• Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Feedback
  • Speaking Engagements
    • Presentation Schedule
  • Support Beauty Redefined
    • Buy MP3: “Beauty Redefined” By Jules Morrow
  • Billboard Beauty Redefined!

The Lies We Buy: Defining Health at Women’s Expense

Mar07
2011
41 Comments Written by Beauty Redefined

By Lindsay Kite

After lots of research on perceptions of women’s health, I became interested in the Body Mass Index (BMI) and how it came to be the standard scale for judging a healthy weight. What I learned was shocking. This is an condensed excerpt of a full paper I wrote on this topic for my PhD program. It has been accepted to the 2011 Conference of the National Communication Association, where I’ll be presenting it on Nov. 18, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Though accepted definitions of physical health should have remained relatively stable throughout the past several decades, public perceptions regarding female health have shifted dramatically toward a focus on thinness over the past 25 years, as evidenced by media’s almost exclusive description and depiction of healthy bodies as extremely thin, toned and free of any unsightly “blemishes” like cellulite. By the early ‘90s, the vast majority of magazine health content focused on weight loss (framed as a means to improve appearance), though overweight and obesity had not yet become national health concerns.

While science tells us that current beauty ideals of extreme thinness and tall, shapely perfection have little to no correlation with actual indicators of health and wellness, we still see tons of evidence that people believe this myth to be true:

  • The vast majority of girls and women now perceive underweight bodies and extremely low body weights as being ideally healthy
  • Even underweight and average-weight females are striving for weight loss using dangerous and unhealthy means, such as disordered eating and abuse of laxatives or excessive exercise
  • According to studies done in the last five years, 66 percent of adolescent girls wish they were thinner, though only 16 are actually overweight.

Furthermore, in the last decade, there was a 446 percent increase in the number of cosmetic procedures in the U.S., with women undergoing 92 percent of those – the majority being liposuction. Add the cost of those voluntary surgeries to the $7 billion per year U.S. women spend on beauty products, and we have a population that spends $19 billion per year trying to achieve “beauty.” On top of that, with the relatively recent conflation of beauty ideals with health ideals, the weight loss and diet industries have begun to flourish unlike ever before, with an estimated $61 billion spent on the quest for thinness in 2010 – more than twice as much as Americans spent on all types of diet programs and products in 1992.

Through mass media, Americans are delivered a constant stream of messages telling us idealized beauty and health is attainable for any woman willing to devote enough time, money and effort – whether in the gym, at the mall or on the operating table. In case we need a harder push toward these ideals, we’re constantly reminded that the sacrifice is well worth it, based on ever-present media narratives telling women how to fix their flaws in order to find love, happiness, success and – perhaps most the most dangerous lie of all – health.

100 Years and 100 Lbs

Because women’s magazines are second only to physicians as sources of health information, I critically analyzed depictions and discussion of women’s bodies/health in magazines from 1900-2010, hoping to better understand how women’s body ideals have become so unrealistic. Here, I’ll describe just two stunning beauty ideals from this time period ­– 100 years and 100 lbs apart.

Perhaps the most well-known U.S. beauty icon at the turn of the 20th century was Lillian Russel, a stage actress and singer born in 1861. Her New York Times obituary (1922) repeatedly references her beauty, noting that “for more than 20 years, she had been known as one of the most beautiful women on the American stage.” At the peak of her fame, Russel weighed approximately 200 pounds and was celebrated for her curvaceous figure, as demonstrated in another NYT article about her (1902), in which the author extols her “superior beauty.” The way she was described genuinely caught me off guard: “[Russel] is a particularly robust and healthy creature, who takes good care to remain so.” Russel’s weight, which would be considered “obese” by today’s standard (the BMI), was actually considered a sign of her health and desirability.

Today’s most prominent fashion and beauty ideals represent the opposite end of the spectrum. British “anti-supermodel” Kate Moss’s gaunt, androgynous frame has been lauded by the fashion industry and earned her more than 50 women’s magazine covers and high-profile advertising campaigns. Her much-celebrated “waif” look dominated the fashion industry throughout the ‘90s and well into the next decade, as she ranked 2nd on Forbes’ top-earning model list in 2007 with an estimated $9 million salary. Her much-publicized 2009 statement to elite fashion magazine Women’s Wear Daily that “nothing tastes as good as skinny feels” reflects a dangerous sentiment underlying today’s beauty ideals, as well as the fears of medical experts, as the quote soon appeared across “thinspiration,” or pro-eating disorder websites, worldwide.

Defining Health at Women’s Expense

A standardized table of average weights and heights for women was developed for the first time in 1908, when life insurance companies began looking for ways to charge higher premiums to applicants based on pre-screening by their own medical examiners. Though previous weight tables allowed for increasing weight with age (which naturally occurs), this new table was the first to deem an increase in weight after age 25 as undesirable and unhealthy. Thus, by setting the thresholds for “ideal weight” and “overweight” lower than what mortality data showed as the actual healthy weight ranges, they were able to collect more money for those they deemed “overweight.”

Though it would have been much more accurate to compare death rates with actual assessments of body fat, such as skinfold thickness or even simple waist circumference measures, these data were much more difficult and expensive for both the medical and life insurance industries to obtain than basic height and weight. In the 1800s, an equation was formulated to potentially predict body fat percentage (weight divided by height squared), and the life insurance industries and medical community latched on to it in the 1970s. This equation, which scientists warned was only meant to be used for large diagnostic studies on general populations and was not accurate for individuals, was named the Body Mass Index (BMI).

By 1985, the National Institutes of Health began defining obesity according to BMI, which defined “obese” according to the profit-driven standard set by the 1983 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company mortality tables. It is important to note that these standards did not take into account body frame or build, which were included in the previous tables after physicians  demanded “small,” “medium” or “large frame” be factored in to avoid serious miscalculations of body fat.

In the first mention I could find of weight as a national issue, it was reported at a 1993 conference for the National Institutes of Health that 24% of men and 27% of women were overweight, according to the BMI. But by June 1998, those numbers skyrocketed while Americans’ weights stayed the same. Millions of people considered to be of ideal weight according to the BMI were suddenly categorized as “overweight” without gaining a pound when the NIH suddenly changed the rules. The BMI thresholds for what was considered “overweight” and “obese” were lowered and the standards for men and women were consolidated – despite the relationship between BMI and body fat being different for both genders.

  • On June 16, 1998, the “average” woman was 5 feet, 4 inches tall and weighed 155 pounds.
  • On June 17, a woman of that same height and weight was considered “overweight.”
  • The requirement for “average” dropped 10 pounds to 145, and a person of the same height who weighed 175 pounds was considered “obese.”

These standards are still in effect today, and individuals are encouraged to easily diagnose their own BMI status through the NIH website-hosted BMI calculator.

Dr. David Haslam, the clinical director of Britain’s National Obesity Forum, told the Daily Telegraph newspaper: “It is now widely accepted that the BMI is useless for assessing the healthy weight of individuals.” Despite extensive evidence proving the BMI lacks accuracy for calculating an individual’s body fat or healthy weight, the government defends it as the national standard due to the fact that it is “inexpensive and easy for clinicians and for the general public” (CDC, 2010). Thus, the financial interests of those who diagnose, define and profit from the definition of “health” in this country were prioritized over individuals’ accurate understandings of their own health. By upholding and enforcing a faulty measure, the insurance industry, medical industry and federal health agencies save a significant amount of money that could otherwise be spent on diagnostic tools and procedures that are reliable indicators of health.

To further prove the differe between the BMI and actual health, the National Cancer Institute and CDC reported that individuals who are overweight but not obese have a lower risk of death than those of the BMI’s “normal weight” category. Accordingly, a report from the International Journal of Obesity states: “BMI may lead to misclassification of persons with normal levels of fat as being overweight, a fact that could cause unnecessary distress and prompt unnecessary and costly interventions.”

From lost self-esteem, lost money and time spent fixing “flaws” and a well-documented preoccupation with thinness, the effects of profit-driven health information involve serious loss for women, while too many industries see huge economic gains. From the life insurance industry collecting higher premiums for those they deem “overweight” based on a standard they set themselves, to major financial savings for medical experts and the government using the profit-driven BMI, to the diet and weight loss industry raking in an estimated $61 billion on Americans’ quest for thinness in 2010, those who make money off the discourse surrounding women’s health are thriving unlike ever before.

When Women Hate Their Bodies, Their Health Takes the Hit

While representations of women’s bodies across all media have shrunk dramatically in the last 30 years, rates of eating disorders have skyrocketed – tripling for college-age women from the late ‘80s to 1993 and rising since then to 4% suffering with bulimia. Maybe even scarier is the 119% increase from ’99-’06 in the number of children under 12 hospitalized due to an eating disorder, the vast majority of whom were girls. Though the Department of Health reports that “no exact cause of eating disorders have yet been found,” they do admit some characteristics have been linked to their development, such low self-esteem, fear of becoming fat and being in an environment where weight and thinness are emphasized – all of which are shown to be related to media exposure of idealized bodies, which is all but inescapable.

Since the early 1900s, medical experts have agreed on the health dangers of extremes in body weight – both underweight and obesity. It is my opinion that the anxieties incited by unrealistic thinness ideals perpetuated by mass media are manifesting themselves in the form of these two dangerous extremes in body weight: women turning to disordered eating as an attempt to fit the ideal on one end of the spectrum, and on the other end, women surrendering to unhealthy overeating and sedentary lifestyles in response to their perception that they are too far from the ideal to ever achieve an average or healthy weight.

A rich body of research that shows health and fitness often has very little correlation to body weight or even an individual’s BMI, as evidenced by a meta-analysis of medical studies since the 1970s that concluded overweight and active people may be healthier than those who are thin and sedentary (Macias Aguayo et al., 2005; Heimpel, 2009). Therefore, understanding that activity level is a much more reliable indicator of a person’s health than their body weight is key to promoting real, effective health goals that can lead people away from extremes like disordered eating and obesity.

With so many power holders with serious financial interests at stake in maintaining the disgust and anxiety females feel about their bodies, it is unlikely that the dominant portrayals/descriptions of women’s health will change anytime soon. Therefore, dismantling and revealing for-profit health myths must become the responsibility of everyone who recognizes their existence.

WHO CAN HELP:

  • health educators and practitioners who know the difference between thin ideals and indicators of physical fitness
  • parents, teachers, friends and other influential individuals who see signs of low self-esteem, distorted body perceptions and disordered eating in girls
  • media consumers who recognize negative feelings about their own or others’ bodies after reading or viewing media that represents ideals as normal or “healthy”
  • media decision-makers who can disrupt the steady stream of idealized bodies with positive representations of more normative shapes and sizes
  • Potential activists who are willing to visibly resist messages that repackage women’s health in power-laden terms in any way possible, whether through volunteering to speak out against harmful ideals for any audience who will listen, or by attracting media attention toward the dangerous link between beauty ideals, low self-esteem and serious health consequences
  • medical experts, researchers and physicians who have influence over patients’ and colleagues’ perceptions of body fat measures and diagnostic tools

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Revealing the unrealistic nature of the “beauty ideals=health” myth and its influence on the way girls and women view and treat their bodies is a promising step toward improving women’s health. This can be done in simple ways, such as by:

  • pointing out the difference between media representations of women’s bodies and real-life women’s bodies while watching TV or flipping through a magazine with friends or family
  • gaining better understanding of realistic and healthy standards of body weight and physical fitness for ourselves and others over whom we have influence, such as by talking with your doctor and researching signs of optimal health for yourself
  • posting links or starting discussions on blogs and social networking sites to continuously spark conversation about dangerous thin ideals and those who profit from our belief in them
  • reminding ourselves and encouraging others to engage in physical activity as a means for improving physical and mental health, rather than a strategy for achieving unattainable beauty ideals
  • developing and helping to implement accurate and reliable measures of healthy weight, whether that means developing new algorithms that can better predict individual body fat or (if you’re a medical expert or practitioner) steering clear of the BMI in favor of other financially feasible measures like waist circumference measurement or skinfold thickness

Feel free to use this information, but please remember to cite the source(s)!

Kite, Lindsay. (2011). The Lies We Buy: Defining Health at Women’s Expense. Conference Paper: National Communication Association, Nov. 18, 2011.

(For a complete list of references, the full PDF of this paper is available here: Kite, Lindsay – NCA Paper, Defining Health at Women’s Expense)

 

Tweet
Posted in ALL BLOG POSTS, Faux "Fitness" Ideals, RECOGNIZE & REJECT THESE HARMFUL MESSAGES! - Tagged BMI, Body Image, For Teens, Harmful Health Ideals, Magazines, Recognize Harmful Ideals, Reject Harmful Ideals
SHARE THIS Twitter Facebook Delicious StumbleUpon E-mail
Similar posts
  • Our Issue with Swimsuits (or lack the... — This week, the 2012 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue hit...
  • Sex Appeal and Thin Ideals: Are Men t... — We know body hatred, self-objectification, disordered ea...
  • Cosmo Magazine: The Best-Seller That ... — Cosmopolitan magazine - the notoriously risque and best-s...
  • To BE or To Be Looked At? — You are capable of much more than being looked at. Have y...
  • My (Sexy) Little Pony? Teaching Toddl... — At Beauty Redefined, we’re working to help everyone reco...
« Porn & Pop Culture: A Deadly Combination
» Roadside Beauty Redefined!

31 Comments

  1. Emma's Gravatar Emma
    January 24, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Would the list of google ads below your article be classified as ironic??

    Reply
  2. Emily's Gravatar Emily
    January 25, 2011 at 5:01 am | Permalink

    I really want you and Lexie to come and teach a group of photographers what you have learned! I really enjoy reading your research! This article in particular spoke to me. I have been annoyed with the bmi as long as I can remember. In high school I was considered overweight according to that stupid scale and I didn’t think I was. Now, I am free! Thank you!

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      January 27, 2011 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

      You are a wonderful example of how the BMI should not be used to classify anyone! No one on earth would every say you were (or are) overweight. Not a chance. Thanks for the nice words! Lexie and I are planning to head up to IF for a presentation in the next couple of months, so we’ll keep you updated and you can invite your photographer friends!

      Reply
  3. girlnixon's Gravatar girlnixon
    January 25, 2011 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    I much enjoyed. I too believe that healthy is more than a number on the bathroom scale. :) brenda

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      January 27, 2011 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

      Thank you! If only more people agreed! I think the world would be a healthier, happier place.

      Reply
  4. Lili's Gravatar Lili
    January 25, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    I’m so glad you’re sharing your research on this blog–this information is so important and valuable.

    I think that for every beauty magazine a woman (or man) reads, they should counter-balance it with one of these blog posts!

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      January 27, 2011 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

      Thank you! I really wish we could counteract all the thousands of negative messages with as many positive ones!

      Reply
  5. Kari's Gravatar Kari
    January 25, 2011 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, the hcg ad is pretty awesome. :) So after I’m done having kids, I might have a tummy tuck since my stomach looks a bit like Kate Gosselin’s. Acceptable or not?

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      January 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

      I’ll give you my mom’s favorite response: “You just do whatever you think is right.” Haha.

      Reply
  6. Jolyn's Gravatar Jolyn
    January 27, 2011 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    As Emily mentioned she feels freed by knowing she does not have to define her health by the BMI, how many other women are feeling trapped by what they have been deemed by this for profit measurement? We need to have health measurements individualized not categorized. To be targeted by just a number, could clearly lead to unhealthy measures of dealing with the way it makes individuals feel.
    It is also is interesting to see how much change have gone on in the last 100, 20, or 10 years. It makes me lose hope for future generations. Unless, more women unite in saying we will not except what those who profit off of us deem as normal, beautiful or even “healthy”. Let us redefine the way we are enticed as consumers instead of allowing the media to redefine the way we think of ourselves.

    Reply
  7. Lori Andersen's Gravatar Lori Andersen
    February 7, 2011 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Have you ever read “Fat Politics”? It’s a must! The author discusses this same principle, yet points out those that were on the NIH board that changed the BMI definitions were also affiliated with weight loss pharmaceutical companies.

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      February 7, 2011 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

      I need to read that! I’m incredibly unsurprised at the link between the NIH and pharmaceutical companies though. SCARY! Thanks for your support, girl!
      -Lindsay

      Reply
  8. Samurai Mom's Gravatar Samurai Mom
    February 7, 2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Thank you so much for this article and your project. The BMI says that at 5′ 2″ and 175lbs I am squarely in the obese category. I think looking at me one would be hard pressed to even call me over weight. Even at my lowest adult weight of 145lbs (working 2 jobs, barely eating or sleeping, morning sickness and bones poking out) the BMI still categorized me as overweight.

    I even lied recently on an insurance form for fear that they would consider me overweight solely on my BMI and therefore unhealthy and charge us more money.

    Thanks for what you are doing, and for the record I love my my body all 175lbs of it!

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      February 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for your support! We’d love your help spreading the word on this work — and your blog is fantastic! Keep loving what you’ve got! You have every reason to.

      Reply
  9. Andi's Gravatar Andi
    February 24, 2011 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Holy cow! Thanks for sharing that! I appreciate your diligence in providing information. I am utterly shocked. And ticked off at the BMI…

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      February 26, 2011 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      So glad you liked it! (if “liked” is really the right term…) Your reaction is exactly what I felt when researching this!
      -Lindsay

      Reply
  10. Mindy's Gravatar Mindy
    March 4, 2011 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    I just found this post after commenting about the BMI on one of your other posts. I had no idea they had changed the scale (or how it even came to be). It is a load of crap! Thanks for sharing.

    Reply
  11. Chani's Gravatar Chani
    March 9, 2011 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    Just read the article in the update about the BAI. The title cracked me up: “Better than BMI?” As if anything could be worse. I truly hope this new method of measurement will be implemented along with much more individualized approaches to ascertaining health, it’s just so necessary. I hate the idea of blanket solutions to complex problems anyway, and this is no different! Thanks for the update! Keep up the good work!

    Reply
  12. Kell Brigan's Gravatar Kell Brigan
    March 11, 2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    “FINALLY, scientists are on their way to replacing the faulty BMI with a new, more reliable measure called the BAI (body adiposity index), which relies on waist and hip measurements to calculate healthy weight. ”

    How are “calculations” going to change someone’s genes? Safe & permanent weight loss DOESN’T EXIST — after four years, the percentage of people who’ve yoyoed back to their starting weight is 99.75%, and yoyo weight changes create the diseases that weight “loss” claims to be trying to dure. Weight “loss” attempts are NEVER health-promoting, so why continue to play chart games? There is never a good excuse for encouraging someone to try to change their weight. Living healthfully will result in some people being fat, period, no matter what the charts say.

    Same sh**; different day.

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      March 11, 2011 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      You’re right – calculations are never going to be the answer. Fortunately, I do see it as a step in the right direction that can at least categorize fewer healthy people as “overweight” or “obese” and alleviate at least a few fears of obesity in otherwise healthy people. Anything that beats the BMI as a measure to gauge an approximate healthy weight is an improvement in my book. But it’s SO true that weight loss attempts are never health-promoting. They’re profit-promoting. I’m fully behind you in your statement that “living healthfully will result in some people being fat, period, no matter what the charts say.” My issue is with the definition of “fat,” which people gauge according to standardized charts like the BMI (and probably the BAI). (And I apologize for the censorship at the end of your post – but we have lots of young and conservative readers.) Thanks so much for your important comment.

      Reply
  13. Jamie Nielson's Gravatar Jamie Nielson
    April 13, 2011 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    I am so glad I read this today – being considered “obese” by BMI standards has really taken its toll on my self esteem. While I only feel chubby somedays, it’s hard to hear that you’re actually obese; I mean, what am I supposed to do with that?! So thank you – this is just what I needed to pick myself up :-)

    Jamie

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      April 13, 2011 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      Jamie, that’s exactly the purpose of this research! Liberating, right? You’re beautiful. Thanks for your comment and pass this message along!
      -Lindsay

      Reply
  14. Dr. Deah Schwartz's Gravatar Dr. Deah Schwartz
    April 18, 2011 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    Found your blog via Regan’s Blog and thought you may be curious about my size acceptance, diets don’t work, body image reparation site! Your work is great! Thanks!

    Reply
  15. Pere's Gravatar Pere
    April 27, 2011 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    So don’t hate me for this, but sometimes the numbers are good. Not BMI by any means, which is a very antiquated and very bad method for judging obesity, but the hip to waist ratio that they talked about is a great way to gain an overall idea as to healthy a person is. The hip to waist ratio is calculated by dividing the circumference of the waist at its smallest point by the circumference of the hips at their widest point. Waist to hip ratio of 0.8 in women and 0.9 in men is generally considered a good ratio. For example as a man, i could have a 38″ waist and a 42 1/4″ hips and have a ratio of .9. Anything higher than that ratio has been found to have a direct correlation with greater incidences of heart failure, with the risk increasing by as much as 30% for every 20% ratio increase. (Research presented at the recent conference of the Heart and Lung Transplantation Society) Essentially meaning for every time your hip to waist goes up by .2, your risk of heart failure increases by 30%. So don’t fixate on the numbers and obsess about them, but still be cognizant that there is a correlation with the ratio, and be aware that the higher ratio you have, the higher risk you have of serious cardiovascular complications.

    Reply
  16. toasty redhead's Gravatar toasty redhead
    May 14, 2011 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Right on!

    Reply
  17. Emily's Gravatar Emily
    August 9, 2011 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    I’d love to hear more about the definitions of beauty over the century that you studied! Quite fascinating.

    Reply
  18. Kathy's Gravatar Kathy
    November 3, 2011 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Lillian Russell was also known for her corset. She looked curvy instead of overweight because she abused her body to squeeze into a tiny waist.
    She was NOT “a particularly robust and healthy creature, who takes good care to remain so.”

    Reply
  19. Jessica's Gravatar Jessica
    November 6, 2011 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    I’m a proponent of HAES, but some of your information in this article is incorrect. I am in the process of completing my dissertation which involves BMI measures. BMI was not developed in the 1970s, it was developed in the 1800s by Adolphe Quetelet. The equation was re-named BMI in 1972, but it was around for a long time before that! See: http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/47.full

    I would change this if possible. The last thing we need is people missing the message of your article because they feel the facts weren’t checked out properly.

    Reply
  20. Lisa's Gravatar Lisa
    December 4, 2011 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    Have you seen the illustrated BMI project? It really shows what a crock the BMI is. http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/sets/72157602199008819/

    Reply
  21. Nathan's Gravatar Nathan
    December 7, 2011 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    The ultrathin ideal started 25 years ago? No, it started with Twiggy 40 years ago and had a slight reprieve in the mid 80s. The idea of beauty confounded with health is new? No, even in her own article from 1902 the description includes health and beauty as a related concept. Nothing new there. She states an “average” woman in 1998 was 5’4″ and 155lbs. That’s just bad math. Weight varies with the square of height and so taller women in the pool skew the data. Does the author really think 155lbs is a good weight for a woman 5’4″? Also, we are learning more and more that thin people really do live longer.
    In the last 5 years only 16% of adolescent girls are overweight? According to who? Obesity in children is rampant and getting worse every year. It’s true BMI is a lousy tool for assessing individuals and should ONLY be used for aggregate data. Having a healthy amount of muscle will throw off your BMI very quickly.
    I’m all for promoting positive body images and agree with the fundamental assertion that media promotes unrealistic body images adding to insecurity and unhealthy behaviors in women, but let’s not use bad science to make the point.

    Reply
    • Beauty Redefined's Gravatar Beauty Redefined
      December 7, 2011 at 1:25 am | Permalink

      Hi Nathan, happy to address your “bad science” accusation. The stats you’re taking issue with are directly from the CDC – the federal health agency and the No. 1 source for the nation’s info on all things obesity-related, as you well know. They’re from the most recent national data released and can all be found easily through a simple Google search or a scan of the CDC website – that includes the fact that yes, only 16% of adolescent girls (ages 6-19) are overweight and that in 1998, the CDC and all other federal and medical agencies (based off the BMI) considered the “average” woman to be 5’4″ and 155. I didn’t make up those numbers, nor do I agree that they are good math, but they’re the only math this country has relied on. And I never made any assertions that 155 is a “good weight,” which would be so far beyond the point of this article that I’m wondering if you really read it. And as for your statement that “we are learning more and more than thin people really do live longer,” it would be great if you could back that up with some research. There’s plenty of research to suggest otherwise, including a rich body of research that shows health and fitness often has very little correlation to body weight or even an individual’s BMI, as evidenced by a meta-analysis of medical studies since the 1970s that concluded overweight and active people may be healthier than those who are thin and sedentary. Here are a couple of good overviews from mainstream magazines that you should check out: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/26/who-says-americans-are-too-fat.html and http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066937,00.html.

      Reply
  1. Body Loving Blogosphere 03.13.11 | medicinal marzipan on March 13, 2011 at 8:04 am
  2. To BE or To Be Looked At? | Adios Barbie on May 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm
  3. Being Madly Irritating – (The 24.9 Blues) | LivingWell, DietingHappy on July 25, 2011 at 12:42 am
  4. Does beauty really lie in the eyes of the beholder? « The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker on September 16, 2011 at 8:25 am
  5. To BE or To Be Looked At? | BEAUTY REDEFINED on November 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm
  6. Body Mass Index (BMI): Where It Came From and What It’s Good For « Size And Substance on November 28, 2011 at 12:04 pm
  7. Surrendering to Health. | Learning to listen- and trust. on December 9, 2011 at 2:45 pm
  8. things on my mind « Catpooh on January 13, 2012 at 7:53 pm
  9. Hatred Does Not Equal Health : Ms Magazine Blog on February 8, 2012 at 1:49 pm
  10. Redefining Health Part 1: Measuring the Obesity Crisis | BEAUTY REDEFINED on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 am

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Latest Blog Posts

  • How We Got Here: Lindsay (and Lexie’s) Story
  • Our Issue with Swimsuits (or lack thereof) in Sports Illustrated
  • Healthy Redefined Part 2: Forget About Fat and Get Fit!
  • Healthy Redefined Part 1: Measuring the Obesity Crisis
  • Sex Appeal and Thin Ideals: Are Men to Blame?
  • Vanity Fair-Skinned Only? The Race Issue in the “Hollywood Issue”
  • Running from Self-Objectification

Blog Post Categories

  • ALL BLOG POSTS
  • Body Hate Apocalypse 2012!
  • RECOGNIZE & REJECT THESE HARMFUL MESSAGES!
    • Beauty Whitewashed
    • Faux "Fitness" Ideals
    • Normalized Pornography
    • Photoshopping Phoniness
    • Repeat Offenders: Media Case Studies
  • REDEFINE BEAUTY FOR YOURSELF
  • STRATEGIES FOR BOYS AND MEN
  • STRATEGIES FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN
  • TEN GIRLS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT WEIGHT

Join Us on Facebook!

Tweeting to Take Back Beauty!

Support Beauty Redefined

Recent Posts

  • How We Got Here: Lindsay (and Lexie’s) Story
  • Our Issue with Swimsuits (or lack thereof) in Sports Illustrated
  • Healthy Redefined Part 2: Forget About Fat and Get Fit!
  • Healthy Redefined Part 1: Measuring the Obesity Crisis
  • Sex Appeal and Thin Ideals: Are Men to Blame?

Beauty Redefined Basics

  • About Us
  • Billboard Beauty Redefined!
  • Contact Us
  • Feedback
  • Home
  • Speaking Engagements
    • Presentation Schedule
  • Support Beauty Redefined
    • Buy MP3: “Beauty Redefined” By Jules Morrow

SUBSCRIBE to Receive our Latest Posts!

Copyright © 2011 Beauty Redefined. Web design & maintenance by KiTE media.