Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Eat more to reduce body fat? debate
Replies
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
Estimated maintenance is not necessarily actual maintenance.
If I ate my estimated maintenance calories (plus all exercise calories) I'd be losing weight steadily, not maintaining. (I'm maintaining well above the maintenance estimate, for 3 years now.) Maintenance estimates are essentially the mean of a statistical distribution. Most real people fall close to that mean, but some are further away than others.3 -
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...
Maintenance calories would mean you're maintaining weight...there is no other definition of maintenance. Maintenance isn't losing weight. You're eating some calculated estimate that has you in a small deficit.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...
You might not be confused about how many calories you are eating, but you do seem to be confused as to what maintenance is.5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...
I didn't say you were confused, I said the confusion. The way you are using the term maintenance comes off idiosyncratic to me. If we both use a word to mean something different, obviously we will both be confused about each other's meanings, right?2 -
To and try to get thread back to the OP..... Some random thoughts in no particular order:
Yes two young guys starting out on a new routine can make remarkable muscle gains in a short time (that rate won't continue for too long though).
They can also get a significant "muscle pump" in that time which changes appearance, size and definition.
Changing the number of meals doesn't mean more food or more calories.
Bodyfat measurement in a gym may well be a guesstimate with a poor method or device under completely the wrong conditions. A change in carb levels and hence hydration levels can mess with measurements too.
Why people go to PTs for nutrition advice bemuses me. A bit like going to a dietician to get advice on your squat form.
Oh how I miss those far of days of youth when a few weeks of training meant I was pulling in a few notches on my belt and putting away my Levi's as they wouldn't go past my quads...….
Comparing the results young males can get with some gym time is a great example of "comparison is the thief of joy".
5 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »I'm a long term maintainer, a big believer in CICO, its definately how I maintain my weight but I had a long conversation with my eldest son the other night about lowering bf%.
He was mentioning how two of his co workers had in recent weeks started going to the gym and both have a personal trainer who advises them on food intake.
Both guys were wanting to maintain their weight but build muscle.
They were told firstly they weren't eating enough.
They were told eating too little leads to weight gain! yes really! (I just can't get my head around that, nor do I even believe it! I've been browsing these forums for years and can't see that it is possible!)
They increased their meals x 5 a day, mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg and no bread no sauces (sounds boring to me personally!)
Anyway, both guys have remained the same weight but their body fat percentage has dropped radically in a matter of 5 or 6 weeks and both are visibly trimmer. I mean they have lost enough body fat for their clothes to be hanging off them.
So what gives?
I'd love to hear your thoughts because here I am with 7 years experience of counting calories in and out, I eat all the foods but I stay within the calories my body burns and maintain my weight fairly effortlessly (but always am looking to lower my bf% a little more.)
How can these guys be losing so much fat yet staying same weight?
They workout at gym heavy lifting 4 times a week. Is it really that simple? lift more = reduce bf%?
Your thoughts please?
Thanks in advance
Ruth
Starvation mode Most people get this mixed up with starvation But its not the same!!! It's hard to think eat more food to lose weight! it goes against what we be told for years. when you told as a kid [Look at that fat man he eat to much] it's a mindset.21 -
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »I'm a long term maintainer, a big believer in CICO, its definately how I maintain my weight but I had a long conversation with my eldest son the other night about lowering bf%.
He was mentioning how two of his co workers had in recent weeks started going to the gym and both have a personal trainer who advises them on food intake.
Both guys were wanting to maintain their weight but build muscle.
They were told firstly they weren't eating enough.
They were told eating too little leads to weight gain! yes really! (I just can't get my head around that, nor do I even believe it! I've been browsing these forums for years and can't see that it is possible!)
They increased their meals x 5 a day, mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg and no bread no sauces (sounds boring to me personally!)
Anyway, both guys have remained the same weight but their body fat percentage has dropped radically in a matter of 5 or 6 weeks and both are visibly trimmer. I mean they have lost enough body fat for their clothes to be hanging off them.
So what gives?
I'd love to hear your thoughts because here I am with 7 years experience of counting calories in and out, I eat all the foods but I stay within the calories my body burns and maintain my weight fairly effortlessly (but always am looking to lower my bf% a little more.)
How can these guys be losing so much fat yet staying same weight?
They workout at gym heavy lifting 4 times a week. Is it really that simple? lift more = reduce bf%?
Your thoughts please?
Thanks in advance
Ruth
Starvation mode Most people get this mixed up with starvation But its not the same!!! It's hard to think eat more food to lose weight! it goes against what we be told for years. when you told as a kid [Look at that fat man he eat to much] it's a mindset.
It is a mindset based on what actually happens - there is no starvation mode.5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...
You might not be confused about how many calories you are eating, but you do seem to be confused as to what maintenance is.
Not at all (bold print...). Must be one of those 'darned if you do, darned if you don't' occurrances on this forum, where I actually underestimated my calorie burn from strength exercises for my activity level and food.... I must be doing better that I thought.
BTW, I never stated, that I'm on a mission to lose weight. In fact, I think, I made a pretty good point to the OP's original question for eating more.
Bowing out of this conversation gracefully now....wait....nope...leg day...too sore to bow anything....
3 -
I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?3
-
ThI don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
Starvation mode but they would not have been in it to long i would guess so it didn't get to complex to repair.18 -
I feel like it is almost impossible to debate this topic without actually seeing before and after photos, or seeing the scale weight for proof. Your son says that they are both visibly leaner, but that could simply be his perception. Also, you say they are the exact same weight, but that seems peculiar as well. As someone else pointed out, eliminating carbs would cause an initial drop in water weight and that in itself could make a person look leaner in ways. I would also expect the number on the scale to drop from the water weight loss. A couple weeks is definitely not enough time to show dramatic results from a recomp. The trainers theory on calories alone is enough for me to discredit almost anything else they have to say.
This - I am dubious about the time frame. Five weeks is just not long enough to create as obvious a difference as you describe.0 -
I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
You're not missing anything, it doesn't make sense. Any theory of eating which cuts all bread but is mainly rice lacks a grounding in reality. Unless the big secret is that these guys were undiagnosed with celiac disease.3 -
I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
They're more than likely eating a lot less carbs if their only source is rice and veg.3 -
Rice will be like clean eating carb as well as pasta17
-
I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
@neldabg
It's probably a guess that their carbs have reduced overall as judging by the dreadful bro-science spouted by the PT there's a reasonable chance he wants them to eat the old school "bro diet" which is dreadfully boring, limited food choices, high protein and low carb. Not a lot of plain boiled rice (starchy carbs but small quantity), a lot of plain chicken and green (low carb) veg, no seasoning as clearly suffering produces better results than eating enjoyable food.
I wouldn't put the order in which they were listed as an indication of relative quantities.6 -
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »Rice will be like clean eating carb as well as pasta
What’s a clean eating carb?5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
You're not missing anything, it doesn't make sense. Any theory of eating which cuts all bread but is mainly rice lacks a grounding in reality. Unless the big secret is that these guys were undiagnosed with celiac disease.TavistockToad wrote: »I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
They're more than likely eating a lot less carbs if their only source is rice and veg.I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
@neldabg
It's probably a guess that their carbs have reduced overall as judging by the dreadful bro-science spouted by the PT there's a reasonable chance he wants them to eat the old school "bro diet" which is dreadfully boring, limited food choices, high protein and low carb. Not a lot of plain boiled rice (starchy carbs but small quantity), a lot of plain chicken and green (low carb) veg, no seasoning as clearly suffering produces better results than eating enjoyable food.
I wouldn't put the order in which they were listed as an indication of relative quantities.
Thanks all!
Funnily enough, I just checked multiple standard entries on the USDA Food Database, and white and wheat bread have less calories and a range of 40-50 g of carbs per 100 g while brown and white rice have more calories and 70-80 g of carbs per 100 g. It really must be the smaller portions and overall decrease in carbs that might have contributed to the initial quick results.3 -
I dated a bodybuilder a long time ago and what you describe sounds a lot like the diet he followed. The idea behind the smaller meals more often is to ensure energy for the burn without making themselves sick, and preserving/building as much muscle mass as possible. At least that was how it was explained to me. In a day they eat far more than you would think, but it’s a ton less sugar, processed food, etc. and yes it is extremely boring sometimes.
To answer your question of does lifting more often= lower BMI, sort of. There’s a lot of factors at play, but I’m betting that if you followed their diet plan and their lift schedule you would see your BMI drop while possibly even gaining weight.
Now the eat more or you’ll gain weight, that’s some junk right there. But in lifting not eating enough of the correct foods can lead to muscle loss, which would be a no no, so perhaps that was the intention of the statement.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
You're not missing anything, it doesn't make sense. Any theory of eating which cuts all bread but is mainly rice lacks a grounding in reality. Unless the big secret is that these guys were undiagnosed with celiac disease.TavistockToad wrote: »I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
They're more than likely eating a lot less carbs if their only source is rice and veg.I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
@neldabg
It's probably a guess that their carbs have reduced overall as judging by the dreadful bro-science spouted by the PT there's a reasonable chance he wants them to eat the old school "bro diet" which is dreadfully boring, limited food choices, high protein and low carb. Not a lot of plain boiled rice (starchy carbs but small quantity), a lot of plain chicken and green (low carb) veg, no seasoning as clearly suffering produces better results than eating enjoyable food.
I wouldn't put the order in which they were listed as an indication of relative quantities.
Thanks all!
Funnily enough, I just checked multiple standard entries on the USDA Food Database, and white and wheat bread have less calories and a range of 40-50 g of carbs per 100 g while brown and white rice have more calories and 70-80 g of carbs per 100 g. It really must be the smaller portions and overall decrease in carbs that might have contributed to the initial quick results.
There is a good chance that they are doing a better job of portioning out the rice than they did previously with starchy foods... Whoever gave them the 'bro diet' instruction probably specified an amount which they may still be complying with.
But yes... Portion of rice is so so very small. ;(1 -
And I never did figure out why rice, specifically, is part of the bro diet. Why not potatoes as the filler starch? (enough 'clean eating' folks are anti-gluten, so I get why they didn't choose bread/pasta... But what's their beef with potatoes?)5
-
My guess is that they're not really eating more...as in more calories. They're eating a higher volume of low calorie old school bro diet food so they're actually cutting fat. Their weigh is probably staying roughly the same due to some noob gains and holding onto some water from being relatively new to the training and/or they've actually lost a few pounds and are under reporting that.3
-
ConfidentRaven wrote: »There’s a lot of factors at play, but I’m betting that if you followed their diet plan and their lift schedule you would see your BMI drop while possibly even gaining weight.
Im a bit of a thicko, but how? By growing taller?2 -
Im a bit of a thicko, but how? By growing taller?[/quote]
I suppose I should have said that the OP could have a lower fat percentage rather than BMI, as most people associate BMI with how much fat a person carries I was referring to that thought. In essence I was answering the question as I took it, to be that a person could be at a low body fat % while being at what would be deemed obese. I hope that clarifies what I meant.
0 -
ConfidentRaven wrote: »
I suppose I should have said that the OP could have a lower fat percentage rather than BMI, as most people associate BMI with how much fat a person carries I was referring to that thought. In essence I was answering the question as I took it, to be that a person could be at a low body fat % while being at what would be deemed obese. I hope that clarifies what I meant.
[/quote]
BMI is a calculation based on a person's height and weight. If their weight goes up, so will their BMI. BMI is not used to calculate body fat %, nor should it be used to assume body fat %.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions