Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Banning Underweight Models -- a jumping off point for a broader discussion
Replies
-
Jockeys mostly self-regulate. You have to be pretty strong and mentally alert to properly ride a racehorse. That's why most jockeys are so short - they can be very low weights without starving themselves.
In addition, when jockeys do weigh in for a race, they prep for it like stage prep for bodybuilders. That low weight is a very short-term condition just for the race. Like bodybuilders, they'll manipulate hydration levels, etc, to get there. It doesn't have the near the health impact as being chronically underweight.
But to the point, formal regulations for body weight are just a bad idea all the way around.2 -
I was definitely very against it when I first heard of this years ago based only on bmi. It seemed I was alone in my opposition. My main point being that only a doctor can determine if the person is underweight or healthy or not. As long as they have a good doctor and care about their own health as well. This was in my early days on mfp when random strangers were constantly insulting my weight. I'm very small framed. And my doctor said I was in excellent health and absolutely not underweight. Recently I was underweight because I have a malabsorption disorder. But, I gained my weight back.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
1 -
Relevant: California is trying to pass a bill that would have OSHA set standards for models' health by 2018. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a clear idea of what these standards would look like yet other than a Dr. certificate.
http://asmdc.org/members/a10/newsroom/press-releases/assemblymember-levine-introduces-legislation-creating-health-standards-for-models
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB25390 -
In my mind the only place government has in this debate is if the model in question is underage. The government steps beyond areas that would otherwise be intrusive when it comes to protecting minors.
Doing this when adult women is involved is a different story. No one is forcing them to be runway models. Don't jockeys, boxers, wrestlers, etc. choose to go to sometimes unhealthy extremes to fit a certain weight class? Don't dancers - both female and male - strictly control their weight to the lighter side? What physique competitors do in the days and weeks just before a competition could be seen by some as "unhealthy", couldn't it? Where is the government action against the major sports leagues for not doing more to keep young players from taking dangerous steroids in an effort to get bigger and stronger? Don't actors spend months losing or gaining weight quickly to play a certain role? Is it okay to do something that could be unhealthy in order to make an athletic competition more exciting, or to show off your muscles on stage better, or to appear correctly in a dance or role, but not to model? I would think society is far more affected by movie actors and sports stars than runway models, right?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...0 -
Banning is quite possibly the most pointless activity legislators can do. It is nothing more than feel-good legislation targeted toward a specific band of the voting population. This law is so poorly written that it is unenforceable.
One would think we would have learned by now, but those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat, so "once more unto the breach"...0 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?2 -
For more insight into what goes on in the modeling industry, check out a documentary called "The Neon Demon."0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.0 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.
Kinda like bodybuilders and powerlifters prepping for seasons then. I've seen guys cuts from 205 walking weight to 175-180 to make weight for a meet, and BBs will go on multiweek cuts for bodyfat and waterweight to get in stage condition. Won't someone think of the meatheads? Oh right, something something for the children.2 -
Aaron, I don't know how'd much exposure to modeling you have. Models are under extreme pressure to be as thin as humanly possible. Eating disorders are rampant, as is smoking and drug use, and so is coercion of the typically young, female workers. It goes far beyond just a draconian regulation of weight. In terms of hostile and abusive workplaces, the modeling industry (particularly in agencies) really takes the cake sometimes.
Upthread, BMIs of models were posted. When you look at the health outcomes for women below 18 BMI, you start running into very high morbidity and mortality; worse than any group including type III obesity. It's not an aesthetic thing, it's downright dangerous. This is mitigated somewhat by a preference for and strong use of adolescent girls rather than women, but then the workforce is even more vulnerable to coercion. The healthy thin women everyone knows? They're the ones who survived the very brutal vetting.
This is why i see a role for OSHA. "What society values" is a whole different ball of wax.The fashion industry absolutely should be accountable when it pushes extreme weight restrictions that compromise the immediate health and safety of the workers.
To draw a parallel with overweight models is a bit of a red herring. First, the plus size model niche is very small in comparison. Second, most plus size models are quite slender and certainly very, very few are overweight. Third, the epidemiological risks of being obese are lower than of being significantly underweight, and ate long-term rather than acute. Fourth, the industry already enforces weight limits at the top.
*My stepdaughter, my best friend in college, and two of my cousins have worked as professional models.
Hmm. Well I agree there is a difference between a job hiring someone who is underweight and a job hiring someone who is not underweight and then pressuring them to become underweight, I think that is wrong. I'm just uncomfortable setting precedence in the law for firing people on the basis of their weight. I mean are you really punishing the agency or the people who are the victims? You can't really say "this law only applies to modeling" if you are having OSHA do it, it then becomes a general workplace safety rule. What happens when a starbucks franchise fires an underweight barista citing them as repeatedly violating OSHA workplace safety rules? It would also be weird to have it only apply to underweight because people being overweight is also a health risk.
I obviously don't think what the modeling industry does is right, but I also don't think its right to have official government-agency enforced regulations regarding people's weight when it comes to their job. I probably am being naive and overidealistic and you are right I don't know the modeling industry but both of those things make me squirm in my moral skin.
I mean how would you justify having underweight regulations but not overweight regulations as an example? I'm talking about legally justifying it if it was ever called into question.0 -
If the article and legislation talked about banning overweight models we wouldn't be having this discussion because it'd be seen as stupid, unnecessary, and discriminatory for no good reason.1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.
Kinda like bodybuilders and powerlifters prepping for seasons then. I've seen guys cuts from 205 walking weight to 175-180 to make weight for a meet, and BBs will go on multiweek cuts for bodyfat and waterweight to get in stage condition. Won't someone think of the meatheads? Oh right, something something for the children.
A 5'9" model dropping from 120 to 112 for a runway show or for one specific job is analogous to what bodybuilders and powerlifters do for meets. 112 is an extreme weight sustained for a short period of time. But is 120 is a healthy weight for someone that height to sustain throughout their entire modeling career? Does she goes about maintaining that weight in a healthy manner?
Just to be clear, I don't think an underweight BMI immediately translates into poor health, especially for those outside statistical norms. I do think there are women who can be healthy at that weight, and there's probably a few who don't have to work all that hard to maintain that weight. I think the anxiety about Little Susie starving herself because she sees photos of Gigi Hadid online is overblown, and if we really want to avoid that it starts with raising kids to have more resilience and self-esteem. There is a big conversation to be had about improving working conditions in the modeling industry, but centering it around eating disorders instead of focusing on fair contracts, overtime pay, age regulations, and harassment reporting does more to make the public feel good that we're Doing Something rather than making changes that benefit models - all of them.1 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.
Re: the bolded section. While I wouldn't wager either way, I do wonder if this is true. If simply being underweight constitutes a disorder, then shouldn't being overweight also be considered a disorder? If they are underweight of their own free will because they want a job, is that an eating disorder?1 -
Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.0
-
All that will happen is that model agencies will hire crooked Dr's who will say underweight girls are healthy. It's not going to change the fact that the high fashion industry wants walking clothes hangers with no lumps and bumps to ruin the line of the clothes.
And yes, this is a slippery slope. If you tell skinny models they can no longer work because they don't promote a healthy image then you have to tell that to models who are 'deemed too fat' by a Dr.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.
Re: the bolded section. While I wouldn't wager either way, I do wonder if this is true. If simply being underweight constitutes a disorder, then shouldn't being overweight also be considered a disorder? If they are underweight of their own free will because they want a job, is that an eating disorder?
You know there's a difference between being underweight and having an eating disorder, right?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron, I don't know how'd much exposure to modeling you have. Models are under extreme pressure to be as thin as humanly possible. Eating disorders are rampant, as is smoking and drug use, and so is coercion of the typically young, female workers. It goes far beyond just a draconian regulation of weight. In terms of hostile and abusive workplaces, the modeling industry (particularly in agencies) really takes the cake sometimes.
Upthread, BMIs of models were posted. When you look at the health outcomes for women below 18 BMI, you start running into very high morbidity and mortality; worse than any group including type III obesity. It's not an aesthetic thing, it's downright dangerous. This is mitigated somewhat by a preference for and strong use of adolescent girls rather than women, but then the workforce is even more vulnerable to coercion. The healthy thin women everyone knows? They're the ones who survived the very brutal vetting.
This is why i see a role for OSHA. "What society values" is a whole different ball of wax.The fashion industry absolutely should be accountable when it pushes extreme weight restrictions that compromise the immediate health and safety of the workers.
To draw a parallel with overweight models is a bit of a red herring. First, the plus size model niche is very small in comparison. Second, most plus size models are quite slender and certainly very, very few are overweight. Third, the epidemiological risks of being obese are lower than of being significantly underweight, and ate long-term rather than acute. Fourth, the industry already enforces weight limits at the top.
*My stepdaughter, my best friend in college, and two of my cousins have worked as professional models.
Hmm. Well I agree there is a difference between a job hiring someone who is underweight and a job hiring someone who is not underweight and then pressuring them to become underweight, I think that is wrong. I'm just uncomfortable setting precedence in the law for firing people on the basis of their weight. I mean are you really punishing the agency or the people who are the victims? You can't really say "this law only applies to modeling" if you are having OSHA do it, it then becomes a general workplace safety rule. What happens when a starbucks franchise fires an underweight barista citing them as repeatedly violating OSHA workplace safety rules? It would also be weird to have it only apply to underweight because people being overweight is also a health risk.
I obviously don't think what the modeling industry does is right, but I also don't think its right to have official government-agency enforced regulations regarding people's weight when it comes to their job. I probably am being naive and overidealistic and you are right I don't know the modeling industry but both of those things make me squirm in my moral skin.
I mean how would you justify having underweight regulations but not overweight regulations as an example? I'm talking about legally justifying it if it was ever called into question.
Presumably such a law would be set up like other OSHA requirements - it would ban people employing models from requiring that they obtain or maintain an unhealthy weight as a condition of employment.
Which (if you don't mind the gov't overreach) might make sense except for the fact that it is completely and utterly unenforceable. Employers would simply state that they didn't hire or fire the model because they 'didn't care for how they looked in my clothes'. It's a perfectly valid reason in the modeling industry. It would even be the truth.2 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.
Re: the bolded section. While I wouldn't wager either way, I do wonder if this is true. If simply being underweight constitutes a disorder, then shouldn't being overweight also be considered a disorder? If they are underweight of their own free will because they want a job, is that an eating disorder?
You know there's a difference between being underweight and having an eating disorder, right?
Yes, that was partially my point.
Edit: I do see now that I deleted a sentence that left my post confusing. What I meant was I wonder if the incidence of diagnosed disorders is really higher among models.0 -
CipherZero wrote: »If the article and legislation talked about banning overweight models we wouldn't be having this discussion because it'd be seen as stupid, unnecessary, and discriminatory for no good reason.
I'd be in favor of banning an employer, to coerce a model to gain weight; if they're already a healthy weight!1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.
Re: the bolded section. While I wouldn't wager either way, I do wonder if this is true. If simply being underweight constitutes a disorder, then shouldn't being overweight also be considered a disorder? If they are underweight of their own free will because they want a job, is that an eating disorder?
You know there's a difference between being underweight and having an eating disorder, right?
Yes, that was partially my point.
Edit: I do see now that I deleted a sentence that left my post confusing. What I meant was I wonder if the incidence of diagnosed disorders is really higher among models.
From an anonymous survey of 241 female models, 31% say they've had an eating disorder: http://modelalliance.org/industry-analysis
I don't know if they've been diagnosed or if it's self-reporting. I'd imagine it's hard to encourage models to go to a doctor for an eating disorder diagnosis as it could cost them work - some agencies won't work with anorexic models.
I've seen estimates for eating disorders among the general population range between 3% and 10%.0 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.1 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
I say take it as a compliment.0 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
I'd take it as a sales pitch, frankly. Mostly when those guys give you cards they are trying to get $ from you, not for you. Tread carefully, check the agency online. If they ask you for hundreds for a portfolio, or want you to pay for training, that's a scam.3 -
Oh yeah. Never pay to model. They are supposed to pay you.0
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.
No, anorexia does not mean underweight. You can be anorexic and be obese. The definition is "an emotional disorder characterized by an obsessive desire to lose weight by refusing to eat". A 300 pound person can become anorexic and lose 100 pounds in 3 months but is still obese. Eventually, over time, continuing anorexia can lead to being underweight, but it is not equivalent.
1 -
While I disagree with employers abusing their employees with ridiculous demands that compromises safety, I also question any time you get the government involved in regulating adult choices and behavior. For my job, I have absolutely abused caffeine and stimulants for more than 15 years, as well as suffered through days with no sleep and weeks and months on subminimal sleep in order to keep up with their demands. Every MD out there has probably done the same at some time in pursuit of their chosen career. It is my choice to do so. Of course, I can always quit my job - but it pays very well and I enjoy it and it is my career. But it has definitely compromised my health - both in the short and long term. Casino workers have to deal with second hand smoke if they enjoy their career. There are all kinds of choices and compromises to our health people can make that may not be directly dictated by their job, but which we feel compelled to undertake in order to keep our job. OSHA starts out innocent enough, but it will expand beyond the direct demands eventually. Just worrisome. Let me handle my health and life choices for the most part.1
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.
No, anorexia does not mean underweight. You can be anorexic and be obese. The definition is "an emotional disorder characterized by an obsessive desire to lose weight by refusing to eat". A 300 pound person can become anorexic and lose 100 pounds in 3 months but is still obese. Eventually, over time, continuing anorexia can lead to being underweight, but it is not equivalent.
I think it's technically called ednos (eating disorder not otherwise specified) until you reach 17.5 or at least it was when I was diagnosed.0 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
If I were you, I'd take it as a compliment. The talent spotter obviously thought you wear clothes better than most.
If it were me, I'd take it as an insult. I'm short, which pretty much disqualifies me from any modeling where the size would be a concern. I'd be assuming the recruiter was not serious and just being a sarcastic *kitten*.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions