Historic Ideals of Beauty and Weight

[Ottakee]

Slightly off but my 22 year old son borders on the "obsese" category for his height on some charts. He is 5'2" and about 155 pounds. He though is SOLID muscle. He has a 29 inch waist with not a bit of flab on him anywhere. I think a lot has to do with your bone structure and muscle mass than just your height and weight.

[elise1mds]

The "rule of thumb" I was told by my doctor at one point for figuring out a woman's ideal weight to add 5 lbs. to 100 for every inch of height over 5'.

 

I like that! It's about right, too. I'm somewhere between 5'8" and 5'9" depending on my mood and self-esteem, and I really really want to weigh between 140-145, which means I have some work to do. I was 125-130 in high school and was borderline anorexic. I've never had a waist; I've always been a complete box. I'll have to keep this one in mind over the next few weeks!

[misidawnrn]

So I guess I will just consider myself Rubenesque and a work of art.

me too! My thigh is more like 32"...does that count?:lol:

[DawnM]

Yikes, that means I need to weigh 95 pounds.

:tongue_smilie:

 

Not happening.

 

Dawn

 

 

The "rule of thumb" I was told by my doctor at one point for figuring out a woman's ideal weight to add 5 lbs. to 100 for every inch of height over 5'. So 5' 2.5" would be 112.5. I'm 5' 2.5" and look my best around that weight. Any skinnier than about 110 and I start to look bony. Any heavier than about 115, and I start getting saddlebags and/or love handles :glare:

 

A weight of 112.5 at 5' 2.5" is a BMI of 20.2, which is healthy. :)

[JennyD]

We were watching Karate Kid (the old one) with the kids today and I noticed that the "cool" teenaged girls were rounder than you'd see on a current movie. They look like normal cute girls instead of waifs. The standard today (even just a short 20 years later) is scary.

 

I re-watched that movie a couple of years ago and was struck by the exact same thing. Amazing how things have changed.

 

That 'rule of thumb' works well for me, too. I'm 5'6.5" and 133 is just about perfect for me, even though I'm quite muscular. At 4mos pp I'm nowhere near that, alas.

 

I do fear that I may be rapidly approaching that age at which one has to choose between the face and the rear, though.

[Catwoman]

No kidding! Esp. 1961, Debbie Drake's chart. A 21-23" waist??? My ds7 has a 20.5" waist, and he's at the 0.07% mark on his weight chart at the doc's (58% in height). Ummm... I don't think I need a waist the size of a thin seven year old! :blink:

 

I suspect they were either lying about it just as people do today or they were using some sort of corset to get that waist measurement.

 

I'm a little over 5'5" and my waist has never been larger than 23", except when I was pg with ds. I'm small-boned, so a 21" waist looks normal on me.It was smaller than that when I was younger and thinner and doing a lot of modeling. (Don't ask me what size my wrists are... ;))

 

I think it all depends on your body type. If I gain 5 pounds, you can notice it, but other people can gain twice that much and no one can tell.

 

Cat

Edited December 20, 2010 by Catwoman

[Catwoman]

In addition to overall size, I think waist size has a lot to do with the individual size and shape of the ribs and pelvis. Do you have any vertical distance between your ribs and pervis bones? I don't. There's no where for a waist to be. MIL had a 19" waist at age 18. In addition to being overall slim, she has at least 3" between the top of her pelvis and the bottom of her ribs.

 

I think that's absolutely true. The women in my family are all built that way, and we all have tiny waists, even if we gain weight. None of us seem to ever gain weight in our stomach area.

 

Cat

[Catwoman]

The "rule of thumb" I was told by my doctor at one point for figuring out a woman's ideal weight to add 5 lbs. to 100 for every inch of height over 5'.

 

I think that rule works when you're of average build, but in my case, I "should" weigh between 125 and 130, and if I weighed anywhere near that, I would look chubby.

 

Cat

[justamouse]

I's so subjective. My friend is 5'7" and is big boned. I'm not saying that as a polite way of saying heavy--I mean, her ankles and wrists are big. She is always comparing herself to models and wanting to lose a very dangerous amount of weight. She would look skinny-for her-at 140-150.

 

I'm 5'5" and bird boned. (Thanks to my itty bitty Irish Nana). My wrists and ankles are tiny and I don't carry extra weight well at all. I also think that baby having changes our bodies-where I needed 10 pounds more to look OK, that 10 pounds before would have made me look chubby.

Edited December 20, 2010 by justamouse

[Medieval Mom]

The "rule of thumb" I was told by my doctor at one point for figuring out a woman's ideal weight to add 5 lbs. to 100 for every inch of height over 5'. So 5' 2.5" would be 112.5. I'm 5' 2.5" and look my best around that weight. Any skinnier than about 110 and I start to look bony. Any heavier than about 115, and I start getting saddlebags and/or love handles :glare:

 

A weight of 112.5 at 5' 2.5" is a BMI of 20.2, which is healthy. :)

 

Those measurements must mean without muscle. I am 4'11" and bounce from 110-115 and while not perfect, I really *can't* get much smaller. 95lbs? Only if I want to be skin and bone.

 

Yikes, that means I need to weigh 95 pounds.

:tongue_smilie:

 

Not happening.

 

Dawn

 

 

My dad, a physician, HATES that formula. (The "Devine" formula.) He says it's skewed, and inappropriate at both ends of the height spectrum. It may work well for some people, but isn't, in his opinion, the "ideal". Apparently, it is now considered out of date.

 

ETA: Oh! See this website. It states:

 

As descibed above, the Devine IBW formula suggests ideal body weight values that are too low in women generally and impossibly low in short women. Since the Devine formula is used by hundreds (perhaps thousands) of websites to suggest goals for weight loss, it is important to point out its limitations.

[Medieval Mom]

Here's an "Ideal" Weight Calculator, for discussion. Interesting. ;)

 

Frankly, I think I'll start with a goal of the late 19th century-1915 range. 1) I'm "almost" there already. It's good to take small steps, right? 2) Small weight loss results in quite a change in my shape, since I'm *not tall* ;) 3) I have an easy time maintaining that weight (around 120 lbs.) and 4) I've been there before; it's my normal "set point"; so, I know I feel energetic and healthy at that weight, neither too slim nor too pudgy. 5) Lastly, once I get there, I can decide whether it's worth it to me to try to reduce further. I have a feeling, however, that I won't. :) Like a PP stated, I have fair skin, rosy cheeks, waist length hair-- the era suits me. Maybe the John William Waterhouse beauties will be my inspiration. This one looks JUST like my mother as a young woman. Uncanny!

 

 

Edited December 20, 2010 by Medieval Mom

[Crimson Wife]

As descibed above, the Devine IBW formula suggests ideal body weight values that are too low in women generally and impossibly low in short women. Since the Devine formula is used by hundreds (perhaps thousands) of websites to suggest goals for weight loss, it is important to point out its limitations.

 

I agree with the "not valid for really short women" but why would a BMI of ~20.8 be "too low"? The healthy range is 18.5 to 23.0 so 20.8 would be almost the exact mid-point of that range.

 

Certainly, for some women, the "ideal" weight would translate to a BMI higher than 20.8. But for others, their "ideal" weight would presumably translate to a lower BMI. Wouldn't there presumably be as many of the latter as of the former?

[Medieval Mom]

 

I agree with the "not valid for really short women" but why would a BMI of ~20.8 be "too low"? The healthy range is 18.5 to 23.0 so 20.8 would be almost the exact mid-point of that range.

 

Certainly, for some women, the "ideal" weight would translate to a BMI higher than 20.8. But for others, their "ideal" weight would presumably translate to a lower BMI. Wouldn't there presumably be as many of the latter as of the former?

 

Perhaps they don't consider 5'2.5" short, but are referring to the under 5' set. :D I haven't worked the numbers. Of course, BMI is just another calculation. ;) According to the BMI, my dh and dc are extremely underweight. But they are perfectly healthy, naturally slim boys, not underweight at all for their bodies.

 

Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that 112.5 in inappropriate for 5'2.5". You stated yourself that you feel it is ideal for you! :) Perhaps it would be ideal for me, too. I've often wondered about it. When I told my doc several years ago that 112 was my weight goal, she vehemently stated that it would be too thin *for me*. Is it? I don't know, since I can't remember that last time I was that weight. Should I try being 112, to see if it is ideal for me? I honestly don't know. I imagine I'll find my own ideal as I appoach it. :) Right now, though, the 1907 ideal sounds fine to me :)

 

Thank goodness we're not all the same! How boring that would be, indeed!

Edited December 20, 2010 by Medieval Mom

[Ibbygirl]

This one looks JUST like my mother as a young woman. Uncanny!

 

 

 

Your mom must have been very beautiful indeed. That is a lovely painting. :)

[Medieval Mom]

Your mom must have been very beautiful indeed. That is a lovely painting. :)

 

Thanks. I think so, too. :)

[Ibbygirl]

Thanks. I think so, too. :)

 

:)

[LisaKinVA]

BMI calculations *do not work* for my body/size/type.

 

I'm only 5'5" (technically a smidge under 5'5"), but at 140#, my BMI is at the "high end" of acceptable.

 

When I weigh 140# I am roughly 20% body fat... which is on the low-end for women. At 130# My body fat drops into the "unhealthy" range for sustained time -- I will stop menstruating. I can't get pregnant. I don't have enough "fat" to be considered a "healthy" woman. FWIW, at 140#, my best friend thought I was anorexic (I was 26 -- not a teen).

 

To put this into a different perspective... I got my first stretch marks in the 9th grade... from running track (hurdles). I put on muscle quickly and it stretched my skin. I was so *not* fat.

 

I have always looked more "stocky" -- I have very broad shoulders, a very long torso... making average pants about 1" too long and petite pants 1" or so too short. Think the "inverted triangle" type -- except my waist is smaller than my hips, by about 10."

 

So, put me in the category of *hating* BMI charts. They may be fine for a "rule of thumb" -- but unless your dtr./health care person takes other factors into accounts. If they are just looking at some *&!$@ chart, they are going to say I'm fat.

[Paige]

BMI charts don't work for me either- none of them. They say I need to weigh 10-50lbs more than I ever have. I think they are junk. They don't work for my kids either. My youngest should be in the hospital being treated for malnutrition based on her stats- I've seen much bigger children being prescribed appetite stimulants! But my kid, at the same or less weight for height, looks healthy. She had baby fat rolls when the other kids her size looked scary. I think most people or physicians at least should be able to look at someone, look at their fat and muscle distribution, and know if someone is at a healthy or unhealthy weight. My DH, on the other hand, could stand to lose some pounds. The BMI charts say he's at the high end of ok. Yeah, sure...now he has an excuse to disregard what his mirror and pants tell him.