BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?
Replies
-
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 think one reason is that in the past, BMI was never used as actively to monitor individuals as it is now. Because of that, the incidence/effect of outliers is much more noticeable.
In some ways, it's similar to Target Heart Rate and "training zones". We didn't care that much about the normal variability in heart rate response to exercise until we started measuring it.
0 -
If you want to see how people looked in the sixties, watch the films.
I think I'm in the last generation that doesn't have many films of how people looked when their parents and grandparents were young, which makes me feel old.
But take a look at the films of college kids and adults then and now. Eek!
We are a fat country.
0 -
I went by BMI when I set about losing my weight. Judge for yourself but I feel like it was spot on for me. Ok I understand I am not an athlete or a body builder (pregnant or adolescent), but I can easily swim a mile or walk for 10 miles. At 46 this is a result for me. Current BMI 23.8
BMI is a good guide when used in conjunction with clinical picture - ie with seeing the person's body.
Yes, some people with well over average muscle mass have a high BMI without being overweight - but this is obvious by body appearance and the person is usually well aware of it too - like those with muscular avatars who.posted to say so.
However zezelryck has kindly posted a before pic of himself at high BMI - I think it is equally obvious that his high BMI was not from extreme muscle mass.
Likewise, when I had a BMI of 28 both my doctor and myself knew it was not from muscle mass either; my BMI put me in the overweight category because I was overweight.
Now that I have a BMI of 23 I am a healthier weight.
Yes some people are large framed and some are small framed and this will affect what will be a healthy BMI for them. That's why healthy BMI is not a single number but a range.
For most people a healthy weight will be BMI of between about 18 to 25.
Yes this does not apply to everyone - not relevant to elite body builders or women in late pregnancy or amputees or people with dwarfism etc - but I'm sure both their doctors and themselves will know if they are such an outlier and adjust their goals accordingly.
For the rest of us, which is most adult people, the BMI range does give a good indication.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).
You were existing on a diet of candy bars and seeds. Your issue wasn't a low weight, it's as you stated, malnutrition. Of course you feel better now, as I assume your diet has improved exponentially, even with a high BMI.
Understand that most of the negatives associated with low weight stems from the under or malnutrition that is responsible for the low weight. If you were on a healthy regimen and still ended up back at a lower weight, understand that you would not be suffering from the horrible side effects that you did back then.0 -
BMI works very well for the vast majority of individuals. Everybody who is above the high end likes to claim they are "muscular". The fact is, doing a few sets of crunches and a few squats two or three days a week does not make you so muscular that you can be above the high end of the healthy BMI range and not be overweight...especially if you are female. For us to put on significant muscle weight takes A LOT of hard work lifting heavy weights and focusing on nutrition.
Professional athletes are exceptions because they spend huge amounts of time in weight rooms and have low body fat. If you are doing that as a hobby, great, you are one of the exceptions. But casual weight training for fitness purposes is NOT the same thing.
And while EVERYBODY can easily calculate BMI...all you need is a scale and your height, it is very difficult to get an accurate measure of body fat without spending a lot of money for a specialized body scan.
In fact, BMI might be too generous is some cases. If you have a small frame and are at the high end of BMI, you could STILL be overweight from a health perspective.
My basic point is this: if you have a BMI over 25 you are most likely overweight unless you are doing some SERIOUS weight training and KNOW that your body fat % is low. If you have love handles, or a pot belly, you are overweight. I don't care how "muscular" or "big boned" you think you are.
0 -
Iwishyouwell 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).
You were existing on a diet of candy bars and seeds. Your issue wasn't a low weight, it's as you stated, malnutrition. Of course you feel better now, as I assume your diet has improved exponentially, even with a high BMI.
Understand that most of the negatives associated with low weight stems from the under or malnutrition that is responsible for the low weight. If you were on a healthy regimen and still ended up back at a lower weight, understand that you would not be suffering from the horrible side effects that you did back then.
I agree that my issue at the time was not just the number on the scale. However, I don't think health and happiness are only linked with low scale numbers. In April of this year I was again eating a very similar diet, mainly peanut butter and chocolate chips, for probably about $50/mth, but I was 296 pounds. I wasn't healthy, or active, but I was a lot less miserable than I was at 116 pounds. I feel better at 195 and active, but lower isn't always better. 116 pounds was what I weighed at the lowest part of my life, and that was for a number of reasons, not just that I was cold, hungry, and exhausted all the time. Low weight isn't a magical cure-all. I feel better at a higher weight. I have more energy, physical and mental. People like me better (my daughters and boyfriend complain about the change in my appearance, and are inconvenienced by my new eating habits and exercise). And, being at a higher weight due to my own actions feels more powerful than being underweight and being able to do nothing about it. My mental stress has always had a bigger impact on my health than my weight.
I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
Which takes me back to my point, which may be a little tangential, that health and happiness are big picture items. BMI is just one part of the puzzle.0 -
I'm in the ideal or fitness bodyfat range for a woman of my age who isn't trying to bodybuild (whoever decides what the optimal range is though, right?--i'm just talking according to random bf charts). However, I'm 35 pounds overweight according to BMI. I'm a powerlifter. I am much more concerned about body composition, really.0
-
35 lbs. over the top of the 'normal BMI' range, or the middle, or bottom? That's a lot of muscle, if the top!kelly_e_montana wrote: »I'm in the ideal or fitness bodyfat range for a woman of my age who isn't trying to bodybuild (whoever decides what the optimal range is though, right?--i'm just talking according to random bf charts). However, I'm 35 pounds overweight according to BMI. I'm a powerlifter. I am much more concerned about body composition, really.
0 -
I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
But, while some people are very healthy at a lower weight because of frame size, not everyone is. For some people underweight for them is within the healthy BMI range. For other people underweight is BMI 17.5 (or something). And she was correct to say an individual discusses that with their own doctor. It's pretty evident that when it comes to frame size we are most definitely not all the same (along with many other aspects of our body type). We aren't cookie cutter bodies.
0 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
But, while some people are very healthy at a lower weight because of frame size, not everyone is. For some people underweight for them is within the healthy BMI range. For other people underweight is BMI 17.5 (or something). And she was correct to say an individual discusses that with their own doctor. It's pretty evident that when it comes to frame size we are most definitely not all the same (along with many other aspects of our body type). We aren't cookie cutter bodies.
I don't think frame size has much to do with it. I think it's muscle/fat percentage more than anything.0 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
But, while some people are very healthy at a lower weight because of frame size, not everyone is. For some people underweight for them is within the healthy BMI range. For other people underweight is BMI 17.5 (or something). And she was correct to say an individual discusses that with their own doctor. It's pretty evident that when it comes to frame size we are most definitely not all the same (along with many other aspects of our body type). We aren't cookie cutter bodies.
I don't think frame size has much to do with it. I think it's muscle/fat percentage more than anything.
It's a combination of a lot of things. Frame size, muscle, fat, boobs, etc. But frame size will absolutely have an influence. Like I already said, my rib cage is 25 inches at the widest point (23 inch waist). And I'm short. This means there is less space in my body. My organs are smaller. Due to less space there is simply less fat and muscle on me than someone at the equivalent fitness status that has a larger frame. It's pretty basic. That doesn't mean I can't build more muscle. I certainly could. But even if I was built up as much as I could, I would still weigh less than someone at that same fitness level that has a 38 inch rib cage from bone structure (same height).
0 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
But, while some people are very healthy at a lower weight because of frame size, not everyone is. For some people underweight for them is within the healthy BMI range. For other people underweight is BMI 17.5 (or something). And she was correct to say an individual discusses that with their own doctor. It's pretty evident that when it comes to frame size we are most definitely not all the same (along with many other aspects of our body type). We aren't cookie cutter bodies.
I don't think frame size has much to do with it. I think it's muscle/fat percentage more than anything.
It's a combination of a lot of things. Frame size, muscle, fat, boobs, etc. But frame size will absolutely have an influence. Like I already said, my rib cage is 25 inches at the widest point (23 inch waist). And I'm short. This means there is less space in my body. My organs are smaller. Due to less space there is simply less fat and muscle on me than someone at the equivalent fitness status that has a larger frame. It's pretty basic. That doesn't mean I can't build more muscle. I certainly could. But even if I was built up as much as I could, I would still weigh less than someone at that same fitness level that has a 38 inch rib cage from bone structure (same height).
Don't forget race either.0 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
But, while some people are very healthy at a lower weight because of frame size, not everyone is. For some people underweight for them is within the healthy BMI range. For other people underweight is BMI 17.5 (or something). And she was correct to say an individual discusses that with their own doctor. It's pretty evident that when it comes to frame size we are most definitely not all the same (along with many other aspects of our body type). We aren't cookie cutter bodies.
I don't think frame size has much to do with it. I think it's muscle/fat percentage more than anything.
It's a combination of a lot of things. Frame size, muscle, fat, boobs, etc. But frame size will absolutely have an influence. Like I already said, my rib cage is 25 inches at the widest point (23 inch waist). And I'm short. This means there is less space in my body. My organs are smaller. Due to less space there is simply less fat and muscle on me than someone at the equivalent fitness status that has a larger frame. It's pretty basic. That doesn't mean I can't build more muscle. I certainly could. But even if I was built up as much as I could, I would still weigh less than someone at that same fitness level that has a 38 inch rib cage from bone structure (same height).
I have a wide ribcage and very wide hips, but I'm still a low weight naturally (slightly underweight based on bmi). I think it's mostly due to not having muscles and due to not having boobs.0 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
But, while some people are very healthy at a lower weight because of frame size, not everyone is. For some people underweight for them is within the healthy BMI range. For other people underweight is BMI 17.5 (or something). And she was correct to say an individual discusses that with their own doctor. It's pretty evident that when it comes to frame size we are most definitely not all the same (along with many other aspects of our body type). We aren't cookie cutter bodies.
I don't think frame size has much to do with it. I think it's muscle/fat percentage more than anything.
It's a combination of a lot of things. Frame size, muscle, fat, boobs, etc. But frame size will absolutely have an influence. Like I already said, my rib cage is 25 inches at the widest point (23 inch waist). And I'm short. This means there is less space in my body. My organs are smaller. Due to less space there is simply less fat and muscle on me than someone at the equivalent fitness status that has a larger frame. It's pretty basic. That doesn't mean I can't build more muscle. I certainly could. But even if I was built up as much as I could, I would still weigh less than someone at that same fitness level that has a 38 inch rib cage from bone structure (same height).
I have a wide ribcage and very wide hips, but I'm still a low weight naturally (bordering on underweight based on bmi). I think it's mostly due to not having muscles.
For you it is. I'm a dancer and I lift heavy weights. But, I am at a low weight because I am naturally quite small. I have some decent muscle. I don't have tons of muscle. I'm not comparible to a body builder or powerlifter. But, bikini competitors with my frame are at the same weight and measurements as I am.
We all just need to understand the variation. And stop thinking, "For me it's like this, so I'm applying that to everyone". That's when all kinds of confusion happens. People start telling people they could lose weight (when they shouldn't), telling people to gain (when they don't need to), or making judgements that a person feels insulted by or knows is not correct. It leads to frustration and circular, long conversations.
0 -
And living off 800 calories a day had NOTHING to do with WHY she was underweight? It was clearly NOT a healthy weight for her. I'm not saying it's *impossible* to be that height and that weight and be healthy, but clearly she was not.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
I'm also 5'8" and no amount of "eating proper nutrition" would make 116lbs a healthy weight for me, ever. Hell even 124lb isn't healthy for me and that's a number that *is* considered healthy for someone my height, but given that my LBM is 124lbs, to get their I'd have to lose bone density or allow muscle atrophy, or be at 0% BF, NONE of which would be healthy.
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
And living off 800 calories a day had NOTHING to do with WHY she was underweight? It was clearly NOT a healthy weight for her. I'm not saying it's *impossible* to be that height and that weight and be healthy, but clearly she was not.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
I'm also 5'8" and no amount of "eating proper nutrition" would make 116lbs a healthy weight for me, ever. Hell even 124lb isn't healthy for me and that's a number that *is* considered healthy for someone my height, but given that my LBM is 124lbs, to get their I'd have to lose bone density or allow muscle atrophy, or be at 0% BF, NONE of which would be healthy.
Edit: I just re-read your post and noticed that you acknowledged that it isn't necessarily unhealthy to be underweight, so don't take the bulk of this as directed at you. I am going to leave it up because I do feel other people have made the implication, however, in this and other threads. Sorry for my crap reading skills
Just because 124 lb isn't healthy for one person, it doesn't mean it's unhealthy for everyone. A lot of long distance runners have very low BMI and still manage to function. I'm not saying all people with a low BMI are as fit as runners, just that low weight (within the acceptable range) does not necessarily imply poor health.
You are confusing correlation with causation. There may be a correlation with malnourishment and underweight, but it is not caused by the weight, it's caused by a low nutrient diet. 1200 calories of the standard american diet will likely result in malnutrition because of the low nutrient density per calorie. 1200 calories of calorie light, nutrient dense foods is going to be a million miles away from that diet, nutritionally speaking. If you are lower weight with a high nutrient diet, you will get the equivalent nutrition to a higher calorie diet with lower nutrient density.
I do want to add that, of course there is a lower limit at which weight loss is unhealthy, regardless of nutrition, because essential fat and lean mass are being lost. But it's not going to be within the healthy range. Not everyone should be at the low end of the scale, and there are probably many people who shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean it is unhealthy for everyone.
In case I have not been crystal clear, I am not saying that it is better to have a low weight, or that anything but greens and veggies are somehow bad. I am simply saying that, with proper nutrient intake, a weight at the low end of the BMI scale is not inherently harmful.
0 -
I am at the low end of the BMI and I eat around 2000 calories a day (I am petite). So, for me this is healthy, nourished, and has been sustainable for my entire adult life (throw in a couple pregnancies). But, it's not healthy for a person that eats 800 to get there.0
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »I am at the low end of the BMI and I eat around 2000 calories a day (I am petite). So, for me this is healthy, nourished, and has been sustainable for my entire adult life (throw in a couple pregnancies). But, it's not healthy for a person that eats 800 to get there.
And that's my point, for the case that was being made it was a chicken/egg scenario. Saying that she would have been fine at that weight if she would just "eat better" is misleading, since more then likely, "eating better" would have meant eating more, and eating more would have meant gaining weight, so ultimately, for her, that WEIGHT was unhealthy for her, regardless of the quality of her diet.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
And living off 800 calories a day had NOTHING to do with WHY she was underweight? It was clearly NOT a healthy weight for her. I'm not saying it's *impossible* to be that height and that weight and be healthy, but clearly she was not.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
I'm also 5'8" and no amount of "eating proper nutrition" would make 116lbs a healthy weight for me, ever. Hell even 124lb isn't healthy for me and that's a number that *is* considered healthy for someone my height, but given that my LBM is 124lbs, to get their I'd have to lose bone density or allow muscle atrophy, or be at 0% BF, NONE of which would be healthy.
Edit: I just re-read your post and noticed that you acknowledged that it isn't necessarily unhealthy to be underweight, so don't take the bulk of this as directed at you. I am going to leave it up because I do feel other people have made the implication, however, in this and other threads. Sorry for my crap reading skills
Just because 124 lb isn't healthy for one person, it doesn't mean it's unhealthy for everyone. A lot of long distance runners have very low BMI and still manage to function. I'm not saying all people with a low BMI are as fit as runners, just that low weight (within the acceptable range) does not necessarily imply poor health.
You are confusing correlation with causation. There may be a correlation with malnourishment and underweight, but it is not caused by the weight, it's caused by a low nutrient diet. 1200 calories of the standard american diet will likely result in malnutrition because of the low nutrient density per calorie. 1200 calories of calorie light, nutrient dense foods is going to be a million miles away from that diet, nutritionally speaking. If you are lower weight with a high nutrient diet, you will get the equivalent nutrition to a higher calorie diet with lower nutrient density.
I do want to add that, of course there is a lower limit at which weight loss is unhealthy, regardless of nutrition, because essential fat and lean mass are being lost. But it's not going to be within the healthy range. Not everyone should be at the low end of the scale, and there are probably many people who shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean it is unhealthy for everyone.
In case I have not been crystal clear, I am not saying that it is better to have a low weight, or that anything but greens and veggies are somehow bad. I am simply saying that, with proper nutrient intake, a weight at the low end of the BMI scale is not inherently harmful.
I agree 100% with what you are saying in this. My concern is that many *young women (*and not so young, but it seems to be more common among young women) see the lower end of BMI as a goal. And so they start dieting to try and reach that goal. And then they start experiencing symptoms that clearly indicate something is wrong, but ignore them because after all, 124lbs is supposed to be healthy for them. And then they see people saying "oh no, it's not that you can't be 124lbs and be healthy, you're just not eating right".........
I was very lucky. My doctor made it very clear to me as a teenager that I should never aim for anywhere in the lower end of BMI, so I never got hung up on the fact that I was always toward the heavier end. I was slender and in great shape, but I was well in to the 150's range. If I had thought for a moment that I *should* have been 124lbs to be skinny, I could have done serious harm to myself.0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »I am at the low end of the BMI and I eat around 2000 calories a day (I am petite). So, for me this is healthy, nourished, and has been sustainable for my entire adult life (throw in a couple pregnancies). But, it's not healthy for a person that eats 800 to get there.
And that's my point, for the case that was being made it was a chicken/egg scenario. Saying that she would have been fine at that weight if she would just "eat better" is misleading, since more then likely, "eating better" would have meant eating more, and eating more would have meant gaining weight, so ultimately, for her, that WEIGHT was unhealthy for her, regardless of the quality of her diet.
Yeah, I agree!
And also with your next post. It is good to have a doctor that understands and communicates this. They base it on you, as an individual. That's completely logical (not special snowflake like people are saying).
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
And living off 800 calories a day had NOTHING to do with WHY she was underweight? It was clearly NOT a healthy weight for her. I'm not saying it's *impossible* to be that height and that weight and be healthy, but clearly she was not.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
I'm also 5'8" and no amount of "eating proper nutrition" would make 116lbs a healthy weight for me, ever. Hell even 124lb isn't healthy for me and that's a number that *is* considered healthy for someone my height, but given that my LBM is 124lbs, to get their I'd have to lose bone density or allow muscle atrophy, or be at 0% BF, NONE of which would be healthy.
Edit: I just re-read your post and noticed that you acknowledged that it isn't necessarily unhealthy to be underweight, so don't take the bulk of this as directed at you. I am going to leave it up because I do feel other people have made the implication, however, in this and other threads. Sorry for my crap reading skills
Just because 124 lb isn't healthy for one person, it doesn't mean it's unhealthy for everyone. A lot of long distance runners have very low BMI and still manage to function. I'm not saying all people with a low BMI are as fit as runners, just that low weight (within the acceptable range) does not necessarily imply poor health.
You are confusing correlation with causation. There may be a correlation with malnourishment and underweight, but it is not caused by the weight, it's caused by a low nutrient diet. 1200 calories of the standard american diet will likely result in malnutrition because of the low nutrient density per calorie. 1200 calories of calorie light, nutrient dense foods is going to be a million miles away from that diet, nutritionally speaking. If you are lower weight with a high nutrient diet, you will get the equivalent nutrition to a higher calorie diet with lower nutrient density.
I do want to add that, of course there is a lower limit at which weight loss is unhealthy, regardless of nutrition, because essential fat and lean mass are being lost. But it's not going to be within the healthy range. Not everyone should be at the low end of the scale, and there are probably many people who shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean it is unhealthy for everyone.
In case I have not been crystal clear, I am not saying that it is better to have a low weight, or that anything but greens and veggies are somehow bad. I am simply saying that, with proper nutrient intake, a weight at the low end of the BMI scale is not inherently harmful.
I agree 100% with what you are saying in this. My concern is that many *young women (*and not so young, but it seems to be more common among young women) see the lower end of BMI as a goal. And so they start dieting to try and reach that goal. And then they start experiencing symptoms that clearly indicate something is wrong, but ignore them because after all, 124lbs is supposed to be healthy for them. And then they see people saying "oh no, it's not that you can't be 124lbs and be healthy, you're just not eating right".........
I was very lucky. My doctor made it very clear to me as a teenager that I should never aim for anywhere in the lower end of BMI, so I never got hung up on the fact that I was always toward the heavier end. I was slender and in great shape, but I was well in to the 150's range. If I had thought for a moment that I *should* have been 124lbs to be skinny, I could have done serious harm to myself.
I agree that too many women and girls are sacrificing their health to be "skinny". I sometimes hesitate to post these kind of messages, because I don't want to give any ammunition to help someone in crisis help maintain their self delusions. I was going to post something similar in another thread, but then I saw that the OP had a history of eating disorders, so I left its alone. It may be the truth, but it would only encourage her disordered thinking.
I'm referring to fit healthy people who eat well and happen to fall in the lower ranges of normal (but still normal), but are hounded about their weight because it isn't what another person would feel comfortable at.
Sometimes it just gets to me when people completely ignore the top of the range as irrelevant, and then call someone who is at the low end or the range "too skinny to be healthy".
I guess it comes down to what is healthy for your own body. It's when people try to force themselves into an unnatural weight range (for them) that when problems begin.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
And living off 800 calories a day had NOTHING to do with WHY she was underweight? It was clearly NOT a healthy weight for her. I'm not saying it's *impossible* to be that height and that weight and be healthy, but clearly she was not.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm currently 5'8", so 116 would be underweight for me now, and is not my weight loss goal, nor would I consider it realistic. Keep in mind, I had been eating under 800 calories for at least a year to be at 116 then. I don't see how any healthy regimen would get me back there. If I'm wrong, please show me an 800 calorie/day diet that contains RDAs for micronutrients and has at least 30g fat, 45g protein, and 25g fiber, bonus points if it costs less than $40/mth (see, I've already planned out the first 460 calories). If my weight falls to 116 again it will probably be due to illness.
I didn't say, or imply, that you should or could get back to 116 lbs. That's rather inconsequential to me, and you know your body better than I ever could, obviously.
I was making a point that theoretically IF following a healthier regiment was to land you back at 116 lbs, you'd more than likely feel much better, even at that lower weight. I was making a statement about your malnourishment, the weight was incidental.
So you are saying I would feel better at a weight that is unhealthy for me and unsustainable? You are saying this after acknowledging that I know my body better than you could? Your point is I would be healthier simply because it is a lower scale number than my current one? Why stop at 116? Wouldn't I be healthier still at 100? or 70? Silly me, having a goal weight of 140 when clearly less is more.
If you don't know someone, it is a little irresponsible to tell them they will be better off at a BMI below the healthy range, especially as you are aware of the extreme measures required to get there and the accompanying health risks. Those who find they need to be lower than normal BMI to be healthy are outliers, and that is something only their doctors are qualified to discuss with them.
I must say I agree with you that other factors often make a bigger difference than than number on the scale when it comes to health and happiness. Wishing both to you
Oh my goodness. She is NOT saying someone would be better off at a BMI below the healthy range. She is saying that being 5'8" and 116 lbs wasn't the problem. Eating less than 800 calories a day and being malnourished was the problem. If you had been properly feeding your body, you wouldn't have felt cold, hungry, and shaky at 5'8" and 116 lbs.
Yup, no causal connection whatsoever between those two issues. None at all. And at 5'8" 116lbs IS underweight.
There are plenty of individuals who are underweight who are NOT malnourished. Someone can be underweight and still get proper nutrition. I was a perfect example of that.
Then there are individuals who are underweight AND malnourished. At 5'8" and 116 lbs, Kyta was BARELY underweight. She felt the way she did because she was living off of less than 800 calories a day made up primarily of peanut butter and chocolate chips.
I'm also 5'8" and no amount of "eating proper nutrition" would make 116lbs a healthy weight for me, ever. Hell even 124lb isn't healthy for me and that's a number that *is* considered healthy for someone my height, but given that my LBM is 124lbs, to get their I'd have to lose bone density or allow muscle atrophy, or be at 0% BF, NONE of which would be healthy.
Edit: I just re-read your post and noticed that you acknowledged that it isn't necessarily unhealthy to be underweight, so don't take the bulk of this as directed at you. I am going to leave it up because I do feel other people have made the implication, however, in this and other threads. Sorry for my crap reading skills
Just because 124 lb isn't healthy for one person, it doesn't mean it's unhealthy for everyone. A lot of long distance runners have very low BMI and still manage to function. I'm not saying all people with a low BMI are as fit as runners, just that low weight (within the acceptable range) does not necessarily imply poor health.
You are confusing correlation with causation. There may be a correlation with malnourishment and underweight, but it is not caused by the weight, it's caused by a low nutrient diet. 1200 calories of the standard american diet will likely result in malnutrition because of the low nutrient density per calorie. 1200 calories of calorie light, nutrient dense foods is going to be a million miles away from that diet, nutritionally speaking. If you are lower weight with a high nutrient diet, you will get the equivalent nutrition to a higher calorie diet with lower nutrient density.
I do want to add that, of course there is a lower limit at which weight loss is unhealthy, regardless of nutrition, because essential fat and lean mass are being lost. But it's not going to be within the healthy range. Not everyone should be at the low end of the scale, and there are probably many people who shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean it is unhealthy for everyone.
In case I have not been crystal clear, I am not saying that it is better to have a low weight, or that anything but greens and veggies are somehow bad. I am simply saying that, with proper nutrient intake, a weight at the low end of the BMI scale is not inherently harmful.
I agree 100% with what you are saying in this. My concern is that many *young women (*and not so young, but it seems to be more common among young women) see the lower end of BMI as a goal. And so they start dieting to try and reach that goal. And then they start experiencing symptoms that clearly indicate something is wrong, but ignore them because after all, 124lbs is supposed to be healthy for them. And then they see people saying "oh no, it's not that you can't be 124lbs and be healthy, you're just not eating right".........
I was very lucky. My doctor made it very clear to me as a teenager that I should never aim for anywhere in the lower end of BMI, so I never got hung up on the fact that I was always toward the heavier end. I was slender and in great shape, but I was well in to the 150's range. If I had thought for a moment that I *should* have been 124lbs to be skinny, I could have done serious harm to myself.
I agree that too many women and girls are sacrificing their health to be "skinny". I sometimes hesitate to post these kind of messages, because I don't want to give any ammunition to help someone in crisis help maintain their self delusions. I was going to post something similar in another thread, but then I saw that the OP had a history of eating disorders, so I left its alone. It may be the truth, but it would only encourage her disordered thinking.
I'm referring to fit healthy people who eat well and happen to fall in the lower ranges of normal (but still normal), but are hounded about their weight because it isn't what another person would feel comfortable at.
Sometimes it just gets to me when people completely ignore the top of the range as irrelevant, and then call someone who is at the low end or the range "too skinny to be healthy".
I guess it comes down to what is healthy for your own body. It's when people try to force themselves into an unnatural weight range (for them) that when problems begin.
I relate to this!
0 -
BMI seems to be off mathematically. The relationship between height and weight depends on volume and density. Density is body composition, which is ignored. Volume is three dimensional. The BMI formula uses weight / height squared. Shouldn't a cubed measurement be used instead? I think this is part of the reason short and tall people may get inaccurate weight ranges.
In my case, I find the upper BMI limit for my height extremely high. I'm 5'2" with a very small frame. According to BMI, 136 is "healthy." I am obviously heavy at that weight. Even now, at 119, I need to lose a bit more. I looked best at 110.
I ignore BMI and go by my own experience, the mirror, and how I feel. I'm just lucky I'm in the range so I'm not harassed by anyone in the medical community. I'm sorry large framed muscular people have to deal with that. Doctors should know better.0 -
Linda, that's why it is a range - nearly everybody, other than elite body builders whose reading is skewed by large amount of muscle mass, is going to be healthy somewhere in the range or at least not far from the boundaries of the range.
So if in your case, you find the ' upper limits of BMI extremely high with a small frame' then the lower limits of the range is healthier FOR YOU.
But it is still very unlikely that a healthy weight for you will fall outside the range.
That is exactly what the last few posters have all been saying.0 -
Don't stress it. Bmi works for most population. For you it sounds like body fat percentage may be more appropriate so use that. These are just tools , guidelines. G-d bless our diversity0
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