Obesity rate may be worse than we think

cookiemdough

Do people not go to primary care doctors anymore?  I guess I have had more "skinny" friends who have had made changes to their lifestyle and eating habits because as part of their annual appointments the doctors ran tests and determined maybe cholesterol was high or that that their blood pressure was high.  It got their attention and they made changes accordingly.  Telling someone who is visually normal that they are obese based on bmi rather than focusing on the actual health seems counterproductive to me.  But as I read this thread, maybe I would be one of those stubborn people that is being referenced as not listening to a doctor.  

hindsight's_a_biotch

pedantic_wench:

Because, I guess, some skinny folks would be too embarassed to buy clothes in a store where the sizes go up past a 10.

I distinctly remember a store in the mall when I was growing up called 369, which indicated the size the store had.

Also, plus size clothing costs more (more fabric, stitching time, etc).

We had 5,7,9 although there is still one around.

In the stores I'm referring to, like my favorite store EVAH Maurices, the prices are the same I'm pretty sure. They just have two distinctly different offerings. This would also suck if you ride that line between misses 14 and the plus sized 16 like my mom does.

AmeliaPond

hindsight's_a_biotch:

Speaking of plus sized clothing, why does it have to be different? I get so annoyed by that on a completely superficial level I admit. But why in the hell can't a damned store make all their clothes available in all their sizes?

Why does there have to be a "normal" section with one line of clothes and a plus sized section with a different line of clothes?

I get pissed off when I see a cute dress in the plus sized section but not in the so called normal section so I can only imagine it's worse if you're on the opposite side.

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

LaPiscine

pedantic_wench:

I don't think "fat acceptance" means "bad health acceptance."

Fat does not automatically equate with bad health.

Yes, it could be indicative of bad eating habits or not enough exercise. But, being fat doesn't mean you're going to fall down dead at any minute.

Overweight does not automatically equate with bad health. Obesity, does.  It does not necessarily equate with high blood pressure or high cholesterol, but the absence of those two health conditions doesn't equate with good health.  Neither does the fact that you aren't at risk of falling down dead any minute.  Obesity is bad for you in and of itself.  It indicates you are eating more than your body can process.  And the older your get the worse it is for you.

I also agree that the the "fat acceptance movement" is actually harmful.  

Also, I DO think that 5'6" and 150lbs is probably obese depending on the body type.  It's at least, very likely to be obese.  I'm 5'6" and I'm trying to imagine carrying that much weight on me on a regular daily basis.  I think that would probably qualify me as obese, but my frame is pretty average sized.  Someone with a larger frame, maybe not, but it probably shouldn't be someone's "comfort" weight.

 

pedantic_wench

Yeah, it was 579. durrrr.

Oh and, also, fat people shouldn't wear things skinny people wear. ywia

Eddy1

hindsight's_a_biotch:

pedantic_wench:

Because, I guess, some skinny folks would be too embarassed to buy clothes in a store where the sizes go up past a 10.

I distinctly remember a store in the mall when I was growing up called 369, which indicated the size the store had.

Also, plus size clothing costs more (more fabric, stitching time, etc).

We had 5,7,9 although there is still one around.

In the stores I'm referring to, like my favorite store EVAH Maurices, the prices are the same I'm pretty sure. They just have two distinctly different offerings. This would also suck if you ride that line between misses 14 and the plus sized 16 like my mom does.

I always think it is sad at Tarjay that the plus sized is mixed in with the maternity. And I have had the same thought "Why are they stuck all the way back in this corner when they could be mixed in with the rest of the clothes." Also as someone who is looking for third trimester tents it does confuse me and annoy me that maternity isn't its own dedicated section. I also think it probably feels a bit shamey to be shopping for your clothes in a section for woman with huge uteruses.

hawkeye+

AmeliaPond:

hindsight's_a_biotch:

Speaking of plus sized clothing, why does it have to be different? I get so annoyed by that on a completely superficial level I admit. But why in the hell can't a damned store make all their clothes available in all their sizes?

Why does there have to be a "normal" section with one line of clothes and a plus sized section with a different line of clothes?

I get pissed off when I see a cute dress in the plus sized section but not in the so called normal section so I can only imagine it's worse if you're on the opposite side.

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

Interesting, especially about changing the pattern.

How does vanity sizing factor into this?

nitaw

SMorriso:

hawkeye+:

SMorriso:

+hawkeye+ - you're newer to P&CE right? Did you know that Tuesday's are called Fat Tuesdays in these parts?

Just wondering because this post is well timed. 

I'm sure I am considered obese by these charts. Yet, I don't feel like it, and most certainly do not look it. I feel like we need that chart with pictures of people at certain weights and heights.

Yes, I'm newer here. And no, I had no idea about Fat Tuesdays. What is the story behind that?

It started when I was first beginning to lurk on P&CE, I think anyway. There was this post about Sesame Street not having bigger kids on their show so they could promote healthy examples or something. It was one of the more epic threads on the topic. 

It started a few spin offs, and it was on a Tuesday. 

A lot of our days get categorized by pattern. Abortion Monday (I think it is anyway), Fundie Friday, etc.

And it changes some times - I think we could do a Race War Wednesday instead of Welfare Wednesday now. 

pedantic_wench

LaPiscine:

Overweight does not automatically equate with bad health. Obesity, does.  It does not necessarily equate with high blood pressure or high cholesterol, but the absence of those two health conditions doesn't equate with good health.  Neither does the fact that you aren't at risk of falling down dead any minute.  Obesity is bad for you in and of itself.  It indicates you are eating more than your body can process.  And the older your get the worse it is for you.

I also agree that the the "fat acceptance movement" is actually harmful.  

Also, I DO think that 5'6" and 150lbs is probably obese depending on the body type.  It's at least, very likely to be obese.  I'm 5'6" and I'm trying to imagine carrying that much weight on me on a regular daily basis.  I think that would probably qualify me as obese, but my frame is pretty average sized.  Someone with a larger frame, maybe not, but it probably shouldn't be someone's "comfort" weight.

 

Fat acceptance isn't obesity acceptance.

brideymcbriderson

AmeliaPond:

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

That's fair, but I wish they'd at least use the same fabrics for regular and plus sizes, the way Talbots does.  Especially since I have to order a lot of stuff online.  It would be nice to be able to buy have work basics - pants, jackets, skirts - be able to be paired together across size departmetns.

ECUPirate04

LaPiscine:

pedantic_wench:

I don't think "fat acceptance" means "bad health acceptance."

Fat does not automatically equate with bad health.

Yes, it could be indicative of bad eating habits or not enough exercise. But, being fat doesn't mean you're going to fall down dead at any minute.

Overweight does not automatically equate with bad health. Obesity, does.  It does not necessarily equate with high blood pressure or high cholesterol, but the absence of those two health conditions doesn't equate with good health.  Neither does the fact that you aren't at risk of falling down dead any minute.  Obesity is bad for you in and of itself.  It indicates you are eating more than your body can process.  And the older your get the worse it is for you.

I also agree that the the "fat acceptance movement" is actually harmful.  

Also, I DO think that 5'6" and 150lbs is probably obese depending on the body type.  It's at least, very likely to be obese.  I'm 5'6" and I'm trying to imagine carrying that much weight on me on a regular daily basis.  I think that would probably qualify me as obese, but my frame is pretty average sized.  Someone with a larger frame, maybe not, but it probably shouldn't be someone's "comfort" weight.

 

My mind is blown.  I am shocked that anyone at 5'6'' and 150 lbs would be considered obese.  SHOCKED.

hindsight's_a_biotch

AmeliaPond:

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

I sew. I own a shelf full of books that show you how to grade any pattern up or down to wherever you need it. Once does not need to cut a new pattern to do so. Perhaps if the fashion industry did not start their samples in the mostly teenaged asian girls section, it would be easier for them to do the same.

The fashion industry is lying to themselves and to the public.

 

hawkeye+

nitaw:

SMorriso:

hawkeye+:

SMorriso:

+hawkeye+ - you're newer to P&CE right? Did you know that Tuesday's are called Fat Tuesdays in these parts?

Just wondering because this post is well timed. 

I'm sure I am considered obese by these charts. Yet, I don't feel like it, and most certainly do not look it. I feel like we need that chart with pictures of people at certain weights and heights.

Yes, I'm newer here. And no, I had no idea about Fat Tuesdays. What is the story behind that?

It started when I was first beginning to lurk on P&CE, I think anyway. There was this post about Sesame Street not having bigger kids on their show so they could promote healthy examples or something. It was one of the more epic threads on the topic. 

It started a few spin offs, and it was on a Tuesday. 

A lot of our days get categorized by pattern. Abortion Monday (I think it is anyway), Fundie Friday, etc.

And it changes some times - I think we could do a Race War Wednesday instead of Welfare Wednesday now. 

Fun. I love themes. ha.

pedantic_wench

hindsight's_a_biotch:

AmeliaPond:

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

I sew. I own a shelf full of books that show you how to grade any pattern up or down to wherever you need it. Once does not need to cut a new pattern to do so. Perhaps if the fashion industry did not start their samples in the mostly teenaged asian girls section, it would be easier for them to do the same.

The fashion industry is lying to themselves and to the public.

 

This is why, as clothes go into the larger sizes, women with larger arms and busts have problems finding blouses that fit properly.

It's the nesting doll sizing that is the problem.

princess_cal

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

copzgirl

princess_cal:

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

This just got fun 

LaPiscine

pedantic_wench:

LaPiscine:

Overweight does not automatically equate with bad health. Obesity, does.  It does not necessarily equate with high blood pressure or high cholesterol, but the absence of those two health conditions doesn't equate with good health.  Neither does the fact that you aren't at risk of falling down dead any minute.  Obesity is bad for you in and of itself.  It indicates you are eating more than your body can process.  And the older your get the worse it is for you.

I also agree that the the "fat acceptance movement" is actually harmful.  

Also, I DO think that 5'6" and 150lbs is probably obese depending on the body type.  It's at least, very likely to be obese.  I'm 5'6" and I'm trying to imagine carrying that much weight on me on a regular daily basis.  I think that would probably qualify me as obese, but my frame is pretty average sized.  Someone with a larger frame, maybe not, but it probably shouldn't be someone's "comfort" weight.

 

Fat acceptance isn't obesity acceptance.

Yes it is.

Because obesity is "clinically fat".  So if we have fat acceptance, we have obesity acceptance.  And even if you want to break apart the semantics of it and try to get to the whole, "these words mean different things" carp, if you think there is not an "obesity acceptance" movement in this country, you're high.  

  http://www.obesitycures.com/obesity-acceptance.html

 

bunnybean

I'm 5'3" and I can't remember the last time I weighed 150 lbs. 

At my thinnest in my senior year of high school, I got to be about 170 lbs and a size 12. I looked amazing. Round, but amazing. I was in great shape, dancing 5 times a week, too. That was after a weight loss from my usual 190-200 lbs in high school.

I've been in the obese range since childhood, and I fully accept that I was in the obese range at 170 lbs, but at 150 lbs, I'd be just a tiny bit away from the normal category. I'd be happy to stay there forever. 

AmeliaPond

hindsight's_a_biotch:

AmeliaPond:

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

I sew. I own a shelf full of books that show you how to grade any pattern up or down to wherever you need it. Once does not need to cut a new pattern to do so. Perhaps if the fashion industry did not start their samples in the mostly teenaged asian girls section, it would be easier for them to do the same.

The fashion industry is lying to themselves and to the public.

 

I don't disagree, sample sizes have gotten ridiculously small. But when making a commercial pattern they try to keep it as simple as possible, which means not making bust adjustments in correlation to larger proportions and all the stuff you can do when you're making a garment for a specific person. Because it's more work for the designer to draft and more work for the factory to cut patterns that aren't simply scaled up versions of the sample size.

hindsight's_a_biotch

Dude, 5'6 and 150 could be overweight but there is no way it's obese, none whatsoever.

I'm 5'7 and the most I've weighed outside of pregnancy is 140 and that still put me at a size 8 at Old Navy.

But obviously, that's an anecdotal story lol sorry.

pedantic_wench

LaPiscine:

pedantic_wench:

LaPiscine:

Overweight does not automatically equate with bad health. Obesity, does.  It does not necessarily equate with high blood pressure or high cholesterol, but the absence of those two health conditions doesn't equate with good health.  Neither does the fact that you aren't at risk of falling down dead any minute.  Obesity is bad for you in and of itself.  It indicates you are eating more than your body can process.  And the older your get the worse it is for you.

I also agree that the the "fat acceptance movement" is actually harmful.  

Also, I DO think that 5'6" and 150lbs is probably obese depending on the body type.  It's at least, very likely to be obese.  I'm 5'6" and I'm trying to imagine carrying that much weight on me on a regular daily basis.  I think that would probably qualify me as obese, but my frame is pretty average sized.  Someone with a larger frame, maybe not, but it probably shouldn't be someone's "comfort" weight.

 

Fat acceptance isn't obesity acceptance.

Yes it is.

Because obesity is "clinically fat".  So if we have fat acceptance, we have obesity acceptance.  And even if you want to break apart the semantics of it and try to get to the whole, "these words mean different things" carp, if you think there is not an "obesity acceptance" movement in this country, you're high.  

  http://www.obesitycures.com/obesity-acceptance.html

 

Look, I know your thoughts on this issue and you know mine. We've gone around on this one before and I don't feel like hashing it out with you again. You're firm in your beliefs and I'm firm in mine.

Still, please tell me that you don't think it's right for clothing companies to shame fat people by not making plus size clothing anymore. As if that will somehow solve the problem of obesity.

brideymcbriderson

copzgirl:

princess_cal:

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

This just got fun 

LOL.

Seriously, watch TV for an hour.  You know what four things I see advertised the most?  Pharmaceuticals, fast food/junk food, crappy light beer, and weight loss programs.  Our country is sofuckedup.

larrysdarling

hawkeye+:

AmeliaPond:

hindsight's_a_biotch:

Speaking of plus sized clothing, why does it have to be different? I get so annoyed by that on a completely superficial level I admit. But why in the hell can't a damned store make all their clothes available in all their sizes?

Why does there have to be a "normal" section with one line of clothes and a plus sized section with a different line of clothes?

I get pissed off when I see a cute dress in the plus sized section but not in the so called normal section so I can only imagine it's worse if you're on the opposite side.

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

Interesting, especially about changing the pattern.

How does vanity sizing factor into this?

I don't like the concept of vanity sizing. My mom, a size 12-14, shops at Chico's and they do their sizing 0-1-2-3-4 (not sure how high they go).  I don't think vanity sizing helps at all in terms of encouraging people to get to a healthier size/weight. 

MeredithE

copzgirl:

princess_cal:

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

This just got fun 

Girl it was fun at making large people walk about naked or in sheets.  I am having such a good time here!!!

copzgirl

brideymcbriderson:

copzgirl:

princess_cal:

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

This just got fun 

LOL.

Seriously, watch TV for an hour.  You know what four things I see advertised the most?  Pharmaceuticals, fast food/junk food, crappy light beer, and weight loss programs.  Our country is sofuckedup.

Grab my hand bridey.  Let's get off our fat asses and get moving kid...here, I will get us started.  This is your air, eat it at your will and then we will run 10 miles, ok?  See easy peasy. 

AmeliaPond

brideymcbriderson:

copzgirl:

princess_cal:

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

This just got fun 

LOL.

Seriously, watch TV for an hour.  You know what four things I see advertised the most?  Pharmaceuticals, fast food/junk food, crappy light beer, and weight loss programs.  Our country is sofuckedup.

Is this where I should chime in that I don't believe in calorie counting and have, in fact, had more success losing weight by not doing it.

hawkeye+

larrysdarling:

hawkeye+:

AmeliaPond:

hindsight's_a_biotch:

Speaking of plus sized clothing, why does it have to be different? I get so annoyed by that on a completely superficial level I admit. But why in the hell can't a damned store make all their clothes available in all their sizes?

Why does there have to be a "normal" section with one line of clothes and a plus sized section with a different line of clothes?

I get pissed off when I see a cute dress in the plus sized section but not in the so called normal section so I can only imagine it's worse if you're on the opposite side.

Hey, a question I can answer! The simple answer is cost, the wider the range of sizes a company offers in a garment, the higher the cost to design it. Once you get above a 14, you need to make a different pattern, rather than just enlarging the sample size. Depending on the market, this may be cost effective, but most of the time it isn't.

This answer brought to you by my friends who work in commercial fashion design, who I asked this question when Bridey was asking why Lululemon didn't make larger sizes.

Interesting, especially about changing the pattern.

How does vanity sizing factor into this?

I don't like the concept of vanity sizing. My mom, a size 12-14, shops at Chico's and they do their sizing 0-1-2-3-4 (not sure how high they go).  I don't think vanity sizing helps at all in terms of encouraging people to get to a healthier size/weight. 

I meant vanity sizing in terms of how past sizes compare to today's sizes. A size 8 today is not the same as a size 8 from 1960. Even a size 8 at Old Navy is different than a size 8 at J.Crew.

SMorriso

hindsight's_a_biotch:

pedantic_wench:

Because, I guess, some skinny folks would be too embarassed to buy clothes in a store where the sizes go up past a 10.

I distinctly remember a store in the mall when I was growing up called 369, which indicated the size the store had.

Also, plus size clothing costs more (more fabric, stitching time, etc).

We had 5,7,9 although there is still one around.

In the stores I'm referring to, like my favorite store EVAH Maurices, the prices are the same I'm pretty sure. They just have two distinctly different offerings. This would also suck if you ride that line between misses 14 and the plus sized 16 like my mom does.

We even have a term for us mid sized gals. Inbetweenies. 

It really does suck to be in between. Half the time I can work the hell outta some tops, when it gets to my bum and hips, it's plus sized or bust. Which suck too, because my waist is still too small for the waist bands.

I honestly don't think the clothing size has much of a factor for cost vs. smaller. Material maybe, but even then, it isn't that dramatically different unless you're up in the size 20+ and only make maxi dresses. Supply and demand is more to blame. A lot of fuller figured and inbetweenies don't shop at stores like JCrew, Banana, etc. Even though their sizes go up to 20. 

princess_cal

brideymcbriderson:

copzgirl:

princess_cal:

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

This just got fun 

LOL.

Seriously, watch TV for an hour.  You know what four things I see advertised the most?  Pharmaceuticals, fast food/junk food, crappy light beer, and weight loss programs.  Our country is sofuckedup.

And is someone forcing you to buy these products? You have a choice, it's up to you to make the correct ones. It's called self responsibility.

pedantic_wench

princess_cal:

brideymcbriderson:

copzgirl:

princess_cal:

 Yes, BMI is not a valid indicator of health, and heavier people can be healthier than thinner people, but our "food sources" are not the issue.  The issue is calories in vs calories out.  It's really not rocket science.  Nor does it take government intervention.

This just got fun 

LOL.

Seriously, watch TV for an hour.  You know what four things I see advertised the most?  Pharmaceuticals, fast food/junk food, crappy light beer, and weight loss programs.  Our country is sofuckedup.

And is someone forcing you to buy these products? You have a choice, it's up to you to make the correct ones. It's called self responsibility.

Bless your heart.