Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"underweight"??

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
amyliz569 - 09 Mar 2005 03:12 GMT
Matthew Wrote:
> amyliz569 amyliz569.1lla40@news.weightlossbanter.com wrote in message
> news:amyliz569.1lla40@news.weightlossbanter.com...-
>
> Hi all.  I recently spoke with my doctor about something that would
> suitable to lose a few (~5-10) pounds.  I seem to have excess fat o
> my
> back a little and my thighs are larger than I would like.  I do know
> that I am not overweight, but he informed me that he believed I was
> slightly underweight and should gain, not lose, this amount o
> weight!
> But then there is the excess fat!  ugh!  I am about 5'4" and 105
> lbs...about a size 2....I am a scientist and a freelance model on the
> side in LA, thus why I am concerned about my appearance.  I tend t
> eat
> a healthy vegetarian diet and work out a few times a week.  Ha
> anyone
> ever had a similar situation?-
>
> At 5'4" I would imagine you're starving as a model so it is a goo
> thing you
> are a scientist. Use your scientific background to your advantage an
> do
> some research. I suggest starting he www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
>
> --
> Matthew
> 185/177/160
> To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit.

I make more money as model...by far....

--
amyliz569
JayJay - 09 Mar 2005 13:53 GMT
> Matthew Wrote:
>> amyliz569 amyliz569.1lla40@news.weightlossbanter.com wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>> 185/177/160
>> To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit.

> I make more money as model...by far.....

Well, if your livelihood depends on your body, then you need to take the
best care of your body as possible.   I realize that being a model requires
certain levels of "no fat" on the body, especially if you are an underwear
or swimsuit model.  Obviously you are not a runway model, as you are too
short for that line of work.

But, again, I'll suggest - instead of starving yourself to lose more
weight, I would highly recommend that you get into weight training.  Lift
weights.  Start small, and work your way up.  I'm not telling you to become
an olympic lifter.  But if you can challenge your muscles, make them work,
they will grow.

With muscle growth will come a bit of added weight (possibly, in your case)
but you will probably also notice some fat loss.

But doing this will also require you to get more protien in your diet.  I
realize as a veg this may not be as easy.  But, consider some alternate
sources - soy tofu, protien shakes, etc.  

You can lose fat and gain muscle and still have smaller measurements and
still gain weight (per your drs advice) and still look fabulous in a size 2
and get your modelling jobs.

Just follow some healthy advice.  Focus on healthy eating and exercise.  I
promise - you won't bulk up.
Matthew - 09 Mar 2005 14:29 GMT
> Matthew Wrote:
> > amyliz569 amyliz569.1lla40@news.weightlossbanter.com wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> I make more money as model...by far.....

Well scientist don't make much. Anyways to be very successful as a model you
don't need to lose any weight, you need to gain about 5-7 inches. I don't
think anyone here can help with that one. But you have gotten some good
advice about improving the look of the body you have.

BTW, thanks for quoting and bottom posting.
--
Matthew
185/177/160
To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit.
JayJay - 09 Mar 2005 14:45 GMT
> Well scientist don't make much. Anyways to be very successful as a model you
> don't need to lose any weight, you need to gain about 5-7 inches. I don't
> think anyone here can help with that one. But you have gotten some good
> advice about improving the look of the body you have.

<cough>  not all models are runway models that have to be over 5'10" tall.
There are plenty of other types of modelling out there that does not
require great height.
Matthew - 09 Mar 2005 15:05 GMT
> > Well scientist don't make much. Anyways to be very successful as a model you
> > don't need to lose any weight, you need to gain about 5-7 inches. I don't
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> There are plenty of other types of modelling out there that does not
> require great height.

From the site http://www.lamodels.com/index.htm:
"... women should be 5'9 to 5'11."

From the site
http://www.fordmodels.com/content.cfm?content_id=6&client_id=&client_email=
"Even if shorter models have found success in the modeling industry, these
few represent the exception to the rule. Clothing for runway shows and
magazine shoots tends to come in one size. If you can't fit into a
designer's garments, you will face difficulty in finding work."

--
Matthew
185/177/160
To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit.
Ignoramus12418 - 09 Mar 2005 15:11 GMT
> From the site
> http://www.fordmodels.com/content.cfm?content_id=6&client_id=&client_email=
> "Even if shorter models have found success in the modeling industry, these
> few represent the exception to the rule. Clothing for runway shows and
> magazine shoots tends to come in one size. If you can't fit into a
> designer's garments, you will face difficulty in finding work."

Matthew, the fact is (if we are to believe the OP) that she is making
good money in some line of "modeling". So, I think, the discussion of
optimal height is not very relevant to her problems. She cannot become
taller and she is already finding some success with selling her body shape.

My personal taste in women is that I prefer them to be fatter than BMI
18.

Signature

223/173.2/180

Matthew - 09 Mar 2005 15:34 GMT
> My personal taste in women is that I prefer them to be fatter than BMI
> 18.

I agree, well I think I agree. I can't really look at a woman passing by and
say there goes a BMI 23.
--
Matthew
185/177/160
To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit.
Suze - 09 Mar 2005 22:34 GMT
Quoting "Matthew" <matthewvenhaus@warmmail.com>:

>> My personal taste in women is that I prefer them to be fatter than BMI
>> 18.
>>
>I agree, well I think I agree. I can't really look at a woman passing by and
>say there goes a BMI 23.

Take your calipers on a date.  It's the only way to be sure. ;)
Polar Light - 09 Mar 2005 16:32 GMT
> My personal taste in women is that I prefer them to be fatter than BMI
> 18.

Actually, that's one of the reasons why models have to be skinny: not to
shift focus away from the clothes being modeled. If they had voluptuous
figures, no male would remember what they were wearing :-)
Ignoramus12418 - 09 Mar 2005 16:36 GMT
>> My personal taste in women is that I prefer them to be fatter than BMI
>> 18.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> voluptuous figures, no male would remember what they were wearing
> :-)

I have not thought of that!

Signature

223/173.2/180

Dr_Dickie - 09 Mar 2005 16:51 GMT
> > My personal taste in women is that I prefer them to be fatter than BMI
> > 18.
>
> Actually, that's one of the reasons why models have to be skinny: not to
> shift focus away from the clothes being modeled. If they had voluptuous
> figures, no male would remember what they were wearing :-)

I think what you mean is; no male would "see" them as wearing anything ;-0

Signature

Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick

Black Metal Martha - 09 Mar 2005 17:21 GMT
> > My personal taste in women is that I prefer them to be fatter than BMI
> > 18.
>
> Actually, that's one of the reasons why models have to be skinny: not to
> shift focus away from the clothes being modeled. If they had voluptuous
> figures, no male would remember what they were wearing :-)

What men care about women's fashions? I mean, those men who do, don't
want to look at women. ;)

Martha
Mary_Gordon@tvo.org - 09 Mar 2005 17:29 GMT
I think its also because if you are a tall bone rack, the clothing
hangs better than if you are curvy. Its a long standing complaint of
women that many designers design for the bone rack and not "real"
average women.

However, as we all know, tastes in female beauty are cultural and
change over time. If you look at Playboy centerfolds from 40 years ago,
they are a LOT plumper and rounder than todays - in fact, I'd venture
to say, they'd be considered fat.

Here is an interesting article - we're getting fatter and fatter and
the ideal is getting thinner and thinner, to the point where a
vanishingly tiny percentage of women are the weight of models.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072203E.html

Mary G.
Black Metal Martha - 09 Mar 2005 17:57 GMT
> I think its also because if you are a tall bone rack, the clothing
> hangs better than if you are curvy. Its a long standing complaint of
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Mary G.

Yes, because in history, the poor masses were thin and starving, so
plump and downright fat because the ideal. Now, the poor are fat.

Martha
Berna Bleeker - 09 Mar 2005 19:26 GMT
Mary_Gordon@tvo.org schreef:
> Here is an interesting article - we're getting fatter and fatter and
> the ideal is getting thinner and thinner, to the point where a
> vanishingly tiny percentage of women are the weight of models.
>
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/072203E.html

It also says:
<quote>
A long-term study by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute
(NHLBI), published in a 1998 Journal of Public Health, for example,
found that those with BMIs of 20 or less, or with even modest 10 percent
weight losses after age 50, have higher premature death rates than those
overweight, even when other variables such as smoking are taken into
account. A clinical study at the University of Maryland published in the
December 1999 Journal of American Geriatrics Society, found voluntary
weight loss in mature women, no matter what they weigh, appears
especially dangerous, quadrupling their likelihood of dying prematurely.
</quote>

Does that mean I should stop trying to lose weight? I'm almost 50! I'm
not planning on getting my BMI below 20, but I'd like to have a fat% of
23 or 24 (it's around 28% now)- and now they're saying that any
weightloss may be dangerous? Sure, I'm not very fat anymore, but I
really, really want to get that layer of fat off my stomach, and the
extra weight off my poor knees...

Berna (101.5/76.4/~68 kg)

Signature

( )_( ) Berna M. Bleeker-Slikker
/ . . \ berna.bleeker@gmail.com
\ \@/ / http://www.volksliedjes.nl

Ignoramus12418 - 09 Mar 2005 20:11 GMT
> Mary_Gordon@tvo.org schreef:
>> Here is an interesting article - we're getting fatter and fatter and
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> really, really want to get that layer of fat off my stomach, and the
> extra weight off my poor knees...

People who voluntarily lose weight and keep it off are very rare.

Many people who lose weight do so because they are quite sick.

If you average those rare people who lose weight voluntarily, with
those people who lose weight because of sickness, the "averaged
person" would have a reduced life expectancy. That is not very
informative as far as people who lose weight voluntarily, are
concerned.

Very little is known about long term health of people who lose weight
voluntarily, partly because there are so few of them.

There were experiments on aging mice, where they were put on calorie
restriction relatively late in life. As far as I know, lifespan
difference between such mice and those who were not put on calorie
restriction, were in favor of calorie restricted mice, but the
difference was not great. The reason is that, possibly, by the time
they were put on CR, most damage to them was already done.

Signature

223/173.2/180

Polar Light - 09 Mar 2005 21:23 GMT
> People who voluntarily lose weight and keep it off are very rare.
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> difference was not great. The reason is that, possibly, by the time
> they were put on CR, most damage to them was already done.

I remember reading somewhere that the highest longevity was in the 18-20 BMI
group which would seem to contradict the info you were quoting on this
thread. In any case, it's sensible to keep in mind that nobody lives
forever, regardless of weight or BMI, and a 'healthy' weight is not
guarantee of good health either, there are many health threats that have
nothing to do with your diet or your weight.

Unless you're fat enough to endanger your health with your obesity, it may
be better to check the mirror instead of  longevity statistics when it comes
to deciding how much you'd like to weigh. Basically, enjoy looking good &
feeling well while you're alive & don't worry about how long you're going to
live, you won't find the answer in statistics.
Ignoramus12418 - 09 Mar 2005 21:32 GMT
>> People who voluntarily lose weight and keep it off are very rare.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> 18-20 BMI group which would seem to contradict the info you were
> quoting on this thread.

Were those 18-20 BMI people who you mention, the ones who always were
thin, or the ones who were fat and then became thin? I suspect that
these long lived people are the naturally thin ones.

Can a fat (not "naturally thin") person improve life expectancy by
losing weight in some sensible way? That's not 100% clear to me,
although there are good hopes for that (diabetes prevention study
etc). Anyhow, even if weight loss does not increase my life
expectancy, I would rather be a thin person than a fat person.

> In any case, it's sensible to keep in mind
> that nobody lives forever, regardless of weight or BMI, and a
> 'healthy' weight is not guarantee of good health either, there are
> many health threats that have nothing to do with your diet or your
> weight.

yep. family history and such.

Signature

223/173.2/180

GaryG - 09 Mar 2005 22:28 GMT
> > People who voluntarily lose weight and keep it off are very rare.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> guarantee of good health either, there are many health threats that have
> nothing to do with your diet or your weight.

A very large scale study (
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) found that:

"the nadir of the curve for body-mass index and mortality was found at a
body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women."

The same study also noted that:

"The curve for the risk of death from cardiovascular disease was J-shaped;
for the risk of death from all other causes, the curve was U-shaped. The
J-shaped and U-shaped curves were explained primarily by an increased risk
of death among lean men and women as a result of cerebrovascular disease,
pneumonia, and diseases of the central nervous system (data not shown). A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Significantly increased risks of death from
cardiovascular disease were found at all body-mass indexes of more than 25.0
in women and 26.5 in men."

With respect to "lean" individuals the study noted:

"Limiting the primary analyses to subjects who had never smoked and who had
no history of disease at enrollment greatly reduced the apparent elevation
in the risk of death among lean persons, increased the risk among heavy
persons, and shifted downward the body-mass index level associated with the
lowest risk of death."

and,

"Thus, the increased risk of death from specific causes that was associated
with leanness in this and other studies may reflect preexisting, but
unrecognized, disease processes, even after careful exclusions have been
made. Also, although we had information on recent weight loss, we were
unable to control for long-term weight loss. Several investigators have
suggested that there is an association between illness-related weight loss
over a period of many years and the subsequent risk of death in very thin
persons and that controlling for recent weight loss may be insufficient."

Bottom line...thinner is generally better, with respect to mortality.  But,
answer to the question "How low should I go?" is not entirely clear.

Signature

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

> Unless you're fat enough to endanger your health with your obesity, it may
> be better to check the mirror instead of  longevity statistics when it comes
> to deciding how much you'd like to weigh. Basically, enjoy looking good &
> feeling well while you're alive & don't worry about how long you're going to
> live, you won't find the answer in statistics.
Ignoramus12418 - 09 Mar 2005 23:35 GMT
Great article, thanks.

i

>> > People who voluntarily lose weight and keep it off are very rare.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> Bottom line...thinner is generally better, with respect to mortality.  But,
> answer to the question "How low should I go?" is not entirely clear.

Signature

223/173.2/180

Mary_Gordon@tvo.org - 09 Mar 2005 17:29 GMT
I think its also because if you are a tall bone rack, the clothing
hangs better than if you are curvy. Its a long standing complaint of
women that many designers design for the bone rack and not "real"
average women.

However, as we all know, tastes in female beauty are cultural and
change over time. If you look at Playboy centerfolds from 40 years ago,
they are a LOT plumper and rounder than todays - in fact, I'd venture
to say, they'd be considered fat.

Here is an interesting article - we're getting fatter and fatter and
the ideal is getting thinner and thinner, to the point where a
vanishingly tiny percentage of women are the weight of models.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072203E.html

Mary G.
GaryG - 09 Mar 2005 15:34 GMT
> > > Well scientist don't make much. Anyways to be very successful as a model
> you
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> From the site

http://www.fordmodels.com/content.cfm?content_id=6&client_id=&client_email=
> "Even if shorter models have found success in the modeling industry, these
> few represent the exception to the rule. Clothing for runway shows and
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 185/177/160
> To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit.

FWIW, there are other forms of modeling, besides runway/clothing models.
Specialty modeling can involve: hands, feet, faces, and hair, none of which
require being tall.

GG
JayJay - 09 Mar 2005 16:03 GMT
> From the site http://www.lamodels.com/index.htm:
> "... women should be 5'9 to 5'11."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> magazine shoots tends to come in one size. If you can't fit into a
> designer's garments, you will face difficulty in finding work."

What is playboy's requirement?   :-)

Like I said - there are other types of modelling besides runway and
clothing.  
Black Metal Martha - 09 Mar 2005 16:24 GMT
> > From the site http://www.lamodels.com/index.htm:
> > "... women should be 5'9 to 5'11."
> >
> > From the site

http://www.fordmodels.com/content.cfm?content_id=6&client_id=&client_email=
> > "Even if shorter models have found success in the modeling industry, these
> > few represent the exception to the rule. Clothing for runway shows and
> > magazine shoots tends to come in one size. If you can't fit into a
> > designer's garments, you will face difficulty in finding work."
>
> What is playboy's requirement?   :-)

DDDDD

;)

Martha
JayJay - 09 Mar 2005 18:08 GMT
>>> From the site http://www.lamodels.com/index.htm:
>>> "... women should be 5'9 to 5'11."
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> ;)

you forgot 36, 24, 36.....   :-)

And to Amyliz the original poster, please don't take offense with this
little bit of humor - its not meant as anything towards or about you.  :-)  
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.