Since thick is in, should I stay at 145 on my 5'2 frame
Options
Replies
-
angellll12 wrote: »
If you are going for the look labelled as curvy in the photo you posted, then your original post makes no sense. Your BMI is 26.5. I look about like the woman labelled as curvy, my BMI is 20.
I have a bmi of 20 as well. and I don't look like any of the girls in the photo. I have muscular legs, slim arms, and a small chest. Hubby says I'm a 2.5/2.25 based on their number system.
Honestly op, I didn't set out with a specific body type in mind when I lost weight. Its enough to be healthy and fit.0 -
Wow, long thread! But, without reading through the whole thing and just going off the title/first post-yes, in our society 'thick' is in, but so is T2 diabetes, heart disease, etc etc etc. Remember, smoking used to be really 'in', and look how that turned out. If you're in the healthy weight range for your height and age, your blood panels are good, blood pressure good, you don't have any health problems and your doctor is happy, then sure if you want to be a bit higher on the healthy range scale, go for it. But, definitely don't go by what the new norm is as a gauge of how much you should weigh-we're an obese country full of obese related health problems. That's definitely not something I want to put on pedestal and try to emulate
0 -
levitateme wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »levitateme wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »So what if her shirt's half undone, her boobs whatever, her butt whatever? Maybe she's comfortable, maybe she likes feeling however she feels. Maybe, she's a mom who's a bit too warm, like the person who posted minutes before you. Maybe she's the opposite of insecure. Maybe she's dressing that way entirely for herself because she enjoys living in her body.
Nope. Don't buy it..
I've known women like that who are very comfortable with their bodies not insecure in the way you are trying to claim.
I find it funny that most of the time these women are deemed trashy, attention seeking or are supposedly super insecure by those who are very insecure themselves.
Not saying that all women who dress a certain way are above the tearing down of other women, but it's pretty lame to make such judgmental generalizations.
It is lame. It's really gross to see women who are so misogynistic. If I see a girl wearing a bikini top and short shorts at the supermarket, I assume she is either on her way from or to the beach, not that she is desperate for attention.
what do you think your husband would be thinking...
My fiance is attracted to women, so if he saw an attractive woman he would probably think she's attractive. I can't read his thoughts - don't really care to - and he isn't going to dump me because he saw some chick in a bathing suit.
You are really insecure and assume that everyone is as insecure as you.
Ding ding ding!
Hey, I get it though. I have moments of insecurity, too. If I'm with a guy and he's checking out another girl, sometimes I might get that inner cringe. It happens - no one is perfect.
But, it's my responsibility to recognize where that is coming from and not project it onto an innocent woman and her wardrobe - or flip out at my man for being a human being.
I think this is a great response, really nicely articulates an attitude worth striving for, if people are unsettled by the confidence or physicality of other women. It does presuppose an acceptance of the ideas amusedmonkey and others expressed, about being okay with sexuality, and taking for granted every person's freedom and right to enjoy it.
i think it can be hard - many have grown up in sex-negative cultures, and/or with certain beliefs about men & women & relationships. it's worth examining those attitudes.
not entirely related to misogyny, but i did have to get rid of some stuff left over from catholic school and coming of age in the 90s, when fearmongering around sex was everywhere (because of the aids crisis). slight diversion, but just saying, this was on the radio when i was a kid -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgYBYD-8gM
Thank you.
I wasn't even thinking about sex-negative cultures. This is a good perspective.
It's important to remember that everyone has had different upbringings and experiences that can bring on a broad range of internal reactions to certain events. But, to rise above it is to be self aware and not apply those issues to others.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve linear. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
How much higher? An actual amount worthy of consideration or something that pales when put against factors like activity, nutrition, and genetic background and is probably not worth striving for because the actual increase in risk is near nothing? What is the actual risk, where is the bell curve, where is your proof that the difference between 24.9 and 26.5 is anything more than hand wavey "Well it just is!'
Show me that those two BMI points matter without a slippery slope argument (implying that being comfortable at one point means someone will be comfortable higher) in a clear and measurable way.0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
How much higher? An actual amount worthy of consideration or something that pales when put against factors like activity, nutrition, and genetic background and is probably not worth striving for because the actual increase in risk is near nothing? What is the actual risk, where is the bell curve, where is your proof that the difference between 24.9 and 26.5 is anything more than hand wavey "Well it just is!'
Show me that those two BMI points matter without a slippery slope argument (implying that being comfortable at one point means someone will be comfortable higher) in a clear and measurable way.
Impact of Body Mass Index on Coronary Heart Disease Risk Factors in Men and Women - The Framingham Offspring Study
ETA: Sorry, it's linear, not Gaussian, but the point is identical.0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
I get what you are saying and am not necessarily disagreeing with it being generally correct for the average/majority of people. However, it really depends on the individual. The BMI is a good indicator of a range - but it is not the only thing that should be looked at. It may be true that 'many people' or even a 'majority' of people have a slightly higher risk - but the word 'you' to encompass everyone is just not correct as it fails to consider individual circumstances (just as the BMI does and studies supporting assertions - they take averages - there are always outliers).
I mean, using me as an example, at 148lb 2 years ago (so less muscle mass than I have now) I was around 18% BF (17.5% per hydrostatic testing, 18.5%'ish from eyeballing). To get to this 'peak' BMI of 22, I would have to lose 12lbs - which would mean either losing muscle, or getting to less than 12% BF - which is extremely unhealthy to sit at, especially for someone of my age. It would mean an even lower BF% now.
That being said, the amount of people that think the BMI is useless and does not apply to them is silly - its not a bad indicator as long as things like LBM are taken into account - and even then it should not skew things too much for women when you take the range into account (says she who has just said she is a special snowflake and the BMI does not apply to her...yes, I see the irony).0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
How much higher? An actual amount worthy of consideration or something that pales when put against factors like activity, nutrition, and genetic background and is probably not worth striving for because the actual increase in risk is near nothing? What is the actual risk, where is the bell curve, where is your proof that the difference between 24.9 and 26.5 is anything more than hand wavey "Well it just is!'
Show me that those two BMI points matter without a slippery slope argument (implying that being comfortable at one point means someone will be comfortable higher) in a clear and measurable way.
Impact of Body Mass Index on Coronary Heart Disease Risk Factors in Men and Women - The Framingham Offspring Study
ETA: Sorry, it's linear, not Gaussian, but the point is identical.
It appears that in women the risk of CHD increased by, at best, a 1% from 23-24.99 to 25-27.99 BMI (assuming I'm reading it right and admittedly I'm just giving it a skim), not accounting for other risk factors which actually have a larger impact on heart health then weight. I'd call that pretty negligible (For me anyway)
This does not prove that an individual at 26.5 BMI is going to be in worse health than if they were at a 24.99 BMI or that the OP (or any individual) will suffer some manner of weight related malady if she doesn't lose this magical 8 pounds. That's simply unrealistic.0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
I get what you are saying and am not necessarily disagreeing with it being generally correct for the average/majority of people. However, it really depends on the individual. The BMI is a good indicator of a range - but it is not the only thing that should be looked at. It may be true that 'many people' or even a 'majority' of people have a slightly higher risk - but the word 'you' to encompass everyone is just not correct as it fails to consider individual circumstances (just as the BMI does and studies supporting assertions - they take averages - there are always outliers).
I mean, using me as an example, at 148lb 2 years ago (so less muscle mass than I have now) I was around 18% BF (17.5% per hydrostatic testing, 18.5%'ish from eyeballing). To get to this 'peak' BMI of 22, I would have to lose 12lbs - which would mean either losing muscle, or getting to less than 12% BF - which is extremely unhealthy to sit at, especially for someone of my age. It would mean an even lower BF% now.
That being said, the amount of people that think the BMI is useless and does not apply to them is silly - its not a bad indicator as long as things like LBM are taken into account - and even then it should not skew things too much for women when you take the range into account (says she who has just said she is a special snowflake and the BMI does not apply to her...yes, I see the irony).
I, personally, don't think BMI is useless and doesn't apply but I think when people brandish it around while insisting that someone should/must drop another 10 or 8 or 3 pounds it becomes something that's not meant to be (a chart used to dictate where an individual should be for the sake of 'health') especially since people never consider all those other factors that go into 'health'.
If people want to draw a line in the sand for themselves personally then...whatever, but no one ever seems to just want to take their personal line and keep it pushing. It's gotta be everyone's line.0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
I get what you are saying and am not necessarily disagreeing with it being generally correct for the average/majority of people. However, it really depends on the individual. The BMI is a good indicator of a range - but it is not the only thing that should be looked at. It may be true that 'many people' or even a 'majority' of people have a slightly higher risk - but the word 'you' to encompass everyone is just not correct as it fails to consider individual circumstances (just as the BMI does and studies supporting assertions - they take averages - there are always outliers).
I mean, using me as an example, at 148lb 2 years ago (so less muscle mass than I have now) I was around 18% BF (17.5% per hydrostatic testing, 18.5%'ish from eyeballing). To get to this 'peak' BMI of 22, I would have to lose 12lbs - which would mean either losing muscle, or getting to less than 12% BF - which is extremely unhealthy to sit at, especially for someone of my age. It would mean an even lower BF% now.
That being said, the amount of people that think the BMI is useless and does not apply to them is silly - its not a bad indicator as long as things like LBM are taken into account - and even then it should not skew things too much for women when you take the range into account (says she who has just said she is a special snowflake and the BMI does not apply to her...yes, I see the irony).
I, personally, don't think BMI is useless and doesn't apply but I think when people brandish it around while insisting that someone should/must drop another 10 or 8 or 3 pounds it becomes something that's not meant to be (a chart used to dictate where an individual should be for the sake of 'health') especially since people never consider all those other factors that go into 'health'.
If people want to draw a line in the sand for themselves personally then...whatever, but no one ever seems to just want to take their personal line and keep it pushing. It's gotta be everyone's line.
Agreed. Its a tool and one indicator - not the only tool or indicator - there is activity, BF%, genetics etc etc that come into play. Mental health is important also. I do have to say though I twitch when people say they are 'big boned' and therefore it does not apply - and this is a relatively frequent comment. There is a range - and so it should apply to larger framed people (not using 'big boned' as that is a misnomer)- they will just be at the top end. However, much of the time people do not realize how much body fat they are carrying and their frame does not not make them an outlier.
Edited to fix double quotes - %features0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
I get what you are saying and am not necessarily disagreeing with it being generally correct for the average/majority of people. However, it really depends on the individual. The BMI is a good indicator of a range - but it is not the only thing that should be looked at. It may be true that 'many people' or even a 'majority' of people have a slightly higher risk - but the word 'you' to encompass everyone is just not correct as it fails to consider individual circumstances (just as the BMI does and studies supporting assertions - they take averages - there are always outliers).
I mean, using me as an example, at 148lb 2 years ago (so less muscle mass than I have now) I was around 18% BF (17.5% per hydrostatic testing, 18.5%'ish from eyeballing). To get to this 'peak' BMI of 22, I would have to lose 12lbs - which would mean either losing muscle, or getting to less than 12% BF - which is extremely unhealthy to sit at, especially for someone of my age. It would mean an even lower BF% now.
That being said, the amount of people that think the BMI is useless and does not apply to them is silly - its not a bad indicator as long as things like LBM are taken into account - and even then it should not skew things too much for women when you take the range into account (says she who has just said she is a special snowflake and the BMI does not apply to her...yes, I see the irony).
I, personally, don't think BMI is useless and doesn't apply but I think when people brandish it around while insisting that someone should/must drop another 10 or 8 or 3 pounds it becomes something that's not meant to be (a chart used to dictate where an individual should be for the sake of 'health') especially since people never consider all those other factors that go into 'health'.
If people want to draw a line in the sand for themselves personally then...whatever, but no one ever seems to just want to take their personal line and keep it pushing. It's gotta be everyone's line.
Agreed. Its a tool and one indicator - not the only tool or indicator - there is activity, BF%, genetics etc etc that come into play. Mental health is important also. I do have to say though I twitch when people say they are 'big boned' and therefore it does not apply - and this is a relatively frequent comment. There is a range - and so it should apply to larger framed people (not using 'big boned' as that is a misnomer)- they will just be at the top end. However, much of the time people do not realize how much body fat they are carrying and their frame does not not make them an outlier.
Edited to fix double quotes - %features
I have an aunt who insists she's big boned. At 300 pounds and pre-diabetic.
And thus that is what I associate 'big boned' with. 0 -
I personally like a girl with some meat on her haye seein ribs0
-
-
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
I get what you are saying and am not necessarily disagreeing with it being generally correct for the average/majority of people. However, it really depends on the individual. The BMI is a good indicator of a range - but it is not the only thing that should be looked at. It may be true that 'many people' or even a 'majority' of people have a slightly higher risk - but the word 'you' to encompass everyone is just not correct as it fails to consider individual circumstances (just as the BMI does and studies supporting assertions - they take averages - there are always outliers).
I mean, using me as an example, at 148lb 2 years ago (so less muscle mass than I have now) I was around 18% BF (17.5% per hydrostatic testing, 18.5%'ish from eyeballing). To get to this 'peak' BMI of 22, I would have to lose 12lbs - which would mean either losing muscle, or getting to less than 12% BF - which is extremely unhealthy to sit at, especially for someone of my age. It would mean an even lower BF% now.
That being said, the amount of people that think the BMI is useless and does not apply to them is silly - its not a bad indicator as long as things like LBM are taken into account - and even then it should not skew things too much for women when you take the range into account (says she who has just said she is a special snowflake and the BMI does not apply to her...yes, I see the irony).
I, personally, don't think BMI is useless and doesn't apply but I think when people brandish it around while insisting that someone should/must drop another 10 or 8 or 3 pounds it becomes something that's not meant to be (a chart used to dictate where an individual should be for the sake of 'health') especially since people never consider all those other factors that go into 'health'.
If people want to draw a line in the sand for themselves personally then...whatever, but no one ever seems to just want to take their personal line and keep it pushing. It's gotta be everyone's line.
Agreed. Its a tool and one indicator - not the only tool or indicator - there is activity, BF%, genetics etc etc that come into play. Mental health is important also. I do have to say though I twitch when people say they are 'big boned' and therefore it does not apply - and this is a relatively frequent comment. There is a range - and so it should apply to larger framed people (not using 'big boned' as that is a misnomer)- they will just be at the top end. However, much of the time people do not realize how much body fat they are carrying and their frame does not not make them an outlier.
Edited to fix double quotes - %features
I have an aunt who insists she's big boned. At 300 pounds and pre-diabetic. And thus that is what I associate 'big boned' with.
I squirm when someone says they are big-boned or have a large frame. I have a friend who lost 100lb but she never stops telling everyone about her large frame and how it's much harder for her to get smaller than most women. Her feet are smaller than mine! Realky, she carries all her weight in her middle and chest so still has a bit to lose but she blames her 'large frame' rather than the fact she still has some fat in her mid-section. Ugh0 -
Eerg, I'm going to sound like a broken record. People can misuse frame size, sure. But, it's a very real thing. People do have different sized frames. I am 5'2", my rib cage under bust is 25 inches, my waist 23 inches. I have small shoulders. I have a smaller frame then another person my height. And that is why we shouldn't all be at the same place on the BMI chart (among other reasons of course, such as muscle mass, etc). But, that is why I am at a low weight, with lowish body fat, and I don't look underweight and I look healthy and fit. And I eat 1900 plus calories a day. 1900 is the amount I eat at a lower activity level, it goes up higher when I am very active. But, another person my height would look emaciated at my weight.0
-
I agree, I think we do have different frame sizes, and I think we can have different bone density too. I'm not saying you have to be fat if you have a bigger frame, but you might be a bit wider, or have broader shoulders. I've got quite wide hips. I've given birth to 3 babies (with just gas and air) and haven't needed stitches once. My biggest was 9lbs1. That's ether pure good luck, or wider hips/pelvis.
I'm too fat at the moment at a UK size 14 mainly, sometimes 12 (US10, sometimes 8) because I look better at a UK 10/12.0
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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions