BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?
Options
Replies
-
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
-
Maybe I should have not used myself as an example. I was not suggesting lowering the upper end. I was just saying it is inaccurate for some people who are NOT AVERAGE NOT JUST ME. I think the math involved is wrong. Forgive me for suggesting that.....0
-
LindaMc6262 wrote: »I was just saying it is inaccurate for some people...
EVERYBODY here has said that.
0 -
Wow. My main point was the math. Sorry the rest of my posts repeated things. So shoot me.0
-
Bang.
0 -
Lol0
-
LindaMc6262 wrote: »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.
You are right. BMI uses square power, but actually the power should be about 2.5, which is why there is a "newer" BMI calculation that uses 1.3 times your weight divided by height to the power of 2.5. You can read about it here http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-212293870 -
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.
No that is not even remotely in the same universe as the point I was making.
0 -
Hey just getting that sucker <30 moves one off of the government's OBESE list.
Clearly eating a healthy lifestyle (can be very different person to person) should be our ONLY 'goal' so all of the numbers self correct over time.0 -
LumberJacck wrote: »LindaMc6262 wrote: »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.
You are right. BMI uses square power, but actually the power should be about 2.5, which is why there is a "newer" BMI calculation that uses 1.3 times your weight divided by height to the power of 2.5. You can read about it here http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21229387
This BMI chart is exactly accurate for me because I am short with a small frame. But, it assumes all short people are smaller framed and all taller people are larger framed. That's not true. For a lot of people it's the opposite. So for large framed short people and small framed tall people this chart is even more off for them. It works for me exactly as my doctor has always said due to my small frame.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions