BMI and height

styliani480
styliani480 Posts: 5 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
We do know how to calculate BMI - ie weight(in kilos)/height (in cms) squared.
My question is what height do I use, bearing in mind that I still have the same med/large frame), but I have shrunk from 165cms to 157cms - operations plus osteoporosis. I am 70.
Thanks for reading

Replies

  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    I would use my new height.
    My mum has shrunk about 4 inches over the past 20+ years and we always use her current height.

    Cheers, h.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    I've shrunk from my old height too. I use my current height.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    I would use my new height.
    My mum has shrunk about 4 inches over the past 20+ years and we always use her current height.

    Cheers, h.

    4 inches??? :open_mouth: That's so depressing...

    OP, I adjustment everything to my new height when I was recently measured 2 inches shorter than I had been. I whined about it :lol: But I did it.

    Now there is an understatement if I ever read one.....


    :devil:
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,258 Member
    I'm only an inch shorter than I was in my youth (at last measure); I use my shorter height. (I'll be 63 next month.)

    Really, BMI is kind of a blunt intrument, anyway: The normal range for any given height is pretty wide to allow for various body configurations and other individual factors. Unless one feels a compulsion to be at the very lowest (or very highest) weight for their height, one's true happy weight isn't going to change that much with height changes, IMO. (Body composition and preference with aging probably make a bigger difference in happy weight for most people vs. height shrinkage.)

    Because I'm a messed-up American, I had to convert your height to inches to understand, but the normal BMI range for your current height looks like it would be around 101-137, vs. around 111-150 for your former height. There's more overlap than not.

    I know that doesn't make the height loss any easier to take on board.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    I would use my new height.
    My mum has shrunk about 4 inches over the past 20+ years and we always use her current height.

    Cheers, h.

    4 inches??? :open_mouth: That's so depressing...

    OP, I adjustment everything to my new height when I was recently measured 2 inches shorter than I had been. I whined about it :lol: But I did it.

    Now there is an understatement if I ever read one.....


    :devil:

    And almost everyone was nice and supportive :tongue:

    There's a hug for ya!
  • SCoil123
    SCoil123 Posts: 2,111 Member
    I'm only half an inch shorter than I was previously. I believe this is because the arched in my feet collapsed when I was pregnant with my son. I was 5'8", now I'm 5' 7.5". I still use 5'8" for my BMI and so does my doctor. Once I hit 5' 7" or below I will adjust
  • Evelyn_Gorfram
    Evelyn_Gorfram Posts: 706 Member
    edited October 2018
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    Mum is 91, she lost a bit of height (.5-1 in) when she had a hip replacement at 65 (my age now) then has slowly shrunk over 25years.

    We were working class poor, she probably lacked a lot of nutrition in her early years (WWII) and didn't start being able to afford proper nutrition for herself until her late 40's when her 3 haitches (me and my sisters) left home.

    I, on the other hand, am an inch taller than I was when emigrating to Canada as a 20yo- 5'1 now and, according to my Indian visa requirements, not shrinking yet.

    Cheers, h.

    ETA
    mum at 90, me at 64 and 5'1. The only time I have ever felt tall.
    We were the same height.

    x53meqhrflg1.jpg

    My mom is 89, and has lost about 5 or 6 inches. She was 5'11" in her prime; but, due to osteoporosis, scoliosis following an injury, and sheer heredity (her mom lost about 4 inches before passing away at 79), is about 5'5" now. She appears even shorter most of the time, though, because it's painful for her to stand up straight. (I noticed that you and your (sister? daughter? friend?) appear to be holding your mum up in the photo - I hope that's not because it was painful for her, too.)

    Mom suffered some malnutrition during the depression/Dust Bowl years in Kansas; but spent WWII on the farm, bucking hay bales and milking cows. So her childhood nutrition's probably a wash(?).

    I'm still 5'9" (at a spring-chicken-ish 56); and trying to ward off osteoporosis with calcium and good posture (should also be doing weight bearing-exercise), and scoliosis by avoiding blind people in electric scooters (that's who ran over Mom, leading to the scoliosis). Warding off heredity is going to be a little trickier, though...

    (ETA: you look great, and your Mum is absolutely lovely. :) )



  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    @evelyn_gorfram, we are not holding mum up, she is quite a spry little woman, we were having a cosy pic taken (me, mum, and sis) as I was leaving Scotland to fly back to Canada.
    (I am the big bruiser of the family at 5'1and 102lbs- pixies the lot of us)

    Sorry to hear about your mum. I do think the food deprevation in the late 20s to 40s really affected the bone density of those living through those times.

    If you don't do yoga, look into it. I always feel I have had a really good spinal stretch and alignment after my class. I do lift too, but it is the yoga that my spine loves.

    Thanks for the complement.

    Cheers, h.

Categories