Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

552 replies

IamtheDevilsAvocado · 11/10/2017 10:21

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...

OP posts:
ShowMePotatoSalad · 14/10/2017 09:02

Strange That’s not an insane recommendation at all. I’m 5ft 7 and 128lbs - I’m a healthy weight on the NHS BMI calculator, not underweight. Size 8-10. I agree with you that there is an awful lot of shaming going on around people’s weight, but that works the other way too. Do you think I look like “death” because of my weight?

Mominatrix · 14/10/2017 09:10

I think that your choice of the word ‘insane’ is interesting. The generalisation of 100lb for 5 feet and 5 lbs for every inch thereafter has been around for donkey’s years - I remember hearing this in middle school in the 80’s and it was not seen as insane, impossible, or unreasonable. Fast forward more than 30 years with a ballooning of obesity and what used to be thought of as reasonable is now insane.

Mominatrix · 14/10/2017 09:13

Also, got those who,think that 90 lbs on a 5 foot woman is unhealthy and skeletal, you need to visit places like Japan where this is the norm and populations and these societies also have the highest longevity statistics.

SevenSheep · 14/10/2017 09:23

But that ‘100lbs at 5 foot + 5 lbs for every extra inch’ thing is extremely rigid isn’t it? I think BMI with it’s range of healthy weight is a better formula.

Mominatrix · 14/10/2017 09:32

I don’t think it was meant to be dogmatically applied, just a rule-of-thumb.

PetalMettle · 14/10/2017 11:19

The 100lbs + 5 would put me at 155 or 165 if you calculate for a big frame (size 8 feet and even when I went down to 8 stone still being in a 10!). I reckon I prob look best at around 161 so fairly accurate

PetalMettle · 14/10/2017 11:22

Also means that when I was 110lbs it was the equivalent lb per inch of a 5 footer being under 5 stone. Goes to show...

riseandfall · 14/10/2017 12:09

Agree Mominatrix I think I weigh about 100lbs and am 5ft 4" but manage to run half marathons, gave birth to children, eat normal meals etc and am in my 50's. I get called horrible things, people make thoughtless nasty comments because I am at the other end of the 'problem' weight spectrum.

Not sure what happened to the OP but yes upsetting hearing yourself to be described thus.

StrangeLookingParasite · 14/10/2017 15:34

Do you think I look like “death” because of my weight?

Hmm No. I don't. I very specificallly said that I would look like death at that weight, my whole point being that a stupid blunt instrument like this takes no account of the tiny frames of many of the women in, for instance, Vietnam, or Japan, and the solid peasant builds of my Scottish forebears.

People have very, very different builds. This is why none of these 'gross generalisation' measurements are very useful.
And yes, it is an insane measurement - beileve me, I would not physically be able to get down that low, without being seriously, seriously ill.

Fantasticday69 · 14/10/2017 15:49

Yeah I get the frame thing. As a teen I was 8St 4 at 5ft 2.
I wore size 10 and I was imo very petite. In fact a teacher at school thought I was too thin. Blame it on ribbed tights.
But I wouldn't say I had a small frame. Size 5 feet and good sturdy farming stock legs.
So now I am dieting the idea that I should be 110pounds is kinda scary. Realistically I will aim for 9 stone.
So whilst I think BMI is useful as a tool I don't like that 100 pound or 90 for a small framed for a 5 footer is useful.

ShowMePotatoSalad · 14/10/2017 16:41

But you wouldn't be "seriously, seriously ill", you would be a normal healthy weight. Due to your build you might look better with a bit more weight on you than that but to say it would make you seriously ill to be a healthy weight is ridiculous hyperbole.

StrangeLookingParasite · 14/10/2017 18:14

But you wouldn't be "seriously, seriously ill", you would be a normal healthy weight. Due to your build you might look better with a bit more weight on you than that but to say it would make you seriously ill to be a healthy weight is ridiculous hyperbole.

Light must bend around you.

Yes, because of my build and how my body is made, I would indeed be seriously, seriously ill to be 48kg. It is simply not a healthy weight for me.
What planet do you live on that you think all people can fit into arbitrary categories like these?

I would not 'look a bit better', short of chopping off an arm or leg, I could not go down to a weight like that without becoming emaciated.
People. Are. All. Different.
Why is this such a hard concept for you? It is not 'ridiculous hperbole', thanks. You don't know me.

ShowMePotatoSalad · 14/10/2017 19:18

I understand people are different. That goal weight is only meant to be a guide and the BMI healthy weight scale has a decent amount of leeway in it. I'm sorry this has wound you up so much and I honestly didn't have that intention. But you can't with any degree of accuracy say you would be "seriously, seriously ill" to be that weight. My point is simply that it is not classified as underweight. Therefore how could you be seriously ill to be that weight? I'm not saying it's always possible to reach a target weight because there are many factors involved in someone's weight. I just don't like the suggestion that that weight, as a healthy weight based on research and evidence, is as you have described it, ie "like death", or "insane", because it's absolutely not.

RebornSlippy · 14/10/2017 19:22

Haven't read the full thread. Just wanted to wade in and say that yes, 'huge' is a horrible way to describe someone who is overweight. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, OP. I'd keep my mouth shut rather than say that to someone. However, the word 'curvy' gets right on my tits. Curvy is hourglass; boobs, small waist and hips. Not fat or overweight.

ShowMePotatoSalad · 14/10/2017 19:24

And I didn't say you would look a bit better to be slimmer, f you read my post. I would never tell someone they would look better to be thinner, I don't know whether they would or not. My point was just about the suggestion that the healthy recommended weight as above is not "insane".

StrangeLookingParasite · 14/10/2017 19:40

That is exactly what you said. You really are terminally arrogant that you think making these unfounded pronouncements about someone you do not know and have never seen is an appropriate thing to do.
You don't know everything. In fact, I'd say you don't know very much. Your experience seems incredibly limited. You place absolute faith in something I don't think you even understand properly.

But you can't with any degree of accuracy say you would be "seriously, seriously ill" to be that weight. My point is simply that it is not classified as underweight. Therefore how could you be seriously ill to be that weight?

WHO do you think you are? I do indeed know I would be seriously, seriously ill, because the only time I was that weight as an adult, I was very ill. It is not a natural weight for me in any way. There are little Vietnamese girls for which this would be a perfectly healthy weight. I am not them. I have lots of muscle, broad shoulders, and a big round ribcage. Can you never have seen anyone built like me?

These broad brush categories - underweight, overweight, healthy weight - are not useful on an individual level. You do not seem to be able to understand this.

StrangeLookingParasite · 14/10/2017 19:57

And just to be absolutely clear, you don't get to tell me what is and isn't the right thing for me, for example pronouncements like: "But you can't with any degree of accuracy say you would be "seriously, seriously ill" to be that weight." Because you don't have the knowledge to make a statement like that.
I am confident that your weight is right for you. You said so, so I at least give you the benefit of knowing the right thing for you.

ShowMePotatoSalad · 14/10/2017 19:57

Wow, you need to calm down.

My actual words were "Due to your build you might look better with a bit more weight on you than that", so I was actually agreeing with you, that your build plays a part in your weight and what looks best on the individual person.

And I am not a "little girl". I am a grown woman and it's a perfectly healthy weight for me. So what judgement are you passing about me, based on that information? I am neither underweight, or weak, or ill. You are being incredibly judgemental. Your comment about it being a healthy weight for "little Vietnamese girls" shows that.

ShowMePotatoSalad · 14/10/2017 20:00

No, what you actually said was that my weight was OK for a "little Vietnamese girl". Because I have told you my weight and height - you now know I fit into that weight recommendation. In fact, I am under the weight recommendation, just slightly. So you are the person who is making a judgement on me, and my weight, which is exactly the original point I was trying to make. You were being disparaging about that weight - saying it was "insane" and "like death", and now you back it up with your comments about it being OK for "little girls".

Anyway, I have no desire to continue an argument with such an angry person. It's pointless.

StrangeLookingParasite · 14/10/2017 20:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

StrangeLookingParasite · 14/10/2017 20:06

There are little Vietnamese girls for which this would be a perfectly healthy weight.

Is this an exclusionary statement? Did I say 'this weight is ONLY for little Vietnamese girls'.

No.

You are reading things which simply aren't there.

You were being disparaging about that weight - saying it was "insane" and "like death"

No, as I've actually already said, and you apparently have failed to read, more than once, I was talking about MYSELF and no-one else.

And that calculation is insane, for a significant chunk of the population. That it works for you is fine and dandy, for a lot of us, it doesn't.

And I can see I am utterly wasting my time; you don't bother to read anything I write, so keen are you to read into it things I am not saying.

Ollivander84 · 14/10/2017 20:06

I get what Strange is saying

My friend wears a size 4, she has tiny wrists and ankles and she is petite, looks very dancer type build
I'm 5ft 10 and a bit, wth shoulders that never fit in coats, big feet and look like a powerlifter
Even if we were the same height, our weight would be completely different. She isn't muscled at all, I have giant quads

Lotsalotsagiggles · 14/10/2017 20:37

Wow!

What a thread of some very rude and unkind people. It's like being at school

Not an example to our children at all

riseandfall · 14/10/2017 20:52

I am 48kgs at 5ft 4" and am perfectly healthy if that helps, I hope I don't look like death or insanely ill.

ps I am not Vietnamese either...

StrangeLookingParasite · 14/10/2017 20:53

Another person not very good at reading comprehension.

Swipe left for the next trending thread