Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Most people don't have the activity level of someone in boot camp. BMI is one indicator, if you are outside of healthy range, it's an indication that more analysis is needed. Do you have an extremely small or large frame? Are you extremely muscular? Are other health indicators in a healthy range? Just one measurement but an easy one.

The vast majority of women are not capable of having enough muscle mass to through them into an unhealthy BMI while having a low body fat. If you are a women, not an elite athlete or body builder, and have a BMI over the healthy range, you are overweight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Most people don't have the activity level of someone in boot camp. BMI is one indicator, if you are outside of healthy range, it's an indication that more analysis is needed. Do you have an extremely small or large frame? Are you extremely muscular? Are other health indicators in a healthy range? Just one measurement but an easy one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

BS. Look at the trio behind the girls in red/black. A lot of women look like that. They are fat. Compare them to the average young woman in the 70s/80s. They look nothing alike. Even the slimmer girls in front are bigger than they used to be. How did "eating disorders" change that? Unless you think everyone looked really unhealthy decades ago. Eating disorders aren't playing tricks on our eyes, the women are bigger than they used to be decades ago. It's only the why that's up for debate. But part of it is people are eating a lot of unhealthy food in massive portions too frequently and not getting enough exercise, among other explanations.

No. It’s not fat. You are the disordered one in your perception.

Those women look way healthier than at Woodstock and are skinny.

you don't even know what the word skinny means or looks like.

Okay eating disorder poster, ... I'M the one that does not know what skinny mean.. it's not YOU. It could not be YOU. NEVER.

That is exactly the definition of eating disorder, looking at skinny and thinking fat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Most people don't have the activity level of someone in boot camp. BMI is one indicator, if you are outside of healthy range, it's an indication that more analysis is needed. Do you have an extremely small or large frame? Are you extremely muscular? Are other health indicators in a healthy range? Just one measurement but an easy one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

BS. Look at the trio behind the girls in red/black. A lot of women look like that. They are fat. Compare them to the average young woman in the 70s/80s. They look nothing alike. Even the slimmer girls in front are bigger than they used to be. How did "eating disorders" change that? Unless you think everyone looked really unhealthy decades ago. Eating disorders aren't playing tricks on our eyes, the women are bigger than they used to be decades ago. It's only the why that's up for debate. But part of it is people are eating a lot of unhealthy food in massive portions too frequently and not getting enough exercise, among other explanations.

No. It’s not fat. You are the disordered one in your perception.

Those women look way healthier than at Woodstock and are skinny.

you don't even know what the word skinny means or looks like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

BS. Look at the trio behind the girls in red/black. A lot of women look like that. They are fat. Compare them to the average young woman in the 70s/80s. They look nothing alike. Even the slimmer girls in front are bigger than they used to be. How did "eating disorders" change that? Unless you think everyone looked really unhealthy decades ago. Eating disorders aren't playing tricks on our eyes, the women are bigger than they used to be decades ago. It's only the why that's up for debate. But part of it is people are eating a lot of unhealthy food in massive portions too frequently and not getting enough exercise, among other explanations.

No. It’s not fat. You are the disordered one in your perception.

Those women look way healthier than at Woodstock and are skinny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fruit did not come in tubes. No lunchables.

No it came rolled up on saran wrap



We had PLENTY of junk food back then, I promise you. This was not some agrarian paradise. Our food was chock full of chemicals.

I’m 42 and we totally had lunchables in the 80’s. Also, bologna/American was a popular sandwich. Usually with a side of Doritos. And like a PP mentioned it was all in the those plastic sandwich baggies that folded instead of zipped because the zipper ones were way too expensive!

I’m 46, co-sign everything above. My mom wouldn’t buy Lunchables because she said they were overpriced and full of sodium. But she did buy Cokes (I’m sure I had a 16 oz glass bottle — remember those?! — nearly every day), and Hostess snack cakes, and Better Cheddars, and sugary granola bars, and all sorts of junk.

And like a PP in this thread described, “salad” was a big hunk of iceberg with dressing. Maybe some tomatoes and carrots.

Oh, and we ate at McDonald’s at least once a week.

I’m the same height as I was in my early teens (my growth spurt was early). Back then, I weighed about 15 pounds less. Sigh. Now it’s a constant struggle and takes vigilance not to put on any more pounds.

Anonymous wrote:My Mom was a health nut and worked out in President Lady's Fitness in those thong over leggings outfits. I spent my evenings in the child care area of the gym and then worked there as a teen. She also did speed and ran in those solar suits with her stick figure girlfriends. She was obsessed with being 102 pounds. My Dad played on adult tennis and golf leagues and stated fit that way. As a child, I was very thin, active and only knew 1 fat child in our school. Now, everyone notices if you are thin.