Twenty years ago the average fashion model weighed 8% less than the average woman.
Today she weighs 23% less.
PLUS Model Magazine came out this week with a powerful pictorial in which it claims that most runway models meet the BMI criteria for anorexia, which is considered to be under 17.5. The pictures show a plus sized model (size 12?!?!?) paired with another strikingly skinny woman.
The magazine wants clothing retailers to start catering to more women as they claim more than 50% of women wear a size 14 or larger. What is a plus-sized model these days? A size 6 to 14. Is that even plus-sized? Last time I checked those sizes weren’t in a plus-sized section of a store!
In fact the skinny women in this case is more likely to be “unhealthy” than the “plus-sized” one. These models fall within the healthy range of BMI’s. A BMI that is too low can lead to a weakened immune system, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, gall bladder disease, osteoarthritis and certain types of cancer.
What do you think of this claim about the models, the call to cater clothing more to the 50%, or these photos? Should BMI be a factor in judging health as it doesn’t take into account those who have small or large bone structures or a lot of muscle.
Photo Credits: Dailymail.co.uk
wow. what powerful stuff. and seriously! 6-14??? plus sized??? psshft!
that image of the ‘plus-sized’ model (ordinary, seemingly healthy-weight woman) with the ‘normal’ model is striking. It looks photoshopped because the ‘plus-sized’ model looks monstrous next to the shrunken image of the ‘normal’ model. wow. what an industry. what representations. Thanks for sharing.
See I just have an issue with this (and I usually agree with these sorts of things) because of the fact that it doesn’t take into account a couple of things.
First that the weight of the average woman between 1988 and 2002 went up, so much that it resulted in 2 BMI points. So if you took today’s model and brought her back to 1988 she wouldn’t weigh 23% less than the norm/average. That’s a HUGE component that HAS to be taken into account.
Also that sizes have changed. For whatever reason women’s clothing size is not regulated. Meaning what is a size 6 now might have been a much different size throughout the years… and a size 6 now…. what is that? Depending on the brand it can vary QUITE a lot. Depending on cut and type of garment it can very even more. My pant size is much different than my dress size and skirt size. As someone that LOVES vintage clothing, I can say that generally it runs 4-6 sizes smaller. (the range is due to the same fluctuations between brands and cuts that exists today)
I agree with you on the comparisons between average now and average in 1988. Average now is not necessarily healthy! That being said the models of today are still far too thin!
I’m with you as well on sizes. I can have a skirt now that is a size 6 from the early 2000′s and it fits the same as today’s 0 or 2. Insane and gross!
People, however, aren’t realizing all these things when they read this and choose to just take the 8% less versus 23% less of today… I say this based on the number of times I’ve seen this on Facebook where they’ve chosen to include that snippet (and only that) as the tag line… They’re taking all that’s been given to them when really that’s not fair or accurate — they’re choosing to not look at those other things.
From 2003 – 2006 the average weight of the American woman (20 years and older) was 164.7 pounds. If we take the height of the average American woman that gives (5’4″) that leaves us with a BMI of 28.3… BMI isn’t that fabulous though… but compare that BMI with 26.5 in 1988 and 153 pounds.
If a model weighs 23% less now, then (going by the 2006 data) they would weigh, on average, 126.87 pounds… 17% less than in 1988. I’m really doubting that the average model in 1988 weighed 8% less (which would have been 141 pounds)… were they larger than today, no doubt. But only by a (possible – as I said, looking at the comp cards/stats of models of the late 80s early 90s, I find it QUITE difficult to believe they weighed around 140 pounds) 9% margin, versus a 15% one.
Also, interestingly enough, when you plot out the average weight of the American woman it is actually more proportionate (in increase) with amount of money being spent on anti-obesity campaigns than it is inversely proportionate with model size…. Which I think BOTH play a role in the increase in size of the population itself… by creating a sense of shame in ones’ size.
//sorry for the long windedness
Oh and I also think how plus sized models are being used is incredibly interesting — without clothing and usually as part of some sexual fantasy… or rather a product that is not solely geared towards females… such as lingerie, etc. Obviously the underweight models are being used to sell more products that require women to feel insecure… which is a HUGE industry. It makes sense we’re seeing more underweight models as women’s magazines have 10 times more ads and articles that push weight loss than men’s magazines do, and three-quarters of the covers of women’s magazines include at least one message about altering a woman’s appearance.
That’s where the bulk of the money is since, unfortunately, we’re living in a self loathing society of sorts… in order to sell us self improvement products we have to think we need improving… using underweight models in those ads is how marketers are accomplishing it, which is why we see so many of them.
Fascinating thoughts and yes I agree with all that you say. My first response to this was that a model back in 1988 wasn’t 140, but looking at the like of them 140 isn’t a lot for someone who is really tall. Cindy Crawford has been quoted as saying that she is too healthy to be model today.
In the end it is all about making money. Sigh.