She weighs 105lbs...

[likelysuspect]

The film Angel Face - Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons 1952

During the start he is describing his girlfriend and mentions she is 105lbs

I thought I'd misheard and maybe it was 125lbs but no, 105lbs

Thats 7 and a half stone.

Seems very tiny but AI tells me that is the usual sort of frame and weight to height ratio for actresses in those days. The actress playing the girlfriend was 5'4 apparently. So slight frame but not underweight

I was a bit surprised it was so low a weight.

Vivienne Leigh was 5ft 3.5 & 100lbs - smoking kept people thin too.

I'm 5 ft 3 ins. Back in my early 20s I joined a gym with a friend. I weighed in at 6st 13lbs and was asked if I was there to put on weight!

Now, several decades later, I'm generally around 8st 10lbs, wouldn't mind being back at 8stone though, that's my perfect weight now.

Btw a lot of people are referencing a "fast metabolism", but there doesn't actually tend to be much variance between metabolisms, excluding the obvious like height, weight and muscle mass, and any actual illnesses like poor thyroid function.

What tends to differ is how naturally or deliberately active people are, and how big their appetite is. Many people massively underestimate their calorie consumption.

This youtube video sets it out well - the content isn't as clickbaity as the title looks!

When I was 5'4 aged 14 I was nine stone. DD1 is the same age 21. Slender, size 8, muscly legs. She doesn't need to lose a pound, let alone 20.

@Backedoffhackedoff, your comments are not acceptable. If the same was said of an overweight person, it would be deemed discrimination.

The NHS states that that weight for that height could mean a health issue. COULD doesn't mean IS.

Just like some people falling in the overweight category can be very healthy, so can people in the underweight.

Ultimately, BMI is not the best scale to consider what's healthy, body fat is. My body fat was 35%, ie, in the obese range when by BMI was in the top end of normal. It is now acceptable at 23% in the very bottom end. It would be athletic if it fell under 20%, yet that would take me in the underweight BMI range.

You seem to completely ignore the fact that just as some women are naturally big bone, others are very small bone. My wrist and hands are the size of the average 10 years old. I have to wear children glasses.

I don't look like a child and certainly not ill. I'm just very petite and thankfully, very healthy for my age.

Am I too late to join? 🤣

She was so beautiful!

In all my crazy eating disordered days I've thankfully never resorted to smoking.. everything else yes but I'm forever grateful I never started smoking

What comments are you talking about?

I think it would be true of many actresses today

That is my height. I am naturally about 8 stone, although that is underweight according to BMI, it seems to be where my body goes.

I have been up to about 10 but that was only with having 2 babies in 3 years. Once I finished breastfeeding the youngest it just all came off again. It was a bit annoying actually because I felt healthier at 10 stone.

We do car sharing and I find certain brands of car won't register my weight as being an adult and automatically shut off the passenger airbag thinking there is a baby seat there I am always having to google how to turn it back on.

I'm 126lbs and think I could lose another stone and still look healthy.

My mum was 5’4” as a young woman and weighed around 8 stone all her life. She would have been 18 at the time of the film you mentioned and I think she spent her life being careful with what she ate.

I was also very slender in my early 20s (1980s), similar height and around 7st 10. I had a 22 inch waist, but even so was unable to get into some of my mum’s clothes from the 1950s, a boned top and jacket, too big for me on the bust but I couldn’t fasten around my waist. I’ve never had mum’s discipline around food though , especially after I stopped smoking. I’m 3 stones heavier now.

I remember watching Dallas and JR described Sue-Ellen as abou
t 100lbs. She was probably not that light.

I'm 5'4" and look dreadful when under 110 lbs but I'm not slight.

It's 5ft 5.

It was a reference to the weight in relation to the height, it's not particularly tall for the weight, different if you are 5ft 8 or even 5ft6 but height makes a huge difference!

A feature from 1953 online says she dieted (hardly surprising when she had originally trained in dance, something that doesn't tend to be forgiving of weight or figure). In addition, her contracts included strict weight/size/appearance limits with both financial penalties and suspensions that would result in the original contract term being extended but at the same time being unable to earn or go elsewhere.

I have to eat very lightly,” Jean explained, ordering a sandwich and a glass of milk. “If I eat too much my corset will be uncomfortable.” Jean said that it was very uncomfortable wearing Elizabethan dresses and we chatted about how heavy and restricted the clothes of that era were.

“When you came to live here from England, what was one of the most difficult adjustments you had to make?” I asked. Diet,” they both agreed. “When I lived in London,” Jean told me “I ate everything I wanted and I never gained, but here in California I have had to cut out starches completely and,” she sighed, “I could make a meal off of potatoes and bread.” “I never had id think about gaining,” Granger commented, “but climate and food go together and we have had to change completely our eating habits.” “I find,” Jean continued, “that If you weigh yourself regularly and never allow more than two pounds over, it’s no problem.”

She was also an alcoholic and smoker. Both of which can reduce the likelihood of eating.

The height is really significant though, being 5ft 1 and 7 stone isn't that shocking at all, it only takes a few inches to make that a totally different story.

4'10' is much much shorter than say 5'4". It makes a big difference weight wise, being 7.5 stone at 4.10 is very different to being 7.5 stone at 5.4

Frankly it’s pretty ludicrous to be so pedantic as to add “literally “ to my post. I meant that I am definitely not a freak giant. Plenty of people are my height and I’m also not flumping heifer either.

I have to agree that there’s a MASSIVE difference at being 4ft 10 and 5ft 4. I’m 7st 6 and my bmi is 21.8. I’ve still got substantial fat coverage and I’m a long way from being underweight. I could probably lose a stone before I was underweight.

which is madness when you think about it but it is a feature of being really short, you literally have to be below Kylie sized to be underweight.

I was 105lb until about 36 when I had my 3rd child. Incan only dream of that weight now.
People are just bigger now.

It was 5'4" a few days ago.

Height can be regional - there are lots of short women where I live.

No it's not it's 5ft5.

Of course it can be regional and it can also be dependent upon ethnicity.

Sounds about right on the lower end for her height tbh. I was only seven stone when I was aged 16 and 5 foot three. Those days are long gone.

I am 7st 1 and 5ft 3. It is hard work to stay at this weight and I think I look fragile rather than the petite I would like. However, I have to keep my weight this low as I have a true apple shape and all the weight goes straight to my stomach. Heart disease and diabetes run in the family and I’ve been advised to keep my waist measurement low. Even at this weight it’s still 27 inches, my hips are slim, I have no butt, boobs and stick limbs. If my weight goes up at all, the waist increases and it’s so harmful. I try to train to protect my bones and will use HRT when the time comes but I feel I can’t win.

It depends on where you get the data.