Discover what's new & improved in the MyFitnessPal app!
We’re dedicated to helping you achieve your health and nutrition goals. And our newest features and updates? They do just that. Learn how we're making tracking your progress easier, faster, and more motivating than ever.

If You Ate Whatever you wanted, no excersize, what do you think would be your stable bmi/ weight?

Options
168101112

Replies

  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    I think its cute, I admit I would rather see this than a 16 year old girl with bones sticking out all ovèr from starving, who baked the yum cake?

    It's a good thing those aren't the only two options.

    Really!

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    I just visited the Halls.md site. Very interesting calculations and data on BMI and how skewed it is (e.g., men are expected to be the same weight as women, no adjustments for aging). I especially noted the charts that show the overweight line being at higher levels for people over 50. I also noticed that even though I'm "high normal" BMI, 23.6, I am still at 13% percentile, which means the majority of women my age are heavier than I am. I did the ideal body weight calculation, which is 116, 1 lb. away from my goal weight. So, I'm not far off, despite all the 20 year olds my height who are posting that their ideal is around 105.

    Ideal BMI/weight shifts upward as we age, although I'm not sure where the "starting point" for that is, age-wise (I think you're still under it?). It's because extra fat stores are a boon to surviving bouts of pneumonia, colon cancer, and other wasting-type longer-term diseases that strike elderly populations more often than younger people. Also worth noting, having a little bit of fat on your face as you move into your 30s, 40s and beyond makes you look younger. :)

    That said, I'm pretty close to your height, and while body type does matter, 105 is definitely not an attractive weight on me!

    I'm 56, so I'm definitely past the "starting point", which is over 50. You are right about carrying a little extra fat making you look younger. The extra fat in my face and figure do make me look 10 years younger; I have a younger sister who is taller than I am and 10 lbs. lighter, and she does look older than I do.

    I found this exactly, I look 20 years younger at an overweight bmi!:-)

    Not me. I look significantly younger when not obese. The first time I realized how much I'd regained was when I caught myself in the mirror out of the corner of my eye and wondered who that middle aged woman was (I am, but was used to everyone telling me they were shocked to learn my age, all of a sudden I looked it and more). Since I lost our incredibly tactless cleaning woman at my job keeps telling me how much better and, especially, younger I look (she's also asked me if I had WLS).
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    Well, I'm just on the edge between over weight and normal bmi. I restricted severly for about 5 years and then intentionally regained the weight to preserve bone density. While I was way below a normal bmi I had an unhealthy pallour, sort of grey like and no butt at all. So this is a vast improvement! Its nice to get compliments sometimes isn't it?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    I wouldn't think how you look at way below a normal BMI would necessarily mean that you would look that way at a normal BMI. (In fact, unless you just naturally tended to be slight and thinner than most, I would assume being underweight would be less than ideal for most.)
  • I ate whatever I wanted and did very little exercise for the first 15 years of my life! xD And I did it quite recently, and maintained a stable weight between 123lb and 140lb. It is, to be, a really bad BMI (at over 26), but I was healthy. I did suffer from terrible asthma, and still do, though.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    It w
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I wouldn't think how you look at way below a normal BMI would necessarily mean that you would look that way at a normal BMI. (In fact, unless you just naturally tended to be slight and thinner than most, I would assume being underweight would be less than ideal for most.)

    It was sure less than ideal for me in a lot of ways. When I did eat, it wouldnt digest properly!
    A real pain in the you know what. I got sooo tired of all that. Some people enjoy it until death.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    I ate whatever I wanted and did very little exercise for the first 15 years of my life! xD And I did it quite recently, and maintained a stable weight between 123lb and 140lb. It is, to be, a really bad BMI (at over 26), but I was healthy. I did suffer from terrible asthma, and still do, though.

    I was like that the first 55 years of my life! No diets, no scales and just naturally ate and stayed within the healthy bmi range without any understanding of what calories or bmi's even were.

  • soygorda18
    soygorda18 Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Heh. Mine would easily be 50+ considering what I would prefer to eat...

    Just kidding; good question though. I'd have to imagine that I would eventually be back to my heaviest weight, which was around 185 pounds (and easily 35ish BMI). That was when I basically ate what I wanted and didn't do any of the exercise I do now.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    I just visited the Halls.md site. Very interesting calculations and data on BMI and how skewed it is (e.g., men are expected to be the same weight as women, no adjustments for aging). I especially noted the charts that show the overweight line being at higher levels for people over 50. I also noticed that even though I'm "high normal" BMI, 23.6, I am still at 13% percentile, which means the majority of women my age are heavier than I am. I did the ideal body weight calculation, which is 116, 1 lb. away from my goal weight. So, I'm not far off, despite all the 20 year olds my height who are posting that their ideal is around 105.

    Ideal BMI/weight shifts upward as we age, although I'm not sure where the "starting point" for that is, age-wise (I think you're still under it?). It's because extra fat stores are a boon to surviving bouts of pneumonia, colon cancer, and other wasting-type longer-term diseases that strike elderly populations more often than younger people. Also worth noting, having a little bit of fat on your face as you move into your 30s, 40s and beyond makes you look younger. :)

    That said, I'm pretty close to your height, and while body type does matter, 105 is definitely not an attractive weight on me!

    I'm 56, so I'm definitely past the "starting point", which is over 50. You are right about carrying a little extra fat making you look younger. The extra fat in my face and figure do make me look 10 years younger; I have a younger sister who is taller than I am and 10 lbs. lighter, and she does look older than I do.

    I found this exactly, I look 20 years younger at an overweight bmi!:-)

    Yeah I used to get comments all the time about how I hadn't changed in 10 years, when I was 27 people asked me where I went to school etc... now I look my age. Sigh.
  • rllove88
    Options
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    Dsadvocate, sounds great, unless you are over 51 years. Then its better to be 27 bmi or more, you know for bones, muscles and all that!

    This is extremely inaccurate. The heavier you are, the more weight is on your bones, joints, muscles, etc. This is even more of an issue the older you get, putting older adults at a higher risk for arthritis and osteoarthritis.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    rllove88 wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    Dsadvocate, sounds great, unless you are over 51 years. Then its better to be 27 bmi or more, you know for bones, muscles and all that!

    This is extremely inaccurate. The heavier you are, the more weight is on your bones, joints, muscles, etc. This is even more of an issue the older you get, putting older adults at a higher risk for arthritis and osteoarthritis.

    I thnk you will find, if you do a bit more research, that the normal bmi range is not the healthiest for over 50's and thwt the overweight and even the obese categories are more healthier for older folks.

  • rllove88
    Options
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    rllove88 wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    Dsadvocate, sounds great, unless you are over 51 years. Then its better to be 27 bmi or more, you know for bones, muscles and all that!

    This is extremely inaccurate. The heavier you are, the more weight is on your bones, joints, muscles, etc. This is even more of an issue the older you get, putting older adults at a higher risk for arthritis and osteoarthritis.

    I thnk you will find, if you do a bit more research, that the normal bmi range is not the healthiest for over 50's and thwt the overweight and even the obese categories are more healthier for older folks.

    Actually, I am a geriatric nurse and have done quite a bit of research on this topic. What you are saying is completely false. Being overweight or obese as an older adult puts you at a huge risk of diabetes, cancer, CVA, MI.

    I am interested to see where you are finding the information that states what you're saying.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    I am not surprised by your post, I think you will find as many science research projects that havenot found conclusive results for what you say as ones that do.
    Again, oveall mortality is much less for overweight and obese people that are over 50 years of age than for those in the normal weight bmi group. There are reviews and articles around that have researched this one everywhere.
  • 4leighbee
    4leighbee Posts: 1,275 Member
    Options
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    So looks like everyone here is convinced that without dieting and 'formal' out of the ordinary excersize they will become something they can't live with?

    Just wanted to politely suggest that I do not agree with this. I am using MFP for a distinct period of time in order for the logging/focus on caloric intake, etc. to assist in changing my circumstances. I have lived happily and moderately for many years without such formality. Exercise is something I will do until the day I am no longer able - not because I am afraid of who I might become - but because it makes me happy.

    In my mother's words, I wish to be constantly moving towards something (health/happiness), not running away from it (fear of becoming heavy). I would think that most of the folks on this thread would agree that is the healthier frame of mind.
  • rosebette
    rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    rllove88 wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    Dsadvocate, sounds great, unless you are over 51 years. Then its better to be 27 bmi or more, you know for bones, muscles and all that!

    This is extremely inaccurate. The heavier you are, the more weight is on your bones, joints, muscles, etc. This is even more of an issue the older you get, putting older adults at a higher risk for arthritis and osteoarthritis.

    I think it's a matter of degree. There's a big difference between moderate overweight and obesity. For instance, at 5'1.5", anything over 132 is overweight for me. Right now, I'm around 123. I've been as high as 140. While that's in the overweight category, if I had to have a major surgery or end up with an illness that suppressed my appetite, and lost 10-15 lbs., I'd be in OK shape. At 140, it wasn't as if it was killing my joints, etc. carrying that extra; my cholesterol was a bit higher, I wasn't happy with my clothes not fitting, etc., but otherwise, I was fine. In fact, I gained the weight after a joint injury which had nothing to do with my weight, but with already poor bone density. In fact, many studies show that women with low BMI have lower bone density and higher risk of fractures and injuries, probably because they aren't well-nourished and aren't doing strength-bearing exercises. BTW, when I was at the low end of the BMI (105-110), I was much weaker than I am now.

    Let's look at an actual elderly, moderately overweight person. My grandmother, also a tiny person (only 5'0"), was around 140-145 most of her elder years and fairly healthy. She began to become fragile, falling, breaking bones, around age 80 when she lost weight after my grandfather died. At one point she got to around 105, which is a normal BMI for someone of that size. After some nursing care and rehab, she fattened up to the 130s and was much healthier. I think this is a completely different circumstance than someone who is say, morbidly obese, at a weight of 200 lbs. I think the medical community panics over someone being over BMI; for a smaller person, especially, that could be as little as a 10 lb. difference. Even for someone 5'1", 158 lbs. is "obese." This is only 25 lbs. heavier than my current weight, and I have seen large boned women my size who were close to that weight whom I wouldn't consider obese, just stocky and slightly overweight.

  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    4leighbee wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    So looks like everyone here is convinced that without dieting and 'formal' out of the ordinary excersize they will become something they can't live with?

    Just wanted to politely suggest that I do not agree with this. I am using MFP for a distinct period of time in order for the logging/focus on caloric intake, etc. to assist in changing my circumstances. I have lived happily and moderately for many years without such formality. Exercise is something I will do until the day I am no longer able - not because I am afraid of who I might become - but because it makes me happy.

    In my mother's words, I wish to be constantly moving towards something (health/happiness), not running away from it (fear of becoming heavy). I would think that most of the folks on this thread would agree that is the healthier frame of mind.

    I'm glad to see your post! I think most people here on MFP believe that they are moving toward happiness and health as well, and I truly hope that all of them reach it!

    I am also happy to know that you are not afraid to stop dieting and focusing on caloric intake and that you believe that will be ok for you. Yes, its always better to stop, turn and face our fears when we feel that we are strong enough to do so.

  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    rllove88 wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    Dsadvocate, sounds great, unless you are over 51 years. Then its better to be 27 bmi or more, you know for bones, muscles and all that!

    This is extremely inaccurate. The heavier you are, the more weight is on your bones, joints, muscles, etc. This is even more of an issue the older you get, putting older adults at a higher risk for arthritis and osteoarthritis.

    I think it's a matter of degree. There's a big difference between moderate overweight and obesity. For instance, at 5'1.5", anything over 132 is overweight for me. Right now, I'm around 123. I've been as high as 140. While that's in the overweight category, if I had to have a major surgery or end up with an illness that suppressed my appetite, and lost 10-15 lbs., I'd be in OK shape. At 140, it wasn't as if it was killing my joints, etc. carrying that extra; my cholesterol was a bit higher, I wasn't happy with my clothes not fitting, etc., but otherwise, I was fine. In fact, I gained the weight after a joint injury which had nothing to do with my weight, but with already poor bone density. In fact, many studies show that women with low BMI have lower bone density and higher risk of fractures and injuries, probably because they aren't well-nourished and aren't doing strength-bearing exercises. BTW, when I was at the low end of the BMI (105-110), I was much weaker than I am now.

    Let's look at an actual elderly, moderately overweight person. My grandmother, also a tiny person (only 5'0"), was around 140-145 most of her elder years and fairly healthy. She began to become fragile, falling, breaking bones, around age 80 when she lost weight after my grandfather died. At one point she got to around 105, which is a normal BMI for someone of that size. After some nursing care and rehab, she fattened up to the 130s and was much healthier. I think this is a completely different circumstance than someone who is say, morbidly obese, at a weight of 200 lbs. I think the medical community panics over someone being over BMI; for a smaller person, especially, that could be as little as a 10 lb. difference. Even for someone 5'1", 158 lbs. is "obese." This is only 25 lbs. heavier than my current weight, and I have seen large boned women my size who were close to that weight whom I wouldn't consider obese, just stocky and slightly overweight.

    THIS
  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    Options
    Jolinia wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    I think its cute, I admit I would rather see this than a 16 year old girl with bones sticking out all ovèr from starving, who baked the yum cake?

    It's a good thing those aren't the only two options.

    Yeah, I definitely wouldn't want to go back to being sixteen, unless I get to keep everything I've learned since then. And even so, those whacky, whacky hormones!

    ;)

    Oh geez. I taught high school for four years-- I wouldn't trade places with those kids for anything.

    Me either. I think the pressure is greater on them than it was on me, including the pressure to be thinner than some people naturally should be.
  • chouflour
    chouflour Posts: 193 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    I think the medical community panics over someone being over BMI; for a smaller person, especially, that could be as little as a 10 lb. difference. Even for someone 5'1", 158 lbs. is "obese." This is only 25 lbs. heavier than my current weight, and I have seen large boned women my size who were close to that weight whom I wouldn't consider obese, just stocky and slightly overweight.

    IME, panic is vastly overstating the case for medical professionals. I have a bad knee (meniscus tear, arthritis, some tendon laxity) and it's painful to walk on. I also have a BMI of about 25.5. I went to see the orthopedist, expecting to be told to lose weight into the normal range, and maybe not the top of it. Instead he said "Usually we tell people to lose weight, but you're slim"

    My PCP and GI would ideally like me to maintain a BMI closer to 28, and encourage me to stop losing weight every time I see them. We've shifted strategy from trying to maintain weight to trying to slowly gain weight (to see if it balances out.)

    Note: At my current weight, I still have a lot of excess fat. Being a special snowflake doesn't mean that I'm exempted from the risks of excess weight or a poor diet. It just means that when you look at all-cause mortality risks - being fat is more likely to save me than to kill me.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    So, mostly I'm getting you all pretty much feel your natural bmi is in the obese range then?

    I am a very conservative dieter and until this latest enterprise, I only seriously went on a diet once before, in my thirties. It took a year to lose twenty pounds back then. The pattern ever after is to gain 10-15 pounds every year. By the time I was in my fifties, I was morbidly obese. Left to my own devices I am absolutely convinced my weight would steadily rise over the years, and considering the health conditions now in remission (diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure), my weight loss is definitely in the direction of health and vitality.

    I am still on the edge between obese and overweight, and I'd be very happy to remain in the overweight range as I have lost enough to get moving and avoid the health deficits of obesity. If I stopped tracking today I would still likely have to take a few months every year to monitor and curtail my intake to return to a healthy weight.

    P.S. I wanted to add that my weight gain over the years I don't believe is "natural" nor a result of "laziness" or "gluttony". I am a statistic in the burgeoning obesity epidemic.