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.

Fat, the new normal

cjpnh
cjpnh Posts: 78 Member
in Debate Club
Wrap your thumb and forefinger around your wrist, if the tip of your finger and thumb overlap you are small framed. If they just touch, you are medium framed. If they don't touch you are large framed.

We have come so accustomed to overweight being the new norm that most people won't accept that these are their healthy weights. They want so bad for it not to be accurate.

7efv5lxzl32j.png
«13

Replies

  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    I don't know much about female weights, but 128-147 for a 5'8" woman doesn't seem "fat" to me. (picked that point because it's somewhat "average" height and frame
  • cjpnh
    cjpnh Posts: 78 Member
    4xhe1c0g2adr.jpeg
  • Ironandwine69
    Ironandwine69 Posts: 2,432 Member
    Your point?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    BMI is a reasonable guideline to look at, but there have to be other considerations. I'm by no means a body builder, but I'm fit and athletic..I'm overweight per BMI by about 8 Lbs...I'm not fat. BMI should be used in conjunction with BF%.

    Except thise charts aren't even accurate for bmi. The first chart is so off it's funny. It says be ause i can overlap my thumb and finger that at 5'8 131 (bmi 19.9) is the max weight I should be. I'm in the 18s atm but 20 isn't fat

    Yeah, it gives my max weight as 116. 116 is a perfectly acceptable weight for someone my height, but that doesn't mean that if someone is 120 at my height they're overweight.
  • Grimmerick
    Grimmerick Posts: 3,342 Member
    If I followed that chart, at 138lbs I would look like a meth addict and that's even going by the large frame and I am actually medium. They don't account for body composition obviously. Ditch the chart.
  • twinkles4
    twinkles4 Posts: 124 Member
    Boo. I thought this was going to be a debate on the HAES/NAAFA movements. :/
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    Interestingly it is pretty equivalent to current BMI charts for 5’4 woman. The older chart ranges from 108 to 138 lb. BMI normal is 110 to 145. Pretty close, I’d say.

    Of course, my index finger and thumb don’t touch - but I doubt I’m particularly large framed. I just have short fingers.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I have long and skinny fingers, can easily stretch 10 keys on a piano and a frenemy in jr high claimed my hands looked like daddy long legs (I do have only 5 fingers on each hand, for the record, including my thumbs). I don't think I actually have a small frame, but apparently my long fingers mean that I am fat at 125 (I'm 5'3) and need to be 113 or less.

    I think I'll stick with BF% and BMI, but thanks.

    Finger twin! I definitely have pianist hands
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I have long and skinny fingers, can easily stretch 10 keys on a piano and a frenemy in jr high claimed my hands looked like daddy long legs (I do have only 5 fingers on each hand, for the record, including my thumbs). I don't think I actually have a small frame, but apparently my long fingers mean that I am fat at 125 (I'm 5'3) and need to be 113 or less.

    I think I'll stick with BF% and BMI, but thanks.

    Lol, yeah and I had trouble stretching an octave with my short stubby fingers. Don’t believe that I’m actually large boned because they don’t touch.
  • stormcrow2
    stormcrow2 Posts: 33 Member
    or you might just have short fingers.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Is this intended to be a rejection of BMI in favor of a method with less supporting objective evidence?

Categories