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.

I was disgusted with myself as a teen in the 80s when the scales tipped 9 stone. At 5'4" I was a steady 8st 12 until I had kids. Now I'm delighted with 9st 6! (And despite my literally bang-average size I was teased about my weight at school and had Bridget Jones level of neurosis about it).

So if you strip out relevant and contributory data you end up with… a different set of statistics? 🙄🙄 No shit Sherlock.

I was always around 9 stone in the same era. I was a size 12 in those days at that weight.

She looks a lot younger than him in that pic though. Surprised to see she’s only 12 years younger.

In those days very few people were overweight. During /post 2nd world war you would be " hard pushed to find anyone overweight. It was full fat everything. And i guess as women you couldn't just put a load in the washing machine, its was a full days hard labour, so they were fit aswell.😊

You don't, anyway. There's nothing you can strip out to give any female cohort in the UK an average height of 5'9 (other than randomly excluding women below a certain height). So the figure is just flat out wrong.

I think you've misread it then. There is nowhere on earth where the average height for non-elderly adult women is 5'9.

" the average height of adult women 20-45 in the UK is around 5’9”". Yes, about 5'4".

@NancyThompson , the pp lives in a Long Tall Sally shop or a modelling agency.

We have so much temptation - it’s really hard to resist - I’ve fallen prey to so called healthy snacks now but they’re still calories

Ah, that clears up the confusion.

@dcthatsme , there was a BBC Food Chain programme on snacks this morning. It was on World Service so the podcast is probably not available yet.
They are industrially-manufactured and meant to be temptation.

I don't really get the temptation for them but once I start, I won't want to stop.
My lack of 'temptation' is because they are usually a disappointment. Cakes, for example, are rarely as nice as they look.

My Mother was 5' 2" and weighed 7st 12 lbs when she married at age 28. She had a beautiful hour glass figure measurinf 36-22-36. After birthing 2 children her weight rose to 9st 2lb. She never looked over weight. She remained that weight for most of her life. She had a healthy diet and was moderately active.

@Ladygodalmighty , She was 7st 12 (110lbs) and 5'2", so heavier and shorter.
It sounds like a healthy weight for the height. Slim but not underweight.

My mother was "only 8 st" after she had me. I'm taller than her but weigh about 8st. The difference is that I don't have my mother's obsession with dieting, her "big hips", and being "short-waisted". I inherited her frame but different habits.

Yes! I think 25 is also not a healthy BMI to aim for and you should be under 25 (or 23 if you're of an ethnicity where that's the cutoff).

I've been 5'4 and 7 and a half stone as an adult - indeed I've been under that. I am now at the very bottom of the healthy weight range.

When I was 7 and a half stone, in fact, I was seeing a GP for something completely unrelated and she weighed me and told me I could really do with gaining a very small amount of weight. I didn't feel "underweight" as such - I also have the fabled small frame - but I was according to BMI, and BMI is in fact a useful tool for the vast majority of people in terms of predicting health outcomes. Most people are not so special it doesn't apply to them.

The BMI of 25 (or 23 if applicable) is the point beyond which you are classed as overweight, not a target. The ideal is 21.7.

Looking at the values for my height and age I'd say it was about right. I'd be 'fat' way before I reached BMI 25. (My frame is quite sturdy, feet and hands not small, quite lean in physique).

By fat I mean feeling too heavy and people commenting. Why they think I need to be told is beyond me.

I don't think any particular BMI within the healthy weight range is given as a universal ideal to be honest. 21.7 is just in the exact middle of 18.5-25, but most people's ideal weight should fall somewhere in there.* *

This. It’s a scale to take account of differing frame sizes.

I’ve been 7.5 in my life and no GP said anything.

Being underweight is not a risk factor unless it’s a manifestation of illness or malnourishment.

My mum was always slightly underweight - BMI 17.5 - and it was regarded as normal for her. Tiny frame, size 3 feet. Sadly now she is old and unwell it has dropped to 14 - she struggles to eat nowadays.

As others have said, we have normalised being much bigger than we should be, and this is very wrong.

Just got back from a holiday in Spain. Everyone is very, very thin there.

Talked to a friend of mine and we could imagine everyone from UK/USA would assume they all have disordered eating instead of realising that it's the UK/USA with disordered eating.

Spain, Italy, Norway, Russia, Japan women are all very 'small' compared to our version of what this means.

We changed - they didn't. We are the problem.

Just got back from a holiday in Spain. Everyone is very, very thin there.
They're probably slim.

I can't be bothered arguing the toss any more about whether most people should in fact be a healthy weight but per NICE guidelines, if you are underweight you are inherently considered malnourished. Yes, even if you eat like a horse.

I don't see this as any more controversial than "if your BMI is 26 you are overweight even if you swear you only eat a lettuce leaf a day and have big bones". I put effort into maintaining a healthy weight even if I'd rather have a BMI of 17 again and could quite easily lose to get back to it because- perhaps foolishly, idk! - I think NHS guidelines around weight are there for a reason and I ultimately trust my doctor.

That's one person's subjective opinion, though, and can't be taken as indicative of any wider societal shift in opinion re this...

if you are underweight you are inherently considered malnourished

Not true, you’ve misunderstood those guidelines.

BMI is a very broad and simple statistical screening tool at population level which simply compares weight to height.

Malnutrition is when food intake or nutrient absorption is genuinely inadequate - leading to loss of muscle mass, vitamin and mineral deficiencies & physical impairment.

BMI on its own cannot determine malnourishment. Doctors look at medical history, blood tests, diet, and body composition - muscle mass, bone density etc.
Some people naturally have a slim build, fast metabolism, or genetic predisposition to a low weight without any nutritional deficiency.

If you're underweight you are inherently malnourished? What rot!!

You can be malnourished at any weight firstly and secondly, theres no evidence if your BMI puts you 'underweight' that you are certainly malnourished. You're only malnourished if you actually are.