Kudos to Israel for banning overly-skinny models

[ericad]

On one hand, I love the idea that someone is making a stand against unhealthy body images...

On the other, I am somewhat offended that 18.5 is considered "dangerously skinny." My late teens/early 20s were comfortably in the 16ish range, and I always had pinchable fat. I am still around 18...I just have the bone structure of a bird! To me, it's no different than declaring everyone over 20 BMI to be "dangerously overweight" when we all know many examples of people who are at that point (or higher) and are vivacious and healthy.

It seems to be an indiscriminate and inaccurate place to draw the line in the sand. If you were to calculate the BMIs of models like Erica posted, they would be around 12, I reckon. I applaud getting rid of these ridiculous images (or maybe there should be a no photoshopping rule instead...digital alterations often take models from a healthy size to a scarecrow), but that number isn't a good starting point.

Ditto this-you summed it up way better than I could!

And I totally agree about the models Erica posted-their BMI is probably in the 12ish range, 13 at most. Either way it's not even close to 18.5.

I agree that most runway models today have BMI's well below 18.5. WAY below. As I said above, I don't think BMI is the right way to screen. But it doesn't really matter what threshold you set, because someone will come in and say, "I was that BMI once and I was healthy and not anorexic."

BMI is too vague. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ideas for better ways of screening. I personally can't really come up with anything, but I'll ponder it.

To me, the best answer is to vote with our dollars. Boycott fashion mags and brands who perpetuate dangerously unhealthy body types, and support companies like Dove and any other brands who are taking proactive steps to make a change. And send messages to these companies to let them know why! "Dear Dove, I love your healthy body campaign and will support you with my business." Or "Dear Tommy Hilfiger, I'm going to boycott your goods because of your choice to use dangerously thin models." (I pulled Tommy H. out of thin air just as an example, I have no clue what kind of models he uses, it was just the first designer name that popped into my head because of American Idol, lol.)

 

[TooPatient]

So maybe by picking 18.5 they wanted to be extra extra sure of not encouraging eating disorders.

I'd rather they err on the side of caution since there's so much at stake.
Girls and women are dying to make themselves as """"attractive"""" as the images they are bombarded with.

I just hope the biggies, Paris, New York, Milan and London (and the ad industry, even for muscle-cars) follow Israel's brave lead.
This women-bashing has to end.

I know this is a serious topic and agree COMPLETELY that the system has to change. I could go on at length about how sick I am of seeing unhealthy models (this applies to sickly underweight as much as it would to substantially overweight).

So..... why is it we so seldom see ads featuring large-muscled men with gorgeous hair and piercing eyes that make all the women ogle? What would be more appropriate with a muscle-car than one of the fire-fighter of the month guys? (what better way to convince women they want to buy an expensive muscle car )

 

[Missy]

Most plus sized models are size 6 - 14. I don't consider this size range to be fat or unhealthy. I think most plus sized runway and print models would likely fall within normal BMI range.

I just want to see images of health and diversity when I look at ads, commercials, magazines and fashion. Not repeated exposure to one extreme or another.

Exactly. Extremes in general are not desirable. Unless we are talking extremely large diamonds that is...

 

[ericad]

Here's something interesting I found with regards to diagnosis of anorexia as it relates to BMI (taken from a NY Times health guide pertaining to eating disorders):

"Measuring Body Mass Index

A doctor will evaluate a patient’s body mass index (BMI). The BMI is the measurement of body fat. It is derived by multiplying a person's weight in pounds by 703 and then dividing it twice by the height in inches. (BMI calculators are available online.)

A healthy BMI for women over age 20 is 19 - 25.
Those over 25 are considered overweight; those over 30 are considered obese.
Those under 17.5 are considered to be at risk for health problems related to anorexia. (However, young teenagers can have lower BMIs without necessarily being anorexic.)

For example, a woman who is 5'5" and weighs 125 pounds has a healthy BMI of 21. A woman at the same height who weighs 90 pounds would have a dangerously low BMI of 15."

Based on the above, it seems medical complications from being underweight would begin at a BMI of 17.5 for adult women.

I'm curious if setting a lower BMI threshold would appease more people than 18.5? I don't have an opinion about this, just thinking out loud...

Here's another one, taken from a Livestrong article, which applies even lower thresholds.

"Definition of Underweight by BMI

According to the World Health Organization, normal weight is considered to be a BMI of 18.5 to 24.99. A BMI of 17 to 18.49 is consider to be mild thinness, 16 to 16.99 is considered to be moderate thinness, and less than 16 is considered to be severe thinness. Because anorexia is defined as having a below normal body weight for height, a BMI below 18.5 would meet the criteria for anorexia.

Calculating Ideal Body Weight for Women

For females, ideal body weight is calculated as 100 lbs. plus 5 lbs. for every 1 inch over 5 feet tall. A female who is 5 feet, 1 inch tall would have an ideal body weight of 105 lbs. To meet the criteria for anorexia, she would need to be less than 89 lbs., which is less than 85 percent of her ideal body weight."

The problem with all of this, as many have pointed out, is that none of these statistics take into account bone mass, bone structure or muscle mass. It's very frustrating.

 

[iheartscience]

Interesting stuff from the WHO, erica-thanks for posting.

I actually would have less of a problem with a lower BMI threshold. I'm not a huge fan of using just one very imperfect measure as the end all be all, but I do recognize that there are models who are WAY TOO skinny, and there should be some sort of cut off.

That said, I don't think couture houses using less thin models is going to make much of a difference in the body images of young girls and teenagers. Most young girls and teenagers aren't avid followers of couture. My nieces are more into Miley Cyrus and Harry Potter than fashion. I think promoting diverse images of females in TV, movies, etc. would probably be more helpful. But that's pure conjecture on my part-I haven't done any research on this stuff!

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Are male models included in the "ban"? Is there "criteria" for the other gender in the same industry performing the same job?

What studies/evidence was used as criteria for creating the BMI 18.5 as the cut off number; and whats morewho "decided"?

Is anorexia/bulemia on the rise?

cheers--Sharon

P.S. Missy--thank you very much for providing the information/link. I have not read any of the studies included in the research synthesis, but observed that both genders were included in the population.

cheers--Sharon

 

[packrat]

We're so conditioned to look at numbers, the scale, BMI, clothing sizes etc, it flies in the face of all that's holy apparently to urge women to pay attention to the look of their bodies and encourage lean muscle mass instead of being thin but squishy. We'd rather women be thin in the context of no muscle tone and just fat on her body (skinny-fat) just as long as she fits into a size 2. I'd rather be a 6 and have nicely shaped muscles on my frame, but that's me. And so my BMI will always be higher. My brother is always in the obese range for his BMI--but he's got about 10 bodybuilding trophies and minimal fat on his body. From what I've seen, it's doubtful you'll find someone who is REALLY into health and fitness who tells you that BMI is the best thing ever-they'll tell you it's a tool that has it's uses and time and place, but that's probably it.