![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lyornI have mentioned that I am obsessive about numbers, and the body modification project I have accidentally run for the last 15 months or so gives me a nice amount of numbers to crunch. And the realisation that either a) I'm a freak of nature, or b) every women wearing more than size 34 is at risk of keeling over dead from metabolical syndrome right now, or c) 99% of the people talking about health and weight issues on the internet, in women's magazines and in doctor's offices have been taken over by necromantic brain-eating aliens from the planet of animated skeletons.
There are four types of measurement I am going to look at and tear out my hair about. First is the well-known, often mocked, widely dreaded and yet commonly preached BMI. Second is 80 cm, which they are telling us is the absolute max that that any woman, regardless of age, height or genetics, is allowed to measure around the navel (not the "natural waist"). Third is the newly-touted waist-to-hip (WtH) ratio. And fourth is clothes sizes. The latter stand out by being more descriptive than prescriptive, because mainstream designers, other than health care professionals, need to keep at least some loose connection to reality.
So, BMI-wise I'm down to what "they" like to call a "normal" weight. Still upper reaches of "normal", and if they feel like moving the goalposts again like they did in the 90s, I'm back to being nicely overweight. Yippy-ay-ey.
The "80 cm" is where the fun starts. It's all over the internet, OMG more than 80, must lose weight!!eleventyone!1! (Note that fitness and bodybuilding sites tell you that while you get some choice where to put on muscle, you don't get any about where to lose fat. It's genetic.) I am actually kind of tempted to go for it and see what size I end up with. If all the health professionals agree that extreme body modification is good for you, it can't hurt, can it *snerk*? Assuming that I'd get to the bones at the hips halfway through, that'd be size 34. If the bones prove elusive, 32. And remember, kids, these are the smallest sizes that the "cool" brands sell, sizes that are not even available from many mainstream sellers -- and they are barely acceptable.
For more fun and games, when it comes to WtH ratio, I'm as obese at size 40 as I was at size 50, and I'll still be obese at size 34. Continuing with the above assumptions, to be barely acceptable, I'd end up with something not found on online size tables anymore.
On careful consideration, I'm going with option c) above. Damn necromantic brain-eating aliens.
ETA, Mar 19th 2011: I was dead on. Down to 88 cm, size 34, and still as "obsese" as at size 50. Not that I give a damn, actually. Neither does Mother Nature, according to The Lancet. I have already done sufficient damage to my life expectency by leaving the range of lowest mortality some 11 kilos ago.
There are four types of measurement I am going to look at and tear out my hair about. First is the well-known, often mocked, widely dreaded and yet commonly preached BMI. Second is 80 cm, which they are telling us is the absolute max that that any woman, regardless of age, height or genetics, is allowed to measure around the navel (not the "natural waist"). Third is the newly-touted waist-to-hip (WtH) ratio. And fourth is clothes sizes. The latter stand out by being more descriptive than prescriptive, because mainstream designers, other than health care professionals, need to keep at least some loose connection to reality.
So, BMI-wise I'm down to what "they" like to call a "normal" weight. Still upper reaches of "normal", and if they feel like moving the goalposts again like they did in the 90s, I'm back to being nicely overweight. Yippy-ay-ey.
The "80 cm" is where the fun starts. It's all over the internet, OMG more than 80, must lose weight!!eleventyone!1! (Note that fitness and bodybuilding sites tell you that while you get some choice where to put on muscle, you don't get any about where to lose fat. It's genetic.) I am actually kind of tempted to go for it and see what size I end up with. If all the health professionals agree that extreme body modification is good for you, it can't hurt, can it *snerk*? Assuming that I'd get to the bones at the hips halfway through, that'd be size 34. If the bones prove elusive, 32. And remember, kids, these are the smallest sizes that the "cool" brands sell, sizes that are not even available from many mainstream sellers -- and they are barely acceptable.
For more fun and games, when it comes to WtH ratio, I'm as obese at size 40 as I was at size 50, and I'll still be obese at size 34. Continuing with the above assumptions, to be barely acceptable, I'd end up with something not found on online size tables anymore.
On careful consideration, I'm going with option c) above. Damn necromantic brain-eating aliens.
ETA, Mar 19th 2011: I was dead on. Down to 88 cm, size 34, and still as "obsese" as at size 50. Not that I give a damn, actually. Neither does Mother Nature, according to The Lancet. I have already done sufficient damage to my life expectency by leaving the range of lowest mortality some 11 kilos ago.