Fat, the new normal

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?

leggup

NIH has standards for measuring frame size: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/imagepages/17182.htm However, the majority of weight is stored as fat and soft tissue.. not bone. Bones don't have large weight changes from small to avg frame size. Also--- for my height, 6'0, BMI says I can weigh 137-183 lbs. That's pretty much the same scale as that chart anyway.

jemhh

tomteboda wrote: »

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.

I love it. I, apparently, am 38 pounds overweight.

acorsaut89

While I agree that we are starting to accept higher and higher weights and bigger sizes and this is becoming a health issue for our society as rates of obesity are climbing, at an alarming rate.

However, here's where it's a hard sell: I have done a few Bod Pod sessions which are the ones where you sit in a capsule and it measures your weight and volume to determine your BF%. I am 5'10 and I have about 160lbs of LBM on me. On all of those scales, even if I could get down to 0% BF I am pushing the limits for what I should weigh. And body composition is important to consider when looking at someone's health. I am obviously not a petite woman, but I strongly believe 160 - 170lbs is unrealistic for someone with the body comp I have.

NorthCascades

Is this only about women?

Keladelphia

While I agree somewhat with the title of this post, that being overweight has been more normalized in today's society, that initial chart is pretty hilarious to use as the standard for your point. What the "fingers around the wrist test" seems to tell me is whether someone has long fingers or whether someone has short fingers.

As a "small framed" individual by those standards (no way am I small framed) weighing in at 143 pounds and approximately 17% body fat, i'm considered overweight for the small frame category and nearly overweight in the large frame category. It would be physically impossible for me to diet down 20 pounds to get to just the top end of that small frame range.

kristen8000

I'm 5'11, currently 149 and my fingers overlap. But I have skinny wrists and long fingers. My shoulders and hips tell a different story though. After doing some logical digging I've determined that I'm "medium framed" and weigh the perfect amount.

I've been down to 143 before and I look sick. And it's hard to maintain. So if the whole fingers overlapping thing is true, I'd need to be MUCH lighter to be normal.

3bambi3

NorthCascades wrote: »

Is this only about women?

The chart in the OP is women-specific, yes. Is that your question? I mean, I'm sure body type by finger length and wrist girth is equally idiotic for men though. #feminism #shortfingersmeanimfat

mph323

NorthCascades wrote: »

Is this only about women?

Apparently. I'm not sure I've ever seen the "wrap your fingers around your wrist" test applied to men (maybe it has, and I've just missed it). Combined with the chart in the OP "most people" seems to be a euphemism, for "most women".

AnnPT77

tomteboda wrote: »

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.

Its sillier than that, actually, when coupled with the truly idiotic finger/wrist test. It seems, per this test, I am large framed (I have large wrists, but a narrow pelvis). So this is underweight:

AnnPT77

leggup wrote: »

NIH has standards for measuring frame size: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/imagepages/17182.htm However, the majority of weight is stored as fat and soft tissue.. not bone. Bones don't have large weight changes from small to avg frame size. Also--- for my height, 6'0, BMI says I can weigh 137-183 lbs. That's pretty much the same scale as that chart anyway.

Wrist test: Still silly. In women, big stuff like pelvic width and breast size is going to make a lot more difference than wrists, when it comes to determining a sensible weight.

And where bones do matter - like pelvis - the relevant point is the span, because it takes materially more meat and skin to wrap a wide span than a narrow one. Yes, soft tissue - but not only fat. The point is not the size/weight of the bones themselves. (Does anyone ever question that men with wide shoulders might rationally weigh more than men with a more narrow/linear vs. top-wide/triangular build? I've never seen it discussed.)

Women my size can have breasts from at least 34A to 36 (or more) DDD and beyond. That's a multi-pound difference. (40B, when I was obese = about 4 pounds of breast tissue, according to my pathology lab).

At 5'5, I have wrists over 6.25. Large frame?

But at goal weight, I have 34" hips. There are women my height who'd need to be skeletally gaunt to get 34" hips, if they could get there at all. (I attached a photo upthread. I'm not skeletal.) I always had small breasts; now I have none (post mastectomies).

My wrists say "large frame". Common sense - and visual assessment of the results - say I belong near the low end of the BMI range.

The whole generic frame size paradigm is useless, IMO. We're individual.

Edited: typos