(Closed) Society and Weight

posted 11 years ago in Wellness
Post # 17
Member
186 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: July 2010

If you think about it…Arnold Schwartzenegger in his prime (steroids nonwithstanding) would have been declared obese by BMI measurements. Silliness.

Post # 18
Member
14181 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2009

While I think the “healthy” weight numbers are not ideal for everyone, I also think that people’s conceptions of what is actually healthy are getting skewed as society gets fatter. I wear a size 8 and I had a coworker tell me I was UNDERWEIGHT. That’s skewed because while I have some people comment that I’m overweight (the doctor for one says i need to be careful), i have someone telling me i’m underweight and myself telling me i’m toeing the line.

So I am “skinny” at 175 pounds, 5’11”. That’s not a small number. Now, is there still a good chunk of fat for me to grab off my stomach? Yes. Do i have a significant muffin top? YES. Should it be there? NO. Is it healthy to have abdominal fat? NO.So I can sit here and say “i’m healthy” all I want, but there is still more fat on my body than should be in places that are the most dangerous b/c it is unevenly distributed

They’re guidelines, that’s all. I know for 5’11” my ideal weight is 130-170, and I already have a body fat percentage of 23% (I keep telling myself my DD”s contribute lol). Hell, I only have 30 ACTUAL pounds of fat on my body (says my trainer). So, realisitcally, I CANNOT physically get down to that weight, so I do tend to ignore the “weight guidelines” and follow body fat % more. Even so, I think 18-25 is considered normal. And I’d really prefer to be smack in the middle.

They are guidelines, that’s all.

Post # 19
Member
342 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: April 2010

I agree that society’s perception of what is “normal” is skewing waay heavier these days.  The BMI’s can definitely be out of whack considering people’s muscle mass/build/etc.  But, they’re not that far off.  I live in NYC and 5’5 125 lbs is “normal” here – not skinny, not fat, just what most women weigh.  Then again – people here walk a lot more and tend to work out a lot. 

Post # 20
Member
180 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: February 2010

What websites are you looking at??  125 would be a super low weight for your height. Not unhealthy necessarily (for some bone structures), but definitely super low.  I’m striving for 125 and I’m 5’3″, that’s more or less in the middle of the range for me.

Post # 22
Member
14181 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2009

125 is the low end of normal for someone who is 5’11”. I went to college with a girl about that weight and she was a dancer. She didn’t look unhealthy at all. But she definitely had the structure for it and the slim muscles.

Post # 23
Member
1509 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2010

I don’t think what you are referring to is “society,” but, rather, the guidance that stipulates what the appropriate weight for your frame is.  If you think that at 5’5″, 125 lbs would be too low, then you most likely have a large frame.  Large frame, means big bones, where when you put your thumb and first finger around your wrist, they don’t go all the way around.

These guidelines don’t take into account frame size.  125 on me at 5’6″ actually looks heavy.  I have an extremely small frame, not only can I wrap my thumb and first finger around my wrist and have room to spare, but I am wrap my thumb and first finger around my ankle and have them touch.  At 125, I carry extra weight around my stomach area, which wouldn’t be flat in a bikini… and this is because of my frame size.

I think that what “society” deems thin and what doctors deem an “appropriate weight” based on your height are completely separate issues.

Post # 24
Member
5262 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: June 2012

I agree with frame being important. I’m 5′ and have a really small frame (thumb and forefinger significantly overlap around my wrist) and so I wear a size 4 even when I have an obvious bit of stomach fat, am not in shape, etc. People always think I’m so small, but it’s still not healthy if you have fat in those dangerous places! 

Post # 25
Member
1813 posts
Buzzing bee

yes, the frame thing isn’t taken into account in those measurements….I was sick (gut sick) for 2 years, and the lowest I got was 162 @ 5’10”.  I consider that an “unhealthy baseline”.  I’m supposed to weigh up to 175, so I don’t think this is accurate.  When I ate 1200-1500 a day calories before the wedding and worked out 3 plus times a week for the wedding, I got down to 172.  I also don’t think that is sustainable.  1200-1500 calories to an athletic 5’10” woman just doesn’t seem like a good long term goal.

I am much more muscular than most women, even having broader shoulders, etc.  Go up against me at Pilates or soccer, and you will agree that I’m a healthy 185, hahaha.  Plus, it helps that my hubby loves my curves.  I’m strong, but I still have a “soccer booty” and DD’s, so he doesn’t want me to get skinny.

Post # 26
Member
6659 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: May 2010

I am 5’1″ with a small frame and according to my doctor a healthy weight is anywhere from 95lbs – 125lbs. I’ve been slightly over 100lbs most of my adult life, but when I started working I went up close to 130lbs. I definitely did not look or feel healthy at that weight and was pushing a size 10. I also had problems with high cholestorol and had no energy. I finally had enough and joined Jenny Craig and now I currently weigh 106 and wear a size 2/4. I’ve been at this weight for over 2 years now. I think that’s healthy, but people don’t describe me as thin really. I definitely still have curves. I think back in the 1950’s I would be considered heavy at 106lbs and i’m sure my clothing size would be more like a 6/8, everything is so skewed nowadays as the average weight has gone waay up.

Post # 27
Member
10216 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: November 2010

i have no idea about frame size etc. i have always been told that i was “big boned”, but following the wrist and wrap thing, my fingers overlap my wrist so maybe i’ve always been fat :D… i think i probably have a more athletic build and had a pretty decent muscle to fat ratio.  132 was a great weight for me, but that was when i was pre-high school lol. i think i gained 18 lbs the summer  before 8th grade and stayed at 150 throughout high school.  first year of college i was 160 and i stayed there until like 2003 then the weight gain started again and I have been at my heaviest (200 lbs) and back down to about 169 or so over the last 7 years.  I have no idea what a good weight is for me. i liked 160, 150 was decent and 132 would be like what i weighed at 12 (i haven’t gotten any taller) so i thought that was like the perfect weight because my silhouette was stunning my muscles were ripped, etc.

Post # 28
Member
5822 posts
Bee Keeper

The guidelines don’t take into account bone density either.  A woman properly consuming her calcium will have thicker bones, as will anyone who has broken a bone, it heals much thicker.  Conversely, you could be within the normal BMI range and have brittle, vacuous bone structure.  Also, as has been mentioned, there is such a thing as “big boned.”  There are three recognized frame sizes: small, medium, and large.  Larger frames with denser bones generally do not fall in the normal range on the BMI scale, even when you have a healthy body fat percentage.  I think it’s most important to shoot for overall health, and only use weight as a guide.  It’s most useful when you’re on a diet and want to see progress, but you can see the same progress measuring inches instead.

I’m more fond of the idea that your waist should measure no more than 30″ to have a smaller risk of heart disease.  Your waist is not affected by bone density, but is most affected by your body fat percentage.  (Of course, having said that I have to point out that mine is not under 30″, but it’s a good goal to strive for!)

Post # 29
Member
10216 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: November 2010

great point mighty sapphire. that waist measurement thingie could explain why i looked sickly thin at 160 (my waist was about 27 or 28 inches then) perhaps even less.  it sure isn’t that now though (ick)… sigh….

Post # 30
Member
2392 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2011

@ moderndaisy – I think we’re a good example of how weight can be a really silly measure of things.  We’re about the same height – I’m 5’2″.  We’re about the same size, too.  I weigh WAY more than you.  Bone density, muscle mass, frame size (my thumb and finger don’t even come close to reaching around my wrist!).  I don’t think you’d be considered heavy back then – people’s perception has changed at both ends.  But, yeah, body composition has a lot to do with it.  My lean mass weighs almost as much as you do – I would seriously be near death at your weight.  The important thing is we’re both healthy where we are and where we are healthy.

Post # 31
Member
45 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: July 2009

I think its super hard for large framed girls because of what society deems an appropriete weight.  I am 5’6” and a size zero and am 130 lbs.  I actually stop menstrating at 125 and am trying to gain weight.  Like my doctor says, bone weighs a lot!  While my BMI isnt even close to being underweight, my body fat is about 16%, which is apparently too low for me.  there are so many other factors that tell you more about your health that your weight!

The topic ‘Society and Weight’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors