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.

Whilst I take with a pinch of salt some of the things the Daily Mail prints ( and I really don't see how the 10 stone eight lady could be a size 16 unless she has a wardrobe of nothing but Karen Millen) there was some substance to one of the main points here. It is very much the case that for anyone working in an office environment with other women we will have around us colleagues and friends who are size 16 or more and in their 20s/0s/40s look great. Nice clothes, the lovely skin that sometimes goes with being overweight and lots of self confidence because they don't feel unusual or out of place or different because so many other people around them are the same size.

I don't need to speculate about the future for the size 16 + people who are average height or shorter. At 56 I have relations who are 10 or 20 years older than me who are diabetic now, walking in pain from hip problems or knee problems linked to obesity. Now everything has got a bit droopy through gravity they are not looking so good. Even if nice clothes make them look fairly good the universal swollen feet and puffy ankles - plus varicose veins detract from that. There really is no argument, 13st 7lb and 5ft 2inches is just not healthy.

MrsGSR, gawd, I just noticed all the typos in my post.

Doing waist to height and just the waist makes more sense. I'm sure I've read loads of stuff that says you are healthier if you have a big arse though.

FasterStronger - I have no idea what I mean really but we are the same height, I have seen the profile pic ILikeBirds has added, she is 10st 12 and a size 8-10, I am 9 st and a size 10-12. How can that be explained otherwise, she is more toned than me but even at my most toned/muscly I was a similar weight definitely not that much more though.

I am 5ft 10ins and a size 16 and I am overweight
I don't care what other people want to do or be like. I would rather be within healthy and looking more slim line tbh

frouby has a really good point though. I lost 4 stone two years ago and I could barely walk. I had to start off doing just two 30 minute walks twice a week and it honestly nearly killed me. But that's how I had to start and build up. Within 6 months I was walking everyday 5 miles. I don't agree that people should join a gym and be set unrealistic goals. Walking is fine to build up strength and stamina whilst losing weight

I think walking is great exercise. But you have to walk , not amble. I have never owned a car and can't afford one, so I walk everywhere - that's just how it is. But it seems I walk fast; I don't think I'm particularly speedy, but it's been commented on loads of times over the years, and I do notice that when I meet someone I know and walk with them I have to slow down and end up feeling a bit antsy and irritated.

I am an 8-10 (or 12-14 by that old sizing link someone posted a few pages back ) and credit it to a few things:

No car (I think so many people drive even short distances these days)
No alcohol (people forget to consider this when reckoning up their diet)
Whole foods cooked from scratch 70-80% of the time
Limited carbs
Proper fats ("low-fat" is a con IMO)
Good genes (I got my dad's body type rather than my mum's)

I do think our view of normal is skewing upwards. I look at myself and see a body that is neither thin nor fat, but I would say I know only a couple of women thinner than me, and many, many more who are bigger.

The 4th lady is taller than me, weighs less than me but is a size bigger than me, how does that work?

Jazzdalek- I completely agree with you! I have always been told I walk really fast and that's probably why I would count it as doing some exercise :)

In reply to Bambi from a couple of pages back... I'm 5' 5''. So by no means taller than average. I do wonder how it's even possible that someone 2 stone lighter than me can be a dress size larger when at roughly the same height. Weird eh?

Yeah! I'm 5'6 similar height. We must have similar body types! I am always either tipping the edge of the 'average' weight in Bmi or just in to 'overweight' we must just wear our weight well??!!

All those women are more apple shaped though. Fairly big boobs and slimmer legs and carry weight around the stomach.
So no great surprise that the massive sample size of 4 shows them all to be at risk of developing health complications.

I do think that we're getting used to bigger sizes as being" normal" when they are generally unhealthy.

I am in the process of training and attempting to eat more clean. I am thrilled that I can fit into a size 16 top again. I may even manage to fit comfortably into a 14 but realistically I'm never going to be a size 10 or 12 because I have swimmer's shoulders, a fairly broad back and big bust.
I am however pretty much in size 12 jeans because I have slimmer legs and no bum.

If they wanted to show how overweight 16 is they should show them in underwear and varied body types.
They wouldn't though because it's the Mail.

Yes, me too. Even at a size 8 I was nearing the higher side of normal on the weight range.

Maybe steel plated bones? Lol

Ha ha definitely!! And the bust doesn't help!!

I'm the same height as ILikeBirds and weigh 9 stone. The difference in build between us is that I have a short body and and long legs.

fluffy re the apple shapes, it may just be coincidence and they have always been that shape, but post 40-ish, as womens' testosterone levels fall, muscle density decreases. So the biggest muscles in the body get smaller - bum becomes flatter, legs get skinnier, thereby producing more of an apple shape if excess weight remains the same all over and is stored on tummy. This is another very good reason for ensuring that you include (heavy) weight training in your exercise regime...although if the choice is getting off the sofa and away from the biscuits for a walk or staying there then obviously the first is better .

I have relatively long legs for my height, 31" inside leg.

Are you really 5ft 10 ILoveBirds

I have read that it is best to do weights first. It's so hard to know what is best when so many experts have different advice.

So true Samu2. Speak to 10 different PT's and I'm sure you'll get 10 different responses and from what I've read there are a lot of 'experts' that think interval is better than cardio (and vice versa). TBH it's a mine field so I tend to take no notice and do what I like. If what you're doing works for you then just stick with it

I'd love to be 5 foot 10, alas it was not meant to be

OP - what is your waist measurement? Because that is a much better indicator of health than BMI / body fat etc.

Anyone who says "its about how you feel" is in denial - as carrying extra fat around the waist (and hence internal organs) is not good for health. It wasnt by coincidence that all the 4 women had health issues.

I have to watch what I eat - like most woman - because there is too much food all around us and we are programmed to eat the surplus to store for pregnancy.

YABU but only to fall into the DM trap of being riled by an article they have written to rile you. They will have sent the journo out with specific instructions to find case studies size 16 with health issues, knowing the angle they want. This type of feature is more akin to reality tv where 'some scenes have been invented for your entertainment' than any kind of genuine attempt at research or reporting.

Have not read whole thread so apologise if am repeating something aleady said.

Can't stand the Daily Mail, so only skimmed the article. But it is out of date in relying on BMI (or dress size, for heaven's sake!) as an indicator of health. The latest research suggests that waist-to-height ratio may be a better predictor of longevity : see www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Obesity/39111
and
[http://prowellness.vmhost.psu.edu/prevention/understanding_risk/whtr]]

It's unlikely to happen, but IF ONLY the Daily Mail would use its pages in a POSITIVE, SUPPORTIVE way to encourage everyone (men, women, children) to watch their weight, eat healthily and take exercise. As the comments in this thread show, articles that sensationalise, mock, criticise or alarm don't help anyone; instead, they just alienate readers and/or make them defensive.

should be 'already'

and I hope second link will work this time:

prowellness.vmhost.psu.edu/prevention/understanding_risk/whtr

Totally agree with FanjoBiscuits Why does anyone give any head-space to the drivel that the Daily Fail spews out? If only it was printed on toilet paper, then at least it would be good for something.

In John Briffa's book he cites a large, long-term study in Canada where the final conclusion was that people who were 'overweight' (ie BMI 25-30) were the least likely to die of cancer, stroke and heart attack of all four groups (underweight, ideal, overweight, obese). I think the underweight category was slightly more likely to die prematurely. And only seriously obese people had an elevated risk.

I'm 5'8" and a size 14. At a 16 I'm fat, and that is with a sturdy build (even in my anorexic days, visibly underweight, I was never less than 10st).

Coming back to the UK after a recent trip to Norway I was at just how many more really fat people there are here. I don't think it's particularly beneficial to be all feathery-stroky to ourselves about being overweight. I think it's likely that most size 16s are carrying quite a bit of spare, especially if they are the UK average of 5'4" or shorter. Having said all that though, I really hate the way this kind of article is always addressed solely to women, as if heart disease were not a far greater problem in men