I always love reading the progress profiles in Shape every month, but one of those in the issue I just received I was concerned about. A 5'3" woman initially weighed 140 and Shape says this is unhealhy and her size 10 frame was fat. She lost 30 pounds and now weights 110, which is on the very low end of "healthy". While it sounds like she made these changes in a sensible way, I feel like Shape is promoting stick thin stereotypes as the ideal for success. I'm thinking about writing the magazine, but maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing. What do you guys think?

there was a show on T.V. about 6 months ago regarding photograpers and web artists who redisigned peoples bodies, I believe one of them was on a picture of Christy Brinkly,and other models they showed how they can adjust there waist, hip, and other body parts to make them look better, and I do believe this can be happen. From experience, as a friend of my daughters did it to a picture of her, and made her waist and boobs(breasts) look smaller.
So the moral of this story is "DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN MAGAZINES"

I bought Mode periodically at the store, but I never brought myself to subscribing because I didn't want to accept that I was plus-sized. Similarly to you Jen, it wasn't until I realized I should treat myself well and dress stylishly at any size that I made the conscious effort to get healthy.

I still subscribe because the magazine has great information, but the trend toward skinnier and skinnier models (who don't really look like they work out much) is annoying.

Did any of you subscribe to Mode when it was around? That magazine really changed my outlook because the models looked so great and wore such wonderful clothes. Even though they were all giantesses (most were around 6' tall) they helped me realize that I could do more to look good even if I was overweight. I think that's what gave me the confidence to really lose the weight, ironically.

I used to have a subscription to Shape but dropped it because the cover models and the models in the magazine have perfect, or even scrawny, bodies that are unhealthy or unattainable for most.

The woman looked very average at 140, not overweight. In her after photos, she looks like a model. So she went from a pretty, average-build woman to model-thin. I thought she looked good in both pictures, sort of like Renee Zellwiger in Bridget Jones before to Zellwiger when she is at her "movie-star" weight. (P.S. I know a lot of people, me included, who think that RZ looked prettier as Bridget than in Chicago)

P.S. I see nothing wrong with this woman changing to look better to herself, it's just the "I was fat before" part of her story that rubbed me the wrong way.

I didn't see her, so I can't say...
But I'm just slightly under 5'2" (I say I'm 5'2") and 110-115 is really a good weight for me. I would be happy at 120 though. For my build though, 110 was not too thin, I didn't even really look too thin at 105, I did however look way to thin at 98 lbs. (I weighed that in my early 20s, and I wasn't trying at all.)

So, it may not really be an unrealistic weight for her. However, if they showed pics of her at her current weight, and she looks healthy and is struggling to lose more, then maybe you should write the letter and point that out.

I remember several years ago, I believe it was in "SELF", they did a photo comparison of women that were in shape and looked great, compared to women that were not in shape but weighed less and the in shape women looked better and thinner. So, no, it isn't always about the number.

Dawn

I think you should write a letter.

At my thinnest, I think I was 110. At just under five feet. I looked too thin. My best weight was in college, my sophomore year, when I'd put on about 10/15 pounds. I have pics from then when I looked *good*.

This is what is so scary about society, there is an emphasis that it is better to be too thin.

Bleah.

Cate

Fer, I don't think it's just you -- I noticed the same thing this month. Also their models have also changed from fit, muscular-looking athletic women to bony-armed fashion models lately. I'm a little disappointed because I always really liked Shape.

I always read those heights and weights with some dismay, as I have worked hard to get down into the 155-160 range and am having a lot of trouble going lower. I would like to get down to 140. But compared to most of the numbers you see in magazines, that's still a pretty high weight. When I look at myself compared to a lot of other women, though, I think I just look like I'm built on a larger scale. I have huge hands and feet, I'm a little more muscular than average and have a different body shape than a lot of those models.

I think that we'd all feel better if we stopped comparing ourselves to others, but of course that's easier said than done.

I think that you should write a letter - they are propegating the myth that there is some magic number that works for everyone. The reason those weight charts have those large ranges is because we all have different frames. Plus, weight is not as accurate a measure of health/fitness as body fat composition. While it's certainly possible that the woman in the article had a high body fat % at 140 lbs, other women might not.

I personally think that seeing those types of people profiled is discouraging. When I first started on this journey, my goal was to get into a size 10 (for me that was the high 140s). Had I read that article back then, it would have made me really, really sad!

BTW, I'm also 5'3 and 122 pounds (plus or minus a pound). I'm in a size 2/4 now. If I lost another 12 pounds (which I don't think I could), I think I'd be underweight and there wouldn't be close small enough!

I'm 5'3" (alright, 5'2 & 1/2")and even at my fittest, working out at a competitive level for 5-6 hours a day, didn't weigh an ounce less than 130. My college roommate, who was taller and on the team with me, never weighed more than 110, despite her best efforts to put on bulk.

I will say, though, that even at 130, I was in a size 6, and I could see where a size 10 on someone who's 5'3" could be construed as unhealthy, especially if she has a small frame. Luckily (?) for me, the "weight" I carry tends to be in areas that it's acceptable for women to carry weight (read that to mean I have childbearing hips and plenty "up top").

It'd also depend on her age, I would think, as it'd be a lot easier to hit 110 at 20 than it would at 40.

D

Fer: FWIW my daughter is the same height as the women you mentioned, she had always weighed about 105#'s (from her late teens to the last 6 months)
She is very small framed, and lately she has put on about 13#'s, we don't know if it is because she is going thru her change of life or what, she clains she doesn't eat that much, and really she doesn't. I keep telling her about the 1200 cal thing, but she has no time or patients to do all of that. It has come to the point I stopped trying to tell her anything I feel "I am only her mother, what do I know"

I don't think its "nothing". I have a friend who is the same height. She is trying so badly to reach that 110 mark, her snacks are shaved iced. She doesn't get to enjoy food anymore, everything has become a number. I worry about her. While I did not see this profile, and perhaps 110 is alright for this particular woman ( maybe she has a slight build?) I feel that setting a number as the sole indicator is wrong. What is ideal for my body won't be for someone else. There are many other things to consider.

Laurie