Trainers get asked all the time where someone “should be” with regard to their weight. This can be a difficult question to answer and of course the fads of the time don’t help. Is it in to be ultra-skinny, have more muscle, be a little more curvy??? There have been several methods developed over the years to try to help answer this question. Personally I still think a person’s percentage of body fat compared to their overall composition is a good way to measure where someone “should be.” Below is an article that helps to answer the question “Does Size Matter?”

“For decades the debate about a person’s size has plagued our nation. Women in particular have endured various definitions of “acceptable size”. Obesity is the underlying cause of more chronic illness than any other condition in human history. Americans don’t seem to appreciate what constitutes a “serving” and the generation currently in elementary school is likely to be the first in US history to NOT outlive its parents. So, we must ask again…does size matter?

If only the answer was simple. Through the ages a number of “standards” have been imposed on us that have been unrealistic, barbaric, and sometimes downright sadistic. Since 1950, icons of style and fashion have gone from the curvy 36-24-36 to the waif thin 13 inch waist of Twiggy to the ultra thin heroin look of the 90’s to the current standard of …wait still ultra thin! In Victorian times, a “healthier” looking lady was considered far more attractive than a “skinny” one. Today our ideals of beauty are more a reflection of the unachievable than the expression of a healthy lifestyle. In an era when thin equals attractive, why are so many Americans obese? Is it rebellion? Have we given up? Or, do we simply not know our wellness destination?

No matter what the standard and no matter how it was established, health conscious people need a reality check. In the 1970s physicians took a first stab at creating standards for growth and development and what an acceptable size might be. EVERYONE received a complimentary 100 lbs for the first 5 feet. Men got a bonus 15 lbs for being male and another 15 for each frame size adjustment. Large framed 60 inch tall men could weigh up to 145lbs. After that mark, 5 lbs an inch for a small frame, 10lbs for a medium, and UP TO 15 for a large. Women got far less grace. Receiving the same 100lbs for the first five feet, then 5lbs an inch. At each mark there was a 10 lbs range on either side in order to be deemed healthy. So, if a woman were 5’6”, she could way 130 lbs ideally, but small framed could be 120 and large 140. That all sounds fine and good, but there is no accounting for muscle mass, frame sizes were poorly defined, and for some body types, these numbers were just way off.

The next “improvement” in health estimating came from body fat percentage. Only no one could ever REALLY use calipers in a replicable manner and there was no way to account for internally stored fat. Bio-impedence scales, submersion tanks, and a HOST of other tools attempted to improve the accuracy of body fat analysis, but ultimately none have been proven consistently.

Enter BMI! The body mass index was the brain child of the 1990s when the old archaic system was dismissed as unrealistic. This standard used a basic height and weight table to estimate body fat. Some models even insert waist measurement. Though still flawed, this system has been more accurate than merely pounds per inch. Unfortunately, it is still oversimplified and can be terribly inaccurate. Athletes, in particular, are often mislabeled obese due to hypertrophy.

To further complicate the issue, there is a HUGE disconnect between the sizes of actresses and models and the average American. Most female models are nearly 6 feet tall, weigh less than 125 pounds and wear a size 4 or smaller. The average American woman is 5’5” tall, weighs 160 pounds and wears a size 10-14. Realism is being challenged by our definitions of what is attractive, appropriate, and acceptable. These psychological factors create anxiety for the health conscious today. Again, does size matter?

The answer is: YES AND NO! Size matters most “in the middle”. Statistically speaking no other single number speaks to wellness better than the measure of you waist. Women with a waist measurement greater than 35 inches and men who measure greater than 40”, regardless of height, are at a significantly greater risk of the BIG 5 most common causes of premature death: heart disease, cancer, stroke, respiratory disease, and diabetes. All of these have been proven less common in active persons. Does this mean having a flat stomach will help you live longer? No, actually. Individuals who are TOO thin, have a higher risk of osteoporosis, arthritis, and a host of diseases of an entirely different nature. Also, naturally thin people also tend to be less aerobically active. So who lives healthier longer????? Athletes!

There is no need to diet down to a size zero if you are 5’9” tall. There is also no reason to allow your 5’1” frame to fill out a size 12. The athletic body is typically a little larger in the shoulders and the thighs with a nice trim waist. Flat stomach? Less relevant. The omentum, the organ that stores belly fat, is less about the shape of your stomach than the width of your waist…and that is what matters most. Get off the scale, stop fussing about your size and pay attention to the way your pants fit. Get your waist under 35” (female) or 40” (male) and then gauge your health by the way you feel. Judging the beauty, health, or fitness of a person simply by the number on a scale or on the tag of a dress is absurd. Everyone is different and “healthy” is a state of being best signified by one additional measure: blood pressure. Throw out your scale and buy a sphygmomanometer (blood pressure cuff). This may lower your stress resulting in even better health! SIZE matters, but mostly at the waist! Now you know!”

(Source: SCW Fitness Newsletter www.scwfitness.com)