What do you think the size of a healthy woman would be?
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Also, from a guys perspective...we really don't have a clue what size you are...none of those numbers make any sense, and we don't know or care to know. If you say you're a size 8 or 12 or whatever, that is completely meaningless information for most guys...it just seems like yet another number for women to obsess about.
True. Apparently lots of people don't care about the size of clothes no more unless... it wasn't a major thing back in the day? This post has made me think at points though.0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
The only point I was trying to get across is that normal models shouldn't be the face of what is ideal because to some people it is and that a bigger woman or even somewhere inbetween would be more realstic and ideal in my opinion. If you're skinner and feel happy and healthy good for you, my intentions weren't to offend you through what I've said. I honestly thought it was a harmless question but apparently not. Lesson learnt!
I'm not personally offended because I don't subscribe to random people who determine what is "normal."
I also don't look to airbrushed, designer clad and professionally made up women to be role models or to wave the banner for body image and health. Modeling is marketing. It's not real.
Saying one person's body is ideal, while person's body is not (especially without knowing the context of their personal story, medical history, lifestyle, etc.) is a completely biased judgement call. You are judging and you are, inherently, shaming those who do not fit into what YOU personally feel is ideal. Why shouldn't "normal" models be the face of a campaign? Because you said so? Because it doesn't fit into your paradigm of what a "normal" woman's body looks like?
But, most importantly, the point you are missing is that these conversation are counterproductive and meaningless without context. Comparing yourself to others and justifying your body shape (or hating your body shape) based on a biased view of what is "normal" is a complete waste of time and energy.0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
The only point I was trying to get across is that normal models shouldn't be the face of what is ideal because to some people it is and that a bigger woman or even somewhere inbetween would be more realstic and ideal in my opinion. If you're skinner and feel happy and healthy good for you, my intentions weren't to offend you through what I've said. I honestly thought it was a harmless question but apparently not. Lesson learnt!
I'm not personally offended because I don't subscribe to random people who determine what is "normal."
I also don't look to airbrushed, designer clad and professionally made up women to be role models or to wave the banner for body image and health. Modeling is marketing. It's not real.
Saying one person's body is ideal, while person's body is not (especially without knowing the context of their personal story, medical history, lifestyle, etc.) is a completely biased judgement call. You are judging and you are, inherently, shaming those who do not fit into what YOU personally feel is ideal. Why shouldn't "normal" models be the face of a campaign? Because you said so? Because it doesn't fit into your paradigm of what a "normal" woman's body looks like?
But, most importantly, the point you are missing is that these conversation are counterproductive and meaningless without context. Comparing yourself to others and justifying your body shape (or hating your body shape) based on a biased view of what is "normal" is a complete waste of time and energy.
You do realise that we are in a world full of judgement, right? Not everyone is in world acceptance. Maybe I shouldn't of used the word ideal because people have tended to take that offensively but some people could have an ideal dress size or one they're achieving for or have felt like they're worth less or more because of their dress size. I know that there is all differently types of things that determines ones health too. You don't need to make me aware of this but this topic was orginally purely on dress size.
I feel I have not once brought up my own body into this discussion that I recall nor have I compared it to anyone else. I wasn't trying to justify my own body or such since this topic came up after I saw an article about the model. I may be a little bias because they're instead my own views and such but the most importantly, if you feel this is a waste of enegry, why are you wasting it on trying to point out my wrongs? I am not directly trying to shame anyone here. I even admited I was wrong when someone pointed it out and aplogised and corrected myself. You don't need to continue to prove me wrong anymore. I get why you think I have body shamed but I also think you could be reading into it too much or I have thought about my replies too little, either way - I'm aware now, okay?0 -
I think you problem here OP is insisting on dress size--it really means nothing. You, yourself, were asking about the "health" thing in your post. I can put a size 12 on a tall thin woman or a middle size one, or a chunky short one. Which one do I like better? What a question! This makes no sense.
0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I think you problem here OP is insisting on dress size--it really means nothing. You, yourself, were asking about the "health" thing in your post. I can put a size 12 on a tall thin woman or a middle size one, or a chunky short one. Which one do I like better? What a question! This makes no sense.
It was more of a question about perception of a healthy woman rather than actual health of a woman since the article was going on about how this woman is size 14 (10 US) and is plus sized but it became this along the way of me trying to explain my question and sharing my opinions. I could of worded everything wrong. It made sense to me at the time. I should of just said nothing and saved all the drama. I wasn't here to insult anyone, it was purely innocent and my opinions. I guess people do get touchy over the forums though but I guess you learn from everything in life, right?0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »When you're talking models and what is normal, healthy etc., this does not apply to the general population. Model's must have a certain bone structure and height. An average woman knows when she's healthy---someone with an ED does not. I, for one, do not like models used as examples. The beauty of us girls is our diversity.
I should of use this to try and get one of my points across but I agree. Models tend to be different from the general population but why? Why aren't there more women who can be more like us non-model women or something to repersent someone more like us without being called plus size or any other labels, you know? This may not be the orginal question but through everything I've said, that's what it comes down to.
0 -
Years ago a tailor friend confirmed what I had discerned from observation: a size 8 in an expensive dress is roughly equivalent to a size 10 in a moderately priced dress. I suppose this is to make you feel better about spending too much for that little black dress you just bought. I agree with the others - the size on the tag is irrelevant.0
-
My size is perfect for me.
0 -
benefiting wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »When you're talking models and what is normal, healthy etc., this does not apply to the general population. Model's must have a certain bone structure and height. An average woman knows when she's healthy---someone with an ED does not. I, for one, do not like models used as examples. The beauty of us girls is our diversity.
I should of use this to try and get one of my points across but I agree. Models tend to be different from the general population but why? Why aren't there more women who can be more like us non-model women or something to repersent someone more like us without being called plus size or any other labels, you know? This may not be the orginal question but through everything I've said, that's what it comes down to.
Because models just aren't intended to be an accurate example of the population. Designers like skinny women to show off their clothes, and skinny photoshopped models sell more units than people of a more average size and that's literally all that marketing cares about. While I'd personally love to see a larger range of models that just isn't the current situation. The fashion industry owes us nothing in terms of representation, and asking why normal/heavier sized people can't be the average fashion model is like complaining that the lack of skinny-fat girls in fitness magazines is disproportionate.0 -
benefiting wrote: »Models tend to be different from the general population but why?
Because somewhere along the line, some designers decided that clothing looks better on a smaller frame. Or that they want models who look like the drawings the fashion designers come up with when they sketch their dresses. And it's been going on a long time. These are dress patterns from 1946 and 1969. Sure, they're both illustrations, but it's still a very slender, elongated body shape that very few women naturally possess.
0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
The only point I was trying to get across is that normal models shouldn't be the face of what is ideal because to some people it is and that a bigger woman or even somewhere inbetween would be more realstic and ideal in my opinion. If you're skinner and feel happy and healthy good for you, my intentions weren't to offend you through what I've said. I honestly thought it was a harmless question but apparently not. Lesson learnt!
I'm not personally offended because I don't subscribe to random people who determine what is "normal."
I also don't look to airbrushed, designer clad and professionally made up women to be role models or to wave the banner for body image and health. Modeling is marketing. It's not real.
Saying one person's body is ideal, while person's body is not (especially without knowing the context of their personal story, medical history, lifestyle, etc.) is a completely biased judgement call. You are judging and you are, inherently, shaming those who do not fit into what YOU personally feel is ideal. Why shouldn't "normal" models be the face of a campaign? Because you said so? Because it doesn't fit into your paradigm of what a "normal" woman's body looks like?
But, most importantly, the point you are missing is that these conversation are counterproductive and meaningless without context. Comparing yourself to others and justifying your body shape (or hating your body shape) based on a biased view of what is "normal" is a complete waste of time and energy.
You do realise that we are in a world full of judgement, right? Not everyone is in world acceptance. Maybe I shouldn't of used the word ideal because people have tended to take that offensively but some people could have an ideal dress size or one they're achieving for or have felt like they're worth less or more because of their dress size. .....
That's a problem...fitting into some certain size really shouldn't be the goal. In many cases goals like these lead to all kind of unhealthy practices...in many cases someone may have a goal to be X size and XXX weight...and maybe that weight is "healthy" considering their BMI range...but maybe completely inappropriate for their actual bone structure or muscular structure, etc.
For example, if my wife wanted to be a size zero...well, she'd pretty much have to torch all of her muscle mass...and even then, her bone structure likely wouldn't allow it.
It's a silly goal and really has zero bearing on whether someone is "healthy". Also, BMI is a range in order to accommodate for various bone structures, muscle mass, etc...but so many people seem to be oblivious to that and just think any number (and the lower the better) is fine just because it's in the range. BMI isn't a range so that you can just pick and choose some number...it's a range in order to accommodate for various body types.0 -
Years ago, I was at a car stereo show. There was a bikini contest, which my then husband just had to see. So, I was witness to the spectacle as well. What I remember is that there was one contestant who looked great in her clothes before the contest started. All the ladies were very pretty and curvy and looked nice in their bikinis as well. But, as part of the contest, they had to stroll across the stage one by one, and make a turn. All of them were wearing thong bikinis. The one who had looked so great in her clothes and was probably the most slender walked across there with her butt flappin' and a jigglin' like nothing I have ever seen before, not even on the interwebs. I suspect if we had been closer to the stage, we might have heard a clapping sound coming from her backside. My point is . . . . well I really don't have one. It's just a funny story. But, size is definitely no indicator of health OR fitness.0
-
benefiting wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »When you're talking models and what is normal, healthy etc., this does not apply to the general population. Model's must have a certain bone structure and height. An average woman knows when she's healthy---someone with an ED does not. I, for one, do not like models used as examples. The beauty of us girls is our diversity.
I should of use this to try and get one of my points across but I agree. Models tend to be different from the general population but why? Why aren't there more women who can be more like us non-model women or something to repersent someone more like us without being called plus size or any other labels, you know? This may not be the orginal question but through everything I've said, that's what it comes down to.
Because models just aren't intended to be an accurate example of the population. Designers like skinny women to show off their clothes, and skinny photoshopped models sell more units than people of a more average size and that's literally all that marketing cares about. While I'd personally love to see a larger range of models that just isn't the current situation. The fashion industry owes us nothing in terms of representation, and asking why normal/heavier sized people can't be the average fashion models is like complaining that the lack of skinny-fat girls in fitness magazines is disproportionate.
Yeah. I know it's logically a stupid thing to ask. These companies are only after the money. It's highly selfish on them, considering the impact they have and all but that's business for you.0 -
Thank you to those who answered and I'm sorry if this was an offensive topic to bring up. I tend to speak my mind without thinking of what it could mean to others. If you're size 0-6 don't think you matter less, or are less beautiful or have less meaning or such because I didn't mean it in that sense. The size of your dress isn't what make you beautiful. I just wish that the industry wouldn't label people plus size and such, you know? But oh well, it is how it is. I was just curious and I admit I got defensive but now it's over I can learn and move on, so thank you and have a wonderful day or night. 0
-
Timorous_Beastie wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Models tend to be different from the general population but why?
Because somewhere along the line, some designers decided that clothing looks better on a smaller frame. Or that they want models who look like the drawings the fashion designers come up with when they sketch their dresses. And it's been going on a long time. These are dress patterns from 1946 and 1969. Sure, they're both illustrations, but it's still a very slender, elongated body shape that very few women naturally possess.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing!0 -
-
benefiting wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »When you're talking models and what is normal, healthy etc., this does not apply to the general population. Model's must have a certain bone structure and height. An average woman knows when she's healthy---someone with an ED does not. I, for one, do not like models used as examples. The beauty of us girls is our diversity.
I should of use this to try and get one of my points across but I agree. Models tend to be different from the general population but why? Why aren't there more women who can be more like us non-model women or something to repersent someone more like us without being called plus size or any other labels, you know? This may not be the orginal question but through everything I've said, that's what it comes down to.
Obvious----mannequins can't walk. 0 -
Size is relative, since everyone is different. I would say that a healthy size for a woman would be whatever size suits her height and build while maintaining a healthy body fat %. If I were a size 14 I would be very unhealthy, but that model is gorgeous and I'm assuming closer to 6' tall than my measly 5'6".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions