculator

singingflutelady

janejellyroll wrote: »

cjpnh wrote: »

Are you going to respond to what people are saying or just keep posting charts?

Charts that are all different from each other

Ironandwine69

Your point?

cwolfman13

BMI is a reasonable guideline to look at, but there have to be other considerations. I'm by no means a body builder, but I'm fit and athletic..I'm overweight per BMI by about 8 Lbs...I'm not fat. BMI should be used in conjunction with BF%.

Jruzer

singingflutelady

cwolfman13 wrote: »

BMI is a reasonable guideline to look at, but there have to be other considerations. I'm by no means a body builder, but I'm fit and athletic..I'm overweight per BMI by about 8 Lbs...I'm not fat. BMI should be used in conjunction with BF%.

Except thise charts aren't even accurate for bmi. The first chart is so off it's funny. It says because i can overlap my thumb and finger that at 5'8 131 (bmi 19.9) is the max weight I should be. I'm in the 18s atm but 20 isn't fat

janejellyroll

singingflutelady wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

BMI is a reasonable guideline to look at, but there have to be other considerations. I'm by no means a body builder, but I'm fit and athletic..I'm overweight per BMI by about 8 Lbs...I'm not fat. BMI should be used in conjunction with BF%.

Except thise charts aren't even accurate for bmi. The first chart is so off it's funny. It says be ause i can overlap my thumb and finger that at 5'8 131 (bmi 19.9) is the max weight I should be. I'm in the 18s atm but 20 isn't fat

Yeah, it gives my max weight as 116. 116 is a perfectly acceptable weight for someone my height, but that doesn't mean that if someone is 120 at my height they're overweight.

Grimmerick

If I followed that chart, at 138lbs I would look like a meth addict and that's even going by the large frame and I am actually medium. They don't account for body composition obviously. Ditch the chart.

twinkles4

Boo. I thought this was going to be a debate on the HAES/NAAFA movements.

ryenday

Interestingly it is pretty equivalent to current BMI charts for 5’4 woman. The older chart ranges from 108 to 138 lb. BMI normal is 110 to 145. Pretty close, I’d say.

Of course, my index finger and thumb don’t touch - but I doubt I’m particularly large framed. I just have short fingers.

Hungry_Shopgirl

Boo on the charts that cut-off women's height at 6 feet! I'm 6'2, should I cut part of my legs off so the chart will apply to me?

lemurcat12

I have long and skinny fingers, can easily stretch 10 keys on a piano and a frenemy in jr high claimed my hands looked like daddy long legs (I do have only 5 fingers on each hand, for the record, including my thumbs). I don't think I actually have a small frame, but apparently my long fingers mean that I am fat at 125 (I'm 5'3) and need to be 113 or less.

I think I'll stick with BF% and BMI, but thanks.

singingflutelady

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I have long and skinny fingers, can easily stretch 10 keys on a piano and a frenemy in jr high claimed my hands looked like daddy long legs (I do have only 5 fingers on each hand, for the record, including my thumbs). I don't think I actually have a small frame, but apparently my long fingers mean that I am fat at 125 (I'm 5'3) and need to be 113 or less.

I think I'll stick with BF% and BMI, but thanks.

Finger twin! I definitely have pianist hands

ryenday

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I have long and skinny fingers, can easily stretch 10 keys on a piano and a frenemy in jr high claimed my hands looked like daddy long legs (I do have only 5 fingers on each hand, for the record, including my thumbs). I don't think I actually have a small frame, but apparently my long fingers mean that I am fat at 125 (I'm 5'3) and need to be 113 or less.

I think I'll stick with BF% and BMI, but thanks.

Lol, yeah and I had trouble stretching an octave with my short stubby fingers. Don’t believe that I’m actually large boned because they don’t touch.

tomteboda

What a load of hogwash. This chart gives a 5'8" woman with a large frame a maximum weight of 143 lbs.. or a BMI of 21.7 . There's NO statistical evidenced that a woman's weight needs to be that low. None. This recommendation skews to the lowest end of the healthy range of the BMI chart. Not even Asians, who have the lowest recommended body weights, have *quite* that low an upper limit.



It's pretty clear there's increased morbidity and mortality associated with very low body weights. And your charts recommend body weights low enough to be on the steep up-curve of morbidity and mortality, and say that weights that are clearly in the lowest morbidity/mortality region are overweight. (Lancet 2009; 373: 1083–96)

To illustrate how bad that chart is, this is me. I'm still overweight by that chart you've posted.

stormcrow2

or you might just have short fingers.

CSARdiver

I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Is this intended to be a rejection of BMI in favor of a method with less supporting objective evidence?