was everyone slim in the 1950s/60s

[ambereeree]

I've been watching old films and it seems that everyone was slim in the 50s and 40s. Even women with quite a few children. Is this reality or just in films?

I haven't been around since the 50s/60s but I've definitely noticed " The Rage " increasing in those who simply don't like the fact that a slim healthy weight is better for you, for longevity/fertility and what the human frame was made to support. As well as just being more attractive generally - probably for those reasons mentioned.

This is obvious replying to the thread, earlier I mentioned the difference with my waist size and my DGAunt's in response to exactly what the OP was asking. I had worked hard to lose pregnancy weight and won't apologise mentioning it as it was in the spirit of the thread. I'm thinking there would be fewer digs if it had been 36" or instead of 26' which is weird imo- shoot me now.

I wouldn't say BMI is that amazingly accurate that it does so, but all I know is that if I was 65kg, I would look massive. I would have 50% more size than I do now, which, yes, would be huge.

Perhaps to some, being 50% bigger than they are now is not a big deal. To me, carrying around an extra 20kg would be a problem.

If you're happy with being big, great. I would not be.

I do think there’s more to it than bmi. I actually suit a lower bmi too as I’m an apple shape. Currently have a bmi of 24.5ish, but my happy bmi is lower.

Ditto slim = attractive? Nah. There’s so much more to it. I’ve met some beautiful slightly overweight women and some less than beautiful skinny ones. It isn’t a direct correlation between slimness and attractiveness, though I know some people like to assert that it is.

I’m tall though, so like to think I can carry it off .

overall vastly slimmer, yes, obviously.

with I didn't say anything about attractiveness.

And I don't get why you're now saying that you being tall means you can carry it off when you were questioning me saying the exact same thing, but on the opposite side.

Jeez I was joking! That was the point and that was why I put a wink after it. You’re a bit defensive today aren’t you sport?

I’m trying to be friendly to you lovie. I know it’s unusual for Aibu ! But it does happen.

And my attractiveness comment was in response to the post above yours.

Just a friendly bit of chat. Everything doesn’t have to be a bun fight on here, despite what people think. Yeesh.

with you may think you are friendly and joky, but you're just coming across as patronising. 'lovie' 'yeesh' 'winky face' 'sport' - I'm an adult. I don't like being talked to like a small child.

No, I am not defensive, but generally people who use that particular insult do so when they can't admit that they're being prickly.

🤷‍♀️

I think you’re looking for offence where none was intended and are taking this conversation way too seriously.

Sorry to have got your back up. I really was trying to have a friendly chat about something I think is quite trivial.

I’ll admit my last post was less than friendly, but only because you’d rebuffed my attempts friendliness (

Have we mentioned very cold houses, too? In a freezing snap in 1986 I once lost four pounds in as many days as my flat was so ill heated and I just seemed to burn off weight trying to keel warm.

My Nan's side were all pretty huge based on the photos I have seen from the 40s onwards, her smoking didn't help keep her weight down either. Husband's great gran was the same, frying everything in lard probably didnt help!

I wouldn't say BMI is that amazingly accurate that it does so, but all I know is that if I was 65kg, I would look massive. I would have 50% more size than I do now, which, yes, would be huge.

65kg cannot possibly be huge to anyone with a balanced outlook on life and weight. Me I'd be a bit chubby with a bmi of 24.5 as I am slight build, but huge/ massive no and I know this because I was heavier after having my dc. You quite clearly have issues.

@Bluelady

You must be massively underweight if you're 3 stone under a BMI of 26, I think you have a bit of body dysmorphia going on there.

Out of interest I worked out for my own height yesterday what a jump from BMI 19 to BMI 26 would represent and it is about 3 stone. If you sit at the bottom of the healthy range, when the range itself is close to three stone, then going to slightly over that range takes you to around BMI 26/ + 3 stone.

Surely most people would feel pretty big if they put on 3 stone?!

I have a BMI of 21-22 to have a BMI of 26 I would need to gain 13-14 kg. That's loads, I notice if I gain more than about 1.5

The BMI is a health thing though not a looks thing, so you could be on the high end and be very healthy but not look fashionably slim, I look best at 21-22 but would probably be healthy up to 25 but would look big.

I thought bmi was a healthy range, but your ideal might be a lower bmi depending on the person...

I’m an Apple, so I definitely am healthier at a lower bmi (and look better too) as less fat on my tum.

Sadly, fwiw, I’m at the high end atm, but I’ve had a baby fairly recently, so will be back down to my happy / healthy bmi soon enough.

Yes, most people would feel bigger if they gained three stone but if they were verging on underweight in the first place, they wouldn't look "huge" to anyone other than themselves with a BMI at the top of the healthy range.

Well yes, 'huge' is subjective. Also, the healthy BMI range takes into account different frames, so someone whose fighting weight is around BMI 20 could well look fairly overweight at BMI 26 (which is anyway about half a stone over the healthy range).

I think we should focus on the the waist to height ratio
( rather than the weight to height ratio)

The midsection matters most

You see, the waist to height ratio puts me in a healthy range now, with a bmi of 24.5, but I definitely feel better with a slightly lower bmi than I currently have.

I think all of these measures can become arbitrary as we can have hugely varying frames.

Without scanning for visceral fat all the time, I think basically aiming for your fighting weight, (which for me is when you can’t pinch a lot of fat), is best. But then some people would consider themselves enormous if they had any fat on them at all, so it’s a bit subjective.

Again, as I said earlier, what I notice now is so much angst about weight. In the past I’m told being fat wasn’t an insult, just a statement of fact. Now it seems like people take it as a huge insult if they’re fat and are weirdly proud if they’re skinny 🤷‍♀️. Stupid when you think about it.

Do you think people should not take any pride in the fact that they are in good health?

You know that’s not what I mean. Not in good shape, but you know how it gets on here with competitive skinniness. The thinner the better you know? If you don’t know and you’ve never seen this, then I’d be surprised.

I’m in decent enough shape, but I certainly wouldn’t brag about it. And I’ve been skinny. Didn’t feel proud especially no. I was a bit too skinny though at one point, so maybe that’s why.

I’d be really proud if I was properly fit. I don’t think I’ve ever been properly, really fit. Like triathlon fit. I’d be proud if I ever achieved that. But having been skinny, no I don’t see anything to be especially proud of there. It’s just a size.

Proud to get healthier though, if you’re maybe obese and lose lots of weight. But just being a size 6, but exactly the same fitness etc as I am now, isn’t something I’d aspire to no.

Haven't rtft but answering the AIBU. I was born in 1951 and yes most people were much thinner than today. Not skeletal but healthy and slim. People thought nothing of walking long distances and fewer people had cars. They burnt far more calories on day to day living with fewer modern conveniences. Food was three good meals a day and snacking was maybe an apple or banana. Processed food was just coming on sale.
I'm very overweight now, I eat more and move less.