To think we have lost sight of what "thin" looks like as much as what "fat" looks like

[marmitenot]

Hi
My daughter is recovering (well) from anorexia. At her worst she was on the 3rd centile for weight for her height and age. The terrifying thing is that she did not look any different to many girls in her year at school and certainly nowhere near as skinny as many women/teens in the public eye. As parents we had no idea that she was dangerously underweight as she didn't look different to many of her peers.

There has been a lot of publicity of how society's perception of what is overweight has changed. Aibu to think that the same has happened with the perception of what is underweight is.

My daughter is now in the healthy weight range with a bit more to go, but out of danger and heading in the right direction.

A bmi of 16 is dangerously underweight for a 15 year old girl.

OP what a horribly worrying time for you and glad that your daughter is heading in the right direction.

I'm one of these freaks of science - a naturally skinny person. (I hate the word skinny but appropriate here). My BMI is 17.5 and has been for the last 30 or so years. I weigh 7.5 stone (my highest, I've been 7 stone for many years) and am 5ft 4". I'm heading rapidly towards my 50th year but am healthy, fit and have had 2 children.

I think even at school I was definitely one of the skinniest children and have remained the skinniest adult I know despite vague efforts to increase my weight. I only remember one really overweight child at school though, most were pretty slim.

One thing that strikes me massively is that food and weight just weren't an issue at my school (all girls) it really wasn't ever discussed or mentioned. We are definitely utterly obsessed with weight and appearance now which seems to have stemmed from the '80's/90's with the advent of the supermodels, models became celebrities in their own right which hadn't really happened before apart from maybe Twiggy.

I agree with yetanother, there is a range and what is healthy for one person will be different for another.

I have been a size 6/8 from about the age of 17. At 5ft2 and small framed this is the right size for me and my bmi is in the middle of the healthy range. I eat a healthy unrestricted diet, run 3 times a week and do krav maga so I feel fitter and healthier than when I was exercise dodging teen. I was still the same size but I feel better now than in my teens.

For me dangerously underweight would be heading towards a size 0 or 2. For someone else who is considerably taller a size 6-8 could be extremely underweight.

Probably yes, and in your daughters case I am sure she was. The issue with teenagers and these figures is that they are trying to cover young people with adult bodies and child bodies together. No one with an adult body should have a bmi of 16 (and the vast majority of 15 year old girls have adult bodies). If someone was naturally still pre puberty then maybe but you could possibly argue their low weight was part of that anyway.

The nhs seem to class anything above 2nd as 'healthy' on their calculator however .

I think OP, the difference between "thin, within the normal range" to "alittle underweight, but not massively so" to "dangerously underweight" isn't that much in terms of inches on thighs - with different hights, not seeing them in their bra and pants, you wouldn't automatically think your DD looked massively different to the girls who are within normal range or just under it (but not to worrying/dangerous levels).

It's not that you missed it, it's not that those girls are probably unhealthily thin, just the difference in the arms, legs, faces aren't that dramatic. In the same way, it's often hard to see at a glance woman who are right at the top end of BMI healthy range and those who are outside of it ways of dressing and how you carry the weight can vary - plus at the top end, you do need to be quite a lot outside the healthy range for it to be dangerous, where as you can only be talking about a couple of kg at the bottom end between 'healthy' 'unhealthy but not big problem' and 'seriously dangerous'. At the top end, that is several stone difference.

marmite I hope you realise no one is trying to minimise your daughters experience or illness, clearly she was not healthy at her weight and it's good that she is receiving treatment.
What people are saying is that there is variation in what is healthy or not. As a teenager I had a bmi of 17 this was eating a healthy balanced diet and big portions with moderate exercise. It was just my natural build, I was not unhealthy, my periods never stopped etc. My current bmi is 22 and I have excess fat.
My sister on the other hand is a completely different build, is super slim and sporty with a bmi of 22. If she had a bmi of 19 say she would need to restrict her calories massively and would not be getting the nutrients she needed.

I've just googled and depending on which website you read, a bmi of 16 is not necessarily underweight for a 15 year old girl...or even dangerously underweight.

In order to fit into the normal range for a woman, your results will fall into a percentage and that number is used to place you into one of the BMI categories mentioned above.

At the age of around 15 years, the BMI index for a normal result is around 16 to 17. As you age, the BMI changes as well.

Taken from this link but the info varies from site to site

marmite going back a few pages but that's not how centile charts work. If she's the 3rd centile she'd be the 3rd smallest. Not 3 the same weight as her. 97% of girls her age and height weigh more than her.

Yes the vast majority of 15 year old should have adult bodies and consequently adult bmi's. The significant point is in my daughters year at school this seems not to be the case to the point that my dangerously underweight daughter looked no different (and in some cases not as thin as) her peers.

I am sorry to hear that your daughter has been unwell and I'm glad to hear she is now recovering. I think that ever since the size 0 craze came over from Hollywood, people have totally lost sight of what slim actually looks like. If you look at music videos and films from about 17-20 years ago, the actresses and pop stars looked much bigger than they do today.

A bmi of 16 is dangerously underweight for a 15 year old girl.

Not ALL 15 year old girls, OP. Just some. Some will be perfectly healthy at that BMI.

A bmi of 16 is dangerously underweight for a 15 year old girl.

Not ALL 15 year old girls, OP. Just some. Some will be perfectly healthy at that BMI.

A BMI of 16 is not by definition dangerously underweight.
For short petite women, its is entirely possible to be fit and healthy and active with a BMI in the low 17's
I know because I do yoga with several

Eating just cucumber at lunch tells you nothing about a person's actual diet.

Lots of the slebs seen eating burgers by paparazzi do ADF to stay slim.
And very few of the film stars are actually underweight, they are just lean.

Models are usually young and tall so carry their weight inside their frames.

TalkinPeace - I think it's disingenuous to suggest that eating disorders are uncommon among celebrities. I know a few people in the public eye. They rarely eat and they are honest that they rarely eat. When people are taking photos of you daily it's become out of he question to carry a pound more than you should.

And of course a BMI of 16 is underweight.

marinate all women/girls carry their weight differently. Your daughters peers may be taller or shorter and have different frames but still have a healthy bmi. Some may be slimmer and look more underweight but still be healthy for their height/weight.

I wish your daughter all the best as she makes her recovery

And yes Kylie Minogue is an example of a woman who is naturally tiny but she is very unusual. And she has always looked healthy.

But OP - it's not dangerous or a sign of an eating disorder in many 15 year old girls. It realy depends on builds, not all girls develop at the same rate. And it's very hard to tell at a glance who's a BMI of 16, 17 or 18. I have met girls with eating disorders and dangerously underweight and undereating who still had relatively chubby faces, under school uniforms that make the most model figures look lumpy, it's really hard to tell at a look.

I can see why it is upsetting to you, you didn't see it in your DD, looking at her peers, she looked very similar, but that's not to say they are underweight or have disordered eating, just that things like BMI can be a very blunt instrument, and at the lower end, there's a very small difference between 'ok' 'bit outside healthy but still not dangerous' and 'life threatening'. We are used to focussing on the other end where there's a lot more difference between 'ok' 'but unhealthy' and 'dangerous'.

Best wishes for your daughter's recovery OP - that must have been terrifying for you.

I agree with the posters who say that the difference between a severely malnourished girl with a BMI of 16 and a perfectly healthy teen with a BMI of 18.5 is not necessarily obvious to the naked eye when they're fully clothed. Elbows and knees will show you what's going on but if you can't see them then it's far from clear.

Of course it's also possible that your daughter's peer group have a local culture of disordered eating and they are really all too thin.

what sassy said about the late 80s / early 90s supermodels having a much stronger build than today's models. Cindy / naomi / linda at 20-something were bigger than Cara and all the current young models.

I also think it depends massively on what is going on in the young person's mind not what their body necessarily looks like.

As I said up a bit my BMI is low, my weight is low, I've had people ask me all my life if I'm anorexic but at almost 50 this is clearly how I'm made. Some of those girls that the OP is comparing her daughter with may just fit into my category. We do exist, we don't necessarily have eating disorders just because you look at us and think we must have because our elbows and shoulder blades stick out.

I've come to the conclusion that BMI just doesn't work.

If we, for instance, look at the canine world for a moment. A greyhound and a labrador might be the same age and height, and both be the ideal weight for their breed, but have very different skeletons, and nobody would expect them to weigh the same at all.

Human sleletons come in all shapes and sizes - I just googled - take a look at 'ectomorph endomorph mesomorph' and you'll see what I'm on about.

My Dd too is a now a "healthy weight " , but if I'm honest I'm amazed at how little weight she had to gain to become "normal'. Many people comment on how thin she is. ( many don't know about the anorexia, but these comments are not helpful as she still thinks she is fat! )
It's also quite eye opening to see how little she has to eat to maintain a 'normal' weight. Makes you realise how much we all over eat .

lets not forget teenage boys can suffer too.My ds is tall and v slim eventhough he eats loads of cereal and yogs between meals. i do keep an eye on him just in case he tries not to be overweight like dh.Weight loss can be so addictive and can easily spiral out of control.

lottieandmias
If choosing to eat a small amount so that one stays slim is an eating disorder, then what is healthy eating?

My eating is very ordered.
I just eat a lot less than many people.
On the days when I only eat once, that is not disordered, it is planned.

A 5 foot tall 50 year old only needs around 1300 calories a day if they are not a gym bunny.