Normal Weight?

We're probably all aware of the historical chestnut that Marilyn Monroe was a size 16.

However, based on her measurements, she would have been a US 10 (UK 12) and had a healthy BMI of just over 20kg/m2.

(The healthy range is 20-25, though for women, 18.5- 24.9 is recommended by the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.)

The perception seems to be that Monroe would be considered 'fat' by today's standards- yet she is at the lower end of a healthy BMI range.

Looking at the national statistics on BMI for the USA, it looks like the population is redefining 'normal'. Fewer people have a body mass index in the healthy range (18.5-24.9) and more and more fall into the overweight, obese or underweight categories.

This trend in body sizes away from the norm has led some to seek a re-definition of the healthy range, and anyone advocating this change is proposing a move upwards.
Current weight for height charts are still based on the Metropolitan Insurance tables from the 1950's.

While I do understand the rationale which says that we are taller and heavier now, and that comparison with data for the 1950's might not be a realistic reference for people today, this argument doesn't take account of the fact that 50% of the population have a much thinner 'norm' to which they aspire; social pressures are for women to maintain a body size substantially smaller than what was considered 'normal' or even attractive in the 1950's. And remember, Monroe was not overweight.

Apparently, the couture sample size aspired to by all of Holly wood is '0'. Size zero! 'No size', effectively. Just think for a second about how ridiculous that is- never mind how tiny. To my mind, adjusting BMI or weight reference ranges is moving the goal posts. We would be 'normalising' unhealthy weights and addressing the wrong issue.