Attractiveness and Weight - research & BMI

BinaryPulsar

One other thing about BMI is just that I think that often people on mfp have a very strong negative reaction to people being in the low range around 18.5 to 19 something (they call it borderline underweight), and are off the charts over reacting if a person's weight sometimes fluctuates to one pound below what puts them at 18.5. And a pound will drop a person a few down to something like 18.29. People take that fraction of a point very seriously. And this is without knowing anything about the other factors. Or that there is an alternate BMI chart that would put that person right back into the healthy range for their body type.

delicious_cocktail

Am I reading it wrong, or does typical preference for the non-fat -admirer male peak at the usual catwalk model BMI?

That's my interpretation. Media influences thought. Not my personal taste. I also think that reality is somewhat different to theory.

I don't want to get into body-type slamming, but Angelina Jolie for instance has this incredibly hypersexualized image. Glamorous, portrays sultry characters, and is built like a little erogenous homunculus*. Huge breasts, huge lips, almond-shaped bedroom eyes, etc. Having seen photos where the make-up is not expertly applied, seen her in other-than the most flattering of lights, and looking at her as an assemblage of pieces, she is not at ALL attractive to me. Far, far too thin. Compensates for the ten pounds added by the camera by taking thirty off the top, when she can't spare a one.

I have to believe that the people you might think would be be attractive are in practice not that appealing after all. At least, I imagine so. Otherwise they wouldn't have the photoshop the women into veritable cartoons to look appealing.

Similarly, anyone of any body type can drive you completely wild . . . appearance, except in the outliers, is not the be-all, end-all.

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress when she walks treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

-The inestimable Billy S.




* - "erogenous homunculus" ©2014, delicious cocktail

RivenV

Am I reading it wrong, or does typical preference for the non-fat -admirer male peak at the usual catwalk model BMI?

That's my interpretation. Media influences thought. Not my personal taste. I also think that reality is somewhat different to theory.

I don't want to get into body-type slamming, but Angelina Jolie for instance has this incredibly hypersexualized image. Glamorous, portrays sultry characters, and is built like a little erogenous homunculus*. Huge breasts, huge lips, almond-shaped bedroom eyes, etc. Having seen photos where the make-up is not expertly applied, seen her in other-than the most flattering of lights, and looking at her as an assemblage of pieces, she is not at ALL attractive to me. Far, far too thin. Compensates for the ten pounds added by the camera by taking thirty off the top, when she can't spare a one.

I have to believe that the people you might think would be be attractive are in practice not that appealing after all. At least, I imagine so. Otherwise they wouldn't have the photoshop the women into veritable cartoons to look appealing.

Similarly, anyone of any body type can drive you completely wild . . . appearance, except in the outliers, is not the be-all, end-all.

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress when she walks treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

-The inestimable Billy S.




* - "erogenous homunculus" ©2014, delicious cocktail

It's unfortunate what we find pleasing to the touch and pleasing to the eye is seldom the same.

From Pulp Fiction; always seemed like an interesting sentiment to me.

Also, this is the first time I've encountered 'homunculus' outside of NetHack. Bonus points for you. :drinker:

QueenBishOTUniverse

One other thing about BMI is just that I think that often people on mfp have a very strong negative reaction to people being in the low range around 18.5 to 19 something (they call it borderline underweight), and are off the charts over reacting if a person's weight sometimes fluctuates to one pound below what puts them at 18.5. And a pound will drop a person a few down to something like 18.29. People take that fraction of a point very seriously. And this is without knowing anything about the other factors. Or that there is an alternate BMI chart that would put that person right back into the healthy range for their body type.

That's my biggest issue with the way it gets used. It's promoted all over the place, there's a BMI chart posted right outside the door of the nutrition classroom at my school, but the general population really has very little understanding of the real issues that BMI is trying to address and so they take an oversimplified generalization and try to apply it to every individual equally, when it really just can't be used that way.

BinaryPulsar

One other thing about BMI is just that I think that often people on mfp have a very strong negative reaction to people being in the low range around 18.5 to 19 something (they call it borderline underweight), and are off the charts over reacting if a person's weight sometimes fluctuates to one pound below what puts them at 18.5. And a pound will drop a person a few down to something like 18.29. People take that fraction of a point very seriously. And this is without knowing anything about the other factors. Or that there is an alternate BMI chart that would put that person right back into the healthy range for their body type.

That's my biggest issue with the way it gets used. It's promoted all over the place, there's a BMI chart posted right outside the door of the nutrition classroom at my school, but the general population really has very little understanding of the real issues that BMI is trying to address and so they take an oversimplified generalization and try to apply it to everyone equally, when it really just can't be used that way.

Yeah! I mean, I see the usefulness of it being one tool among many. But, not useful all on it's own as a diagnostic tool by strangers on the internet (for a large number of reasons).

kethry70

One other thing about BMI is just that I think that often people on mfp have a very strong negative reaction to people being in the low range around 18.5 to 19 something (they call it borderline underweight), and are off the charts over reacting if a person's weight sometimes fluctuates to one pound below what puts them at 18.5. And a pound will drop a person a few down to something like 18.29. People take that fraction of a point very seriously. And this is without knowing anything about the other factors. Or that there is an alternate BMI chart that would put that person right back into the healthy range for their body type.

That's my biggest issue with the way it gets used. It's promoted all over the place, there's a BMI chart posted right outside the door of the nutrition classroom at my school, but the general population really has very little understanding of the real issues that BMI is trying to address and so they take an oversimplified generalization and try to apply it to every individual equally, when it really just can't be used that way.

My favorite is that they send home reports from elemenetary school with physical fitness assessments based on running a mile, pull-ups, push-ups, sit-ups and BMI. The last thing I need is for my 7 and 10 y.o. boys to start reading and trying to interpret their BMI scores. Esp with 2 overweight parents actively trying to get healthier. I am very careful to explain to my kids that my goal is NOT to be skinny but to be healthier and more active. I am also careful to avoid demonizing food. They are skinny as rails and are probably underweight but they already have made remarks about not wanting to get fat :noway: :explode:

QueenBishOTUniverse

One other thing about BMI is just that I think that often people on mfp have a very strong negative reaction to people being in the low range around 18.5 to 19 something (they call it borderline underweight), and are off the charts over reacting if a person's weight sometimes fluctuates to one pound below what puts them at 18.5. And a pound will drop a person a few down to something like 18.29. People take that fraction of a point very seriously. And this is without knowing anything about the other factors. Or that there is an alternate BMI chart that would put that person right back into the healthy range for their body type.

That's my biggest issue with the way it gets used. It's promoted all over the place, there's a BMI chart posted right outside the door of the nutrition classroom at my school, but the general population really has very little understanding of the real issues that BMI is trying to address and so they take an oversimplified generalization and try to apply it to every individual equally, when it really just can't be used that way.

My favorite is that they send home reports from elemenetary school with physical fitness assessments based on running a mile, pull-ups, push-ups, sit-ups and BMI. The last thing I need is for my 7 and 10 y.o. boys to start reading and trying to interpret their BMI scores. Esp with 2 overweight parents actively trying to get healthier. I am very careful to explain to my kids that my goal is NOT to be skinny but to be healthier and more active. I am also careful to avoid demonizing food. They are skinny as rails and are probably underweight but they already have made remarks about not wanting to get fat :noway: :explode:

I've been meaning to steal the "monthly healthy living" flier from the faculty bathrooms to scan in and post on here, it's infuriating to say the least.

BinaryPulsar

Just responding to the mention of Angelina Jolie. She is an example of how different people carry weight differently. When they cartoonize her body they make her look like she has a more curvy figure (smaller waist and bigger booty). In reality she has a very slim and straight figure with big boobs.

yopeeps025

bump