Caroline Zielinski
archillesFAT
April 17th 2008 10:27
Is it really that much of a scary concept? In Western society, yes.
In every single issue of every single women's/ health magazine, there is some article written that is a direct link to fat, and how to either lose it or accept it. Or rather lose just a 'little' bit of it so that you can remain 'healthy' and 'fit' (and 'attractive', but of course, that is no allowed to be said loud anymore, so shhhhhhhhhhhhhh).
Really, WHAT is fat? It's a word that is often used very loosely, applying to either an obese person, a person with apprently 'fat' thighs, or a certain size range, for instance, 16 .
The sizes themselves are a very confusing and messy concept, with every brand, country and decade configuring a different system of measurements to fit its population. For instance, a size 10 in Asia is now the rough equivelant of a size 6 in Australia, which is trying to cater to a much larger size demographic than that of the Oriental races.
To me, that's not a good solution. Women who, a few years ago, were a size 20, can now claim to be a healthier size 16 simply because Australian designers are making it seem so. By flattering people, espcially women, into thinking that they are smaller than they actually are, the designers and producers of clothes are essentially lying to us, simply trying to maximise profit by appealing to women's vanity regardless of the issues of heath.
Scientists claim that the average size for an Australian woman is now a size 16, but to me, that means nothing. I mean, if we can't even agree on universal measurements of a size, how can anyone establish what the 'average' size is?
Another thing which is very innacurate in determining the total of fat in a person's body is the BMI (Body Mass Index) system so often used to determine the 'healthy' weight range. BMI is determined by your weight in kg divided by your (height in metres)2, which, on paper sounds great. It is then divided into number categories which place you within either the healthy, unhealthy (underweight or overweight) or morbidly obese range. Ie.
Less than 19 UNDERWEIGHT
You are under optimum weight for your height. You could afford to gain a little weight.
20 - 25 ACCEPTABLE
You have a healthy weight for your height.
26 - 30 OVERWEIGHT
You are over optimum weight for your height. You may be facing health problems, so losing some weight would be a good idea.
31 OBESE
You are over optimum weight for your height. You may be facing health risks, so see your doctor to help you achieve a healthier weight.
Looks plausible, however...the BMI does not take muscle into consideration AT ALL, even though muscle weighs twice as much as fat. So basically, a muscular person with a BMI of 27 will be considered very overweight and unhealthy, without any leverage given to the fact that there is not one kg on fat on them. Funny how that was overlooked.
So you see, our concepts of fat and measuring it are different in various contexts, and as a whole, our society needs to agree on a system which will not only create a universal size, but also convert that into a weight/ heights system similar to that of BMI, all the while considering all the different ways the body can weigh as much, or more than fat without actually having the access fat.
In every single issue of every single women's/ health magazine, there is some article written that is a direct link to fat, and how to either lose it or accept it. Or rather lose just a 'little' bit of it so that you can remain 'healthy' and 'fit' (and 'attractive', but of course, that is no allowed to be said loud anymore, so shhhhhhhhhhhhhh).
Really, WHAT is fat? It's a word that is often used very loosely, applying to either an obese person, a person with apprently 'fat' thighs, or a certain size range, for instance, 16 .
The sizes themselves are a very confusing and messy concept, with every brand, country and decade configuring a different system of measurements to fit its population. For instance, a size 10 in Asia is now the rough equivelant of a size 6 in Australia, which is trying to cater to a much larger size demographic than that of the Oriental races.
To me, that's not a good solution. Women who, a few years ago, were a size 20, can now claim to be a healthier size 16 simply because Australian designers are making it seem so. By flattering people, espcially women, into thinking that they are smaller than they actually are, the designers and producers of clothes are essentially lying to us, simply trying to maximise profit by appealing to women's vanity regardless of the issues of heath.
Scientists claim that the average size for an Australian woman is now a size 16, but to me, that means nothing. I mean, if we can't even agree on universal measurements of a size, how can anyone establish what the 'average' size is?
Another thing which is very innacurate in determining the total of fat in a person's body is the BMI (Body Mass Index) system so often used to determine the 'healthy' weight range. BMI is determined by your weight in kg divided by your (height in metres)2, which, on paper sounds great. It is then divided into number categories which place you within either the healthy, unhealthy (underweight or overweight) or morbidly obese range. Ie.
You are under optimum weight for your height. You could afford to gain a little weight.
20 - 25 ACCEPTABLE
You have a healthy weight for your height.
26 - 30 OVERWEIGHT
You are over optimum weight for your height. You may be facing health problems, so losing some weight would be a good idea.
31 OBESE
You are over optimum weight for your height. You may be facing health risks, so see your doctor to help you achieve a healthier weight.
Looks plausible, however...the BMI does not take muscle into consideration AT ALL, even though muscle weighs twice as much as fat. So basically, a muscular person with a BMI of 27 will be considered very overweight and unhealthy, without any leverage given to the fact that there is not one kg on fat on them. Funny how that was overlooked.
So you see, our concepts of fat and measuring it are different in various contexts, and as a whole, our society needs to agree on a system which will not only create a universal size, but also convert that into a weight/ heights system similar to that of BMI, all the while considering all the different ways the body can weigh as much, or more than fat without actually having the access fat.
| 138 |
| Vote |
