face or body - which goes first?(28 Posts)
There's an old saying that you can't preserve your face and your body as you age. Keep slim and your face goes; carry a few extra pounds and your face looks smoother but your bum doesn't. Which would you try to keep looking
Depends on how 'slim' you mean! Staying at the lower end of healthy (i.e BMI of 19) probably will leave you looking slightly more gaunt around the face than the upper end - but not always. Skin type, how much abuse your skin has had and genetics will all play a part.
Carrying weight is aging as people look at your 'outline' and associate it with an age (i.e a thicker waist has been shown in loads of studies to be associated with an 'older' body type by people.)
I would have thought staying at a healthy weight and looking after your skin is the ideal. Size 10 and the odd spot of botox perhaps....rather than size 6 and a full face lift/fillers?!
I was always a size 6 and then put on a bit of weight around the menopause. I am now a size 8-10 and I do think a bit of extra weight around the face makes me look younger as it sort of irons out fine lines. I did initially try the Atkins diet to get back to my former size but it made me very cross and I was frowning so much that I reckoned it was giving me extra wrinkles so I gave in to my new size.
I looked awful 4 stone overweight - old and mumsy. I don't look haggard now that I'm slim, and I am 43. If anything I've been told I look younger now
Botox/fillers. Etc help see certain 50+ singer with amazing body but what if you don't want to use anything mpre than creams etc on face and body?
hmc I'm the same age as you and have recently lost 1 1/2 stone (needed to!)and this has prompted some to say - don't lose any more it will effect how you look... I don't think it has and I do invest in good quality skincare to preserve what I have. I doubt I would make similiar investment in my body and wonder whether in the future I will accept the body can go if the face looks ok?
By the time you are in your 50s this is true. I met up with some old classmates at the funeral of the first of us to die a couple of weeks ago.
5 of us together for the first time in ages. The two of us that are a little over-weight have very good skin, and look glowing ( maybe that is partly ecause I'm on HRT and the other friend has just got a new lover!) But neither of us are anywhere near happy with our bodies. The two that are super skinny super fits - one cycles 80 miles at a time- quite frankly looked about 10 years old than they are in the face but looked great in their clothes. The fifth? well she is super skinny and has had a face lift and lots of botox and fillers. She looks pretty good but slightly wierd. I'm 5'3" and sadly look at my best all round at just under 10 stone. I feel absoloutely wonderful if I go to just under 9st, and can wear size 8s but people keep saying I look ill when I'm that size. You can't win.
I'm 44 and lost a stone and a half last year. I am now a size 10 with a flat stomach, which is fab, but I have lost count of the comments from people "don't lose any more" "you look gaunt" and so on.
I think it is true I haven't done my bony face any favours losing weight, but I feel so much healthier, happier and more confident, and I'm reluctant to pile on the pounds again (because it will go back on my midriff). Maybe in a few years I'll succumb to the bulge, but right now I'm enjoying wearing clothes I couldn't wear before.
I agree Cointreau I'm finally back in pre-children clothes (my youngest is 3) and feel much more confident. I am slightly paranoid about checking for wrinkles now and have just invested in a new anti wrinkle set of skin care to help offset the impact of the weight loss.
it's rubbish spouted by people who want an excuse to stay fat.
My BMI is 19.2, I am 55 and my face is fine- people think I am early 40s.
But then I always had quite a fat face anyway!
It's a case of extremes. I weigh just under 8 st but am still well covered. If I lost a stone thenyes I wouldlook awful. But if I put on a stone my face would look bloated.
I also think- and this is not being bitchy- that people who need to lose some weight underestimate how ageing it is to have a fat face- and maybe are not even aware that their faces show their weight just like the rest of their body!
Ps- it also depends hugely on your face shape. I have quite a suare face with wide cheeks- I don't have any of those nose to mouth folds, which some people have even in their 30s. This is nothing to do with weight- just genes!
If you have a long face and high cheek bones, I have read that your face can droop more quickly than people with wider flatter faces.
There is nothing more ageing though IMO than a face with fat jowls, and a neck that is like a series of spare tyres due to being fat.
i am still happy with my body but my face is starting to look tired. . Of course, I am tired, which may be a contributing factor.
Those nose to mouth folds......check
<reaches for the cream cakes>
Anyone see the photos in the paper of ulrika Johnson?
She looks in her 70s.
I feel sorry for Ulrika the press seem to love sharing her misfortune! She is pulling a silly face in these photos; I saw her on shooting stars earlier this week and she looks great!
I agree re flabby jowls being aging. Are these weight related or gravity/aging related. I guess a lot of it is genetics. My mum and gran look amazing for their age and I have good skin with minimum signs of aging (just starting to get fine lines at the corner of my eyes) and have always been secretly proud of my skin hence my initial question about body v face!
I guess it is important to keep healthy; maintain a good diet and moderate exercise (no running bad for face?)!
OP I alos think that skin stretching has a lot to do with it- you know, when you lose wreight from your body- LOTS of weight ( stones) then you are likely to be left with loose skin. The same applies to your face- the skin has stretched in the first place to cover the fat, so when the fat goes you are left with loose skin.
This is always more obvious in people who have lost lots of weight, whereas if you are talking hlaf a stone or a bit more, then it won't be obvious.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules- I've seen a few women in their 50s and 60s who are a tiny size 6-8 and they look gaunt, and half a stone more would make a huge difference. But then there are other women who are two stones overwight and their faces look bloated. It's finding a balance, surely?
If you are plump and then lose a lot of weight, you will sag. I was rather fat for a period in my late teens and early 20s but then lost it all. I had a particularly fat neck at one stage, which means that now (mid 40s and size 12) I have a neck like a wilted stick of celery. Damn. Still, I'd rather have a withered neck than be a porker again. Also my mother and her mother looked like sharpeis by their early 60s, so there is no hope for me. <resigned>
Bit of both in my case at just over 40. Everything just looks less taut. I've got a few facial wrinkles & frown lines & my body just seems more loosely wobbly. Its not that I've got fatter, I'm still a size 14, but more that the fat is less tightly held. Not sure if that makes sense.
There is quite a noticable difference with my friends between the very thin and the more covered ( none of us is fat) The two wrinkliest and thinnest both spend a lot of time outside and I'm sure that part of the problem is exposure to the sun over the years - one was brought up in a hot country and both are into sailing and cycling, one works as a gardener. People like Amelia are very lucky, and I agree no one wants fatty jowls, but there is something about the quality of the skin that is better with my plumper friends, I wonder if it is oestrogen related?
higgle I don't know if it is luck- sure, my bone structure is inherited, but I have also worn spf 25 or 40 on my face 365 days a year for the past 20 years. I've worn foundation since i was 14 as I am deathly pale, and I do really take care of my skin, and diet especially.
I think generally fat/plump people have fewer wrinkles, as the fat plumps up their faces, but it doesn't mean they look young, either.
I think if you are underweight it shows on your face- but if you maintain a healthy weight above BMI 18.5 ( and the top range is 25 so they say ideally you should be at the lower range) then you are okay.
Agree it's about finding a balance. In fact I think you can tell whether someone is the right weight by their faces. Ideally faces shouldn't look bloated any more than they should look gaunt... Some of my larger boned friends have 'normal', i.e. un-puffy, bloated, slim faces where you can see their bone structure. This indicates that they are the 'right' weight, even if it is on the normal - overweight bmi scale. I also have a couple of friends - one in particular - who has lost too much weight lately and now just looks haggard and old.
I am in the normal, tipping into underweight category, I have a small frame. When I weighed a stone or two more after my last pg my face looked bloated and I had no cheekbones. However if I were to lose half a stone from my 'normal' weight I look really gaunt and skeletal. Not good.
bugsy2, i love the expression "the fat is less tightly held!" Having lost some weight, I don't have loose skin (Phew!) but think this perfectly describes my body! I thought I was just morphing into my mum who is a slim size 12 (5' 7") but whose fat is "less tightly held".
Join the discussion
Please login first.