I can't reach my calorie count of 1200
Options
Replies
-
cerise_noir wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
%?msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »You're 5'8" and 140. Your goal
Is 125. Your calorie goal is 1200. All looks fine to me. Just make sure you're getting enough nutrition, and you should be there before you know it. Once you reach goal, be sure to increase those cals to your maintenance calories. Often people get hooked to their dieting calorie # and have a hard time allowing more. It's the most important step in the process imo, so you can maintain your goal for life.
Don't let the other posters discourage you because THEY think you don't need to lose at 140. Their goals and idea of the perfect body type and size isn't a one size fits all. In their opinion, if you were a bikini model, you're wayyyyy too skinny, which is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with being lean and healthy. And it doesn't mean you need therapy. If your boyfriend wants to be insulting about your weight, that's a separate issue. If you want to reach a standard for you, then follow the steps mfp gives you and it's just a matter of time.
she can be lean without losing weight,its called eating at maintenance and lifting heavy weights.lifting weights is good to do as well it helps you retain any lean muscle you already have.it prevents bone loss as well. Theres one thing to be a healthy weight and lean and another being underweight.
"It's called".... don't. She can be lean and lose weight (which is what HER goals are, not yours) and still be healthy and not under weight.
Quit making it about you.
You don't think a BMI of 19 might be a stretch?
Nope! Not at all. Not even a little bit.
IFBB pro winner Christie Marquez competes at 19.4 and walks around off season at 21.2.
http://staging.evogennutrition.com/evogen-athletes/
I bring this up because you mentioned fitness competitors earlier.
Here's a young girl with disordered thinking to begin with, and you're suggesting a BMI lower than a muscled, fit professional bikini competitor.
I think you need to rethink how you go about giving advice on these boards.
I mentioned fitness competitors earlier?
You can be 19% and not be a fitness competitor. Where does it say that being 19% is unhealthy?
Are we taking about body fat percentage or BMI here?
BMI. (Percent was unintentional). 19 is in the healthy range. You Don't have to be a fitness competitor to have a bmi of 19.
No need to project your own idea of what healthy and attainable is (Generally speaking).
The point isn't about being a fitness competitor or not. The point is that even they, at their most extreme (during competition season), don't get that low.
You tried to imply that people would point to bikini models and say they were too skinny. I'm showing you that bikini models aren't as "skinny" as the OP wants to be. And yet here you are, supporting this low BMI.
As far as "projecting" when it comes to the idea of what's healthy? I'm sorry. That's something that is objectively able to be determined, and I can post a very long study for you showing that the risk of all cause mortality increases under a BMI of 20.
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
19 is in the "healthy range" for BMi. I was 19 for many many years, never even close to looking or training like a competitor. They are not one in the same. I have never been healthier as I was then.
If you don't want to have a 19 BMI, don't. As long as it is in the healthy range, you're personal opinion on whether that is too lean doesn't matter.
How tall are you?
At 5'8" a 19 BMI is in the healthy range.
How tall are you? Never mind, that's irrelevant.
You didn't answer how tall YOU were.
The reason I'm asking is that for shorter people, lower BMI's like 19 are more okay than they are for people who are taller.
I'm only 5'1", but I'm only going to go down to 110 pounds, a BMI of 20.8. I'm also 54 years old.
Now how tall are you?
At 5'8" it is HEALTHY to have a BMI of 19. Just because you want to redirect doesn't mean I have to play your game. No matter how you want to spin it, it doesn't change that someone her height with that BMI is in the healthy range. Be an adult, focus on the topic.
In all BMI charts I've viewed, 19 is just at the very top of underweight BMI...
According to the NIH a bmi of 19 is a healthy bmi, below 18.5 is considered underweight.1 -
msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
%?msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »You're 5'8" and 140. Your goal
Is 125. Your calorie goal is 1200. All looks fine to me. Just make sure you're getting enough nutrition, and you should be there before you know it. Once you reach goal, be sure to increase those cals to your maintenance calories. Often people get hooked to their dieting calorie # and have a hard time allowing more. It's the most important step in the process imo, so you can maintain your goal for life.
Don't let the other posters discourage you because THEY think you don't need to lose at 140. Their goals and idea of the perfect body type and size isn't a one size fits all. In their opinion, if you were a bikini model, you're wayyyyy too skinny, which is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with being lean and healthy. And it doesn't mean you need therapy. If your boyfriend wants to be insulting about your weight, that's a separate issue. If you want to reach a standard for you, then follow the steps mfp gives you and it's just a matter of time.
she can be lean without losing weight,its called eating at maintenance and lifting heavy weights.lifting weights is good to do as well it helps you retain any lean muscle you already have.it prevents bone loss as well. Theres one thing to be a healthy weight and lean and another being underweight.
"It's called".... don't. She can be lean and lose weight (which is what HER goals are, not yours) and still be healthy and not under weight.
Quit making it about you.
You don't think a BMI of 19 might be a stretch?
Nope! Not at all. Not even a little bit.
IFBB pro winner Christie Marquez competes at 19.4 and walks around off season at 21.2.
http://staging.evogennutrition.com/evogen-athletes/
I bring this up because you mentioned fitness competitors earlier.
Here's a young girl with disordered thinking to begin with, and you're suggesting a BMI lower than a muscled, fit professional bikini competitor.
I think you need to rethink how you go about giving advice on these boards.
I mentioned fitness competitors earlier?
You can be 19% and not be a fitness competitor. Where does it say that being 19% is unhealthy?
Are we taking about body fat percentage or BMI here?
BMI. (Percent was unintentional). 19 is in the healthy range. You Don't have to be a fitness competitor to have a bmi of 19.
No need to project your own idea of what healthy and attainable is (Generally speaking).
The point isn't about being a fitness competitor or not. The point is that even they, at their most extreme (during competition season), don't get that low.
You tried to imply that people would point to bikini models and say they were too skinny. I'm showing you that bikini models aren't as "skinny" as the OP wants to be. And yet here you are, supporting this low BMI.
As far as "projecting" when it comes to the idea of what's healthy? I'm sorry. That's something that is objectively able to be determined, and I can post a very long study for you showing that the risk of all cause mortality increases under a BMI of 20.
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
19 is in the "healthy range" for BMi. I was 19 for many many years, never even close to looking or training like a competitor. They are not one in the same. I have never been healthier as I was then.
If you don't want to have a 19 BMI, don't. As long as it is in the healthy range, you're personal opinion on whether that is too lean doesn't matter.
How tall are you?
At 5'8" a 19 BMI is in the healthy range.
How tall are you? Never mind, that's irrelevant.
You didn't answer how tall YOU were.
The reason I'm asking is that for shorter people, lower BMI's like 19 are more okay than they are for people who are taller.
I'm only 5'1", but I'm only going to go down to 110 pounds, a BMI of 20.8. I'm also 54 years old.
Now how tall are you?
At 5'8" it is HEALTHY to have a BMI of 19. Just because you want to redirect doesn't mean I have to play your game. No matter how you want to spin it, it doesn't change that someone her height with that BMI is in the healthy range. Be an adult, focus on the topic.
No, the topic is if it's healthy for the OP to be that BMI.
I don't think it's mentally healthy for her to be that BMI.
In fact, that's not even the topic at all.
She can't even bring herself to eat 1200 calories because her self esteem is so shattered by her abusive boyfriend that she has body dysmorphia and came to the boards looking for help.
You came charging in here acting like everything was just fine without having read the other thread and seeing what absolute hell she's been through with that loser and consequently having any idea what you're talking about in regards to this entire situation accused everyone else of projecting when in fact you're the one who's been projecting the whole time because you're the one who's had the same BMI the OP wants to get down to.
You know what?
Back off her thread and let it be about her again.
I'm not intimidated by you or anyone on this thread. I didn't charge in here or do anything but state she should focus on her nutrition, and because her goal is in the healthy range, really other people's opinions (mine included) doesn't matter.
You and your "you can't sit here" mentality because I have a different opinion than you and your friends doesn't phase me. She stated she wanted to lose weight, separate from her bf. Respecting that note, I gave my opinion keeping in mind her goals were in the "healthy range". My goals and preference has nothing to do with her. The only thing that matters was that she was in a healthy range for her goal, and doing it in a healthy way. What you, I, or anyone else went through have nothing to do with her.
You're obviously emotional and spend a lot of time here.
1) She isn't eating 1200 calories, therefor highly unlikely that she is losing in a healthy manner.
2) Whether or not her goals are appropriate is something that should be discussed with her GP. BMI is population measures, and has been demonstrated to be inaccurate/inappropriate for some individuals.
3) OP is 18 and has been in an emotionally/verbally abusive relationship where her self-esteem has been run down for the last 2 years. Her own perceptions of what is an appropriate goal may be skewed.
4) Talking down to people isn't helping the OP.19 -
I'd love to know how anyone can keep chirping "19 is in the healthy range" when it's been pointed out more than once that a BMI below 20 is associated with significant increases in mortality from a range of causes. I suspect "healthy" in this scenario means "pretty to look at" and not much else.18
-
I'd love to know how anyone can keep chirping "19 is in the healthy range" when it's been pointed out more than once that a BMI below 20 is associated with significant increases in mortality from a range of causes. I suspect "healthy" in this scenario means "pretty to look at" and not much else.
In my case, my glucose numbers are directly related to my weight (I have years of of blood tests that show this), and a weight at a lower bmi produces better glucose results. All my other health markers are better at the lower healthy bmi range as well.
1 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »I'd love to know how anyone can keep chirping "19 is in the healthy range" when it's been pointed out more than once that a BMI below 20 is associated with significant increases in mortality from a range of causes. I suspect "healthy" in this scenario means "pretty to look at" and not much else.
In my case, my glucose numbers are directly related to my weight (I have years of of blood tests that show this), and a weight at a lower bmi produces better glucose results. All my other health markers are better at the lower healthy bmi range as well.
Respectfully, in your case, with your particular health conditions.
The OP's situation is complicated in an entirely different way.6 -
That sounds like it's directly related to your personal medical issues, @crzycatlady1. With respect, that doesn't mean 19 is in the healthy BMI range; it means you're an outlier.5
-
Lets not forget that the work will truly begin when trying to consistently maintain such a low weight.8
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
%?msalicia116 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »You're 5'8" and 140. Your goal
Is 125. Your calorie goal is 1200. All looks fine to me. Just make sure you're getting enough nutrition, and you should be there before you know it. Once you reach goal, be sure to increase those cals to your maintenance calories. Often people get hooked to their dieting calorie # and have a hard time allowing more. It's the most important step in the process imo, so you can maintain your goal for life.
Don't let the other posters discourage you because THEY think you don't need to lose at 140. Their goals and idea of the perfect body type and size isn't a one size fits all. In their opinion, if you were a bikini model, you're wayyyyy too skinny, which is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with being lean and healthy. And it doesn't mean you need therapy. If your boyfriend wants to be insulting about your weight, that's a separate issue. If you want to reach a standard for you, then follow the steps mfp gives you and it's just a matter of time.
she can be lean without losing weight,its called eating at maintenance and lifting heavy weights.lifting weights is good to do as well it helps you retain any lean muscle you already have.it prevents bone loss as well. Theres one thing to be a healthy weight and lean and another being underweight.
"It's called".... don't. She can be lean and lose weight (which is what HER goals are, not yours) and still be healthy and not under weight.
Quit making it about you.
You don't think a BMI of 19 might be a stretch?
Nope! Not at all. Not even a little bit.
IFBB pro winner Christie Marquez competes at 19.4 and walks around off season at 21.2.
http://staging.evogennutrition.com/evogen-athletes/
I bring this up because you mentioned fitness competitors earlier.
Here's a young girl with disordered thinking to begin with, and you're suggesting a BMI lower than a muscled, fit professional bikini competitor.
I think you need to rethink how you go about giving advice on these boards.
I mentioned fitness competitors earlier?
You can be 19% and not be a fitness competitor. Where does it say that being 19% is unhealthy?
Are we taking about body fat percentage or BMI here?
BMI. (Percent was unintentional). 19 is in the healthy range. You Don't have to be a fitness competitor to have a bmi of 19.
No need to project your own idea of what healthy and attainable is (Generally speaking).
The point isn't about being a fitness competitor or not. The point is that even they, at their most extreme (during competition season), don't get that low.
You tried to imply that people would point to bikini models and say they were too skinny. I'm showing you that bikini models aren't as "skinny" as the OP wants to be. And yet here you are, supporting this low BMI.
As far as "projecting" when it comes to the idea of what's healthy? I'm sorry. That's something that is objectively able to be determined, and I can post a very long study for you showing that the risk of all cause mortality increases under a BMI of 20.
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
19 is in the "healthy range" for BMi. I was 19 for many many years, never even close to looking or training like a competitor. They are not one in the same. I have never been healthier as I was then.
If you don't want to have a 19 BMI, don't. As long as it is in the healthy range, you're personal opinion on whether that is too lean doesn't matter.
How tall are you?
At 5'8" a 19 BMI is in the healthy range.
How tall are you? Never mind, that's irrelevant.
You didn't answer how tall YOU were.
The reason I'm asking is that for shorter people, lower BMI's like 19 are more okay than they are for people who are taller.
I'm only 5'1", but I'm only going to go down to 110 pounds, a BMI of 20.8. I'm also 54 years old.
Now how tall are you?
At 5'8" it is HEALTHY to have a BMI of 19. Just because you want to redirect doesn't mean I have to play your game. No matter how you want to spin it, it doesn't change that someone her height with that BMI is in the healthy range. Be an adult, focus on the topic.
No, the topic is if it's healthy for the OP to be that BMI.
I don't think it's mentally healthy for her to be that BMI.
In fact, that's not even the topic at all.
She can't even bring herself to eat 1200 calories because her self esteem is so shattered by her abusive boyfriend that she has body dysmorphia and came to the boards looking for help.
You came charging in here acting like everything was just fine without having read the other thread and seeing what absolute hell she's been through with that loser and consequently having any idea what you're talking about in regards to this entire situation accused everyone else of projecting when in fact you're the one who's been projecting the whole time because you're the one who's had the same BMI the OP wants to get down to.
You know what?
Back off her thread and let it be about her again.
I'm not intimidated by you or anyone on this thread. I didn't charge in here or do anything but state she should focus on her nutrition, and because her goal is in the healthy range, really other people's opinions (mine included) doesn't matter.
You and your "you can't sit here" mentality because I have a different opinion than you and your friends doesn't phase me. She stated she wanted to lose weight, separate from her bf. Respecting that note, I gave my opinion keeping in mind her goals were in the "healthy range". My goals and preference has nothing to do with her. The only thing that matters was that she was in a healthy range for her goal, and doing it in a healthy way. What you, I, or anyone else went through have nothing to do with her.
You're obviously emotional and spend a lot of time here.
1) She isn't eating 1200 calories, therefor highly unlikely that she is losing in a healthy manner.
2) Whether or not her goals are appropriate is something that should be discussed with her GP. BMI is population measures, and has been demonstrated to be inaccurate/inappropriate for some individuals.
3) OP is 18 and has been in an emotionally/verbally abusive relationship where her self-esteem has been run down for the last 2 years. Her own perceptions of what is an appropriate goal may be skewed.
4) Talking down to people isn't helping the OP.
I don't retract saying her goal ( per the general consensus) is fine if she focuses on nutrition and is doing it for her.
The other issues I refrained from Commenting on because I don't have all the facts, no one here does.
My response is in direct correlation to the manner I was treated. I don't need to be accepted by "the group" before stating an opposing opinion. Besides, I stated there is nothing wrong with saying she doesn't need to lose but should consider recomping. But that it was also important to note her goal was also acceptable. Like it or don't, I don't care either way.2 -
I'd love to know how anyone can keep chirping "19 is in the healthy range" when it's been pointed out more than once that a BMI below 20 is associated with significant increases in mortality from a range of causes. I suspect "healthy" in this scenario means "pretty to look at" and not much else.
Healthy BMI is from 18.5-24.9. Those ailments occur in those who are considered underweight from everything I have read. If I read the reverse, my entire pov on her goal would be showing her the healthy range and suggesting her goal shift slightly to fit that criteria. Not to dismiss her goal entirely.1 -
That sounds like it's directly related to your personal medical issues, @crzycatlady1. With respect, that doesn't mean 19 is in the healthy BMI range; it means you're an outlier.
Even more so since I'm one of the very few people who are successfully maintaining as well, and have have been for several years now. I'm pretty much a special freak snowflake
5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Lets not forget that the work will truly begin when trying to consistently maintain such a low weight.
agreed, tough stuff...but u just gotta do what u need do 2 b personally happy/satisfied1 -
I don't agree that "healthy" and "increased risk of death" are synonymous, @msalicia116. I admire the way you stand up for your opinions, but I don't find them as valid as scientific studies of health at BMI below 20.
@crzycatlady1 That's awesome! Shout your snowflake status from the rooftops -- sounds like you've earned it.
9 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »That sounds like it's directly related to your personal medical issues, @crzycatlady1. With respect, that doesn't mean 19 is in the healthy BMI range; it means you're an outlier.
Even more so since I'm one of the very few people who are successfully maintaining as well, and have have been for several years now. I'm pretty much a special freak snowflake
That's great!
I'm glad your health markers have improved, and that you are able to maintain.5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »That sounds like it's directly related to your personal medical issues, @crzycatlady1. With respect, that doesn't mean 19 is in the healthy BMI range; it means you're an outlier.
Even more so since I'm one of the very few people who are successfully maintaining as well, and have have been for several years now. I'm pretty much a special freak snowflake
That's great!
I'm glad your health markers have improved, and that you are able to maintain.
Thanks
0 -
I don't agree that "healthy" and "increased risk of death" are synonymous, @msalicia116. I admire the way you stand up for your opinions, but I don't find them as valid as scientific studies of health at BMI below 20.
@crzycatlady1 That's awesome! Shout your snowflake status from the rooftops -- sounds like you've earned it.
I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.2 -
msalicia116 wrote: »I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.13 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
That's an awesome explanation!0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
This is great
It's essential to work with your own body alongside BMI.
I lost my period at a BMI of just under 19- still technically within the "healthy" BMI range. Obviously not healthy for me. I'm now BMI 21 and it still hasn't returned, so I'm still trying to gain weight until I'm healthy again- even though I've technically been in a healthy BMI range the whole time.
It's different for different people, and that's so important to remember!
6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
And just to reiterate, the OP is 5'8 so would definitely fit in that tall range for whom those lower BMIs would be unhealthy.
Quibbling over numbers based on such a broad range of averages seems kind of silly when we are dealing with a very young OP who is in an abusive relationship, clearly has body image issues, is struggling to eat a minimum of calories and is going through some tough emotional stuff right now. It seems some (not you @SusanMFindlay ) want to pick a fight with more experienced members over a silly number on a chart, just for the sake of telling this OP that she can make her own decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are in the best emotional and physical interest of OP.
14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
And just to reiterate, the OP is 5'8 so would definitely fit in that tall range for whom those lower BMIs would be unhealthy.
Quibbling over numbers based on such a broad range of averages seems kind of silly when we are dealing with a very young OP who is in an abusive relationship, clearly has body image issues, is struggling to eat a minimum of calories and is going through some tough emotional stuff right now. It seems some (not you @SusanMFindlay ) want to pick a fight with more experienced members over a silly number on a chart, just for the sake of telling this OP that she can make her own decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are in the best emotional and physical interest of OP.WinoGelato wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
And just to reiterate, the OP is 5'8 so would definitely fit in that tall range for whom those lower BMIs would be unhealthy.
Quibbling over numbers based on such a broad range of averages seems kind of silly when we are dealing with a very young OP who is in an abusive relationship, clearly has body image issues, is struggling to eat a minimum of calories and is going through some tough emotional stuff right now. It seems some (not you @SusanMFindlay ) want to pick a fight with more experienced members over a silly number on a chart, just for the sake of telling this OP that she can make her own decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are in the best emotional and physical interest of OP.
Are you for real. You have to be kidding.
You ladies are really something else. Now it's boring and pointless since you didn't even bother to read my pov, and there's obviously some weird petting going on. Oh well.-5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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