To feel depressed by this DM article re size 16

[Rachtoteach]

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2342207/Is-size-16-normal--danger-These-women-Britains-common-dress-size-youd-expect-healthy-battery-medical-tests-came-surprising-worrying-results.html

After 37 years on this planet I have finally developed something I wish more women could have - an acceptance of who I am and the ability of being happy in my own body..... even though - shock, horror - I am 5ft2, size 16, 11 something stone. Anyway, I don't cry in the changing rooms anymore . I exercise 3 x week, eat a balanced-ish diet, don't smoke, blah blah blah.

It just makes me sad and mad that the DM have taken 4 size 16 women who each turn out to have some health issues, and declare (effectively) all us size 16 women a picture of ill-health! On the results of four women?!! And implying, or least leaving the reader with the impression, that any other (smaller sized) women would conversely be in tip-top health - all of them, simply based on their size!

AIBU to think that there must be some healthy size 16 women out there and probably some not so healthy smaller women? If I am BU then I may as well give up now as I know I am unlikely to ever be much smaller than I am now.

The Daily Mail enjoys telling women what to do. I am depressed that there are 10 pages of this thread discussing their irritating article and that I have just felt irritated enough to add to it.

Looking at the bigger picture, they wouldn't get four men to do this, because they just wouldn't. Far too many women are still very insecure about this stuff and willing to be lectured at. As someone said upthread, if they were encouraging men, women and children to lose weight and be healthy, it would be a different story.

They are not. They are telling women how self indulgent and unhealthy they are and using scare tactics. It's all about control dressed up as concern.

two of the women weighed over 13 stone.

it cannot be surprising they are unhealthy - unless we have completely forgotten what healthy actually looks like.

I'm sure they could find 4 people of any size/shape & find some health risk for them. Yes, being overweight isn't healthy but nor is smoking, drinking too much, taking drugs. Some people have a genetic higher risk to some diseases, but I don't see the DM doing an article on this.

I dunno, maybe its the obesity crisis and how unhealthy the average women's weight is why the DM has run the story..... even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice as day.

I've only read 6 pages of the 10 on this debate and I've given up!

I read the article and it made me feel shit! I've lost 91/2stone in just over 2 years coming down from a size 24 at the top 26 at the bottom to be now a size 14 at the top & 16 at the bottom. My confidence was fairly high and I was feeling pretty good about how I looked. But not any more. Why did I bother? I've come down from just under 23 stone to just over 13 1/2 stone. My confidence in my looks and health has not only been shattered by the DM but also by MNers on this debate.

I go to the gym 3-4 times a week, with 2 of those sessions being with a Trainer. I work bloody hard doing cardio & weights. Yes, I know I'm not the body beautiful and I know I'm not quite 'done' yet but to pull apart people who do work hard seems so wrong.

I have a rare fat disorder called lipo-lymphedema which means I put rogue fat cells on that can never be dieted or exercised away. Two years ago I was diagnosed by Prof Mortimer who told me not to lose too much weight as I would look out of proportion (the weight goes on the bum down to ankles). I went to see a specialist surgeon in Germany in January who is going to suck some of this fat away by a specialist procedure and he described me as having a fairly 'slim figure'. These are medical people, not random people off the street.

I have a lowish blood pressure,& whilst not being a very good runner I did 10k last Christmas and I recently 'rowed' 10k in the gym in 45 mins. I do consider myself fit & healthy in a size 14/16.

^ when I say lowish, I mean lower than normal btw

Unless you're very tall a size 16 is massive, at 5"2 you're almost as round as you are tall, there's no way it's healthy. Exercising three times a week is obviously not enough to burn what you're putting into your body.

yabu to expect the media to pretend that an extra few stone of flab is perfectly healthy despite the fact that medical evidence proves otherwise. There's nothing wrong with being fat if you are happy that way and enjoy your lifestyle but don't expect the media, medical profession or others to pretend you're not fat and that carrying extra (non muscle) weight doesn't have an effect on the body. It does.

I hate how we are now normalizing being overweight.

Even for school children it is easier now to get so called sturdy or plus size fit school trousers than trousers for a child who is a more heathy size. And they start from aged 3 for gods sake. If a child is overweight at 3 then what chance has he to ever be a heathy weight as an adult.

I read the article and it seemed fairly well balanced. No point in shooting the messenger - size 16 is for, most women, a sign they are too heavy for optimum health.

Butternut, you have done amazingly well, please hold your head up high.You should feel proud of what you have achieved.
The DM and other Mners it would appear, delight in making women feel shit about themselves.
Not many of the people on this thread coild achieve what you have

Butternut
What you have done is amazing. You should hold your head up and be really proud.

Don't forget that this thread is generalisations and not a commentary on you as an individual.

I am size 16 and dont think of myself as healthy - I am on medication for high blood pressure HOWEVER I was also on that as an 18 year old size 12. My cholesterol is fine apparently.

I would be happier smaller though which is the main thing for me.

The DM and other Mners it would appear, delight in making women feel shit about themselves.

I don't think that's the point here though. What we're trying to say is that it is very worrying that so many people now think that what is essentially a large and unhealthy size is normal and therefore OK. It's not.

Butternut, please do not feel disheartened at this thread. As others have said, you have done amazingly well so far so please don't give up your fantastic efforts. When responding to things like the DM article of course we can only generalise. The fact that you recognised that you could be healthier, have done something about it and are succeeding brilliantly rather emphasises our point, rather than contradicting it.

Please keep going. This thread was not intended to discuss your own very personal situation. Hats off to you.

Personally I find it very distressing to see so many young people very overweight. I was out on Saturday night with a group of similarly middle aged women, all mothers, all sporting an unwanted "middle aged spread" sort of mid-section. And yet we were half the size of many of the young 20-something girls out on the town.

Much though we don't like the DM or what this article says, we really can't deny that there's a lot of truth in it.

Of course 16 is generally big, but weight, BMI and dress size don't necessarily correlate. Dress size can be so arbitrary so it's not a good measure. I'm 5', the last dress I bought was a size 8. So I'm right in the middle of my BMI range right? Wrong. I have another 1.5-2 stone to lose...

Quote from Mock The Week which I thought was brilliant......"borderline overweight, doesn't that also mean borderline ideal????"

No, it means borderline normal.

Well, whatever it was, it made me laugh.....

I diet when I go over 10 stone - into size 14 territory at 5'6" - not because of dress size primarily, but because I start to feel so incredibly uncomfortable. If I get a roll of fat I am really aware of it all the time -I find it hard to sleep. And it puts pressure on my knees (messed up through too much exercise). And the heartburn! So much discomfort. I'm surprised more people don't mention this aspect of putting on weight.

Being very overweight is unhealthy though. Isn't that relatively uncontroversial?

The weights v size thing amazes me. I'm 5'11, size 16 and heavier than anyone else on the thread
I am big boned as in I am broad shoulders, huge feet and I can't quite touch my fingers round my wrists. Having physio for a back problem and she was amazed at how muscled my thighs are.
I low carb, and do HIIT, lift, and a boot camp, sometimes spin as well. When I work out (am currently injured) I seem to lose inches not weight even with eating clean. And I exercise properly (to the point of vomiting) because I love it and it makes me feel great
I figure some of it must be muscle because I am heavy but very definitely a size 16

I reckon some pretty major factors in the weight-loss debate get missed.

E.g.

1. Medication.

My entire family are skinny. The one exception is my elder brother who is on anti-psychotic drugs. Apparently they make him fat.

1. Metabolism.

I know a man who was previously skinny but then suffered bulimia (yes it happens to men too). Since then, despite watching his diet very carefully, he has remained huge.

Other than that, surely the best thing is to inculcate good eating habits in children. I have had it commented to me how much crap children in English-speaking countries are given and (particularly in the UK) how many pre-made meals people eat. If that is a fair criticism, it is hardly surprising that people think they're eating healthily when in fact they aren't. In the meantime I find myself fighting off a constant barrage of what I regard as junk or near to (cake, sweets, cocktail sausages, tomato ketchup, white bread) aimed at my children.

Yes Toad. I think that pyramid is wrong, the one drummed into children at school, the one with carbohydrates at the bottom. It should be fruit, veg and pulses at the bottom.

I think people are completely obsessed about the size and weight of other people. It's very disturbing really. The Daily Mail is a good example of this.

I'm a 14, I run around 30/40 km a week. I've still got wobbly fat bits, but I give nothing in the way of fucks if I'm overweight, underweight or wombling free.

What other people think of me is their problem, and having been a size 14/16 for most of my adult life (bigger after each baby) has left me with absolutely zero in the way of health issues. Not a sausage!

I have runner friends who have dodgy knees and sore ankles. I just get the odd blister when I go past 10km. My blood pressure is low and my cholesterol and body fat are normal.

EMUZ

It may be worth jumping on some scales that will give an indication of muscle mass, body water and fat. It sounds to me like you have a lot of (perhaps higher than most) muscle, which is a good thing.

5'11" is also quite tall so a 16 may well be 'normal' for your height.

I think the DM article is generally applicable to women of an average height/build so needs to be taken with a pinch of salt if you are at the other end of the scale. I think it is worse for the OP (sorry OP) as she is quite short so being 5'2" and size 16 is heading the other way.

EMUZ, even when I lose lots of weight I never get below a 14 (or a 12 in asda etc as they seem big) because of my bone structure. tall people generally have bigger proportions anyway

anyway i bet I am heavier than you :o