BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?
Replies
-
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.
but i'd assume it's entirely possible to have small wrists, but larger bones elsewhere. my wrists are small, but my ribcage and hips are large/wide. it's bones, it's not fat. the bones stick out.0 -
I wonder about that. I hope that people aren't tacking the word "fat" onto the word "skinny" in an attempt to shame women for not having a lean, athletic body.Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
I think the original notion of "skinny fat" has merit. It described people who were in a normal BMI range, but who had a high body fat percentage. It's awesome to be reminded that while weight plays a significant role in this story, it's not by any means the only role. It also helps legitimize weight loss goals for those who are "normal" weight, or for those who were overweight and obese it's a good reminder that not even a "normal" weight will necessarily mean you've arrived at a "normal" body fat percentage.
The concept has just been pushed too far. Now I see it commonly being used to refer to people who are just skinny/thin, with normal to low body fat levels. I see it being used to shame people who are a little soft, but far from fat. I see people being told that they HAVE to lift heavy in order to avoid being "skinny fat" or "flabby". I see what was once considered perfectly normal, non-fat bodies being referred to as "skinny fat" for not being lean, athletic, musclar bodies.
I'll take skinny-fat. It's so much better than fat-fat. I don't want to be skinny-muscular, anyway.
Hell, at this point, I'll take thin. Or thin-fat, lol.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
Some people have a smaller frame size, and are healthier at a lower weight. Being low-weight does not always feel great. I was 116 pounds and 5'6" when I was 15, and was the most miserable I have ever been in my life. At a BMI of 18.7, I wasn't quite underweight, however I was tired, cold, and hungry all the time, out of shape, my fingernails were purple and blue due to poor oxygen circulation, and I was socially shunned. I was eating on $40/mth, around 800 calories a day from Mars bars and sunflower seeds, so I was suffering from malnutrition. Being skinny isn't a magical formula for health and happiness.
Right now I am obese (BMI of 30) and feel healthier than I ever have. I can do sit ups and push ups, get into the plow, jog for 1/2 hour steadily, keep up with my kids, have energy through a 2 hour karate class, and be refreshed after 7-8 hours sleep. I'm regular (was not at 116 pounds), my blood pressure and blood sugar levels are healthy, and my mood is generally stable, positive, and optimistic (was not at 116 pounds).
Being underweight can make your heart fail. People who are underweight (under 18.5 BMI) are at higher risk of slow healing, impaired immune system (sick more often and for longer), thin bones, heart attacks, infertility, and heart arrhythmias.
The healthy weight for any individual is unique, based on genetics, development, and activity levels. That's why BMI has weight ranges that span dozens of pounds per inch. I'm glad you and your Dr have found a healthy range for you, but there's probably 5,999,999,999 people on the planet that it won't work for. They aren't necessarily at or aiming at an unhealthy weight, they just aren't you.
Good luck on your continuing journey
0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.
but i'd assume it's entirely possible to have small wrists, but larger bones elsewhere. my wrists are small, but my ribcage and hips are large/wide. it's bones, it's not fat. the bones stick out.
So your wrists are small in terms of body frame? I.e. under 5.5" if you are less than 5'2", under 6" if you are 5'2" to 5'5", and under 6.25" if you are over 5'5"?0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.
but i'd assume it's entirely possible to have small wrists, but larger bones elsewhere. my wrists are small, but my ribcage and hips are large/wide. it's bones, it's not fat. the bones stick out.
So your wrists are small in terms of body frame? I.e. under 5.5" if you are less than 5'2", under 6" if you are 5'2" to 5'5", and under 6.25" if you are over 5'5"?
pretty sure. i'll have to measure them when i get home, but the method of wrapping your fingers around your wrist seems small to me.0 -
NoelFigart1 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
What also is interesting is a lot of the men regulars here say they're so against 1200 calorie diets because so many young women here use it to try to get to unhealthily low weights. Yet they also often say BMI is useless at the individual level. What other tools do we have to give evidence to these young girls that their goal is unhealthy?WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Body fat percentage is much, MUCH better. Though I concede a significant pain in the *kitten* to get accurate.
Then it's not better.
0 -
My wrist was measured when I started dieting, it was over 6" and I was deemed a "large" frame. 61 lbs. later, it measures 6" and now I am a "medium" frame, but I still am not at goal yet, not even sure where that will be, but I did have 4 links taken out of my watch band when I sent it in for maintenance a few months ago, it was too big and down on my hand.CarrieCans wrote: »
Thanks for the info. I really didn't think there could be that much variation in the wrist area. My wrists hardly change size, 20 lbs down no change here. I am also measuring at the same size i had when i was below my goal weight which would be more than 25 lbs less than i am now. My forearms are another story, they really change.
I have a feeling i am going to be stalking strangers and checking out their wrists from now on lol
0 -
I remember being a child in the 60's and being at elementary school, and most of the Mothers who came to pick their kids up (including my own Mom) were much more overweight/obese than the Moms I see picking up their kids these days. I think you better make that or so another 10 or 20 years because from the mid-50s (or so, lol) people started getting fatter when there were more convenience foods, like those TV dinners in the aluminum tins (actually they were probably closer to the real thing than what you can get now). Most of the adults I knew when I was a child and even a teenager (in the late 70s) were at least overweight, if not obese, at least half my teachers were obese. I guess we must have had very different life experiences. I also remember picking up my own son from school in the 1980s/1990s, and the majority of the women my age/generation were for the most part not even overweight much less obese, I was normal BMI at that time myself, although I feel like I am healthier with even more muscle even if I weigh more now, and even though I have always been muscular and always weighed more than I looked like I did, which always made me get a lot of questions when I was weighed at the Doctor, or weighed twice, or really? You weigh THAT much? Now they are surprised I look as good as I do and am as small as I am although I weigh even more.Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
0 -
perseverance14 wrote: »
I remember being a child in the 60's and being at elementary school, and most of the Mothers who came to pick their kids up (including my own Mom) were much more overweight/obese than the Moms I see picking up their kids these days. I think you better make that or so another 10 or 20 years because from the mid-50s (or so, lol) people started getting fatter when there were more convenience foods, like those TV dinners in the aluminum tins (actually they were probably closer to the real thing than what you can get now). Most of the adults I knew when I was a child and even a teenager (in the late 70s) were at least overweight, if not obese, at least half my teachers were obese. I guess we must have had very different life experiences.Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
I'm pretty sure the statistics are based on national studies of weight and not anyone's personal opinion. People are heavier now than they were in the 60's.0 -
Maybe if you gain enough muscle to be 50 lbs. overweight and it is just muscle, I doubt many people do that unless they are extremely serious body-builders. :-) Muscle is GOOD, having strength as you age is very important, strong muscles and bones serve you well...if you don't believe me, just do some searches, even the mainstream media says this.Being an average person a normal BMI seems reasonable goal to me. Right now, 50 lbs. away and 65 lbs. lighter than I was 11 months ago I'm not worried about it. I'm 6 ft 2 inches and am going to look pretty good dressed at 210 - 20 lbs overweight. 185, 15 lbs less than max normal, is my longer range goal. I'm not a doctor and there's no reason for me to conclude that extra muscle mass isn't detrimental to ones body in some of the same ways (of course not all ways) as extra fat mass.
0 -
I want to reply as somebody who spent a significant amount of my life (most of it) at "normal" BMI, at the low, middle and high end, and also a shorter amount of time at obese. When I was at the smaller end of BMI I had no curves, I looked like a little boy, and I didn't like that at all, I was happier at the middle end and even the higher end, but although I liked my curves at the higher end I never felt "toned" enough. I know now when I get back to that size (I am very close to it, I can fit in some 4's now and I was a 3/4 back then, ) at whatever weight I am, I will be a lot happier with what I see in the mirror (the bikini I have on in the profile pic is a size 4, but I still have core fat to lose till I feel really good in it). I have lost cellulite and saddlebags I could never get rid of by doing cardio, weight lifting is the thing that made the difference for me, not just losing weight. I lost weight several times and was pretty much the smallest size I could be for my frame for quite a while when I was in my 20's and I was not happy with how I looked. I have come to the conclusion that it is best to attain a body composition you are happy with, that makes you feel good about yourself, whatever the scale says at that point, I think being healthy and happy is a better metric to measure length and quality of life by, and strength and strong bones are very important as you age; just MHO.0
-
If you look at BMI historically, you need to look at a lot of things. The Quetelet index (called BMI since 1976) was developped between 1830 and 1850. Widespread access to a surplus of food for the majority of the population has varied since then. In the 1800s many people worked in seasonal or unreliable jobs (farming, fishing/hunting, self-employed merchants), so fewer year-round regular sources of income. Also, there were fewer unions and legislated working conditions/wages, so businesses got away with paying less than the employees needed to house and feed themselves. The time of Queen Victoria's reign was notorious for the rampant poverty and terrible working conditions (1837-1876).
We can see that in the past overweight and obesity was common in the upper class, who had the money to be obese. Being overweight was considered attractive in the past, as it was associated with financial success, just like wearing expensive clothing is considered desirable now, as it means you have money to burn.
Keep in mind, that in the US the BMI cutoff for overweight was 27.8 until 1998. BMI statistics before and after may not be comparable because of this.
In the 1930s there was a depression, and resulting lack of resources for most people to get overweight on. In the 1910s and 1940s there was war and war rationing. So, there was very little surplus in the 1st half of the 20th century (not enough resources to get obese).
There are other pressures that drive weight gain (by population). Right now, with 1/5 of families being headed by single parents, and 2 incomes needed by most two parent families (unlike in the 50s 60s and 70s) there is a time crunch that makes preparing healthy food at home more difficult. Children are learning how to feed themselves from people who have no time to shop/cook/learn about nutrition (and are low energy, as a result of living high-stress lives with no sleep and poor nutrition). That's why our BMIs are higher.
Industrialization of the food industry has resulted in the market being flooded with cheap, fast, low-skill/knowledge required, calorie rich, nutrient poor food. And so the western nations have gotten fat (as western nations, not us in particularly posting). From the beginning of the BMI calculation there has not been a time when the majority of the population had access to enough food to get as obese as the western nations currently are until 1950. As people gain weight over time, it only makes sense that average weight has gone up over the decades since then.
The antidote - more time and money, as well as education and fitness. People do try to do better when given the opportunity.0 -
I don't like 'skinny fat' for that reason. One more body shaming term.
I wonder about that. I hope that people aren't tacking the word "fat" onto the word "skinny" in an attempt to shame women for not having a lean, athletic body.Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
I think the original notion of "skinny fat" has merit. It described people who were in a normal BMI range, but who had a high body fat percentage. It's awesome to be reminded that while weight plays a significant role in this story, it's not by any means the only role. It also helps legitimize weight loss goals for those who are "normal" weight, or for those who were overweight and obese it's a good reminder that not even a "normal" weight will necessarily mean you've arrived at a "normal" body fat percentage.
The concept has just been pushed too far. Now I see it commonly being used to refer to people who are just skinny/thin, with normal to low body fat levels. I see it being used to shame people who are a little soft, but far from fat. I see people being told that they HAVE to lift heavy in order to avoid being "skinny fat" or "flabby". I see what was once considered perfectly normal, non-fat bodies being referred to as "skinny fat" for not being lean, athletic, musclar bodies.
I'll take skinny-fat. It's so much better than fat-fat. I don't want to be skinny-muscular, anyway.
Hell, at this point, I'll take thin. Or thin-fat, lol.
I also don't like when a clearly great-weight young woman posts her pics here and asks if her weight looks ok and 90% of the responses are, "yes, now you just need to focus on recomp". Most of us are never going to look like fitness models and don't have that goal. Women don't need that "should" thrust upon them, on top of all the other body-size pressures.
If you want to recomp, go for it, but don't assume it's every female's goal to have sub-20% body fat and visible abs, or that it should be.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I don't like 'skinny fat' for that reason. One more body shaming term.
I wonder about that. I hope that people aren't tacking the word "fat" onto the word "skinny" in an attempt to shame women for not having a lean, athletic body.Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
I think the original notion of "skinny fat" has merit. It described people who were in a normal BMI range, but who had a high body fat percentage. It's awesome to be reminded that while weight plays a significant role in this story, it's not by any means the only role. It also helps legitimize weight loss goals for those who are "normal" weight, or for those who were overweight and obese it's a good reminder that not even a "normal" weight will necessarily mean you've arrived at a "normal" body fat percentage.
The concept has just been pushed too far. Now I see it commonly being used to refer to people who are just skinny/thin, with normal to low body fat levels. I see it being used to shame people who are a little soft, but far from fat. I see people being told that they HAVE to lift heavy in order to avoid being "skinny fat" or "flabby". I see what was once considered perfectly normal, non-fat bodies being referred to as "skinny fat" for not being lean, athletic, musclar bodies.
I'll take skinny-fat. It's so much better than fat-fat. I don't want to be skinny-muscular, anyway.
Hell, at this point, I'll take thin. Or thin-fat, lol.
I also don't like when a clearly great-weight young woman posts her pics here and asks if her weight looks ok and 90% of the responses are, "yes, now you just need to focus on recomp". Most of us are never going to look like fitness models and don't have that goal. Women don't need that "should" thrust upon them, on top of all the other body-size pressures.
If you want to recomp, go for it, but don't assume it's every female's goal to have sub-20% body fat and visible abs, or that it should be.
exactly. i would never post a picture of my body and ask for feedback for that exact reason. it would make me mad.
i've seen younger women post asking if they should lose more weight because their stomach isn't perfectly flat. i have to squint my eyes to see where the fat is, but people are quick to jump in and tell her that she's skinny-fat and needs to start lifting. i'm thinking, uh no she doesn't. she's fine.0 -
Jeesh,
BMI is a valuable but simple tool that gives approximate direction.
It's like a tourist map for NY, it'll get you going in the right direction but doesn't compare to google maps and GPS in finding your exact destination.
I'm 6'1" 295 lbs which puts me off the chart for obese. I'll be delighted if I get down to spitting distance of a 'healthy BMI', though I was smack in the middle all through college.0 -
This is not my experience, in my Mom's generation at least 50% were obese once they were over 30 (out of people I know or come into contact with), in my generation, it is more like 20% at best. It is funny because my state is supposed to have the largest population of obese people, but I don't see that many of them unless I go to things like, say, a concert, there I might see a higher percentage, maybe 30%, still less than my Mom's generation. Just think of the movie stars, back in the day a lot of the famous gained weight, take Elizabeth Taylor but how many obese older stars do you see now? If I want to see a lot of obese people in one place the best place to find that is in the cities where there is a lot of poor people that don't have the money to buy better food...just saying, sad but true.Iwishyouwell wrote: »Lets be honest, most people who are legitimate outliers will know they're outliers. A woman earlier in the thread has a profile picture up of, what I assume, is her with six pack abs on a cut physique. She obviously isn't going to require any guidance by a BMI chart. That she isn't fat is the definition of common sense.
However how typical is this? Really? It seems to me the far more likely perception is that we've become collectively so much larger that our idea of "normal" has likewise shifted up. Which would help explain the incredible backlash against once-normal, lower body weights and a fear/anxiety about thinness.
Again, and this does go well beyond MFP, how are so many claiming to just be naturally bigger, when that simply wasn't the case a couple generations ago?
1960-1962:
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 166.3
1999-2002
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 191.0
Further study into the statistics show that it's middle aged men and women tend to even larger than their mid-20th century counterparts (who were even larger than their earlier 20th century counterparts). And this data is over 10 years old. The weight increase also can't be accounted for the slight increase in height, which is an average of 1 inch.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf0 -
To me it means the things I hated when I was thinner before like saddle bags and cellulite, sure it is better being thinner, but it is nice not to have visible fat deposits too.I wonder about that. I hope that people aren't tacking the word "fat" onto the word "skinny" in an attempt to shame women for not having a lean, athletic body.
I'll take skinny-fat. It's so much better than fat-fat. I don't want to be skinny-muscular, anyway.
Hell, at this point, I'll take thin. Or thin-fat, lol.
0 -
perseverance14 wrote: »
This is not my experience, in my Mom's generation at least 50% were obese once they were over 30 (out of people I know or come into contact with), in my generation, it is more like 20% at best. It is funny because my state is supposed to have the largest population of obese people, but I don't see that many of them unless I go to things like, say, a concert, there I might see a higher percentage, maybe 30%, still less than my Mom's generation. Just think of the movie stars, back in the day a lot of the famous gained weight, take Elizabeth Taylor but how many obese older stars do you see now? If I want to see a lot of obese people in one place the best place to find that is in the cities where there is a lot of poor people that don't have the money to buy better food...just saying, sad but true.Iwishyouwell wrote: »Lets be honest, most people who are legitimate outliers will know they're outliers. A woman earlier in the thread has a profile picture up of, what I assume, is her with six pack abs on a cut physique. She obviously isn't going to require any guidance by a BMI chart. That she isn't fat is the definition of common sense.
However how typical is this? Really? It seems to me the far more likely perception is that we've become collectively so much larger that our idea of "normal" has likewise shifted up. Which would help explain the incredible backlash against once-normal, lower body weights and a fear/anxiety about thinness.
Again, and this does go well beyond MFP, how are so many claiming to just be naturally bigger, when that simply wasn't the case a couple generations ago?
1960-1962:
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 166.3
1999-2002
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 191.0
Further study into the statistics show that it's middle aged men and women tend to even larger than their mid-20th century counterparts (who were even larger than their earlier 20th century counterparts). And this data is over 10 years old. The weight increase also can't be accounted for the slight increase in height, which is an average of 1 inch.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf
my guess is that either you are remembering incorrectly just how many obese people there were from your youth, or you were around different types of people then rather than national statistics being wrong.0 -
I want to see the metrics. My Mom's generation didn't even go to gyms, they had Jack LaLane and a chair or Hathayoga on TV. I want to see who and where these people are, because I don't see it unless I go to certain areas. I had to check if my state still had the most obese city and I found out none of our cities even make the top 10 anymore...it is not my imagination I see less and less of them.I'm pretty sure the statistics are based on national studies of weight and not anyone's personal opinion. People are heavier now than they were in the 60's.0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
Could not agree more. Yet, when I was close to being in the underweight category, I never heard anything from anyone about concern over my health. It was all praise about how 'healthy' I looked (they must not have been seeing the same person - if I showed anyone pictures of me during that time, they'd see anything but health ... this seems to be common. Bias causing people to see all skinny/thin people as healthy until they ARE underweight) and how healthy I must have been. In reality, I could barely walk to the bathroom without nearly collapsing.
My BMI, though, said I was healthy. So, everyone behaved as though I were. Doctors, nurses, family, everyone. I got a free pass. I was not harassed. I was not questioned about my health. Because my BMI was 'healthy'.
BMI is a guideline... but not the end all be all. I have a large frame. My BMI chart says I would be fine at 125 lbs. I've been there. Trust me. I'm not.
I use it as a small guideline. But I do not base my health on it. You can be within a 'healthy' BMI and still have too much BF%. You can also be in a healthy BMI and still be unhealthy (many people with eating disorders can attest to this).
0 -
perseverance14 wrote: »
I want to see the metrics. My Mom's generation didn't even go to gyms, they had Jack LaLane and a chair or Hathayoga on TV. I want to see who and where these people are, because I don't see it unless I go to certain areas. I had to check if my state still had the most obese city and I found out none of our cities even make the top 10 anymore...it is not my imagination I see less and less of them.I'm pretty sure the statistics are based on national studies of weight and not anyone's personal opinion. People are heavier now than they were in the 60's.
From this link.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
Some people have a smaller frame size, and are healthier at a lower weight. Being low-weight does not always feel great. I was 116 pounds and 5'6" when I was 15, and was the most miserable I have ever been in my life. At a BMI of 18.7, I wasn't quite underweight, however I was tired, cold, and hungry all the time, out of shape, my fingernails were purple and blue due to poor oxygen circulation, and I was socially shunned. I was eating on $40/mth, around 800 calories a day from Mars bars and sunflower seeds, so I was suffering from malnutrition. Being skinny isn't a magical formula for health and happiness.
Right now I am obese (BMI of 30) and feel healthier than I ever have. I can do sit ups and push ups, get into the plow, jog for 1/2 hour steadily, keep up with my kids, have energy through a 2 hour karate class, and be refreshed after 7-8 hours sleep. I'm regular (was not at 116 pounds), my blood pressure and blood sugar levels are healthy, and my mood is generally stable, positive, and optimistic (was not at 116 pounds).
Being underweight can make your heart fail. People who are underweight (under 18.5 BMI) are at higher risk of slow healing, impaired immune system (sick more often and for longer), thin bones, heart attacks, infertility, and heart arrhythmias.
The healthy weight for any individual is unique, based on genetics, development, and activity levels. That's why BMI has weight ranges that span dozens of pounds per inch. I'm glad you and your Dr have found a healthy range for you, but there's probably 5,999,999,999 people on the planet that it won't work for. They aren't necessarily at or aiming at an unhealthy weight, they just aren't you.
Good luck on your continuing journey
You felt the way you did because you weren't properly feeding your body, not because you were "underweight." There's a big difference. Just because a person is underweight doesn't automatically mean they are malnourished.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »perseverance14 wrote: »
I want to see the metrics. My Mom's generation didn't even go to gyms, they had Jack LaLane and a chair or Hathayoga on TV. I want to see who and where these people are, because I don't see it unless I go to certain areas. I had to check if my state still had the most obese city and I found out none of our cities even make the top 10 anymore...it is not my imagination I see less and less of them.I'm pretty sure the statistics are based on national studies of weight and not anyone's personal opinion. People are heavier now than they were in the 60's.
From this link.
Was this adjusted for the change in BMI definitions in 1998? I notice the last value given is projected, and doesn't fit with the natural line beforehand. What are the assumptions used for this projection?
The 2014 level (for obestity) is slightly lower than that given in the chart for 2012 at 34.9 as of September 2014, and childhood obesity rates are stabilizing. Metrics can be tricky as methodology changes over time.
http://stateofobesity.org/rates/
Maybe we are starting to get a handle on this?0 -
Prevalence* of Self-Reported Obesity Among U.S. Adults by State and Territory, BRFSS, 2013
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html0 -
Figure 4-2. Age-standardized† prevalence of self-reported overweight and obesity‡ among individuals aged 18 years and older, by province/territory, Canada, 2009–2010
Public Health Agency of Canada
The answer is clear. Move to the West Coast.0 -
Good points. I believe we are reducing obesity. Childhood obesity has definitely decreased. I don't think that forecast rate in the chart I posted is realistic, either. But we have an aging population as baby boomers retire and we know that retirement isn't great for the waistline.WalkingAlong wrote: »perseverance14 wrote: »
I want to see the metrics. My Mom's generation didn't even go to gyms, they had Jack LaLane and a chair or Hathayoga on TV. I want to see who and where these people are, because I don't see it unless I go to certain areas. I had to check if my state still had the most obese city and I found out none of our cities even make the top 10 anymore...it is not my imagination I see less and less of them.I'm pretty sure the statistics are based on national studies of weight and not anyone's personal opinion. People are heavier now than they were in the 60's.
From this link.
Was this adjusted for the change in BMI definitions in 1998? I notice the last value given is projected, and doesn't fit with the natural line beforehand. What are the assumptions used for this projection?
The 2014 level (for obestity) is slightly lower than that given in the chart for 2012 at 34.9 as of September 2014, and childhood obesity rates are stabilizing. Metrics can be tricky as methodology changes over time.
http://stateofobesity.org/rates/
Maybe we are starting to get a handle on this?
I can't answer your other questions about the chart but the link is in my post to the source, so feel free to read. I just wanted to respond to "I want to see metrics" that obesity has risen since the 60s.
0 -
NoelFigart1 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
What also is interesting is a lot of the men regulars here say they're so against 1200 calorie diets because so many young women here use it to try to get to unhealthily low weights. Yet they also often say BMI is useless at the individual level. What other tools do we have to give evidence to these young girls that their goal is unhealthy?WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Body fat percentage is much, MUCH better. Though I concede a significant pain in the *kitten* to get accurate.
Then it's not better.
If you think something that is a pain in the butt, but is accurate, isn't better than something that is inaccurate, I can't help your understanding of how facts work.
Easy doesn't necessarily mean better.
0 -
Figure 4-2. Age-standardized† prevalence of self-reported overweight and obesity‡ among individuals aged 18 years and older, by province/territory, Canada, 2009–2010
Public Health Agency of Canada
The answer is clear. Move to the West Coast.
This can't be right. The overweight rate in Canada was about 33% in 2013 (less than 1% change since 2003) and obesity 18.2% (less than 4% increase since 2003). The people in this report must have been overstating their obesity. Although, yes BC is the place to be with 14.3% obesity (up less than 3% since 2003) 30.7% (.1% change since 2003) overweight - better weather in the more populated areas, so easier to exercise?. Newfound and Labrador- whoa! 29% obesity (up over 8% since 2003) - economic conditions? Stats Can is a fun playground...
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/health-sante/82-213/index.cfm?Lang=ENG0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
Some people have a smaller frame size, and are healthier at a lower weight. Being low-weight does not always feel great. I was 116 pounds and 5'6" when I was 15, and was the most miserable I have ever been in my life. At a BMI of 18.7, I wasn't quite underweight, however I was tired, cold, and hungry all the time, out of shape, my fingernails were purple and blue due to poor oxygen circulation, and I was socially shunned. I was eating on $40/mth, around 800 calories a day from Mars bars and sunflower seeds, so I was suffering from malnutrition. Being skinny isn't a magical formula for health and happiness.
Right now I am obese (BMI of 30) and feel healthier than I ever have. I can do sit ups and push ups, get into the plow, jog for 1/2 hour steadily, keep up with my kids, have energy through a 2 hour karate class, and be refreshed after 7-8 hours sleep. I'm regular (was not at 116 pounds), my blood pressure and blood sugar levels are healthy, and my mood is generally stable, positive, and optimistic (was not at 116 pounds).
Being underweight can make your heart fail. People who are underweight (under 18.5 BMI) are at higher risk of slow healing, impaired immune system (sick more often and for longer), thin bones, heart attacks, infertility, and heart arrhythmias.
The healthy weight for any individual is unique, based on genetics, development, and activity levels. That's why BMI has weight ranges that span dozens of pounds per inch. I'm glad you and your Dr have found a healthy range for you, but there's probably 5,999,999,999 people on the planet that it won't work for. They aren't necessarily at or aiming at an unhealthy weight, they just aren't you.
Good luck on your continuing journey
You felt the way you did because you weren't properly feeding your body, not because you were "underweight." There's a big difference. Just because a person is underweight doesn't automatically mean they are malnourished.
Being underweight doesn't mean you are malnourished, but the underweight are more likely to be malnourished and have nutritional deficiencies, like low calcium leading to thinner bones and low potassium leading to heartbeat irregularities. Being obese doesn't mean you eat a lot of junk food, but I'm thinking it's more likely that the obese eat more processed caloric dense food. There are all sorts of exeptions to the rule, but being underweight does not feel "healthier" for a lot of people, and does not lead to better health consequences in general. That being said, we are all special snowflakes, so go ahead and rock whatever you have worked out between yourself and your doctor
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions