Size 16 models, Debenhams are a step in the right direction

Cold Chocolate · 06-11-2013 03:47PM

kjl wrote: »

Ok clearly you are overweight and trying to excuse yourself by saying because it's the average that it is normal.

Work out your BMI, if you are over 25 you are overweight, it doesn't matter if everyone in the country is the same, you are still overweight.

Stop making excuses for yourself.

BMI is bollox. What matters is your body fat percentage.

WilyCoyote · 06-11-2013 03:48PM

my teapot is orange wrote: »

I think you usually have to be a particularly tall woman to have a healthy BMI at size 16, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

I'm an average/slightly tall woman at 5'7 and size 12. I would have to be overweight before I would be a 14.

kjl wrote: »

Ok clearly you are overweight and trying to excuse yourself by saying because it's the average that it is normal.

Work out your BMI, if you are over 25 you are overweight, it doesn't matter if everyone in the country is the same, you are still overweight.

Stop making excuses for yourself.

Most rugby players are obese according to BMI stats? That explains why there are so many ruggrerbuggers about chasing them?

To kjl ....... I'm average height, 220 lbs, quite fit, eat and drink plenty, do a physically demanding job and generally have a smile on my face.

According to BMI charts am obese.

In my annual check up just recently, my stress test was excellent and the cardiologist told me my heart and lungs are in excellent shape.

Anyway, this thread is not about obesity. It's about having curvy models as opposed to skinny ones.

techdiver · 06-11-2013 03:50PM

RoboRat wrote: »

BMI is complete bollocks. I am 'morbidly obese' according yo BMI yet I train every day, eat very healthily and have very little body fat. BMI takes you weight to height and doesn't take bone density or muscle mass into consideration. The best indicator of obesity is working out your body fat ratio which lis a different process altogether.

100% agree about BMI being inaccurate, but most size 16 women are overweight as they are not that size due to muscle.

I would go out on a limb to say that the body fat % for these women would also indicate that they are overweight.

I think it's a modern attitude problem. I am a man and I used to be very overweight, but people would always excuse it by saying "you carry it well", or "you're very tall though", or "you're a big build". NO! I was fat. Simple!

I then lost the weight and got back to sport and people were then saying I was getting too thin!!

ahnowbrowncow · 06-11-2013 03:51PM

RoboRat wrote: »

BMI is complete bollocks. I am 'morbidly obese' according to BMI yet I train every day, eat very healthily and have very little body fat. BMI takes your weight to height ratio and doesn't take bone density or muscle mass into consideration. The best indicator of obesity is working out your body fat ratio which is a different process altogether.

It's not bollocks, you're in the minority. It's quite accurate for most people.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 06-11-2013 03:55PM

BMI is rubbish for some people. Mostly athletes and people who lift a lot in the gym. Muscle is heavy so will throw your BMI off. But for your average Joe or Josephine its an acceptable metric.

RoboRat · 06-11-2013 03:55PM

Tommy Bowe is bordering on obese according to BMI!

WilyCoyote · 06-11-2013 03:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Average is a fact.

Normal includes a degree of subjectivity. Normal is what society expects.

Society should not expect all women to be a size 16 (or any size), despite what the average is.

Normal is what the majority are. Normality is what the majority expects.

Who's talking about all women being size 16?

Don't skew the discussion.

I Heart Internet · 06-11-2013 03:57PM

I heard that those size 16 mannequins are going to have another feature to make them more realistic - a big slice of cake

I'm kidding!!! I'm a chubbster myself!

homemadecider · 06-11-2013 03:59PM

RoboRat wrote: »

Seriously? You consider all size 16 to be overweight? There are plenty of curvier ladies out there who are not over weight, they are just curvier. Look at Holly Willoughby, Caroline Morahan, Beyonce, Christina Hendricks etc.

Holly Willoughby and Beyonce are nowhere NEAR a size 16. And Christina Hendricks certainly is overweight.

I know a few women at size 16, they are very very overweight. I hate to think this is become normalised. It is not healthy!

hoodwinked · 06-11-2013 04:00PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Women's sizes can vary hugely from shop to shop and it's nice to see different variants of mannequin for different variants of woman.

and i agree, what i am against is the way they are advertising this larger mannequin

using things like real women are bigger than a size 10, or the old size 10 mannequins are not the right size, or as this thread started size 10 are 'stick insects'

obviously advertising they were going to use a variety of sizes wasn't good enough for them so they went with "size 10 bad" "size 16 is just right"

WilyCoyote · 06-11-2013 04:00PM

techdiver wrote: »

100% agree about BMI being inaccurate, but most size 16 women are overweight as they are not that size due to muscle.
............................................................................................
..................................................................................
..........................................

But if BMI is inaccurate what criteria do you use to come up with the term 'overweight'?

ahnowbrowncow · 06-11-2013 04:01PM

RoboRat wrote: »

Tommy Bowe is bordering on obese according to BMI!

We get the point.

Just because BMI isn't accurate for you or professional rugby players doesn't mean it isn't accurate for the majority of people who don't train and lift weights every day.

06-11-2013 04:01PM

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Normal is what the majority are. Normality is what the majority expects.

Who's talking about all women being size 16?

Don't skew the discussion.

But the majority are not a size 16. The average woman is. (the majority would be the mode, the average is the mean). That's not scewing the discussion. You asked for an explanation of why average does not necessarily mean normal, and you've gotten it.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you think it's ok to refer to size 16 women as normal - suggesting other sizes are abnormal - and why you think it's ok to slag off women who are thin.

I Heart Internet · 06-11-2013 04:04PM

WilyCoyote wrote: »

But if BMI is inaccurate what criteria do you use to come up with the term 'overweight'?

I couldn't find an english version - but you get the idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CwXMO653Sw

my teapot is orange · 06-11-2013 04:05PM

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Most rugby players are obese according to BMI stats? That explains why there are so many ruggrerbuggers about chasing them?

To kjl ....... I'm average height, 220 lbs, quite fit, eat and drink plenty, do a physically demanding job and generally have a smile on my face.

According to BMI charts am obese.

In my annual check up just recently, my stress test was excellent and the cardiologist told me my heart and lungs are in excellent shape.

Anyway, this thread is not about obesity. It's about having curvy models as opposed to skinny ones.

It becomes about obesity because the argument against skinny models was that they encourage unhealthy eating, obviously then their replacement will be analysed on that score too.

There are some athletes who are technically obese but very healthy, but for the vast majority, people with unhealthy BMI's are just overweight.

Are you a man or a woman? I don't know how the average woman would bulk up to a size 16 without a lot of it being fat.

techdiver · 06-11-2013 04:06PM

WilyCoyote wrote: »

But if BMI is inaccurate what criteria do you use to come up with the term 'overweight'?

Ilyana 2.0 · 06-11-2013 04:08PM

I see where Debenhams were coming from with their size 16 mannequins, it does seem to be part of a wider attempt to be more inclusive to women who don't fit the size 10 'norm'. Sometimes it can be useful to see if something looks good on all sizes, as opposed to just slim women or larger women.

But a size 16 would be overweight for most women, so they've missed the mark IMO. Yeah I think it's good to try to cater for women larger than a size 8-10, but not when it celebrates being overweight, and makes slimmer women feel a bit vilified.

I'm a size 12, where are my mannequins?! :pac:

06-11-2013 04:09PM

I guess they are trying to cater to market demand

Those mannequins have seriously flat tummies though don't they?

RoboRat · 06-11-2013 04:11PM

Holly Willoughby and Beyonce are nowhere NEAR a size 16. And Christina Hendricks certainly is overweight.

Where did I say they were size 16? I didn't, I said they were curvier.

We get the point.

Just because BMI isn't accurate for you or professional rugby players doesn't mean it isn't accurate for the majority of people who don't train and lift weights every day.

So women don't train? Funnily enough I used see plenty of women training in the gym I used to go to. I do BJJ and the Kickboxing class is mostly women, there are about 30 or so women that go to the boot camp class after ours. I see plenty of women out walking and running every night. They might not be lifting but I don't lift either, my muscle and weight is from activity and the fact that I have a naturally big build. There are plenty of women with big hips and chests and big frames which BMI doesn't take into consideration.

Another fact is that a lot of women might have to buy size 16 because they have big hips or a big chest and although they are not overweight, they are just out of proportion to the average size so have to go up a size.

WilyCoyote · 06-11-2013 04:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But the majority are not a size 16. The average woman is. (the majority would be the mode, the average is the mean). That's not scewing the discussion. You asked for an explanation of why average does not necessarily mean normal, and you've gotten it.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you think it's ok to refer to size 16 women as normal - suggesting other sizes are abnormal - and why you think it's ok to slag off women who are thin.

Afraid we've got to agree to differ in your first statement.

I would think there are more women closer to size 16 than size 10. That to me would mean average/normal/call it what you like. As your suggestion about abnormal? Give it a rest and stop the semantics.

I didn't slag off thin women so why shoot that line? I used an Adrian Mole euphemism for the skinny, heroin chic waifs that put psychological pressure on most women to conform to fashions 'gotta be' look.

Why do you think that so many women go on a myriad of diets during their lives?

Muise... · 06-11-2013 04:12PM

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

I see where Debenhams were coming from with their size 16 mannequins, it does seem to be part of a wider attempt to be more inclusive to women who don't fit the size 10 'norm' *and to get them to buy stuff as they are a "large" market*. Sometimes it can be useful to see if something looks good on all sizes, as opposed to just slim women or larger women.

But a size 16 would be overweight for most women, so they've missed the mark IMO. Yeah I think it's good to try to cater for women larger than a size 8-10, but not when it celebrates being overweight, and makes slimmer women feel a bit vilified.

I'm a size 12, where are my mannequins?! :pac:

does anyone really think this is a social consciousness manoeuvre?

Shenshen · 06-11-2013 04:12PM

I don't honestly get why they can't have mannequins in a number of sizes - and a number of shapes.

After all, these things are supposed to showcase how a dress will look on a woman as opposed to on a rail. And I know I've had a fair share of giggles in the past when you see dolls so small the size 8 dress they've thrown on them actually looks better hanging on the rail - even better if it's not a dress, but a bra.

I think the whole moral debate about weight is utterly irrelevant to this. This is a shop trying to show its merchandise in a way that will encourage its customers to purchase. And the shop had realised that its customers come in different sizes (how it took them so long to realise that is a different matter). In my opinon, they shouldn't have just size 10 and size 16 models, they need the ones in between as well. Different clothes will look different in different sizes, so they should try and show that.

foxyboxer · 06-11-2013 04:14PM

Xzavier Important Plasma wrote: »

BMI is rubbish for some people. Mostly athletes and people who lift a lot in the gym. Muscle is heavy so will throw your BMI off. But for your average Joe or Josephine its an acceptable metric.

Spot on.

BMI is a GENERAL guideline. Not the definitive indicator of supreme health.
It is only one parameter in someone's overall health.

You could have a spot on BMI number but have woeful blood pressure.....
You could have a high BMI but elite level v02 Max.....

Ilyana 2.0 · 06-11-2013 04:14PM

Muise... wrote: »

does anyone really think this is a social consciousness manoeuvre?

Well of course it all boils down to boosting sales, why else would they do it? My point is that they're trying to include larger women in their target market so that they'll be more inclined to buy their clothes. Apologies if that was unclear.

EDIT: Shenshen explained it perfectly.

dark crystal · 06-11-2013 04:16PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

and i agree, what i am against is the way they are advertising this larger mannequin

using things like real women are bigger than a size 10, or the old size 10 mannequins are not the right size, or as this thread started size 10 are 'stick insects'

obviously advertising they were going to use a variety of sizes wasn't good enough for them so they went with "size 10 bad" "size 16 is just right"

Fair point, I agree. The marketing aspect could have been handled a bit better alright.

No one size is 'normal' or 'right'. Women come in different shapes and sizes, so should mannequins.

I'd like a few more vertically challenged mannequins myself.....:p

foxyboxer · 06-11-2013 04:22PM

What purpose that of the mannequin?

Debenhams are simply deploying mannequins for their very purpose, i.e, to model clothes.

And with size 16 mannequins sitting in the 'goldilocks' range it gives customers the best available preview for clothes.

Moneymaker · 06-11-2013 04:22PM

kjl wrote: »

Ok clearly you are overweight and trying to excuse yourself by saying because it's the average that it is normal.

Work out your BMI, if you are over 25 you are overweight, it doesn't matter if everyone in the country is the same, you are still overweight.

Stop making excuses for yourself.

It pains me that in 2013 people are still so ignorant about how bs BMI is AND then talks down to someone.

Good lord.

RoboRat · 06-11-2013 04:22PM

BMI is a GENERAL guideline. Not the definitive indicator of supreme health.

No, BMI is the same as taking the dimensions of a box and saying that it should weight x amount regardless of what is in the box.

Bone weighs more than fat, muscle weighs more than fat, skin weighs more than fat and skin is NOT fat, it is an organ in our body and like all organs, it varies depending on the person.

Anyhow, size 16 is a general size which is designed to cater for 'the average person' or 95th percentile. Everybody is different, some people's frames are larger and that means they have to go a size up, it doesn't mean they're fat.

RhubarbCrumble · 06-11-2013 04:24PM

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Hopefully less of the sick stick insect pics in future. And a vote of confidence in normal women. [/url]

I'm a size 8. Does that make me 'abnormal' in your eyes?

seosamh1980 · 06-11-2013 04:26PM

They should get flat chested mannequins, ones with small frames and huge boobs, ones with big hips, no hips, long torsos, very petite ones, etc etc. And put clothes on the ones that they suit the shape of, instead of just throwing everything on one shape of doll regardless of how many bull clips it needs at the back to hold it on!

Size 16 models, Debenhams are a step in the right direction

Comments