Do you think a women's size 16 is fat?

[LegencyMonsters]

Met a friend for coffee today and we got onto the topic of weight.

I mentioned that I used to be a size 16 and said I’m glad I’m not that size anymore as I was fat. She disagreed, saying a size 16 isn’t fat and pointed out that it’s actually the average size for women in the UK. I replied that while it may be the average, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not fat.

Would you consider a size 16 to be fat or not?

AIBU - YES - of course!
YANBU - NO - Not fat at all!

That’s a problem!

What does that even mean?

For me at 5.4 yes I’m fat and I’m a 12/14 in most high street shops. I definitely am fat now so at a 16 even more so.
however at 5.10 not so much

True, but at 5'11" a size 16 is still heavy set.

It means I'm a size 8 but still have fat on me. I look fat.
Humans are not designed to have the amount of fat on them that has become normalised in western societies.
I would be a size 12-14 in 1960s/70s clothes and deemed chubby.
Anyone today, unless a very tall body builder would be very fat at size 16.

I am 5ft 5lb and size 16 and yes I would describe myself as fat

Humans are not designed to have the amount of fat on them that has become normalised in western societies.

That simply isn’t true. You only have to look at nudes over the last 600 years to see that women have always been curvaceous. Goya and Botticelli’s models carry at least the same amount of fat as a modern woman. This sculpture was made in 2,500 BC.

Size 16 at average height is fat but not very fat.

Did you actually read it? The study says that BMI alone isn’t always enough to accurately assess overall health (which it was never designed to do, incidentally). That isn’t the same thing as claiming that BMI as a tool is outdated and pointless, or not a good general metric to use to monitor weight.

Someone can be healthy with a high BMI, but that doesn’t mean they’re not fat.

I don't know how that's possible unless you're very very petite?

@blossomtoes i think depictions in art will have been aspirational i.e. plumper figures denoting wealth and status.
It's certainly never been healthy to be as round as that sculpture, nor the Bottecelli figures.

I'M 5ft 6 but have a horrid spare tire and flabby thighs. Fat!

Tyre, sorry came over all American.

That article says "And using a weight-based tool like BMI to draw conclusions about a person’s health adds to the confusion."

I think it's widely agreed that BMI is a blunt tool that gives ONE measure of someone's health. No good health professional is going to look at just BMI and send someone on their way because their weight lies in the healthy range.
Someone with a BMI outside of the healthy range is more likely to have other health concerns. Someone with a low BMI is very unlikely to have the joint issues associated with someone with a very high BMI for example.

5 foot nothing size 16 yes, 5’10 size 16 no.

Height makes a massive difference.

Average height size 16 is chubby yes but not really fat.

You have fat, but I don't think anyone thinks you're fat in the context being discussed here.
Naturally slim people will of course have fat. You still don't have the stress on your joints that excess weight (fat and muscle) will have.

Conversely, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans did not consider fatness to be desirable. The Greeks were not particularly complementary about it in their writings. In medieval Christendom also, fatness was widely disdained.

How people viewed weight in the past is just as complex as it is in the present.

Ah performatively ‘fat’? Okay

Nope.

I’m 5’4 and a 34F so I’m top heavy, broad shoulders and I’m 37 with 2 kids (3 term pregnancies) and 11.8 stone and a 14/16
in my younger days I still had a 34f chest but I was about 9 stone 10/12
I can be a size 12-14-16
I am - or was a traditional hourglass figure but now I just have big boobs and a mum tum 😩 I know I’m not obese but I carry all my weight in my stomach because I have carried babies!
I think it’s so hard to find clothes that fit when we are all such different shapes and sizes and also size could fit someone else so different on someone else x

Yep. Our perceptions have become distorted because more and more people are overweight these days. Like you say, being the average weight doesn't mean one's not overweight. It's not a moral judgement either, just factual. For most women, size 16 is overweight.

This is a beautiful piece of art and of history, and overweight people can be as beautiful as anyone else, but a person this size would have health risks and mobility challenges regardless of what era they lived in.

I'm 5ft, and a size 12, my BMI is overweight and my tummy circumference puts me in the at risk category for diabetes 2. So, if I were size 16 I would be fat, regardless of it being the average size.

No I wouldn't. I need a size 16 as I'm tall, and need a longer length.

What does this mean, though? So if in, say, 20 years the average size of a British woman will be size 22 - that also won't be fat, because it's 'the average'?

Where I'm from, the average size of a woman is 8-10. Size 16 is considered obese; it's called XL (extra large) for a reason. So if my extra-large, obese countrywoman moves to the UK, she'll suddenly stop being XL/fat and will become...what? Average? Not fat? Slim? Just by moving locations?

You're either fat or not. I'm 5'11'' and was always size 6-8, but gained a lot of weight at one point in my life and became size 20, then went gradually back down to my regular size. I'm tall, but not muscular and at size 16, I was most definitely fat.

It's not a moral judgement. It's body/flesh. The fact that some people carry a lot of it doesn't make them somehow stupid/evil/unworthy/whatever.