So I guess I can eliminate "Spanish Supermodel" from my career choices...

[LitigatorChick]

As you know, the Spanish government passed a law preventing models with a BMI under 18. The French are looking at similar legislation, although it appears that a BMI aspect may not be technically part of it.

So I check my BMI. 17.4. Yep, 17.4. I do not have an eating disorder, I do not look like skin and bones. I think I am a decent weight, although I agree (as does my doctor) that I should not go any lower.

But this is ridiculous. If I am too skinny to be a supermodel, most if not all supermodels will not be on the runway.

What do you think???

 

[laine]

I definitely get the logic behind the legislation, but the BMI cutoff does seem a little arbitrary. My BMI isn't under that right now, but when I put in my weight from a few years ago (when I was more of a "model" age), I was 17.2. I was skinny, but not dangerously so. And most models are young--I know when I was 17, I was my current height but with no boobs and no hips, so of course I weighed less.

Plus BMI is such a rough guide to weight. I have a slender build, not a lot of curves, and long legs, so on me, my weight looks healthy. Put my same weight on someone the same height but with a larger frame, longer torso and big boobs--she'd have to be skin and bones. Yet we'd have the same BMI--it just doesn't seem like a useful measure.

 

[E B]

Date: 4/20/2008 1:42:06 PM
Author:LitigatorChick
As you know, the Spanish government passed a law preventing models with a BMI under 18. The French are looking at similar legislation, although it appears that a BMI aspect may not be technically part of it.

I think it's a great idea, though I would support a different measuring system. Like Laine said, the BMI only takes into account height and weight, completely ignoring build.

I support the general idea, though. For the most part, runway models are far too thin and are poor examples to young girls (and women!) of what true beauty is "supposed" to look like. I struggle with body issues myself, and I'm within the "healthy" BMI range at 22.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 4/20/2008 3:25:56 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 4/20/2008 1:42:06 PM
Author:LitigatorChick
As you know, the Spanish government passed a law preventing models with a BMI under 18. The French are looking at similar legislation, although it appears that a BMI aspect may not be technically part of it.

I think it's a great idea, though I would support a different measuring system. Like Laine said, the BMI only takes into account height and weight, completely ignoring build.

I support the general idea, though. For the most part, runway models are far too thin and are poor examples to young girls (and women!) of what true beauty is 'supposed' to look like. I struggle with body issues myself, and I'm within the 'healthy' BMI range at 22.

Ditto!!! I think young girls need good role models and something healthy is good. As a teen, I went to school with girls who would starve themselves to be thin or take other measures which is very sad.

 

[Elmorton]

I just did a quick check and the lowest weight you can be at 6ft is apparently 133 lbs. 133 on a six-foot person is likely going to look pretty darned thin. One of my close friends is six feet and has the body of Tyra Banks (now, not when she modeled) - and she's 165. If she was 130, she would look like skin and bones. I agree - the BMI index isn't the best way to measure (I'm always mystified at what my goal weight should be), but when you make a regulation to try to change an industry, you need to do something that's quick and easy to measure (and enforce).

Honestly, I'm pretty happy about the weight changes, and I'd be perfectly happy if the average size model went up to a size 8 or 12. The idea that clothes designers want models to look like hangers disgusts me - if they want to make hanging art, make tapestries. Otherwise, make clothes to fit real bodies.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I tend to think that they should take into consideration the correlation between weight and BMI. My BMI is around 16, but I''m a rock climber and am pretty muscular. Because I''m muscular, I fall into a "healthy" weight for my height. Usually those who are healhy and have a low BMI are not underweight.

 

[E B]

Date: 4/20/2008 3:55:52 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I tend to think that they should take into consideration the correlation between weight and BMI. My BMI is around 16, but I'm a rock climber and am pretty muscular. Because I'm muscular, I fall into a 'healthy' weight for my height. Usually those who are healhy and have a low BMI are not underweight.

NEL,

Are you sure your BMI is 16? You look slim in your wedding pictures, but not unnaturally so, and while the BMI isn't as accurate as it could be if it took other things into consideration, 16 is pretty low. I'm 5'5'' and would have to weigh 98 lbs to have a BMI of 16.

 

[icekid]

I think this is a good idea in essence, but the use of BMI is inappropriate. BMI was actually created to look at weight across a population, not an individual person. As has been mentioned, a BMI of 18 may be fine on one body type and unhealthy on another. Across a population, these differences average out and then BMI can be a useful measure to see how much fatter America is today compared to yesterday.

 

[diamondfan]

Normally you add 5 lbs. to every inch over five feet, and you start with 100 lbs. So someone 5 foot 5 inches could weigh 125 and be in the right range. Model thin was typically 3 lbs per inch over five feet, so the same height girl would weigh 115 and wore a size 2. At my thinnest a few years ago I was 116. I am small framed, my wrists are 6 inches, and I was moderately athletic. But muscle weighs three times more than fat, though it looks different on the body. You can have three people the same height and weight and it is not distributed the same on all of them, so they will not all look alike.

Slim, fit, healthy are fine, but emaciated and gaunt are not.

 

[bee*]

Date: 4/20/2008 3:45:17 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 4/20/2008 3:25:56 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 4/20/2008 1:42:06 PM

Author:LitigatorChick

As you know, the Spanish government passed a law preventing models with a BMI under 18. The French are looking at similar legislation, although it appears that a BMI aspect may not be technically part of it.

I think it''s a great idea, though I would support a different measuring system. Like Laine said, the BMI only takes into account height and weight, completely ignoring build.


I support the general idea, though. For the most part, runway models are far too thin and are poor examples to young girls (and women!) of what true beauty is ''supposed'' to look like. I struggle with body issues myself, and I''m within the ''healthy'' BMI range at 22.

Ditto!!! I think young girls need good role models and something healthy is good. As a teen, I went to school with girls who would starve themselves to be thin or take other measures which is very sad.

I agree with this. Maybe the BMI way isn''t the right way to go about it, but something has to be done.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

How on earth are they going to legislate this when it is difficult to quantify? And get people to abide by it? Wearing seat belts/helmets, drinking while under the influence are but a few of the common laws that people break daily despite penalties.

cheers--Sharon

 

[NewEnglandLady]

To be honest, it probably isn''t 16% anymore. I had my BMI measured at the doctor''s office when I was in college and it was 15.5%--I was dancing (ballet) for a few hours a day and he was worried it was too low and that I was going to start missing periods. I changed my diet and when I went back 6 months later it was 16%. I weigh about 5 lbs. more than I did in college, but my muscle mass is higher. I wouldn''t be surprised if my BMI was around 17% now. I definitely don''t consider myself thin, in fact I was always one of the "bigger" dancers, but I NEED muscle for my hobbies.

 

[icekid]

Date: 4/20/2008 7:19:40 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
To be honest, it probably isn''t 16% anymore. I had my BMI measured at the doctor''s office when I was in college and it was 15.5%--I was dancing (ballet) for a few hours a day and he was worried it was too low and that I was going to start missing periods. I changed my diet and when I went back 6 months later it was 16%. I weigh about 5 lbs. more than I did in college, but my muscle mass is higher. I wouldn''t be surprised if my BMI was around 17% now. I definitely don''t consider myself thin, in fact I was always one of the ''bigger'' dancers, but I NEED muscle for my hobbies.

Hmm, BMI isn''t a % and does not need to be "measured." It''s just a calculation-

BMI =
(weight in pounds * 703 )
————————————
height in inches²

I wonder if you were thinking of body fat %. That is measured and sounds potentially more plausible.

 

[Haven]

I agree that BMI isn''t the best way to measure it, but I''m also happy to hear that something is being done.

I imagine body fat percentage would be a far more accurate way to characterize who is and who isn''t too thin. For example, when I was a personal trainer and spent my entire days working out and eating an extremely healthy diet, my body fat percentage was 17%. Now that I''m a teacher and don''t dedicate as much time to lifting and eating healthy my body fat percentage is 22%, but guess what? My weight is almost exactly the same--unfortunately for me, all that muscle pretty much turned into fat.

SO, do I look the same? Absolutely not. But my BMI is exactly the same.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Icekid, you are right! So sorry! I think the fumes from me cleaning all day have done some temporary damage to my brain!

 

[E B]

Date: 4/20/2008 7:39:32 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Icekid, you are right! So sorry! I think the fumes from me cleaning all day have done some temporary damage to my brain!

I was about to say...! You look far too healthy to have a BMI of 16.

In order for me to have a BMI of 16, I'd have to weigh as much as Nicole Richie pre-pregnancy (when she was scary thin!), and I'm 3 inches taller than she is.

 

[Haven]

At 5''9.5" (okay, I''m nearly 5''10", but I calculated at 5''9.5") I''d have to weight 110 to have a BMI of 16.

110 POUNDS! I can''t imagine what I''d look like if I were that thin, but I can''t imagine it would be attractive. In fact, I was around 125 pounds as a freshman in college and had to deal with a lot of "you''re too thin, are you sure you''re not starving yourself" type questions then.

Goes to show you--BMI is just not an accurate measurement.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 4/20/2008 7:19:40 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
To be honest, it probably isn't 16% anymore. I had my BMI measured at the doctor's office when I was in college and it was 15.5%--I was dancing (ballet) for a few hours a day and he was worried it was too low and that I was going to start missing periods. I changed my diet and when I went back 6 months later it was 16%. I weigh about 5 lbs. more than I did in college, but my muscle mass is higher. I wouldn't be surprised if my BMI was around 17% now. I definitely don't consider myself thin, in fact I was always one of the 'bigger' dancers, but I NEED muscle for my hobbies.

I think you mean your body fat percentage...that could easily have been 16% if you were very muscular and fit.

 

[Skippy123]

I am curious, but do think, if this helped our young girls self image that would be a good thing, no???? I honestly am glad they are doing something about this; I know it isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction versus girls looking up to rail thin women and thinking that is the ideal??

 

[LegacyGirl]

For me to have a bmi of 17.9 I''d have to weigh 95lbs!!! That''s insane!

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 4/21/2008 12:06:05 AM
Author: LegacyGirl
For me to have a bmi of 17.9 I''d have to weigh 95lbs!!! That''s insane!

I''m about the same. That seems just crazy skinny to me...

LC- are you sure your BMI is 17.4? That does seem really low...

 

[miraclesrule]

I have to agree with the "it''s not perfect, but at least it''s something" peanut gallery.

The pressure on girls to be perfect and thin is intense. I went through a similiar phase in junior high because I started my period when I was 9 and had size C girls when I was 10. 5th grade...can you imagine? I wasn''t fat by any measure, but I developed into a curvy gal at a healthy 130 lbs, long before anyone else did. So I was the "fat girl" at school. As a result, I used to starve myself. I lost my period for a few months and was diagnosed with amenorrhea....or absence of menses. Gotta love medical terminology. Now I have ovarian failure...say what????

Can''t we just call it menopause for gods sake?

What''s my point...oh yeah, I have ovarian failure so I can''t remember...but I do like the new Dove commercials.

 

[diamondfan]

I think we all have felt that pressure sometime.

I was so thin in my middle school and high school years. A bean, no chest or hips, but 5 foot 5 and 105 pounds. I had my period since age 11, and never lost it, because I did not try to be that thin. I had a crazy metabolism (which I would like to have NOW). I wore size 24 jeans and had to wear a belt. My bones stuck out. My mom thought I had anorexia. Then a friend of my older sister''s who was overweight and was very focused on the eating habits of others, saw me put away a container of Haagen Daaz and concluded I must be bulimic instead. I was just thin, and got teased about being a bean pole.

I always lost all my baby weight (75 pounds each time) and was thinner than before I got pregnant. I had official body fat testing and my body fat was 18 something percent when I was 37 years old. That is low for an adult woman. I DID start to develop an eating disorder as an adult. I never took diet pills or things of that nature, but I watched literally every morsel I ate, would not even chew sugarless gum because it had 2 calories a stick. Obsess much? I looked like a refugee, and my hair and nails suffered, but I could NOT see it all. Now I am an 8, still have some weight to lose, but think I have to accept at 42 that I am not a teen and have had three kids. The bod is simply not looking bikini ready, not sure it ever will. But that is okay. I have two legs and two arms and aside from some chronic health issues, my body does its job.

If I had daughters I would worry about these very young thin girls made up to look old, coming down a cat walk in 10,000 outfits that are not cut to fit a proper woman. I absolutely think it sends the wrong message, and a very dangerous one.

 

[LitigatorChick]

Date: 4/20/2008 5:00:11 PM
Author: diamondfan
Normally you add 5 lbs. to every inch over five feet, and you start with 100 lbs. So someone 5 foot 5 inches could weigh 125 and be in the right range. Model thin was typically 3 lbs per inch over five feet, so the same height girl would weigh 115 and wore a size 2. At my thinnest a few years ago I was 116. I am small framed, my wrists are 6 inches, and I was moderately athletic. But muscle weighs three times more than fat, though it looks different on the body. You can have three people the same height and weight and it is not distributed the same on all of them, so they will not all look alike.

Slim, fit, healthy are fine, but emaciated and gaunt are not.

DiamondFan, my doc used to tell me this, but said small frame was 3 lbs per inch, medium at 4 lbs per inch, and large frame at 5 lbs per inch. Do you know the source of this? I thought it was just my silly doc!!!

I agree that the goal is appropriate. Some of the pics of the gaunt boney and stick thin models is not attractive or appropriate. But my point is that this arbitrary BMI measure that has become the baseline of the Spanish legislation is just stupid!!

Neatfreak - reran the numbers. I am 5''9'''' and weigh 118 lbs, so that equals 17.4. But I also fiddled around, and if I got up to 122, I would hit 18! Maybe my catwalk days are not that far away.

 

[diamondfan]

LC, not sure. And I never heard the three different weights, just the one for regular people and one for "models". I am small framed, at almost 5 foot 5 and 1/2 inches, my wrist is 6 inches around or a bit less, and I know there are categories for that. At the 116 pounds, I was soooo thin, even at 120 I am a bit too thin. 125 is really a nice weight for me. But I think I read it in a magazine? Again, it does not account for muscle and body shape, but , but it is more of a guideline.

 

[robbie3982]

Date: 4/21/2008 9:34:44 AM
Author: diamondfan
LC, not sure. And I never heard the three different weights, just the one for regular people and one for ''models''. I am small framed, at almost 5 foot 5 and 1/2 inches, my wrist is 6 inches around or a bit less, and I know there are categories for that. At the 116 pounds, I was soooo thin, even at 120 I am a bit too thin. 125 is really a nice weight for me. But I think I read it in a magazine? Again, it does not account for muscle and body shape, but , but it is more of a guideline.

Diamondfan we''re about the same height (I''m 5''4" and 3/4" but I usually just go with 5''5"). I was 116 at my wedding. I like the way I look in the pics, but in real life I was getting really boney, like to the point where my butt hurt from sitting down because there wasn''t enough padding. I had a few doctors appointments while I was at that weight and my doctor gave me a hard time each time. He kept telling me I needed to weigh 125. No range, just 125. I guess he was using that formula.

While I don''t think that BMI is necessarily a good tool for non-models to compare themselves to other non-models, I think it actually works in this case. The discrepancies come from body fat % or whether you have a small, medium or large frame, but the reality is that these models all have small frames, similar builds and low body fat percentages.

 

[LitigatorChick]

Date: 4/21/2008 11:45:57 AM
Author: robbie3982

Date: 4/21/2008 9:34:44 AM
Author: diamondfan
LC, not sure. And I never heard the three different weights, just the one for regular people and one for ''models''. I am small framed, at almost 5 foot 5 and 1/2 inches, my wrist is 6 inches around or a bit less, and I know there are categories for that. At the 116 pounds, I was soooo thin, even at 120 I am a bit too thin. 125 is really a nice weight for me. But I think I read it in a magazine? Again, it does not account for muscle and body shape, but , but it is more of a guideline.

Diamondfan we''re about the same height (I''m 5''4'' and 3/4'' but I usually just go with 5''5''). I was 116 at my wedding. I like the way I look in the pics, but in real life I was getting really boney, like to the point where my butt hurt from sitting down because there wasn''t enough padding. I had a few doctors appointments while I was at that weight and my doctor gave me a hard time each time. He kept telling me I needed to weigh 125. No range, just 125. I guess he was using that formula.

While I don''t think that BMI is necessarily a good tool for non-models to compare themselves to other non-models, I think it actually works in this case. The discrepancies come from body fat % or whether you have a small, medium or large frame, but the reality is that these models all have small frames, similar builds and low body fat percentages.

This made me giggle - try a padded chair!!!!

 

[Independent Gal]

While BMI is just a heuristic, what it''s a heuristic for is an important ingredient for health. Of course some of us are just naturally speedier in the metabolism department, but just like any other natural factor that affects health, we may have to make up for that ... e.g., by eating more and trying to put on a little extra weight.

Since BMI is an heuristic, I think if I were coming up under the 18 low-end cut off, I would go to my doctor to have a proper calliper test done to determine my actual body fat percentage. If it actually IS too low... I''d try to do something about it.

The thing is, fat is CRITICAL for good health. We usually think of it in terms of aesthetics, forgetting the important function it serves in our heatlh and well-being. Fat helps our bodies make estrogen (which is why women who are underweight or very athletic and muscular sometimes have trouble conceiving). It cushions our bones and other tissues. And it provides extra nutrients just in case we aren''t able to take them in or store them. For instance, we all know how easy it is to find ourselves down 5 pounds after being really sick. Sure it comes right back if it''s just a flu, but if it''s something more serious... you''re putting yourself at risk.

That''s why having a BMI of 20-22 is optimal for longevity and health. 18-20, or 23-25 and the docs don''t panic, but you''re still, statistically, more likely to die younger than if your BMI was optimal. And on downward.

We need fat! Fat is our friend! So long as it''s in moderation.

So for you slim PS''ers with under 18 BMI''s, if i were you, I''d get a proper fat-percentage test and consider putting on a little extra for your health, just as those over 25 should consider taking off a little extra for their health.

Just my (BMI 19.5) 2 cts.

 

[Skippy123]

LC, this is happening only in one country right? I think it more responsible of them doing something like this for our young girls than giving them idea that rail thin is what they should attain by skipping meals or not eating. I feel teen girls have so much pressure in other aspects of their life that flipping through a magazine should not add to the pressure. I think something needs to be done because I also think men sometimes think that is how a woman should look too and it definitely is not the norm.

I think you and I are the same age so we couldn't be super models anyway.

 

[robbie3982]

Date: 4/21/2008 2:20:08 PM
Author: LitigatorChick

Date: 4/21/2008 11:45:57 AM
Author: robbie3982

Date: 4/21/2008 9:34:44 AM
Author: diamondfan
LC, not sure. And I never heard the three different weights, just the one for regular people and one for ''models''. I am small framed, at almost 5 foot 5 and 1/2 inches, my wrist is 6 inches around or a bit less, and I know there are categories for that. At the 116 pounds, I was soooo thin, even at 120 I am a bit too thin. 125 is really a nice weight for me. But I think I read it in a magazine? Again, it does not account for muscle and body shape, but , but it is more of a guideline.

Diamondfan we''re about the same height (I''m 5''4'' and 3/4'' but I usually just go with 5''5''). I was 116 at my wedding. I like the way I look in the pics, but in real life I was getting really boney, like to the point where my butt hurt from sitting down because there wasn''t enough padding. I had a few doctors appointments while I was at that weight and my doctor gave me a hard time each time. He kept telling me I needed to weigh 125. No range, just 125. I guess he was using that formula.

While I don''t think that BMI is necessarily a good tool for non-models to compare themselves to other non-models, I think it actually works in this case. The discrepancies come from body fat % or whether you have a small, medium or large frame, but the reality is that these models all have small frames, similar builds and low body fat percentages.

This made me giggle - try a padded chair!!!!

Hehe. I don''t need one anymore. My body decided to add its own padding post wedding when I decided that no wedding dress to fit into meant eating whatever I wanted whenever I wanted. Should it become an issue again, though, my chair at my new job is much cushier