Relevant (from ROK):
For a girl that is naturally small boned, and has not put on muscle from athletic training, a 17 BMI is not low at all. But that's now illegal.
BMI as a tool to assess individuals is absolute pseudoscience. Especially when those individuals are physically exceptional by definition, as runway models are. It's a testament to the piss poor quality of conventional nutritional guidelines. I would challenge these hucksters to show any proof that small boned women with 17 BMI are any less healthy than women with a 24-25 BMI, which is considered healthy by the authorities, but in actuality is quite fat on a woman who doesn't do serious resistance training.
It will be interesting to see how the industry responds. Will bigger framed models come to the fore? Will the currently skinny models put on some muscle in unobtrusive places (i.e. hips and ass)? That's a potential silver lining for the assmen among us.
One thing you can bet on: the models won't get fatter. Fat is a hallmark of the lower classes (it literally correlates with it), and runway fashion is a matter of seeming high status through appearance. Especially for a woman, looking haute is impossible when fat.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/health/obe...ybe-worse/
"Based on their findings, Braverman and his coauthor, New York State Commissioner of Health Nirav Shah, M.D., say the BMI threshold for obesity, which now stands at 30, should be lowered to 24 for women and 28 for men."
If you are going to regulate such matters, it would be better to set lower and upper bounds for acceptable BMI. But even that is silly, because muscle weight can make an obese BMI actually healthy. If you must regulate such matters, I'd propose an acceptable range of say 13-25% body fat percentage for women, and 7-15% for men (these are just rough numbers I'm tossing out). Using body fat percentages shuts down the "I'm big boned!" argument completely.
For a girl that is naturally small boned, and has not put on muscle from athletic training, a 17 BMI is not low at all. But that's now illegal.
BMI as a tool to assess individuals is absolute pseudoscience. Especially when those individuals are physically exceptional by definition, as runway models are. It's a testament to the piss poor quality of conventional nutritional guidelines. I would challenge these hucksters to show any proof that small boned women with 17 BMI are any less healthy than women with a 24-25 BMI, which is considered healthy by the authorities, but in actuality is quite fat on a woman who doesn't do serious resistance training.
It will be interesting to see how the industry responds. Will bigger framed models come to the fore? Will the currently skinny models put on some muscle in unobtrusive places (i.e. hips and ass)? That's a potential silver lining for the assmen among us.
One thing you can bet on: the models won't get fatter. Fat is a hallmark of the lower classes (it literally correlates with it), and runway fashion is a matter of seeming high status through appearance. Especially for a woman, looking haute is impossible when fat.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/health/obe...ybe-worse/
"Based on their findings, Braverman and his coauthor, New York State Commissioner of Health Nirav Shah, M.D., say the BMI threshold for obesity, which now stands at 30, should be lowered to 24 for women and 28 for men."
If you are going to regulate such matters, it would be better to set lower and upper bounds for acceptable BMI. But even that is silly, because muscle weight can make an obese BMI actually healthy. If you must regulate such matters, I'd propose an acceptable range of say 13-25% body fat percentage for women, and 7-15% for men (these are just rough numbers I'm tossing out). Using body fat percentages shuts down the "I'm big boned!" argument completely.