Have people's concepts of normal become too fat?
Replies
-
Have you ever considered the other side of the scale (pardon the pun) - that being unhealthily thin has become desirable and that also impacts on health?
When the new average size is "too skinny," we can debate that. As it stands, the majority of people are overweight or obese and the "average" size is overweight.
The too-skinny look may be what the media portrays as desirable, but it isn't the size most people outside of Hollywood and the modeling industry actually ARE.
And there has been a backlash against the too-skinny ideal. They're banning models under a certain BMI from working in many countries.
Considering someone to be unhealthily skinny or fat because there are adverse health conditions associated with either is not shaming. Now, one's perception of what is healthy may be skewed, and I think that's where the OP was going. That being said, there are loads of people outside of Hollywood that are dangerously underweight. There are people outside of Alabama that are dangerously overweight. For a man, don't use BMI to decide that you are healthy. Know your body fat percentage, be active at least 3 times a week, and eat a healthy diet.0 -
Of course there are "loads" of people who are too skinny. But compared to how many are overweight? It isn't nearly as prevalent.Have you ever considered the other side of the scale (pardon the pun) - that being unhealthily thin has become desirable and that also impacts on health?
When the new average size is "too skinny," we can debate that. As it stands, the majority of people are overweight or obese and the "average" size is overweight.
The too-skinny look may be what the media portrays as desirable, but it isn't the size most people outside of Hollywood and the modeling industry actually ARE.
And there has been a backlash against the too-skinny ideal. They're banning models under a certain BMI from working in many countries.
Considering someone to be unhealthily skinny or fat because there are adverse health conditions associated with either is not shaming. Now, one's perception of what is healthy may be skewed, and I think that's where the OP was going. That being said, there are loads of people outside of Hollywood that are dangerously underweight. There are people outside of Alabama that are dangerously overweight. For a man, don't use BMI to decide that you are healthy. Know your body fat percentage, be active at least 3 times a week, and eat a healthy diet.0 -
You kow what?
I'm done with this thread. I realize I'm arguing with a bunch of people who want to justify something and they don't care about any other opinions.
Stay overweight. I'm a libertarian and am perfectly fine with people doing whatever the heck they want. But quit complaining about society because you choose something that goes against what's popular.0 -
What should the average size/weight be in your opinion?
You are beautiful where you are (said in the least creepy way possible). Don't be bothered by other people's idea of what is average or normal. Your body composition is unique to you.0 -
What should the average size/weight be in your opinion?
Average isn't really a matter opinion, it's a statistical term. You add up all the values and divide by the number of values. And the "average weight" of Americans is certainly higher than it used to be. But then again, so is the "average height." For some reason we don't see a lot of "tall shaming."0 -
I think the problem is not with the "concept of what is normal sized, underweight or overweight," but rather other people's so called need to tell people what they believe is a normal size. In this thread people have even posted about the opposite of your case stating that plus size models need to go as it sets a bad example. Sometimes people need to understand that (and I am speaking from a point of view as a US citizen) just because you have the right to free speech does not mean one needs to open one's mouth and tell another person they are too fat, skinny, etc. Sometimes minding one's own business unless asked a question, or discussing in a forum concerning the matter is better. Until then, if you feel comfortable in your own skin that is all you need to know that you are ok with yourself.0
-
Have you ever considered the other side of the scale (pardon the pun) - that being unhealthily thin has become desirable and that also impacts on health?
When the new average size is "too skinny," we can debate that. As it stands, the majority of people are overweight or obese and the "average" size is overweight.
The too-skinny look may be what the media portrays as desirable, but it isn't the size most people outside of Hollywood and the modeling industry actually ARE.
And there has been a backlash against the too-skinny ideal. They're banning models under a certain BMI from working in many countries.
Considering someone to be unhealthily skinny or fat because there are adverse health conditions associated with either is not shaming. Now, one's perception of what is healthy may be skewed, and I think that's where the OP was going. That being said, there are loads of people outside of Hollywood that are dangerously underweight. There are people outside of Alabama that are dangerously overweight. For a man, don't use BMI to decide that you are healthy. Know your body fat percentage, be active at least 3 times a week, and eat a healthy diet.
But it's impossible to draw a line at the point where skinny or fat becomes "unhealthily" skinny or fat. You CANNOT determine someone's health status entirely by looking. Saying someone is too fat or too skinny is shaming, because you cannot know their health status.0 -
In for, well, just...0
-
And this is exactly why having plus size models, clothing stores & the like have got to go. People now complain if they get charged more on a plane cause they are fat. They complain if there is no 'flattering' clothing to fit them in their size. They complain then when exercise equipment is not built for their weight.
It's become a world of fat people, an nobody bats an eye at it.
Yes.
And people also complain if they have to pay more for bigger clothes. "It's not fair!", even though the clothes have more material, use more stitching, cost more to transport, etc.0 -
Have you ever considered the other side of the scale (pardon the pun) - that being unhealthily thin has become desirable and that also impacts on health?
When the new average size is "too skinny," we can debate that. As it stands, the majority of people are overweight or obese and the "average" size is overweight.
The too-skinny look may be what the media portrays as desirable, but it isn't the size most people outside of Hollywood and the modeling industry actually ARE.
And there has been a backlash against the too-skinny ideal. They're banning models under a certain BMI from working in many countries.
Considering someone to be unhealthily skinny or fat because there are adverse health conditions associated with either is not shaming. Now, one's perception of what is healthy may be skewed, and I think that's where the OP was going. That being said, there are loads of people outside of Hollywood that are dangerously underweight. There are people outside of Alabama that are dangerously overweight. For a man, don't use BMI to decide that you are healthy. Know your body fat percentage, be active at least 3 times a week, and eat a healthy diet.
But it's impossible to draw a line at the point where skinny or fat becomes "unhealthily" skinny or fat. You CANNOT determine someone's health status entirely by looking. Saying someone is too fat or too skinny is shaming, because you cannot know their health status.
Oh, believe me; I'm not advocating sticking your nose in a stranger's business and telling them that they are too fat or skinny. But if you have a friend or family member whose weight you believe merits concern, I think you need to at least have a conversation about it. Ultimately, I would rely on a physician to tell me whether or not I am healthy.0 -
Average isn't really a matter opinion, it's a statistical term. You add up all the values and divide by the number of values. And the "average weight" of Americans is certainly higher than it used to be. But then again, so is the "average height." For some reason we don't see a lot of "tall shaming."
Ah, averages.
The average human has less than two legs.
and
There are, on average, 2.3 Popes per square mile in the Vatican.0 -
You kow what?
I'm done with this thread. I realize I'm arguing with a bunch of people who want to justify something and they don't care about any other opinions.
Stay overweight. I'm a libertarian and am perfectly fine with people doing whatever the heck they want. But quit complaining about society because you choose something that goes against what's popular.
If you're a libertarian why would you have entered the discussion in the first place? You betray your bias when you say "Stay overweight." As to gong against what's popular, well, society ain't always right, and when it's wrong complaining is appropriate.0 -
Average isn't really a matter opinion, it's a statistical term. You add up all the values and divide by the number of values. And the "average weight" of Americans is certainly higher than it used to be. But then again, so is the "average height." For some reason we don't see a lot of "tall shaming."
Ah, averages.
The average human has less than two legs.
and
There are, on average, 2.3 Popes per square mile in the Vatican.
Awesome. I'll have to remember these.0 -
Yes defiantly!
I'm also 5'10, when I tell people my goal weight of 12stone 6lb maybe lower I'll see when I get there, they are shocked and say oh no don't go that far you'll look ill and it won't suit you.
By the way I'm still just over 7stone overweight, and they say lose another 3/4 stone and you'll be fine Evan though I'd still be classed has overweight.0 -
Have you ever considered the other side of the scale (pardon the pun) - that being unhealthily thin has become desirable and that also impacts on health?
When the new average size is "too skinny," we can debate that. As it stands, the majority of people are overweight or obese and the "average" size is overweight.
The too-skinny look may be what the media portrays as desirable, but it isn't the size most people outside of Hollywood and the modeling industry actually ARE.
And there has been a backlash against the too-skinny ideal. They're banning models under a certain BMI from working in many countries.
Considering someone to be unhealthily skinny or fat because there are adverse health conditions associated with either is not shaming. Now, one's perception of what is healthy may be skewed, and I think that's where the OP was going. That being said, there are loads of people outside of Hollywood that are dangerously underweight. There are people outside of Alabama that are dangerously overweight. For a man, don't use BMI to decide that you are healthy. Know your body fat percentage, be active at least 3 times a week, and eat a healthy diet.
But it's impossible to draw a line at the point where skinny or fat becomes "unhealthily" skinny or fat. You CANNOT determine someone's health status entirely by looking. Saying someone is too fat or too skinny is shaming, because you cannot know their health status.
Oh, believe me; I'm not advocating sticking your nose in a stranger's business and telling them that they are too fat or skinny. But if you have a friend or family member whose weight you believe merits concern, I think you need to at least have a conversation about it. Ultimately, I would rely on a physician to tell me whether or not I am healthy.
Yeah, but the question here was about "people's concepts of normal." And "people's concepts of normal" body weight are irrelevant except in shaming people into conforming to a societal norm.0 -
Average isn't really a matter opinion, it's a statistical term. You add up all the values and divide by the number of values. And the "average weight" of Americans is certainly higher than it used to be. But then again, so is the "average height." For some reason we don't see a lot of "tall shaming."
Ah, averages.
The average human has less than two legs.
and
There are, on average, 2.3 Popes per square mile in the Vatican.
Awesome. I'll have to remember these.
It's all about the limits of statistics, which say nothing at all about individuals, and statistical ignorance. High body weight is correlated with certain health problems so other people's weight is something one can be "concerned" about. An increase in rape and other violent crimes is correlated with an increase in ice cream sales. Should we ban ice cream because ice cream causes rape and violent criminal tendencies?
We cannot determine someone''s health status from his weight.0 -
Yes, and daily exercise is abnormal.
This. From my non-athletic friends (not overweight, just not sporty) I've gotten concern about the frequency of my workouts. I go to a WOD 4-5x/wk and then have derby practice in the evenings about 3x/wk. That doesn't really average out to more than once a day, but that's "too much" for some people.0 -
Ps your analogy with female cancers is rather rubbish as not procreating provides protection from certain cancers as well as increasing the risk of others...
Which cancer am I protected from because I have no had children?
Cervical Cancer.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-cervix/Pages/Causes.aspx
"Women who have two children have twice the risk of getting cervical cancer compared with women who do not have any children."0 -
You misunderstood what I said. Someone's obesity may not be anyone's business but the SUBJECT of obesity is a public health crisis, it's a legitimate topic of debate in a country where healthcare is funded by the tax payer!
It is NOT a "public health crisis." Remember back in the 1990s when they told us of the first generation of kids whose life expectancy was NOT longer than their parents? Supposedly because of obesity? Turns out they were wrong. That generation will live longer than their parents too. This is an imaginary "crisis" and unless you're also talking about people wearing sunscreen and riding motorcycles and scooters and every other thing associated with increased risk of illness and death, it's just fat shaming.
It's not a public health crisis?????
I guess you're not in the unenviable position to see the figures for your local area regarding obesity spend either from your Local Health Board or your local authority?? If you're under the illusion that this increased spend it not taken away from other areas of health then you are categorically badly informed.
This is an imaginary crisis....???
So I just imagine sitting at work costing out community care packages for double-handed or even triple-handed home care due to obesity? I imagine costing out adaptations to bathrooms due to obesity? I imagine costing out stair lifts due to obesity... motability car applications? I just imagined the phonecall with the Chief of our Fire Service regarding re-housing a service user who thanks to obesity can no longer be safely evacuated via his front door and now needs to be rehoused.... Yes I'm sure it's all in my mind...
My colleagues in health... they just imagine forking out for reinforced beds, special scales, reinforced ambulances...??? I guess they're all delusional too???
You haven't got a bloody clue!0 -
Ps your analogy with female cancers is rather rubbish as not procreating provides protection from certain cancers as well as increasing the risk of others...
Which cancer am I protected from because I have no had children?
Cervical Cancer.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-cervix/Pages/Causes.aspx
"Women who have two children have twice the risk of getting cervical cancer compared with women who do not have any children."
Well, then HOW MANY children people have is your business too. Because not having children raises my risk of breast cancer and two children raises my risk of cervical cancer I MUST have exactly one child. It's your business because it affects "the public purse."
The point is, the "public purse" argument is only valid if other people's lives are public business no matter what "risky" things they might do. Choosing this or that "risky" behavior but not another is just using "public purse" as an excuse for your own biases.0 -
The average dress size in the US a few years ago was 12. Now it's 14. Both are not small sizes (I think they translate to 14 and 16 UK, but I'm not sure). I was just this side of obese on the BMI scale when I wore a size 12. Even a tall woman in a size 14 is a pretty good sized woman.
But yet I hear all the time how pop culture needs to start putting out larger "role models" because, after all, size 14 is average and therefore "normal."
It's overweight. Just because the average is overweight doesn't make it a healthy weight or size. It just means more people are overweight. That isn't something to celebrate.
So, yes to the thread title.
"Overweight" is not a synonym for "unhealthy." In fact it's not a useful word at all. You cannot determine health or unhealth by looking.
A colleague pediatrician, who sees very young obese children who develop leg and joint deformities thanks to the vast amount of weight their little growing legs are expected to support.
You can SEE their discomfort as they toddle towards you. He sees 3-4 year olds with such bad joints that you can already say at that age that thanks to obesity you're looking at early onset arthritis, medication management, surgery....
But hey quality of life is all relative eh?
I'm done here...0 -
bump0
-
I actually have a funny story about that. I was online dating for a while and on the profile described myself as 'curvy' (I was 5'8'' and 180 lbs then). I once went on a date with someone that was disappointed that I was 'normal' and not what he thought was 'curvy'. He suggested I should change my description to 'normal' or 'average'. Clearly, at 180 pounds I was overweight but apparently not enough
Yeah even at 260 I was told by several guys upon meeting me, "Oh you are curvy/few extra lb, not BBW" ummm morbidly obese is definitely BBW category (a term I actually hate, but didn't want to specify myself as "a few extra lbs" or "curvy" like I was in denial, and BBW was the largest category). Apparently if you are still proportionate and/or "girl-shaped" as one guy put it you're not a "BBW" to many men.0 -
The average dress size in the US a few years ago was 12. Now it's 14. Both are not small sizes (I think they translate to 14 and 16 UK, but I'm not sure). I was just this side of obese on the BMI scale when I wore a size 12. Even a tall woman in a size 14 is a pretty good sized woman.
But yet I hear all the time how pop culture needs to start putting out larger "role models" because, after all, size 14 is average and therefore "normal."
It's overweight. Just because the average is overweight doesn't make it a healthy weight or size. It just means more people are overweight. That isn't something to celebrate.
So, yes to the thread title.
"Overweight" is not a synonym for "unhealthy." In fact it's not a useful word at all. You cannot determine health or unhealth by looking.
A colleague pediatrician, who sees very young obese children who develop leg and joint deformities thanks to the vast amount of weight their little growing legs are expected to support.
You can SEE their discomfort as they toddle towards you. He sees 3-4 year olds with such bad joints that you can already say at that age that thanks to obesity you're looking at early onset arthritis, medication management, surgery....
But hey quality of life is all relative eh?
I'm done here...
"Quality of life" is indeed a personal thing, and how a person's health is affected by his/her weight is between a person and his/her doctor, as I said.0 -
My husband and I were just talking about this the other day. I do think it's true that public perception has changed. We love Fats Domino, and his first hit in 1950 was called "The Fat Man". The beginning of the song goes like this:
They call, they call me the fat man
´Cause I weigh 200 pounds:
All the girls they love me
´Cause I know my way around
If his nickname was Fats because he weighed 200 pounds (which is true), in this day and age I don't think anyone would bat an eye at that weight.
It's not one of my favorites from him, but still a good one. You can listen here if you've never heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIz1cPfTRW4 0 -
Got this in an email today. Real women? Since when is FAT a real woman now? Does that mean because I'm not the size they state I am NOT a real woman? Talk about warped. People need to wake up to this crap.
0 -
"Quality of life" is indeed a personal thing, and how a person's health is affected by his/her weight is between a person and his/her doctor, as I said.
We should not tell people that quality of life may not be impacted. Being overweight at 20 doesn't necessarily feel so bad. There is no guarantee that an obese person will develop medical problems later in life, but the chances are increased, and that shouldn't be ignored. Quality of life today will not always look the same as it does is in the future. Someone may feel that being overweight is worth it at 30 and be miserable for another 20 years once they turn 50. A person who smokes cigarettes is not guaranteed to develop lung cancer or other problems, but it is not shaming to tell them that they might, and to warn them that their quality of life will suffer with lung cancer.
Your friend in the wheelchair still has a quality life and no one said otherwise. But most would say that life became more uncomfortable when they have to be in wheelchairs. Your friend would most likely choose to not have to use a wheelchair if he could. Do I know that? No, of course not, but we can't speak for every exception out there.
I didn't develop a condition I have from being overweight, but it can be caused by being overweight. If I knew what the pain was like in advance and was given a chance to keep it from happening by staying at a healthy weight, I would want to go for it. The condition interferes with my life and reduces my quality of life. If someone didn't warn me about it by seeing me doing something that could predict this condition happening to me, I'd be ticked off. Most people feel that chronic pain reduces their quality of life--not whether they have a quality life. Again, I'm sure there are examples of people who don't feel that it does. But quality of life refers to well-being, not a judgment on whether or not someone has a quality life, and like anything else, there will always be exceptions.
Of course I don't think that anyone should be shamed or not allowed to have attractive clothing, have fun, or get their needs met. If someone does not feel his quality of life is being hurt by being overweight and has his eyes wide open about risks, that's his business. I make lots of decisions that others don't necessarily understand. I have to stand by what makes my life meaningful and feels right. But there's nothing shaming about acknowledging an increased chance of discomfort. We're not talking about one day of misery and dying 20 years early but having a great time until a person gets there. People are instead risking years and years of discomfort and medical problems. Without crystal balls to know how our lives will turn out, we all just have to do what we can.0 -
Yes, absolutely, at least in the US it has. It's actually rather shocking. We are growing, as a nation, so fat that we are collectively redefining what our concept of "normal" is.
I am seeing more and more "feel good" platitudes like "real women have curves", and related such nonsense. And meanwhile anybody who is naturally very thin, or loses weight to the point of being within a perfectly healthy, lean range, is susceptible to claims of anorexia and villianiation for being "unhealthy", too thin, or even a bad influence.
Even on weight loss boards like MFP I find that many, many people set their goal weight far too high. I really, truly believe the average American is so use to seeing overweight people that even on a weight loss journey it seems completely unfathomable to imagine getting down to truly lean, slim weights. Or they've been so far for so long, so defeated in their overweightness/obesity, that they can't even imagine being at lower body weight.
I'm appalled every time I see an average height woman claim her goal weight is around 170 lbs or so, and nothing lower because she's afraid of looking "like a bag of bones" or "sickly". Give me a break, it's extremely hard to just wake up suddenly and look like a "bag of bones". That's the same foolish mindset that keeps many women from lifting weights because they think throwing around some poundage in the gym will accidentally turned them into she-hulks.
And for my fellow guys, it's even worse; very rarely these days do I see men who truly realize what a proper, healthy, non-fat body weight, and body fat percentage, looks like. Many are settling for just smaller guts and less rounded love handles. The idea of getting the body down to anything even approaching a lean, low body fat frame is laughable.
This is, IMO, an epidemic problem that threatens to keep us collectively fat from here on out. Because even when people do decide to shed the fat, and hopefully get healthier, many people simply won't actually finish their journeys.0 -
Yes, absolutely, at least in the US it has. It's actually rather shocking. We are growing, as a nation, so fat that we are collectively redefining what our concept of "normal" is.
I am seeing more and more "feel good" platitudes like "real women have curves", and related such nonsense. And meanwhile anybody who is naturally very thin, or loses weight to the point of being within a perfectly healthy, lean range, is susceptible to claims of anorexia and villianiation for being "unhealthy", too thin, or even a bad influence.
Even on weight loss boards like MFP I find that many, many people set their goal weight far too high. I really, truly believe the average American is so use to seeing overweight people that even on a weight loss journey it seems completely unfathomable to imagine getting down to truly lean, slim weights. Or they've been so far for so long, so defeated in their overweightness/obesity, that they can't even imagine being at lower body weight.
I'm appalled every time I see an average height woman claim her goal weight is around 170 lbs or so, and nothing lower because she's afraid of looking "like a bag of bones" or "sickly". Give me a break, it's extremely hard to just wake up suddenly and look like a "bag of bones". That's the same foolish mindset that keeps many women from lifting weights because they think throwing around some poundage in the gym will accidentally turned them into she-hulks.
And for my fellow guys, it's even worse; very rarely these days do I see men who truly realize what a proper, healthy, non-fat body weight, and body fat percentage, looks like. Many are settling for just smaller guts and less rounded love handles. The idea of getting the body down to anything even approaching a lean, low body fat frame is laughable.
This is, IMO, an epidemic problem that threatens to keep us collectively fat from here on out. Because even when people do decide to shed the fat, and hopefully get healthier, many people simply won't actually finish their journeys.
This. I have yet to see anybody of a BMI of 25 looking like a bag of bones.0 -
We're headed towards a WALL-E type world where every one is riding hovercrafts with Buy & Large 32oz shakes in hand. That flick is a real eye-opener.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions