Average size of women-a statistic that does more harm than good.

Humphrey10

hawk30 wrote: »

(Ironically I was forced to put on some weight to have medical treatment - how is having to stuff myself with pasta, chocolate and build-up drinks healthy?)

That's a very good example of brainwashing from all those size zero models. If you had to put on weight to have medical treatment, you must have been underweight before = unhealthy. So gaining weight was the healthy thing to do.
It's very sad that you have been led to believe that being underweight and risking having osteoporosis, organ failure, compromised immune system etc etc is more healthy than being the recommended, normal, healthy weight.

hawk30

Humphrey10 wrote: »

That's a very good example of brainwashing from all those size zero models. If you had to put on weight to have medical treatment, you must have been underweight before = unhealthy. So gaining weight was the healthy thing to do.
It's very sad that you have been led to believe that being underweight and risking having osteoporosis, organ failure, compromised immune system etc etc is more healthy than being the recommended, normal, healthy weight.

I am not, and never have been, underweight by choice. In fact I have often cried because of the horrible comments from people like you who think it is ok to criticise me because of my weight, when I would love to be curvy. The problem is that I am naturally very skinny and to achieve a 'so-called' healthy weight (based on BMI, which we all know is an inaccurate measurement tool) I have to eat a lot of foods that are very unhealthy. I'm not talking about the odd chocolate bar or piece of cake - I'm talking about a daily diet of significant amounts of fat and sugar. I rarely eat fruit and vegetables and don't do any exercise, for the fear that I will lose weight and lose my entitlement to the treatment. I have had men tell me, even before I went on my reverse diet, that I eat more than them and "never stop eating".

SmallL

mishkanorman wrote: »

I think its a much bigger picture than 'well everyone else is as fat as me, I'll just keep stuffing my face' which the OP appears to be suggesting !

This article is a fairly logical approach to the question of why as a nation we now appear 'bigger'

Interestingly the article points out that the only time in our history a national survey of womens figures has been done was in 1951 - and that is a world away from how we live our lives today.

I also wonder why women were singled out specifically in the OP ?

Sorry, cause im female and such articles on the web seem to target female size.

Gloomendoom

Humphrey10 wrote: »

That's a very good example of brainwashing from all those size zero models.

Is size zero actually a dress size in the UK?

Mojisola

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Is size zero actually a dress size in the UK?

It's the equivalent of a UK size 4.

Gloomendoom

Mojisola wrote: »

It's the equivalent of a UK size 4.

So just one size less than this woman. Is it really that small?

hawk30

Just in case anyone brings up Marilyn Monroe as an example, no, she wasn't a size 14/16, she was actually a modern size 8/10.

BTW, I'm not anti larger people. I completely understand how some people are larger and have difficulties losing weight if they want to. I know that for some people it's not a case of "just eat less", in the same way as "just eat more" (I'd like to see you try!) is for me.

londonsurrey

How correct are these stats anyhow? What I do know is that if the shops base their buying power on these stats, it's not working out.

I keep on finding that size 12, followed by size 10 sell out really fast, and I'm left staring at a bunch of size 6 and size 16 outfits, tantalised, but obviously not able to buy something that fits.

Mojisola

hawk30 wrote: »

Just in case anyone brings up Marilyn Monroe as an example, no, she wasn't a size 14/16, she was actually a modern size 8/10.

I think the confusion about Marilyn Monroe's dress size came about because dress sizes shifted, I think, in the 1960s. I remember having to be careful with dressmaking patterns because, if we were using older ones, we had to use a different size to the newer ones.

claire16c

hawk30 wrote: »

I have definitely noticed clothes getting larger. Up until about 1 year ago I was the same size I was at 19, but had gone from a size 8/10 to a size 6 in clothes. M&S are the worst - I can't shop in there any more. In fact I've been reduced to a handful of teenage-type shops where they do small sizes.

(Ironically I was forced to put on some weight to have medical treatment - how is having to stuff myself with pasta, chocolate and build-up drinks healthy?)

Youre not imagining it. A few years back all of the Arcadia stores changed their sizes to 'vanity' sizing. If you have any old clothes and check the 34/36/38 bit on it, you will see they are different. An 8 used to be a 34, now its a 36 etc. So if you were an 8, youd now have to buy a 6, a size 10 became a size '8' and so on.

They did it so women could fit into a size smaller than they really are, and then hopefully buy the clothes because they liked the label inside, and make them more money. So presumably its been working for them.

(although they then had to bring in a size 4 - the old size 6, otherwise that size would have disappeared- which means whatever size you buy you are still the same number of sizes up from the bottom one!)

And yes, Ive seen some of Marilyn Monroes clothes and they are no where near a size 16.

BMI is only useful for the 'average' person. It doesnt work for people who are naturally slim or muscley people either.