Israel declares that models need more junk in the trunk

Israel has passed a law saying that models must have a minimum BMI of 18.5. For those of us who don't like skeletal women this is good thing, but for women in general it might be a better thing. Sad, that they felt this has to be done through legislation, but the industry has become so unhealthy and the ripples of the girls who try to meet this unhealthy, photoshopped standard is scary.

Will it happen here? Should it?

The description that Lynda gave of the women and girls who audition for modeling gigs is a bit frightening. Crazy that she says she has told many of them come back after you gain 15 pounds.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadca...101605050.html

I'm not sure what an 18.5 BMI looks like on a woman... But, yes. It's great for women. And men. Bony girls are not attractive! And the self image issues should lessen a bit...

Suggests that they don't understand statistics.

Below 18.5 means that you are 'under weight' compared to the population as a whole. It doesn't mean that you are starving or emaciated.

The greatest female marathon runner in history had a BMI of 18.1. She has a light frame and so she is "underweight" in spite of being in incredible shape. After all, you don't set the world marathon record when you're weak. :ols:

5' 6" and 114 would put you at 18.4.

My 21 year old daughter has a lower BMI, and dances competitively.

It's an interesting point. BMI is certainly a flawed tool. Weight lifters, and many athletes are often considered obese because of muscle mass. Still, if yo decide to act ya gotta start with something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgold

It's an interesting point. BMI is certainly a flawed tool. Weight lifters, and many athletes are often considered obese because of muscle mass. Still, if yo decide to act ya gotta start with something

---

It's a not a terrible concept, but by picking the low end of the 'normal' scale is plain wrong. Tall lean women are well under that threshold. Giselle Bundchen is under 18 BMI.

http://www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com/wp...e-bundchen.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corcaigh

Suggests that they don't understand statistics.

Below 18.5 means that you are 'under weight' compared to the population as a whole. It doesn't mean that you are starving or emaciated.

The greatest female marathon runner in history had a BMI of 18.1. She has a light frame and so she is "underweight" in spite of being in incredible shape. After all, you don't set the world marathon record when you're weak. :ols:

5' 6" and 114 would put you at 18.4.

My 21 year old daughter has a lower BMI, and dances competitively.

---

Adrian Peterson, one of the fittest humans on earth, is overweight according to BMI calculations. 6'1 217 lbs = 28.6 BMI. The obese range starts at 30, so he is right near that. :ols:

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/20...pg?w=500&h=738

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PleaseBlitz

Adrian Peterson, one of the fittest humans on earth, is overweight according to BMI calculations.

---

And the calculation is correct. He is over the normal healthy weight for a normal human. But he's not built like a normal human.

Likewise Giselle Bundchen is underweight according to the norms. But she's not built like a normal human either. :)

EDIT: and I prefer the picture I chose to prove my point better than yours. NTTAWWT :silly:

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 08:10 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgold

It's an interesting point. BMI is certainly a flawed tool.

---

It's not a flawed tool. It's often used incorrectly. It's an extremely simple screening tool. It is not a diagnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corcaigh

It's not a flawed tool. It's often used incorrectly. It's an extremely simple screening tool. It is not a diagnostic.

---

Exactly. A better diagnostic tool is the human eyeball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corcaigh

It's not a flawed tool. It's often used incorrectly. It's an extremely simple screening tool. It is not a diagnostic.

---

Picky. Picky. How we often use it is flawed. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgold

Picky. Picky. How we often use it is flawed. :)

---

Nope. It's an important difference. The details matter.

When you look at whole populations, the simple measure of height and weight, which takes a tiny amount of effort and expertise, gives you very good insight on trends and public health issues. For individuals who fall out side the range there is a simple follow up such as an eyeball check, use of fat calipers etc. For most people, if you fall outside the recommended ranges you may well want to take action. A little overweight or underweight isn't usually a health risk. Being obese or significantly underweight are risks for Joe Public, now matter how far supermodels or NFL athletes fall outside the normal range.

Surely this will unite both Jew and Arab in the Middle East. Everyone loves dat ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corcaigh

Likewise Giselle Bundchen is underweight according to the norms. But she's not built like a normal human either. :)

---

Most models aren't. That's kind of the point.

The fashion industry in general needs to fall under much greater scrutiny. I can't imagine many industries would get away with rampant eating disorders, drug addiction, sexual harassment, sweat shops, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corcaigh

It's a not a terrible concept, but by picking the low end of the 'normal' scale is plain wrong. Tall lean women are well under that threshold. Giselle Bundchen is under 18 BMI.
]

---

So throw her a T-bone....problem solved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predicto

Most models aren't. That's kind of the point.

---

The point should be to pick a number that represents unhealthy. Not just below statistically normal.

By picking the wrong number what message are they trying to send?