The Skinny Charter

It depends if the lack of weight prevents them from doing theist job. I wouldn’t want to discriminate against anyone due to weight small or big
But a lot of models are forced to be that small and honestly a big of under 18.5 isn’t very healthy. Woman are more prone to miscarriages if their BMI is under 18.5

I think using models with a couple of different style body shapes would do good because woman want an outfit that will look good on them and you can’t really tell that if you use one really small body shape.

Although BMI is not a perfect tool to measure if a person is too thin, this is good news. Most models that I have seen look as if they have been recently released from the Auschwitz concentration camp. It sends a wrong message to many girls who follow fashion trends.

"while accounting for genetic influences on weight"

That is excellent news, and human rights groups defending an employers' right to ask their employees to either starve or lose their job shouldn't be able to interfere. Now I hope they can come up with a reliable system for assessing who is underweight and who is just naturally thin.

iFitandHealthy said:
Although BMI is not a perfect tool to measure if a person is too thin...

Are you kidding me? At the low end of the scale, BMI is truly useful as a measure of health, without needing to factor in body fat percentage. In this range, a person just plain doesn't have a body to live in!

BMI was originally called the Quetelet Index, created in the early 19th century as a social statistics device. It measures the overall thickness of a person, as a ratio of weight to height.

Multiplying BMI by body fat percentage, we can figure an individual's "fat thickness" or FMI. Or by multiplying BMI by the inverse of body fat percentage, their "lean thickness" or LMI. This would be another useful social statistic.

Unfortunately, body fat percentage is a much more elusive factor to obtain than weight or height. Bioelectrical impedence is the only cheap and easy method, but is wildly inaccurate. Perhaps a better method or an improvement on an existing method of obtaining body fat percentage will aid those at normal or high BMI to determine their levels of health relative a larger population.

But too low a BMI is always too thin!

Are you kidding me?

Kailash said:
Are you kidding me?[...]

No, I am not kidding you. Some people are naturally thin. I have worked with people who are perfectly healthy, but BMI would suggest otherwise.

BMI doesn't take muscle into account. My trainer is 6.0 and weighs 185 lbs. His body fat is 5%, but if you calculate his BMI, it is 25.1, which is in the slightly overweight category. He looks very skinny, like a stick. He runs marathons. I think they are just trying to avoid getting anorexic girls to be models, or maybe things really sell better with more voluptuous models. It all comes down to the bottom line. If it sells, then they will use the heavier models. Now that we all know the really thin models are puking 20 times a day it doesn't make the product they are representing very attractive anymore. Consumers have made the connection between thin and sick.

a BMI of 18.5 or under is pretty small - it seems like a good idea although it is hard to use arbitrary measures such as the BMI. However you have to start somewhere...

I don't think it will be effective until Hollywood introduces the same measures. A lot of actresses have contracts that stipulate that they must remain under a specific weight. Until that changes these recommendations are helpful but I don't see them having a lot of influence.

Does anyone have any real information on the health of people with BMI's of 17 to 18.5 for example? Not individuals with eating disorders but those who eat a careful, healthy diet with adaquate nutrition to maintain a lower than average weight.

Dr. J, I think such a study does not exist because very few people who are in perfect health otherwise (no other conditions) and who eat over 2,000 calories a day can maintain such low BMIs. So you'd essentially have to be splitting hairs by saying "The one eating 800 calories a day has an eating disorder, but the one that eats 1,200 calories of only vegetables to maintain such a weight doesn't", you know?

I have a friend whose BMI is 16.4. She doesn't have an ED in the classic sense - no body dysmorphia (she doesn't think she is fat, she knows she is damn skinny and doesn't like it), and she doesn't consciously restrict her intake. She is just generally disgusted by most types of food. She doesn't really like to eat it, touch it, or see people eating it. She eats enough to keep going, and drinks sugary yogurt and stuff like that when she doesn't want to eat. She'd be more like orthorexic than anorexic, cause most types of food repulse her. But I think if you tallied her food intake for a week and divided the calories per day, you'd see she is still undereating and therefore anorexic by physical definitions, if not by mental ones.

And although she doesn't make a study, she is allergic to every single thing in the world, or so it seems, she always has the flu, and her skin looks a good 10 years older than mine and most people our age (we were born 20 days apart). She also suffers from heartburn when she does eat, terrible insomnia, migraines, and constipation (althought that one is pretty obvious - not enough food is consumed to keep stuff moving).

Jan, your friend sounds like she would benefit from some sound nutritional counseling. I was thinking more of individuals who take in more calories to get adaquate nutrients, but with their activity level maintain a 'low' BMI.

>>>I have a friend whose BMI is 16.4. She doesn't have an ED in the classic sense - no body dysmorphia (she doesn't think she is fat, she knows she is damn skinny and doesn't like it), and she doesn't consciously restrict her intake. She is just generally disgusted by most types of food.

She may have anorexia without DT (drive for thinness)- I read a study investigating this "paradox" and they found some 38% of those who deny DT answer negatively about food and/or self-concept and exhibit other expected traits of AN without overt DT.

Regina, I think she does have anorexia in the 18th century definition of it - when people don't want to eat, but not because of body shape concerns, but for other unrelated mental problems, like religious mania, purification, etc. She is very OCD as well, and cleans obsessively, so it ties in with that, with the "foods that are dirty and disgusting" thing. Kinda like when Salvador Dalí went crazier and would only eat eggs cause they were "pure" and other foods were "tainted". It is that type of mindset.

And Dr. J - she is a qualified nutrionist, believe it or not. She spent 5 years in college getting a degree in nutrition, and worked for years supervising industrial kitchens, and then with time, she just grew more and more repulsed by food. So she knows she must eat, she knows what has nutrients, but the problem is not there, it is a mental one.

Yikes!!! I have a friend who is also an exercise physiologist/nutritionist. She is VERY trim. One day she was complaining to me about being FAT! I said,"I'm going to get a large piece of paper and trace you and them we will look at it!!
OCD is now an Axis 1 diagnosis in the DSM! It's a serious condition.
I love Dali'! He's my favorite artist. He was also, probably a schizophrenic. However, he had a talent where he could share his insanity/genius with the rest of us!

Dr. J, sadly many nutrionists seem to suffer from serious food issues themselves. It seems to be a way where anorexics and orthorexics can make a living off their disorders. So we have the dilemma: doctors get very little nutrition education, and nutrionists often are plagued with food issues themselves. Who do we turn to? And I don't mean doctors are all ignorant about nutrition, just that they are not required to study it to get their degree. A doctor that is interested in nutrition can certainly use their science background to know a lot more about it than a non-science joe schmo like me. My cousin is a neurosurgeon who got exactly 4h of training in nutrition in medical school and who knows lots about nutrition, but she did that on her own time.

I think the world is a better place because my friend never worked as a dietitian - imagine her passing on her food issues to patients. All she ever did with her degree was make sure that food was stored and handled properly in industrial kitchens. I'm sure that only helped feed the "tainted food" paranoia though.

I went to a dietitian once, when I was still morbidly obese. She didn't look as skinny as my friend does, she looked thin but ok, at least sitting down behind her desk. So when I go in for my second consultation, I step on the scale and she is having trouble adjusting it, so she said "let me step on it to see if it is ok, cause I just weighed myself on it like 1h ago". She was about my height, 5'1" - 5'2". I was horrified to see that she weighed 90lb. The diet she put me on BTW was 760 calories a day. I lost a bit of weight the first 2 weeks - and then a whole lot of hair. How healthy. It actually scared me off nutrionists and dietitians for years. I'm going to one now that doesn't look quite as thin and doesn't give crazy advice like that, so I'm very happy with her. I've been eating less strictly than I had been for years and I've lost all the weight I wanted to lose.

Jan, I'm glad you found someone who you could work with and who knew how to be helpful! Always a blessing to find the rare truly talented individual, in any field.

BMI is only useful for people that have pretty average body composition. For anyone who is athletic, the figure is really wrong. I have a BMI of about 19, but I am only 12% fat, which is quite low for a woman. If I didn't run and ate a lot less, I guess I'd weigh less but I wouldn't have the muscle mass I do now. I'd also have to eat a lot less in order to maintain it. I'm not a genetically "skinny" person, I know that much. I'm just not built the way a naturally skinny person is. When I get down to 100 lbs, I look very very emaciated but I have a friend who is my height and weighs 100 lbs and looks just fine. She has small bone structure and small muscles.

I don't think they're discriminating anyone by imposing a minimum standard. The models that do have the issues are generally very obviously unhealthy looking. You can tell who is skinny-healthy and skinny-starving.

as i'm reading others posts, i'm understand that BMI is not as viable a measure as we think it is. but i do know that if a person is 5'9 and 105lbs, taht's an issue. i'm 5'9 and 160 and am healthy. last year i was 30lbs lighter, and was informed by many that i looked ill. we can assume that if a model looks sick she's sick. well that is my opionion anyways.

i'm not sure how to get out my point correctly...but i see that there is a MAJOR difference from runway models from the 80's and 90's to the highfashion models of today. it's sending a horrible message to all woman. it pains me to see all the woman that have developed disordered eatting due to the image of the industry. we need to stand to gether and fix this. it will only get worse.

i thank you very much for this site. keep doing what you are doing. thank you so much.

I agree with you, Spectra. But since they can't make a rule on a case-by-case basis, a BMI under 18 is a decent enough rule, like what was adopted in Madrid. The WHO uses 18.5 as a minimum - they are allowing an extra 0.5 in there as leeway. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find many naturally skinny people that do eat enough calories to maintain weight every day with a BMI of less than 18.

is it really bad to have a BMI of 15?

But does it matter whether the person is naturally skinny or not? If they're underweight, they're underweight- that's my opinion anyway. People seem to think it's okay if the person didn't starve themself down to that weight. That's just my opinion.

It is that bad, Lily. You need a physical to assess the damage you've done already.

Zabietta: I completely agree with you, because I don't think anyone with a BMI under 18 is that way really "naturally". The closest you'll get to "naturally" are people like my friend, who are starving themselves for reasons other than looks. I still haven't met anyone with a BMI over 18 who regularly consumes around 2,500 calories a day. So "naturally skinny" only exists to a certain point, certainly not to the point of these thin models facing the ban.

Hey, I have a BMI of 17.8, and trust me, I get my 2500 or so calories a day. The doctor tells me I'm perfectly healthy too.

I don't agree with Madrid's ban on skinny models. Why? Well, one minute the models are being told, "hey, you could stand to lose a few pounds" and now they're being told they're too thin and can't be a model anymore. There's some reel jeenyus logic for ya. What would be A LOT more effective is if something was done about the PRESSURE to be that thin, and I really don't think banning skinny models addresses that at all. The models aren't getting that thin because they have a strong desire to be a bad role model; we can't just put the blame for this whole thing squarely on them. They're just doing what they need to do to keep their job.

Margaret, I feel you are the exception that proves the rule and still - you are pretty close to BMI 18. If you were a model, you could just eat a ton of salt and drink a ton of water and probably be at 18 for your weigh-in, and still work.

Now, the models being banned look skeletal. My friend still doesn't look as skinny as most models you see on runaways. You cannot count her ribs from the front or from the back, and you can do that to most models at any fashion show other than Victoria's Secret. So how low must their BMIs be?

I'm with Margaret in that my BMI runs between 17.8 and 18.3. (A pound can make a difference) I'm a perfectly healthy Airman in the United States Air Force and I disagree with the ban on skinny models for comepletely different reasons than I've read anywhere else. I realize that my examples are on a different scale and that I am in the minority here but I refuse to feel bad about my weight because someone else doesn't like it. If some country had put a ban on plus size models because they set a bad example for overweight kids then there would be outrage all over the world.

Nay, it is not about the example. It is about the fact that the models themselves are encouraged to do unhealthy things, like starve, purge, and do drugs to maintain extremely low weights. There are people like you and Margaret (though I'm also sure you are probably not 5'10", you both must be shorter) but all it takes is for the both of you to take a look around yourselves and see you are exceptions. So even among models, people who are eating enough and are that thin would also be exceptions, which means the majority of them are endangering themselves.

heres what i usually eat in a day (or what i ate today)
breakfast:
1 cup of cheerios and 1/2 cup of milk
1 banana bread muffin
Mid morning snack:
bowl of jello with pears in syrup
Lunch:
1 cup of 2% milk
a uncrustable peanut butter sandwich
1 can of chicken noodle and rice soup
Supper:
a small bowl of spaghetti with meat sauce from Fazoli's
2 Fazoli's bread sticks
1 cup of 2% milk
Bed time snack
1 twist cone from McDonalds

NOW after reading this...would you except the person to be writing this to only weigh 88 lbs and be 5'5"?

Probably not.
Keira Knightley might be underweight which probably isnt healthy but that does not make her annorexic. all im trying to say is some people are naturally thin. and the truth is it actually kinda sucks. i know eating that much in a day is more than some of my friends that are at normal weights eat but yet i have to deal with being called anorexic constantly. people see me eat but they assume just cuz i am boney and thin im annorexic.
but do you think eating that in a day is annorexic?^
A kid yelled out a bus window at me the other day-the last day of school- "Are you annorexic?"
do me a favor and dont be like that kid.
Dont judge.

True, there were eating disorders but not of the recent aesthetic variety but of mental disorders.

I don't really understand what you mean by this. Eating disorders are mental illnesses. They may seem like an issue of aesthetics to someone who is not dealing with one, but they are mental illnesses. They're listed in the DSM and have specific criteria for diagnosis. Please don't have the impression that people with eating disorders are just girls who want to be skinny.
Sorry if I've misunderstood you.

Sakurapower said:
True, there were eating disorders but not of the recent aesthetic variety but of mental disorders.[...]

For a low BMI to be healthy, the person would have to be very small framed. Otherwise, they would mostly likely have too little body fat, too little muscle mass or both.

i am 30years old i have 3 kids and i weigh 105 i am 5 -1 forever .what should i do to gain weight?

Nelly - you don't need to gain weight unless you're unhealthy at your present weight. If you're healthy at that weight after having 3 kids, count your blessings.

2500 calories? Isn't that the recommended caloric intake for your average fit adult male? I can't fathom eating that many calories - maintaining my weight at 1600 calories per day (including regular workouts) is difficult enough.

im 16 and have a BMI of 16.4

I think that since modelling is a profession based on looks, discrimination because of body type is not necessarily problematic. If you're skinny and not anorexic but don't have a high enough BMI to fit Spanish model standards, don't be a model in Spain. There are other careers out there! By regulating for healthy weight these laws may be causing some girls who could otherwise be models to seek a new job. I used to model as a child, but when my growth stopped at 5'7" so did my career. That's the modelling world. Models set a standard of beauty, so I think it's good to be sensitive to the way they mould our perceptions. If as a result of an effort to stop healthy girls from feeling inferior a few other (perhaps) healthy girls have to find something to do besides modelling, this seems like an acceptable tradeoff.

am i skinny?i weigh in the 90s and im 5 2

I have an BMI of about 17.4- 18.3 ish, recently more at the lower end of the scale & am 5'10". I have never dieted or wanted to lose weight as have always been skinny. I eat more than my husband most of the time and never deny myself anything that I want (although do try not to eat too much rubbish, I fail most of the time) so it is possible to be tall and thin without any disorders etc. I am quite healthy with nothing wrong with me that I am aware of (I go to the doctor for anything that doesn't feel right so know what things I don't have!). I had an assessment for a gym last year and the guy basically said that I didn't need to even attend as my muscle to fat ratio was perfect or % fat or whatever it is (I also don't do much exercise apart from walking) so I would class myself as naturally thin- we do exist and this is when BMI may not be ideal??? Both my sisters are a similar size to me and my mum has never been more than a 12 (and was the same size as me at my age, 27) so hoping all will go well for me in the future etc.

Just had to make a comment as people seemed to think that everyone below BMI 18 was starving themselves or something else unhealthy- whereas I am more unhealthy for stuffing whatever I want in my gob whenever I want it and still don't really put weight on!