Have people's concepts of normal become too fat?

beekay70

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.

rml_16

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.

Of course there are "loads" of people who are too skinny. But compared to how many are overweight? It isn't nearly as prevalent.

rml_16

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.

beekay70

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.

spookiefox

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."

kordell70

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.

spookiefox

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.

melham

In for, well, just...

p4ulmiller

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.

beekay70

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.

p4ulmiller

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.

spookiefox

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.

beekay70

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.

Lauren344

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.

spookiefox

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.

spookiefox

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.

jennybennypenny

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.

CollieFit

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."

CollieFit

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!

spookiefox

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.