This is for the one Facebook friend who said she'd never read my blog because, no matter what she does, she'll always be perceived as "the fat lady."
Me, too.
I've lost 120 pounds, and sort of would like to drop another 10, though I won't sweat it if I succeed only in maintaining my current weight.
Like you, like millions of others, my weight is "off the charts" and always will be.
In my senior year in high school -- the first time our family doctor suggested I should try dieting or Weight Watchers -- I weighed five pounds more than the amount on the actuarial charts for my height. The rule for women, at that time, was "100 pounds at 5 feet tall and an additional 5 pounds for every inch over 5 feet."
My current weight is not anywhere near as low as the number my doctor saw when I stepped on the scale 42 years ago. It never will be.
Of course, the doctor added, the right weight is "what's right for you." That was the first thing he got right during that miserable appointment.
None of the modern measures of ideal body weight -- actuarial tables, BMI, etc. -- fully account for the wide variety of ways that HEALTHY people are built. Especially women. With the standards for height, weight, breast size (large) and butt size (like a 10-year-old boy's) set for film stars, pageant contestants and models, it's no wonder that nearly every "real" woman hates her body, or at least hates some aspect of it.
What's more: strangers seem to think they have a right to comment on a woman's body size and shape. Not just male strangers, the stereotypical cat-calling construction workers, but also catty, judgmental females.
And doctors -- especially the ones who try to push bariatric surgery on patients (male and female) whose weight is even slightly off the actuarial charts.
Here's a thought: Maybe it's time to rethink the charts.
Like all species, Homo sapiens evolves. At Des Moines' Salisbury House (every kid who went to school in Des Moines has toured it at least once), there's an actual medieval suit of armor on display. It was worn by a man who, centuries ago, was considered a prime physical specimen -- a man not much taller than 5 feet, or about the size of a modern pre-pubescent boy.
Maybe we need to revise the standards to reflect the reality that our species, as a whole, has gotten larger over time. We can still acknowledge the dangers of carrying excess weight and living on foods that provide more ballast than fuel, but we can also normalize the reality, that most people are "off the charts," and most of them are healthy, strong and destined to live a long life.
I'd like to hear some feedback on whether, scientifically speaking, I might be on the right track.
In fact, I'd like to hear any feedback at all.
My Facebook friends know where to find me. I'd like to hear from you -- especially the one who inspired this post.
Me, too.
I've lost 120 pounds, and sort of would like to drop another 10, though I won't sweat it if I succeed only in maintaining my current weight.
Like you, like millions of others, my weight is "off the charts" and always will be.
In my senior year in high school -- the first time our family doctor suggested I should try dieting or Weight Watchers -- I weighed five pounds more than the amount on the actuarial charts for my height. The rule for women, at that time, was "100 pounds at 5 feet tall and an additional 5 pounds for every inch over 5 feet."
My current weight is not anywhere near as low as the number my doctor saw when I stepped on the scale 42 years ago. It never will be.
Of course, the doctor added, the right weight is "what's right for you." That was the first thing he got right during that miserable appointment.
None of the modern measures of ideal body weight -- actuarial tables, BMI, etc. -- fully account for the wide variety of ways that HEALTHY people are built. Especially women. With the standards for height, weight, breast size (large) and butt size (like a 10-year-old boy's) set for film stars, pageant contestants and models, it's no wonder that nearly every "real" woman hates her body, or at least hates some aspect of it.
What's more: strangers seem to think they have a right to comment on a woman's body size and shape. Not just male strangers, the stereotypical cat-calling construction workers, but also catty, judgmental females.
And doctors -- especially the ones who try to push bariatric surgery on patients (male and female) whose weight is even slightly off the actuarial charts.
Here's a thought: Maybe it's time to rethink the charts.
Like all species, Homo sapiens evolves. At Des Moines' Salisbury House (every kid who went to school in Des Moines has toured it at least once), there's an actual medieval suit of armor on display. It was worn by a man who, centuries ago, was considered a prime physical specimen -- a man not much taller than 5 feet, or about the size of a modern pre-pubescent boy.
Maybe we need to revise the standards to reflect the reality that our species, as a whole, has gotten larger over time. We can still acknowledge the dangers of carrying excess weight and living on foods that provide more ballast than fuel, but we can also normalize the reality, that most people are "off the charts," and most of them are healthy, strong and destined to live a long life.
I'd like to hear some feedback on whether, scientifically speaking, I might be on the right track.
In fact, I'd like to hear any feedback at all.
My Facebook friends know where to find me. I'd like to hear from you -- especially the one who inspired this post.
Comments
Post a Comment