Cheryl Tiegs says Plus Sized Models are Unhealthy

Claiming that a model in the "plus" category is unhealthy strikes me as a code. Let's face it, the clothing industry isn't parading skinny models because they think they are healthier... It is about the look. Maybe Tiegs was sincere in attacking from the health standpoint, but others have made it about looks in turning Tiegs' comments back on herself.

And I don't love the idea of sinking to her level in any sense. Fair game? It's okay to insult her for her looks because you didn't like her comments. I can't agree with that. And are people upset that Tiegs said Graham might not be healthy, or because they believe the comments have more to do with modeling aesthetics? 

The whole subject is ludicrous anyway, because unless we have the inside track to the woman's doctors, we have no way of knowing whether she is healthy or not. She might just be lucky to look fit because of her youth. You can't tell by looking.

erins said:

What is "healthy" anyway???  And how do you make that determination from a picture?

I thought that others would take your lead and go down a different path. 

Theoretically Cheryl Tiegs may be accurate.  Weighing 201 pounds at 5'9" may not be ideal from a pure medical/health standpoint.  I know I am 6' tall and 210 lbs and my doctor had a long discussion with me about my weight.  Apparently, I am "overweight".   

But to me that's not the issue at all.  What is really unhealthy is the fake image that the modelling/fashion industry creates of an idealistic female body.  It is mentally unhealthy as it creates feelings of low self-worth in women who never reach that "ideal". 

So Ashley Graham is beautiful and not thin.  The positive impact on (especially young) females feelings of self, far outweighs (no pun intended) any real or perceived concerns about women carrying extra body weight.  Its not like women are going to SI see this cover and go order a supersize Big Mac meal, but they may actually feel ever so slightly better about themselves.   

I agree PeggyC and and ridski.   Shaming looks doesn't feel right in any context.

Someone else on the thread mentioned Serena Williams. On a purely numbers basis - height and weight - I'm sure she'd be considered over weight. But clearly she healthy and fit - indeed the strongest tennis player there probably ever was. So the numbers don't tell all.

Judging from her pictures, I would posit that Graham is also an example of a woman whose height and weight measure in the "overweight" category but she's physically toned and healthy. 

Hahaha said:

Someone else on the thread mentioned Serena Williams. On a purely numbers basis - height and weight - I'm sure she'd be considered over weight. But clearly she healthy and fit - indeed the strongest tennis player there probably ever was. So the numbers don't tell all.

Judging from her pictures, I would posit that Graham is also an example of a woman whose height and weight measure in the "overweight" category but she's physically toned and healthy. 

Serena is about 5'9" and 155 lbs.  I don't think people should be calling her overweight based on numbers (or appearance either).  

But that isn't really the point to me.  The point is that having models of varying sizes in magazines is a good thing (to me).    

yes, you can be 50 lbs overweight and not show signs of disease at 25 so technically you are healthy. But those 50 lbs will do a number on your heart and have a high chance of sending you to high blood pressure & diabetes a bit later in life. While I think Ashley is beautiful, why are we pretending that being that much overweight is healthy? We all know it's not. (And I'm squarely in the "unhealthy" range of weight do this isn't some skinny-minny shaming someone else). I've been overweight for a decade or more now, always felt fine but at age 45, now borderline high BP, diabetes and knee issues. Wish I would have thought more about that when I had all that extra weight on me and was "healthy" by the numbers. 

Naomi Wolf:

“A culture fixated on female thinness is not an obsession about female beauty, but an obsession about female obedience. Dieting is the most potent political sedative in women’s history; a quietly mad population is a tractable one.”

IT IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH. As a young, moderately overweight woman I got all kinds of grief for not putting in my best effort to make myself more attractive to the opposite sex. Now, 40 lbs heavier and aged 57, nobody gives a crap about my weight, not to my face anyways. I could have used this 30 years ago.

so, you could have used someone ignoring your health and telling you it was okay to be 50 lbs overweight? Not me, I wish maybe someone (doctors included) hadn't been so polite and told me seriously to take the weight off now or there will be health problems later. It's not that I didn't know but, heck I was "healthy", right? No problems, right? Not right, you are setting yourself up for future issues if you grow "comfortable" with being 50 lbs overweight. It's not okay.

Now, body shaming is terrible nd we should learn to love ourselves. And skinny models are the opposite end of the spectrum and probably not healthy either. But neither is a woman 50 lbs overweight. Why celebrate either one?

conandrob240 said:

so, you could have used someone ignoring your health and telling you it was okay to be 50 lbs overweight? Not me, I wish maybe someone (doctors included) hadn't been so polite and told me seriously to take the weight off now or there will be health problems later. It's not that I didn't know but, heck I was "healthy", right? No problems, right? Not right, you are setting yourself up for future issues if you grow "comfortable" with being 50 lbs overweight. It's not okay.

Now, body shaming is terrible nd we should learn to love ourselves. And skinny models are the opposite end of the spectrum and probably not healthy either. But neither is a woman 50 lbs overweight. Why celebrate either one?

I agree.  Clearly obesity in America is a huge public health issue.   And you are also right that individuals and doctors should be working on getting to healthier weights.

But to me, I just am not clear that seeing a bunch of underweight models helps anyone.

What about Athleta or Title IX models - many of whom actually are athletes.  They aren't underweight, but their bodies are pretty perfect.

I think SI is bowing to public pressure as opposed to making a decision to do something that will increase sales.

Woot said:

conandrob240 said:

so, you could have used someone ignoring your health and telling you it was okay to be 50 lbs overweight? Not me, I wish maybe someone (doctors included) hadn't been so polite and told me seriously to take the weight off now or there will be health problems later. It's not that I didn't know but, heck I was "healthy", right? No problems, right? Not right, you are setting yourself up for future issues if you grow "comfortable" with being 50 lbs overweight. It's not okay.

Now, body shaming is terrible nd we should learn to love ourselves. And skinny models are the opposite end of the spectrum and probably not healthy either. But neither is a woman 50 lbs overweight. Why celebrate either one?

I agree.  Clearly obesity in America is a huge public health issue.   And you are also right that individuals and doctors should be working on getting to healthier weights.

But to me, I just am not clear that seeing a bunch of underweight models helps anyone.

Although often bowing to public pressure IS an effort to increase sales. Just look at the current debacle at Land's End over the Gloria Steinem interview. Although it is a whole different argument, at its heart it is still a debate about consumer pressure and ad dollars.

wot, yea, of course. The stick thin, probably underweight models all over the magazines isn't healthy either and there's so many of them that have damaged the female psyche over the years so I get the rationale behind the plus size model. They were trying to show that all women are beautiful and come in many shapes and sizes. I do get that and think that's healthy and welcome. But I don't think a person 50 or 60 lbs overweight in a country where obesity is an epidemic is what we should be glorifying either. And saying anyone at that weight is "healthy" is sort of delusional and short-sighted.

We have different body types.  Our health depends on what we eat, lifestyle, heredity, etc. and if we carry extra weight as we age health problems will follow as mentioned earlier.

Calculate your body weight index:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm

This website is a bit more reasonable.  http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/.

Based on the NIH site, I would have to loose more than 20 pounds to reach the target BMI - a weight I haven't seen since 11th grade was I was in pretty decent shape.

I think there's a big difference between having to drop 10 or 20 lbs and obesity. At a size 16 (based on how Ashley looks proportioned to me), she's around 50-60 lbs past the "recommended" weight and she's young. That's not healthy

The world is full of appealing people of all different sizes, colors, ages and characters.  Yet, Sports Illustrated only presents, year after year, a very narrow selection of what they consider attractive. Real progress would be getting rid of the whole contest in the first place.  But,  finally, they include ONE larger model; how can this be anything but positive?  So what if being fat is unhealthy?  Are we going to see one fat girl in a magazine and start binging on twinkies?  Have some of you spent too much time reading The Secret?  This is what progress looks like and I think we should be glad.  

I had to look up Ashley. That is how unaware I am of all of this. She is one beautiful woman. I don't think putting her on SI is celebrating her being overweight. I do hope that we might expand what people see as attractive. That the whole person matters. Not just their weight. A lot of people struggle with their weight. Losing weight is a long, slow process (generally), with a lot of back sliding and a really high recidivism rate. There are many cultural and psychological reasons people carry extra weight. But, a person with "issues" can still be attractive. And I think we can celebrate that. I find Melissa McCarthy to be a very pretty woman and quite obese. But should we not ever put her on a cover? Problem with SI cover is that it is specifically there for men to ogel and buy magazines. It is not about one's talent or intelligence or spirit. 

.

It came up with the same BMI as the NIH site for me, "normal" weight. 

tjohn said:

This website is a bit more reasonable.  http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/.

Based on the NIH site, I would have to loose more than 20 pounds to reach the target BMI - a weight I haven't seen since 11th grade was I was in pretty decent shape.

gerryl said:

I had to look up Ashley. That is how unaware I am of all of this. She is one beautiful woman. I don't think putting her on SI is celebrating her being overweight. I do hope that we might expand what people see as attractive. That the whole person matters. Not just their weight. A lot of people struggle with their weight. Losing weight is a long, slow process (generally), with a lot of back sliding and a really high recidivism rate. There are many cultural and psychological reasons people carry extra weight. But, a person with "issues" can still be attractive. And I think we can celebrate that. I find Melissa McCarthy to be a very pretty woman and quite obese. But should we not ever put her on a cover? Problem with SI cover is that it is specifically there for men to ogel and buy magazines. It is not about one's talent or intelligence or spirit. 

Yeah, SI swimsuit issue seems a little outdated to me. Ridski posted a rather hilarious video on the first page of this thread "how is this still a thing?" 

First of all BMI and Waist to Hip ratio is more significant than just someone's waist size in determining if they are "healthy". Still I don't think that a number will give you a true picture of how healthy someone truly is. And weight alone is also not sufficient to determine if someone is healthy or not.

Just a different perspective. My SIL is 5'10". She has a 23" waist and may be 32" hips. She is rail thin at 130lbs. Tall and skinny as most women would love to be even after having a child. Yet, at 35 years old she has high cholesterol, high blood pressure and she already had a mild heart attack. Now she has to seriously watch what she eats even as she is trying to put on a little bit of weight because she would love to have some curves. My dad is another example. At 66 he is nothing but skin and bones but he is pre-diabetic, has hypertension and high cholesterol. His entire life he has eaten whatever he wanted and never had to worry about putting on weight. We used to laugh that he was a human garbage disposal because he would make sure we would never have left-overs to throw away. Now he finds himself watching everything he eats even when he really can't afford to lose any weight. Yes, I know these is just two examples and not the norm, but my point is that what you eat determines how healthy you are not what you weight or your waist size. Some people can eat anything they want and not put on weight, but that does not necessarily make them healthy. Some people put on weight easily but they may not necessarily have any medical conditions.

Everyone's body and metabolism is different and ultimately what they eat and how they process it determines how healthy they are. The focus should be on eating healthy more so than on looking a certain way. 

And just to add another point, studies seem to show that women with big buts, or high hip to waist ratio, have smarter children. So as far as I am concern we are doing this for the kids! 

http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/3507/20150303/scientists-say-that-women-with-bigger-butts-give-birth-to-smarter-kids.htm

tjohn said:

This website is a bit more reasonable.  http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/.

Based on the NIH site, I would have to loose more than 20 pounds to reach the target BMI - a weight I haven't seen since 11th grade was I was in pretty decent shape.

Although BMI is more meaningful than just someone's weight, let's keep in mind that someone who has a lot of muscle will weigh more than someone who has the same volume in fat and yet the heavier person will likely be healthier since muscle burns more calories than fat.