Article: Size 0 versus Size 18 - Page 5

Malory · 03-16-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echokitten

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennyfurrens

Flapjacks are made by basically taking porridge oats and mixing them with syrup and a few other things like butter then cooking. They come out as mainly oats but kinda stickly stuck together, so they're all gooey and chewy. although sometimes they come out a lot drier and i guess those are healthier. you can add nuts, chocolate, toppings. and make them with lots of different types of oats. very yummy!

We call those Granola Bars here in the US.

Flapjacks are more corn syrupy and gooey than granola bars. They are extremely sweet (well, in my opinion.)

Malory · 03-16-2007, 10:43 AM

In the photos the size 0 women has a mean expression on her face, while the size 18 woman is smiling and looking happy. A smile is going to make anyone look better.

Also, the size 0 woman is purposely sticking her ribs out. If I inhale, I can make my ribs stick out as well. (I'm a size 4-6 in US sizes).

micheller · 03-16-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medussa

I have a Costco near me. You think I could find them there?

Cost Plus is like Pier One, but better. They have a section in the store for imported foods from around the world, it is great. Maybe they don't have Cost Plus on the East coast? Because I am sure in all of your fabulousness, that if they had one near you, you would know about it.

medussa · 03-16-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micheller

Quote:

Originally Posted by medussa

I have a Costco near me. You think I could find them there?

Cost Plus is like Pier One, but better. They have a section in the store for imported foods from around the world, it is great. Maybe they don't have Cost Plus on the East coast? Because I am sure in all of your fabulousness, that if they had one near you, you would know about it.

Bummer, they don't.

CuteCoils · 03-16-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynaminbear

I know several American size 0 women, and they don't look anything like that. I've met Carol in real life and she isn't too thin or bony; she's exactly where she should be, size-wise.

I totally agree. At only 5'1'', a petite woman like that should not weigh more than around 105 pounds or so. Although a taller woman can carry more weight, being out of shape or overweight is still possible regardless of height.

But, the best thing for those who are unsure is to have their BMI assessed medically. The normal range for women is between 19.5-24 without becoming overweight. For men, it's a point higher (20.5-25) as they naturally tend to have more mass.

I'm not familiar with TTapp, but Carol looks really great!

mad scientist · 03-16-2007, 04:20 PM

Nah, we also use kcals (or Cals) on food wrappers in the US and Canada. We're probably supposed to use kJ (along with all other things metric) but we don't.

FYI, my kid's digestive cookies have 85 calories each. Personally, I think they taste icky on their own, but are passable when dipped in tea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by louietheloop

There is a big difference between the English and American calories. Us brits use KCAL(s) and you guys use KJ(s).

This explains it better than I can!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

redcelticcurls · 03-16-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCurlyGirly

I feel like im the only one who prefers the heavier woman

Yes she is overweight but I think she does look healthier than the size 0 woman *shrug* prolly cause i'm closer to the larger womans size and I hate reading about how horrible my body type is

I prefer the larger woman also. Being a thick girl, I like thick girls!

Besides, between the two choices, if I must have a saggy butt, then I should at least have a butt worth grabbing!

NYCurlyGirly · 03-16-2007, 09:15 PM

i'm sorry, but I have to say I think measuring BMI is bull, and says nothing about health. My understanding is that a good 7 or 8 years ago, they changed the numbers of what is considered "healthy" and millions of Americans who went to bed 'normal' woke up 'overweight'. I am of the opinion that as long as you can move freely, live life without medical complications, and generally feel good about yourself, it doesn't matter what the scale/bmi index says. That's my rant for the evening!

redcelticcurls · 03-16-2007, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCurlyGirly

i'm sorry, but I have to say I think measuring BMI is bull, and says nothing about health. My understanding is that a good 7 or 8 years ago, they changed the numbers of what is considered "healthy" and millions of Americans who went to bed 'normal' woke up 'overweight'. I am of the opinion that as long as you can move freely, live life without medical complications, and generally feel good about yourself, it doesn't matter what the scale/bmi index says. That's my rant for the evening!

WOOHOO!

jennyfurrens · 03-17-2007, 10:16 AM

edited to realise i am a moron and wrote the wrong thing

picklesgirl · 03-17-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCurlyGirly

i'm sorry, but I have to say I think measuring BMI is bull, and says nothing about health. My understanding is that a good 7 or 8 years ago, they changed the numbers of what is considered "healthy" and millions of Americans who went to bed 'normal' woke up 'overweight'. I am of the opinion that as long as you can move freely, live life without medical complications, and generally feel good about yourself, it doesn't matter what the scale/bmi index says. That's my rant for the evening!

Amen Sister

Rheanna · 03-18-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by picklesgirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCurlyGirly

i'm sorry, but I have to say I think measuring BMI is bull, and says nothing about health. My understanding is that a good 7 or 8 years ago, they changed the numbers of what is considered "healthy" and millions of Americans who went to bed 'normal' woke up 'overweight'. I am of the opinion that as long as you can move freely, live life without medical complications, and generally feel good about yourself, it doesn't matter what the scale/bmi index says. That's my rant for the evening!

Amen Sister

I agree, too. Besides the fact that they changed it (which was news to me!) it doesn't allow for different size body frames, etc. I was thin and my BMI was still right on the line (24). People in my family told my I looked "skeletal." Then, I've known people who were on the line of being underweight, that looked fine and clearly were not. BMI is only ONE of the many tools we can use to track health, and I really don't think it's the most important. It's just the easiest... that doesn't make it the best.

And as far as the models go, I can't imagine thinking the skinny one is better looking. The bigger one is overweight, obviously, but it isn't as though she's morbidly obese or anything, and I think her diet is healthier by far. Neither of them are "ideal" I'm sure, but I think the size 0 looks worse. JMO. Her ribs kind of freak me out too...

jennyfurrens · 03-19-2007, 04:00 AM

Llike I said the larger model used to be a LOT larger when she was on the TV before she went on her diet. And I'm pretty sure her diet wasn't healthy either. Remember the larger model has just been through a programme that encourages healthy eating, the smaller model has not. So maybe that's why her diet is healthier now...

And I agree about the BMI thing. When I go to get my contraceptive pills the doctor weighs me and then aligns that with my height to get my BMI and says "oh no but you're underweight! you cant take the pill blah blah blah or i should be careful" then i just say "look at me - I have boobs which if i was underweight i wouldnt have as my body would use all the fat to stay alive, i've got a snickers bar in my bag which i'm about to eat which i'm sure any weigh t conscious twig wouldnt go near etc etc" my weight on the scales is actually underweight too - i'm too light to donate blood and suchlike. but i know i eat plenty each day!

Gemini13 · 03-19-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteCoils

I totally agree. At only 5'1'', a petite woman like that should not weigh more than around 105 pounds or so. Although a taller woman can carry more weight, being out of shape or overweight is still possible regardless of height.

But, the best thing for those who are unsure is to have their BMI assessed medically. The normal range for women is between 19.5-24 without becoming overweight. For men, it's a point higher (20.5-25) as they naturally tend to have more mass.

Not true. I'm a few inches shorter than her, and I am quite thin at 105 pounds (in fact I really don't expect to ever see it again). If you want to use BMI as your guide, a 5'1" tall woman could weight 130 pounds and still be within her healthy range. Anyway I agree with what the others have said about the problems with BMI.

Hairblogger ™ · 03-19-2007, 01:42 PM

I agree with the others on the BMI.
It's a good general gage, for non-athletes, not a literal figure. A man or woman who train regularly like they're competing for MR/Ms Olymia would have naturally a larger BMI, but they would have less body fat in general and way more muscle, so that's not wuite the same.

but, unless a little person is solid muscle (like a lady athlete) 130 pounds is a lot of weight for a female who is only 5-feet tall. When nicole Ritchie was chubby she only weighed 126 and she is 5'2 and she was visibly 10pounds overweight/chubby. Although at 93pounds she is under weight, being underweight is just as bad as being overweight. I think Prince is about 125-130, but he is very lean and cut and men have way-less fat composition than women of the same height.

But she would prob look nicely filled out at around 110 (105at the lowest).

I am 5'7 and naturally weight 119. I am slender, but not bony. If I weighed 125, I would still be within an acceptable range. If I was muscular, I would prob weigh more, but muscle doesn't look the same as an untoned physique at a lower weight.

I think what most people are saying is that being in shape (you don't have to be skinny to be in shape) is more important than what you weigh, and if you're big and beautiful that's great, but a physician would tell anyone that if you are overweight, you are more vulnerable to things like heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and you don't have to be morbidly obese for that, even generally overweight affects your body's processes.

Singer Gerald Levert who had been losing weight and looked pretty good still died of a massive heart attack. The guy from the Soprano's had major heart surgery and has been advised to loose weight (the one called Big P**sy) and a couple of models who were underweight also had heart attacks (their BMI's were all too low at 17-1

.

So, being anorexic is equally dangerous.

Most physicians prob suggest the BMI as a general guide to help figure out where you are on either side of the spectrum.

But, the BMI range is definitely helpful although certainly not perfect.

Gemini13 · 03-19-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairblogger

but, unless a little person is solid muscle (like a lady athlete) 130 pounds is a lot of weight for a female who is only 5-feet tall.

You'd be surprised! I'm not saying she would be skinny, or even an "ideal" weight, just that it falls within the healthy range if you're going by BMI. It's sometimes harder to judge "normal" weight when someone is such a different height from you- when you say you're 119 lbs at 5'7" that strikes me as really skinny. Not saying you are- I have no idea what you look like, lol! The numbers don't always translate the way you think they would.

Amneris · 03-19-2007, 02:21 PM

5' and 130 lbs is a BMI of 25.4 and healthy/normal BMI ends at 24.9, so this is an overweight BMI (unless the person is an athlete with a lot of lean muscle mass.) Also, the woman at that size would most likely be unhappy with the appearance of her body and clothing size (there would be a lot of extra fat.) I am 5'2" and I certainly would not be comfortable being in the 130s, although everyone is different.

The rule I like is that the ideal weight for 5' is 100 lbs and for every extra inch, you add 5 lbs. So the ideal weight for 5' 7" would be 135 lbs - 119 would be quite thin. It has a BMI of 18.6 and 18.5 is considered underweight, so it would technically almost be underweight and on the very edge of healthy, if you use BMI as a guide.

Gemini13 · 03-19-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amneris

5' and 130 lbs is a BMI of 25.4 and healthy/normal BMI ends at 24.9, so this is an overweight BMI (unless the person is an athlete with a lot of lean muscle mass.) Also, the woman at that size would most likely be unhappy with the appearance of her body and clothing size (there would be a lot of extra fat.) I am 5'2" and I certainly would not be comfortable being in the 130s, although everyone is different.

The rule I like is that the ideal weight for 5' is 100 lbs and for every extra inch, you add 5 lbs. So the ideal weight for 5' 7" would be 135 lbs - 119 would be quite thin. It has a BMI of 18.6 and 18.5 is considered underweight, so it would technically almost be underweight and on the very edge of healthy, if you use BMI as a guide.

Really, I was just contesting the statement that someone who's 5'1" shouldn't weigh more than 105. I have to disagree with your rule of thumb above... it actually allows for a lot less flexibility with regards to frame, musculature, etc, than does BMI. [/i]

Hairblogger ™ · 03-19-2007, 04:30 PM

Hey Am:

I think your weight sounds perfect for your height.

But, my BMI is not 18.5 (most adults of normal height would be very dead at that index-which is not the norm)

I have my index measured when I have my annual physical. I am on the lean side, but over 19. And ... It's more like add 3-3.5 pounds for every inch over 5feet for women and add about 5-7 pounds per inch over 5feet for men (Although with very muscular frames it can be a little higher for either gender).

While I am slender, and very small boned, my doctor says I have petite skeletature, but long lines like a dancer, which is slender, but hairdly bony (my measurements are 35-23-33). So, I do have fat in the right places

. I'm not super muscular, but I also have very little excess body fat and am otherwise very tone. I know if i had a bigger butt/bustline, I would be a little heavier, but with my small proportions, my weight coincides and reflects that.

*My doctor's chart is different -- the BMI index I saw for my hight was 121 pounds as an ideal. My last doc's visit was a few weeks ago, so you might want to re-check your info. But, Like I said my frame could carry additional poundage, but only if I was rock solid muscle. 135 would be more suited to a more muscular person (which I'm not-unless I had a serious donut/beer belly

), or tall maybe, like Heidi Klum who is 5'11"-6feet. But has stated her normal weight is between 130-135 or so (the same as Tyra'a modeling weight--although she still looks very shapely at her present weight, but she also is 6feet like Heidi) but, both of them looked very normal at those weights and didn't appear bony with normal BMI index.

My doctor once told me that no woman should weigh more than 140; and it's lower based on shortness. A woman of average height (below 5'9)shouldn't weigh more than 130, a tall woman (5'10 & over)-139, a petite woman (below 5'1) 100pounds or so between 5'1-5'4 9about 110-115).

And while I do allow myself lattitude in terms of if I wanted to get bulked up and really ripped, I'd prob. gain a good ten pounds or so, but I like having a little ballerina body. It's not playboy, but it's very Jen Anniston, Halle Berry girl next doorish and I like it that way. But, if my bust suddenly were to expand to a D cup, I'd manage to live with it (and the weight)

.

Also, the thinner lady in the picture is prob closer to a size 2 than zero. but U.S. sizes run funny. And, i'm assuming she's sucking in her stomach deeply to make her ribs poke out all kooky like that---atleast I hope so.

Megara · 03-19-2007, 06:26 PM

I really wish I could look at the picture of the size 0 chick and not wish I looked like that. In all reality, I am closer to the 18. All the women in my family are bigger. I am destined to be a bigger lady. I work out a lot, but I will never, ever be a size 0.

I realize this, and I accept it. But it's personally hard for me to stop thinking- hey if I was that thin, I could wear anything, shop anywhere, not be self conscious. Whether that's true or not, who knows. The point I'm trying to make is that if "the media" didn't try to define what is beautiful, would I think that way?
I'm in an introspective mood tonight- forgive me!