... A bit upset to be referred to, by a 3rd party, as 'huge'?

[IamtheDevilsAvocado]

Just this....

Someone referred to me as this... You'll recognise her.. She's the huge girl...

Apart from rudeness... At what size does someone become 'huge'.. I appreciate it's all relative etc etx...

PS I'm an (in proportion) size 18-20 and 5 foot 8. So to me tallish and curvy...

@QuackPorridgeBacon the knee cracking is called Crepitus (sp?).

Although it can be down to weight, it is not always, as my very slim and frankly gorgeous physio demonstrated to me when he told me he also has it, and then moved his knee to make it crack.

It's far more complex than food price. Starts when they're tiny, maybe people commenting how well baby feeds. Potty training? Rewards of a chocolate button or sweet. Noisy in the supermarket? Give them an apple or some bread
Birthdays celebrated with cake and party food, Christmas is chocolate and a huge meal, Easter is hot cross buns or maybe cake
Don't have time to eat slowly at work so grab a sandwich rather than a salad. Exhausted after work, don't feel like the gym. Bad day? Have a glass of wine or a chocolate bar
Cinema is popcorn, nachos, sweets. Food is intrinsically linked to so many occasions and emotions. Maybe if you're sad you binge eat or if you're happy you have a McDonald's or...
it's complex

Many sports people would be classed as obese. Would you say they were unhealthy?

Someone always wheels that completely and utterly irrelevant point out.

Someone saying its easier to be fat because a healthy ready meal is more expensive than chicken nuggets. FML

hahahahahah

I am done

That was my favourite too

Someone always wheels that completely and utterly irrelevant point out.

Not irrelevant. Just something you don't happen to agree with.

Of course it's irrelevant unless you're suggesting that 64% of the adult population are sports people?

Because that's how many overweight/obese adults there are.

Someone always wheels that completely and utterly irrelevant point out

Of course it is relevant. If it is relevant to point out that skinny people are healthy (they're not always if they're lungs and or livers are fucked - likewise with heavier people). It's relevant to point out the other.

True - not all slim people are healthy. It is also worthwhile to point out that the fat-but-fit being healthy has been refuted.

I know someone who lost weight because someone told her she was fat. She lost weight but gained an eating disorder for life. Yanbu op. That was not a pleasant way to describe you.
I an 5ft 2 and a size 20 so I am clearly lazy and a drain on the NHS with Lilliput stature with fatty organs and high cholesterol etc etc.
The fact is that I walk loads, swim and attend a gym. My recent health check was excellent.
I know I am obese hence the exercise and watching what I eat. But I don't need fat shaming and I am not in denial.

Jonsnow seriously? Omg I’m going to look it up, I’m awaiting X-Ray results to find out what is wrong as I am in Anthony lately but they have always cracked. Thank you so much, I’m excited if I could possibly know what it is lol

I know I said a normal and healthy weight but I meant as in healthy amount of fat for the build of their body. I understand more than most people that being slim doesn’t equal healthy, my younger daughter who is two is so slim, like ridiculously slim but was born with a major condition and couldn’t run as far without sounding like an extremely obese person trying to jog.

*by extremely obese I mean those that can barely walk to their own bathroom or kitchen etc and have special made shoes and the like. How they sound when jogging is how she would probably sound when running, if she crawls really fast she sounds out of breath and breathes quickly.

I’m in agony, Jesus poor Anthony wouldn’t be happy if my big body was to be inside him 😂

Quack crepitus shouldn't hurt, I have it and my knees sound like a freight train going past but they don't hurt at all

Does Anthony know Quack?

gotta love autocorrect!

Yh I think you’re right Shirey. Just looked it up and it mentioned if there is also pain it could be arthritis, wasn’t expecting that and now I’m disappointed will wait for my X-Ray results and hope it isn’t.

I know, poor Anthony im sure he would have noticed 😂

Piglet it's not a question of whether or not I agree with it. People who are clinically obese because of their immense musculature represent about 0.0000000002% of the clinically obese population. Therefore irrelevant.

BMI is a population level tool and there will always be outliers. The outliers don't change the majority.

Just been researching this idea that a 5ft woman should weigh 100 pounds. Less if small framed. This is a bmi of 19.5 ish which is just in the healthy range.
However the article said that if said woman had a high muscle mass she is at risk of reproductive failure.
I also believe that acceptable BMI have changed over the years. I remember in the 80s a healthy BMI was 20 to 25.
At 5ft 2 my ideal weight on the scale in Boots was something like 8St 4.

Take off the 10 pound for a small frame s d the bmi is 17.5.

So the University of Washington seems to think women should potentially be in the underweight BMI category.

Unless the OP states her actuall body measurement and weight it's hard to say
If I am just thinking of dress size then yep 18 / 20 is huge in my opinion

Michelle Obama is someone I would think of as as a larger woman as she is 5ft 11 and according to Google weighs 12.stone or 77 killos

But she looks perfectly in proportion to her height and weight. . so while some would say she is huge due to her height she most certainly isn't fat in the slightest

The BMI puts her at 23.6 and she could put on another half a stone before she is classed as overweight

But if she was the same height but weighed in at say 15 stone she would be obese and probably look pretty fat and overweight and people would probably say that huge woman meaning fat not tall

13 years ago I was size 20-22 (just had my DD). I didn't think I was huge but knew I was overweight at 5ft 10. I lost a lot of weight in the following year and have stayed between a 10-12 since then. I don't want to go back to that size again because in hindsight, I really was huge.

It is very hurtful to use the word huge and I can understand why you'd be upset. Sometimes, though, we don't see what other people see.

I also believe that acceptable BMI have changed over the years. I remember in the 80s a healthy BMI was 20 to 25

No it's still the same.

At 5'2" the healthy range is 7st 3lb to 9st 11lb

At 5'2" overweight is 9st 12lb to 11st 10lb and the obese range is 11st 11lb upwards.

Looking back up the thread where 5'4" was being discussed, over 10st 6lb is overweight and over 12st 7lb is obese at that height.

All according to the NHS guide.

But surely it doesn’t matter what other people see or think, it matters what you see and think about yourself.

The BMI guidelines are really interesting, they have actually changed quite a bit. For example, the authorities in quite a few Asian countries have lowered the healthy range to end at 23, given the genetic profile there and higher risks of cardiovascular disease in their populations.

On the flip side, the US had a healthy limit of 27, which was only brought down to 25 in the late nineties. There is still a lot of controversy about this, as many regarded the evidence behind the change as weak. More recently, there have been studies to suggest that in western people, there is little difference between a BMI of 25 and 27 in terms of health (and there is some evidence that a BMI in the range of 24 - 27 is the healthiest range / range that lives longest). It is clear that beyond 30, health risks get higher very quickly (for non athletes).

BMI is a broad tool - there has to be a bit of common sense when using it. You are not suddenly at huge risk if you happen to be BMI 26. And your genetic make up has a lot to do on whether you are better at a lower healthy BMI or a higher healthy BMI.

There's been some suggestion more recently that BMI needs to be tweaked because it underestimates the obesity of small people and overstates the obesity of tall people. I tried a revised calculator because I'm tall, and it made about 0.5 of a BMI point difference (i.e. if I'm 32 on the normal scale I was 31.5 on the new one). So the difference is minor and clearly I'm still obese by either one, but it was still interesting.