Shockingly underweight model in TV ad

[IdaPrentice]

Has anyone seen the TV ad for Dylon (of all things)? - it features two female models, the first (with afro hair) is wearing a loose top / pant suit so it's hard to tell, but seems pretty thin, but the second, wearing red, is so so thin. Her arms just go in a straight line, no curve of any kind of muscle, she's bordering on skeletal, her face looks gaunt too.

I just saw the ad for the second time - by coincidence I'd just read an article (think it was on BBC news website) about how fashion houses have moved away from 'body positivity' and plus size models, and thin is back. The theory is this is partially influenced by all the Hollywood stars on Ozempic.

This is so unhealthy to put on TV as the kind of female beauty that everyone should aspire to. I really thought we'd moved past it now. Depressing.

I was that size in my 20s and early 30s. I ate 3 meals a day plus snacks. I am nearly 5'8. Asian. Everyone in my family is this way.

Anyway, I think this is a bizarre obsession stalking models on Insta.

I think the Snag models are deeply unhealthy but I am not stalking them. Aren't they aspirational with the rise in body positivity?

its like one person said they thought it was her, which it isn’t and folks keep jumping on it. It is an actress. Her name is Bethany slater. It is not in doubt . Good grief.it is not a model full stop.

Snag do not use models. They get users to send in photos of themselves. They are not aspirational. The whole point is tights that fit even if you are fat, have large hips or a large bum and small waist.

Those posters talking about their 10/11 year old children having 23/24 inch waist, as if women can't or shouldn't have that size waist, need to remember about women's vanity sizing.

As a young woman 40 years ago I was slim but not underweight and a size 10, with 32" bust and 24" waist. I have a skirt from M&S from probably about 25 years ago when they were still putting measurements on their clothes labels( can you imagine that now), which states size 12, waist 26". Size 10 was 24" waist. It was almost impossible to find size 8 in shops and size 6 didn't exist.

This was in the 1980s so not post war or lack of food or whatever other reasons people these days throw around to explain why people used to be thinner. I have my own suggestions for that, people never used to snack unless perhaps an occasional apple or a plain biscuit, usually just 3 meals a day, and that included children; people were more generally active and children always played outside much more; very limited fast food and ready meals available; in general, society expected people to be a normal weight, doctors and nurses could point out in no uncertain terms that someone needed to lose weight.

a 10/11 year old girl could well be on the cusp of puberty but not got feminine hips and waist. It's not that strange for their waist to be the same size as a slim adult woman. It's not common, but it's not outrageous or screams of 'gaunt, unhealthy woman'.

@denhaag yes but what I’m saying is that if 6 stone can mean a 26 inch waist, I don’t buy that a 5ft 10 woman can have a 24 inch waist without being around the 8 stone mark especially as she doesn’t appear to be carrying much in the bum or breast area. Regardless of her measurements you can see by eye that she’s not 9st anything which is what she would need to be to be a medically healthy weight

I know, body positivity is not I repeat not for thin people!!! But seriously it's exactly that isn't it, it's bloody bizarre.

At 19 I weighed around 7 1/2 stone and had a 23 inch waist (I'm 5' 4"); I never had a waist as big as 26 inches until I was in my thirties and had had 2 children (though was only a few pounds heavier). There will be other children the same height and weight as yours who have smaller waists than her, and possibly some who have bigger, because people have different shapes.

@Melancholyflower that’s not even the issue though is it? The op has suggested the model is underweight and people are arguing with her. There’s no way this woman is 9st plus

@Pyjamatimenow

This obsession with another person's weight is bizarre.

You say "Regardless of her measurements you can see by eye that she’s not 9st anything which is what she would need to be to be a medically healthy weight". I'm assuming by "medically healthy" you mean fitting into the BMI band. It's increasingly accepted that BMI is a poor measurement of health. It doesn't differentiate between fat and muscle and doesn't take enough account of body shape.

That model looks perfectly healthy. I can only assume that people are trying to make themselves feel better about their own body shape by trying to convince themselves that a naturally slim, toned woman is "unhealthy".

That isnt her, I dont know why people keep linking the wrong person

its this girl and she even references it in her description as 'twirling'

https://www.instagram.com/bethanylouiseslater/?igsh=MXAxeTFjM3k1a2pvag%3D%3D#

I agree. I think I've already said that this model is very likely underweight; that this is nothing new. We do need to continue to discuss why this is regarded as aspirational.
This discussion is different to why designers choose tall and slim models. I'm sure their clothes would look just as lovely/eye catching on a model who is tall and slim yet not underweight.

I don't think she is "shockingly underweight" as per the title.

This. Apparently 64% of the population are overweight (29% of those obese).

Ugh I don’t know why I get sucked into these threads because every time I am infuriated by everyone who likes to blast how everyone is soooo fat now without acknowledging (or even agreeing) that historically beauty standards and diet culture have also been fucking toxic.

I was just responding to your comments about a child having a 26 inch waist at 6 stone, so there was no way a grown woman could have a smaller waist and not be seriously underweight.

Regarding the model being underweight, we don't know if she is, maybe she is slightly , but she's not necessarily unhealthy if that is her natural body shape.
The problem on threads like this is some people will suggest anyone who is very slim must be starving themselves, rather than thinking that's just the way they are.
Another thing that irritates me is if the healthy weight range for a height is e.g. 7 stone 12 to 10 stone 5, it just means the healthy weight for any individual is within that range, not that as long as you are below the top weight you're not overweight. People will often suggest that they would look gaunt etc. at the bottom of the range, but don't agree that a lot of people would be fat at the top end of the range. I know at 5' 4" I would be fat/overweight for me at 10 stone, even though technically I'd still be within the healthy weight range.

She looks like a healthy young woman. I looked like that when I was in my early 20s, ate like a horse.

www.instagram.com/p/DAB2P3tII7s/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Well if that's the woman in the ad she certainly looks perfectly healthy to me.

It's not her .

Dang - they do look very similar.
I've been trying to find an image of Dylon model with her mouth open as Bethany Slater has an obvious gap between her 2 front teeth.

I found this https://www.dylon.co.uk/detergents/discover-dylon-detergent/our-brand-purpose.html (scroll down) which shows her smile, and no gap.

I've been overweight and I've been a normal weight, I've gone repeatedly between being both states a number of times since I was of an age when it was easy to be naturally thin. I'm of an age now to know exactly what causes it me to become overweight. You don't have to diet in order to get to a healthy weight, you just have to act in a way our bodies are designed to work. When I want to lose weight (and I mean 8-10kgs, so we aren't talking just a little bit). I go back to the way our bodies are designed to work, it really is that simple.

(1) I eat when my mind tells me "yes, now you come to mention it I am hungry". I don't wait until I'm faint with hunger.

(2) Eat a normal balanced diet. I eat very slowly, sitting down with a knife and fork. I put them down in between mouthfuls. I chew and conciously savour the flavour. I take time to think... hey I'm eating food. When I've finished my mouthful, I don't immediately rush the next one into my mouth like I'm just a machine for turning food into waste. I consciously register that I'm eating. The brain takes at least 20 minutes to register that it's eaten. I eat very slowly, enjoying the texture and flavour.

(3) The very minute I stop feeling hunger and the body has just moved into a neutral feeling of being satisfied, neither hungry or slightly full, just neutral, I put down my knife and fork and stop. If there is something on my plate, I don't finish it, I leave it (you will get used to what a normal portion size is). This is the hard part as we are so used to eating much larger portions than we would have been served 50 years ago. For reference, go and look at the growth in portion size over the last 50 years. The change in the size of dinner plates is a bit of a giveaway, they have gone from 8"-9" in 1960 to 11"-12" by 2010 (that's twice as large in surface area).

(4) Stick to meal times, don't graze. Also, alcohol consumption had gone through the roof in the last 60 years, this is laden with calories.

(5) Move more, e.g. walk. Not only is this good for you but it builds muscle. Even resting muscle burns energy in a way that fat doesn't.

I guarantee you will lose weight. No need to count calories just keep to this behaviour which was normal behaviour back in '60s and '70s and why most people looked different back then. You didn't eat in the street or graze on the go, there weren't opportunities to buy snacks at every turn of the head. The portions were much smaller. If we all did this, more of us would look like we did as a nation back in the '60s and '70s.

I have a 20 year old daughter who is just marginally below the healthy body fat range for a female of her age. That model is way thinner. She is skeletal and has no muscle.

I guarantee you will lose weight. No need to count calories just keep to this behaviour which was normal behaviour back in '60s and '70s and why most people looked different back then. You didn't eat in the street or graze on the go, there weren't opportunities to buy snacks at every turn of the head. The portions were much smaller. If we all did this, more of us would look like we did as a nation back in the '60s and '70s.

I don't think anyone here is looking for diet tips.

Come on no-one has a shoulder like that! It doesn't attach to her back!
Photoshopped to f**k!

Many don't recognise what is a normal size anymore. It doesn't help because our perception of what passes for normal is constantly undermined by interested parties such as the food and drinks industry who have a vested interest in selling more.