Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
I suppose my sense of "normal" is somewhat colored by the women in my family, the shortest of whom is about 5'8". Especially in my parent's generation, there are a lot of size 10-14s that are not at all overweight, while my size 4 (ish, I've never asked) cousin is rail thin (nicknamed Mantis by her high school friends, because of her thin arms and legs and reputation for emotionally slaughtering former boyfriends).
|
The women in the Mr.'s family are all amazons - 5'10", 6'. His sister (5'10") played semi-professional rugby, and still looks like she could rip a bull in half. But his mum, 5'11", weighed 120 when she got married. The men are even worse - one of his grandfathers was the family runt at 6'7" - all of his brothers and his father were 7'. This was pre WWI.
My family is little. When the Mr. visits them, he always comments on being in Munchkin land among the wee folk. My sister is about an inch shorter than me and weighs about 15 pounds more, but is a size 16 (all over). She's got small bones - she looks overweight the instant she gets over 105. I've got bigger bones and look decent right up to about 135.
Anyhow, tall people can carry around shitloads of extra weight without anyone particularly noticing - though it doesn't mean they aren't overweight. Tall people should not, generally, have the same proportions as short people - i.e.: just because a person has a couple extra inches in height doesn't mean they should have a proportionally bigger waist or butt.
However, I think the BMI calculations are really stacked against tall people. My short, size 16, slug-a-bed sister is middling-overweight, not even obese. My tall, fit, athletic Mr. with his 10 inch drop waist has almost exactly the same BMI.
