Concepts and tolerances of what is thin have changed a lot.

[No_Man]

Dirk's thread about our perceptions about obesity got me thinking: the same is true on the other end of the spectrum too. Take a look at these paintings...

All three were done by different artists in the 16th century and all are of the goddess Venus. Which means that they were what the artists considered their ideal women. Absolute perfection, in their minds. And, frankly, I think all three would be labelled overweight by today's standards. I seriously doubt a single one of them would have a BMI under 25.

Part of me wants to say, "Well, sure... that's the 16th century. The average life expectancy was also only 35. We shouldn't exactly be getting medical advice from them." On the other hand, though, is our current standard for what is "normal" really all that "normal?" I mean, the range for a normal BMI is 20-25, yet the average American woman has a BMI of 26. Does that mean that we're all fat, or does it mean we've set the bar at an unnaturally low weight?

I guess what I'm suggesting is that, while many Americans do indeed need to lose weight, I also wonder whether we're aiming for an impossible goal. We tend to define "normal" by what modern medicine tells us is healthy, but if we look at human history we'll find a different picture for what "normal" human beings actually weigh.

 

[Roald]

But who said they thought this was thin? They probably thought it was ideal (hot?) yes, but ideal does not mean thin per se

 

[Petra]

Part of me wants to say, "Well, sure... that's the 16th century. The average life expectancy was also only 35. We shouldn't exactly be getting medical advice from them." On the other hand, though, is our current standard for what is "normal" really all that "normal?" I mean, the range for a normal BMI is 20-25, yet the average American woman has a BMI of 26. Does that mean that we're all fat, or does it mean we've set the bar at an unnaturally low weight?

I guess what I'm suggesting is that, while many Americans do indeed need to lose weight, I also wonder whether we're aiming for an impossible goal. We tend to define "normal" by what modern medicine tells us is healthy, but if we look at human history we'll find a different picture for what "normal" human beings actually weigh.

Don't forget a lot of women (and men) with a "normal" BMI are actually 'skinny fat'. I hate the whole BMI BS because too many people put too much stock in it when gauging 'healthy.' It's a guideline, but nothing more.

Oh, and a little historical insight. The reason you find paintings of thick or chubby women is it's the wealthy that commissioned a lot of the paintings. It was ideal to have meat on your women's bones because a.) it showed you had the money to eat richly b.) better chance of her conceiving and having that son everyone wants.

 

[No_Man]

Don't forget a lot of women (and men) with a "normal" BMI are actually 'skinny fat'. I hate the whole BMI BS because too many people put too much stock in it when gauging 'healthy.' It's a guideline, but nothing more.

Oh, and a little historical insight. The reason you find paintings of thick or chubby women is it's the wealthy that commissioned a lot of the paintings. It was ideal to have meat on your women's bones because a.) it showed you had the money to eat richly b.) better chance of her conceiving and having that son everyone wants.

I agree about the BMI being an overused guideline. Unfortunately, at least here in the states, if you're reading a statistic about the percentage of people who are overweight or the rates of obesity, it's using BMI as the measurement scale. Which means that, good or bad, BMI is controlling the discussion.

As far as the other points regarding it being an ideal portrayal and one influenced by the standards of the wealthy, I don't think that really changes my point. Maybe I shouldn't have titled the thread as concepts and tolerances of "thin" and made it instead concepts and tolerances of "normal" or "healthy," because that's really what I'm addressing. We have a medical establishment who says that it's ideal, normal, and healthy, for a 5'4" woman to weigh 116 lbs. And then we have the rest of human history saying that that's ridiculous and reflects a poor diet and a body unfit for the stress of childbearing.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Nice thread.

It is interesting to see what is being idolized as the perfect female form in different eras. I personally can't wait for the stick-thin figure to go out. And Petra's right - healthy is the way to gauge things, not BMI.

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

Also the concept on anorexic thin is not new either, bulimia was a popular trend from ancient Rome up to the French Revolution, look at Manet's paintings and obsession with ballerinas and the corset. at that time the fetish was trying to look 16 for ever. In contrast to the early 1950s and early Play Boy centerfolds, they had a good curvy shape to them. it all depends from what context you are looking from.

 

[Krazy4Kobe]

REALLY???

So all these women in AFRICA and INDIA and CHINA who are pumping out kids by the gross...who ARE skinny and do have a skinny BMI...they aren't healthy? Maybe, maybe not...but please don't equate having a low BMI as "ridiculous and reflects a poor diet and a body unfit for the stress of childbearing." Perhaps that defense works in a fat america...but it's not applicable to the rest of the world.

You also seem to forget the rest of human history BEFORE that of 16th century Europe.
What was the average BMI of the human race 100,000 years ago? 200,000 years ago?


I do agree, however, that BMI isn't perfect.
I can be a 5'10 bodybuilder and be considered BMI fat.
My wife's BMI says she should weigh something like 100lbs...but her tits weigh 10lbs! So she is already at 10% body fat! lol!

Gotta say, if you do eat healthy and exercise, you will not be fat.
Don't worry about it.

And yes, Hollywood and fashion have changed the modern popular concept of "thin" -- but that doesn't mean it's a correct concept.

 

[D-rock]

Oh, and a little historical insight. The reason you find paintings of thick or chubby women is it's the wealthy that commissioned a lot of the paintings. It was ideal to have meat on your women's bones because a.) it showed you had the money to eat richly b.) better chance of her conceiving and having that son everyone wants.

Things like that have to be keep in mind when trying to mind old artwork for data like that. It isn't always easy to get cultural norms form them, and getting in the mind of people centuries ago is hard enough to do already with things that reflect those people more accurate than this. There is a good chance that it's that way due to natural built in selection bias of that type of work than it is as a good model of what most people thought.