Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

"Unrealistic" body goals

1121314151618»

Replies

  • saintor1saintor1 Member Posts: 339 Member Member Posts: 339 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »

    Less then 130 and you are clinically underweight. What is your endgame?

    The real lower BMI figure is 18.5 (not 19 likely just rounded) and this matches129lbs for 5'10". Millions of adult men in the world prove that it is nowhere underweight. Again BMI is an empiric shortcut to discuss % bodyfat.

    The endgame is to conform to wcrf/aicr #1 recommendation for cancer prevention (and other diseases). This was the result of large meta-study made in 2007.
    WCRF International/AICR commissioned 9 systematic literature review (SLR) teams comprising 22 panelists to summarize the literature on nutrition, physical activity, and cancer. The teams examined 7,000 articles, reviews, and meta-analyses in all languages. Team findings went to an international panel that synthesized information for many different cancers to come up with the report’s main recommendations.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2199302/

    It was originally worded as "Be as lean as possible without being underweight".... too drastic for some then doctored up to

    https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/recommendations/be-healthy-weight

    "Be a healthy weight - Keep your weight as low as you can within the healthy range throughout life (BMI of 18.5–24.9)"

    which is just another way to say it.


    edited April 19
  • WhatsthemotiveWhatsthemotive Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member
    According to the cited article, the healthy BMI range is 21 to 23. The low end of that range is right at 145 pounds for someone who is 5’10”. In any event, none of us can make decisions for another. I think people were expressing legitimate concerns that someone might be setting a goal which was not healthy. People do harm themselves by trying to be too thin. 130 is underweight, according to the sources available to us, but it’s not starvation underweight. The decision about whether it is an appropriate goal belongs to the poster and to his medical provider. If his doctor is discouraging the goal, he would be well served to listen. If it’s some random person without medical expertise, the poster should probably recognize that the statement is well intended and then consult with his doctor to see what the medical recommendation is.
  • snowflake954snowflake954 Member Posts: 6,456 Member Member Posts: 6,456 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »

    Less then 130 and you are clinically underweight. What is your endgame?

    The real lower BMI figure is 18.5 (not 19 likely just rounded) and this matches129lbs for 5'10". Millions of adult men in the world prove that it is nowhere underweight. Again BMI is an empiric shortcut to discuss % bodyfat.

    The endgame is to conform to wcrf/aicr #1 recommendation for cancer prevention (and other diseases). This was the result of large meta-study made in 2007.
    WCRF International/AICR commissioned 9 systematic literature review (SLR) teams comprising 22 panelists to summarize the literature on nutrition, physical activity, and cancer. The teams examined 7,000 articles, reviews, and meta-analyses in all languages. Team findings went to an international panel that synthesized information for many different cancers to come up with the report’s main recommendations.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2199302/

    It was originally worded as "Be as lean as possible without being underweight".... too drastic for some then doctored up to

    https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/recommendations/be-healthy-weight

    "Be a healthy weight - Keep your weight as low as you can within the healthy range throughout life (BMI of 18.5–24.9)"

    which is just another way to say it.


    Well if this is your reason--cancer and disease prevention-- I hope you are successful, because if you do get something serious you may not have the fat reserves to get you through a cure. A little "padding" can sometimes save your life.
  • saintor1saintor1 Member Posts: 339 Member Member Posts: 339 Member
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member, Premium Posts: 25,457 Member Member, Premium Posts: 25,457 Member
    The whole BMI range is valid.

    So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'

    Or so I would assume.

    My personal experience: I prefer to maintain on the lower end of the "healthy" BMI range for my height and I'm open about that. I've never felt like I've had to defend or justify that here, overall I'd say this group is pretty accepting of those of us for whom vanity or athletic performance are driving a desire to be at a lower weight.

    The only time I see anyone mention it, really, is in the context of threads where someone is trying to get to their lower range and it seems to be making them unhappy or prompting unhealthy behaviors. In those threads you'll sometimes see people challenge the goal and whether it's truly appropriate for that person or whether they could adjust their goals and be happier.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Member Posts: 5,780 Member Member Posts: 5,780 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    The endgame is to conform to wcrf/aicr #1 recommendation for cancer prevention (and other diseases). This was the result of large meta-study made in 2007.

    I can get down with that. Not my personal choice but I respect that it is yours.

    Question for you. Do you have a slight frame? That would explain the low end of normal weight. For me, at 170lbs I start to look like a chronic "dieter". My frame is large and boxy. I am built like my Dad (God rest his soul), like a refrigerator...

    edited April 20
  • WhatsthemotiveWhatsthemotive Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member
    I was just referring to the article you linked, which stated that the panelists recommended a BMI of 21 to 23. Again, this is the source you provided. And again, the decision has to be that of the individual and his medical provider.
  • WhatsthemotiveWhatsthemotive Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member
    My hope for all in the community is that they achieve goals that support their health. Including me. I have considerable work to do on myself. I only spoke up because I have known people who ended up harming their health through excessive food control and exercise, through a desire to be a very low weight, and on the other side from overeating and failing or refusing to exercise. Either can hurt your health or be fatal. Either can cause an imbalance in life in which the weight loss goal or food obsession interferes with other parts of life in an unhealthy way. If the individual has determined, after consulting with medical professionals, that a weight on the lower end is right for him and pursuing that goal does not damage him in any way, good for him. It is fair to encourage one to consult a professional and it is fair to acknowledge that a perfect physical condition is not the only factor in overall health.
  • kimny72kimny72 Member Posts: 15,809 Member Member Posts: 15,809 Member
    The whole BMI range is valid.

    So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'

    Or so I would assume.

    My response is probably being pedantic, but this is the debate forum so why not :wink:

    I might be misunderstanding your first sentence, but if you were saying that the whole healthy bmi range is valid for everyone, that is not true. The idea of the healthy range is that the vast majority of individuals at that height will be at a healthy weight "somewhere" within that range. It does NOT say that everyone of that height can be a healthy weight at every weight within that range. If the healthy weight range for someone's height is 130-170, it doesn't mean everyone will be a healthy weight at 130 and 170 and everywhere in between. Some will be underweight at 130, others will be overweight at 170 once all their other metrics are taken into account. And there are always a few outliers.

    *
    No one can tell a man who is aiming for 5'10 130lbs that it is definitely an unhealthy weight for him, just by looking at his BMI. All you can say is that statistically, it is highly likely that 130 would be underweight for him. Even if one considers the alternate Asian chart, 130 would be the lowest number in the range, and generally the lowest part of the range is allowing for the lower muscle weight more typical in women.

    Only a medical pro taking into consideration his BF%, waist, blood work, family history, overall health, etc can make that determination. BMI is a general indicator, suggesting he be careful and make sure he isn't aiming too low.
  • wunderkindkingwunderkindking Member Posts: 450 Member Member Posts: 450 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    The whole BMI range is valid.

    So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'

    Or so I would assume.

    My response is probably being pedantic, but this is the debate forum so why not :wink:

    I might be misunderstanding your first sentence, but if you were saying that the whole healthy bmi range is valid for everyone, that is not true. The idea of the healthy range is that the vast majority of individuals at that height will be at a healthy weight "somewhere" within that range. It does NOT say that everyone of that height can be a healthy weight at every weight within that range. If the healthy weight range for someone's height is 130-170, it doesn't mean everyone will be a healthy weight at 130 and 170 and everywhere in between. Some will be underweight at 130, others will be overweight at 170 once all their other metrics are taken into account. And there are always a few outliers.

    *
    No one can tell a man who is aiming for 5'10 130lbs that it is definitely an unhealthy weight for him, just by looking at his BMI. All you can say is that statistically, it is highly likely that 130 would be underweight for him. Even if one considers the alternate Asian chart, 130 would be the lowest number in the range, and generally the lowest part of the range is allowing for the lower muscle weight more typical in women.

    Only a medical pro taking into consideration his BF%, waist, blood work, family history, overall health, etc can make that determination. BMI is a general indicator, suggesting he be careful and make sure he isn't aiming too low.

    Oh yeah, absolutely not what I meant, but it IS a debate forum.

    Truthfully, though, I just mean that on a population scale there are going to be individuals who are healthiest along the entire spectrum of BMI.

    The top end of healthy BMI for me is 150, per charts. Reality? I wear a size 4 ring. I can wear a 7" bracelet around my ankle, comfortably. I'm at 152 right now. And it is perfectly obvious that I am still just... fat. I'm still stopping at 150ish (or whatever I make it to by June 1) and maintaining June/July/August. Where my ideal weight would be on the line, scale wise depends on how much recomp I do/muscle I preserve, but overall 150 ain't it.

    My husband? Top end of BMI is it for him. He wears a size 14 ring. He has LARGE bones. More lean mass and lean weight on the scale that I don't have.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Member Posts: 5,780 Member Member Posts: 5,780 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    No one can tell a man who is aiming for 5'10 130lbs that it is definitely an unhealthy weight for him, just by looking at his BMI. All you can say is that statistically, it is highly likely that 130 would be underweight for him.

    Very true...
  • saintor1saintor1 Member Posts: 339 Member Member Posts: 339 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »

    Question for you. Do you have a slight frame? That would explain the low end of normal weight. For me, at 170lbs I start to look like a chronic "dieter". My frame is large and boxy. I am built like my Dad (God rest his soul), like a refrigerator...

    I was big most of my life, was 176lbs at 16, got near 240lbs and I always considered that I had a large frame. Until the useless fat came off to realize that I have only a medium frame, not large (or small). A good clue is the size of the hands. I never had large hands even at my max. weight.


    edited April 20
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 19,781 Member Member, Premium Posts: 19,781 Member
    I think what really matters about frame size, when it comes to weight, is the spacing of the big stuff: Width of shoulders, hips. It takes geometrically more meat to wrap around that broader structure, so implies a larger minimum healthy lean mass. The actual weight or thickness of bones (as opposed to length/gross geometry) is less important.

    It's easier to assess fingers, hands, wrists, elbows when still overweight (vs. hips/shoulders/breasts) but it can mislead. Personally, I have big fingers, hands, wrists, elbows. While still just over the line into class 1 obese (5'5", 183 pounds, BMI 30.4) , my ring size was 13-14 (and I'm female). I required *men's* size large gloves, in non-stretchy styles. Even at 125 pounds (BMI 20.8), my ring size is 10 - most women's rings don't come that large, so I usually wear carefully-selected men's rings. The "frame size calculators" said (still say) I have a large frame, based on those things. Still, BMI 20ish is a fine weight for me, because I have narrow hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts (post-mastectomy). (I also care about that cancer-related advice mentioned by a PP, since I have quite a cancer history, though I do understand that being underweight increases other health risks, is in some respects worse than being a little bit overweight, statistically.)

    It's a good thing that we don't need to know a definitive goal weight at the outset of weight loss: Goal weight has no direct effect on calorie goal whether MFP or a TDEE calculator estimates it. (It can matter in figuring how fast a loss rate is sensible, of course.) It's hard to predict a good goal weight, if someone hasn't been that weight as an adult, in a lot of cases.

    The risk, IMO, comes if we select an aggressively low goal weight up front, and feel very committed to it. It's common to not quite see ourselves clearly yet when we get close to goal weight, even though in theory that's the time to decide. Quite a few people still see a fat self in photos or mirrors, when the actual self isn't fat anymore (I did). Not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. Can't really rely on friends' opinions, because so often they're freaked out that we're so much smaller, so say "too skinny" when that's not actually the case.

    In practice, this is kind of hard, IMO.
  • Speakeasy76Speakeasy76 Member Posts: 519 Member Member Posts: 519 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I think what really matters about frame size, when it comes to weight, is the spacing of the big stuff: Width of shoulders, hips. It takes geometrically more meat to wrap around that broader structure, so implies a larger minimum healthy lean mass. The actual weight or thickness of bones (as opposed to length/gross geometry) is less important.

    It's easier to assess fingers, hands, wrists, elbows when still overweight (vs. hips/shoulders/breasts) but it can mislead. Personally, I have big fingers, hands, wrists, elbows. While still just over the line into class 1 obese (5'5", 183 pounds, BMI 30.4) , my ring size was 13-14 (and I'm female). I required *men's* size large gloves, in non-stretchy styles. Even at 125 pounds (BMI 20.8), my ring size is 10 - most women's rings don't come that large, so I usually wear carefully-selected men's rings. The "frame size calculators" said (still say) I have a large frame, based on those things. Still, BMI 20ish is a fine weight for me, because I have narrow hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts (post-mastectomy). (I also care about that cancer-related advice mentioned by a PP, since I have quite a cancer history, though I do understand that being underweight increases other health risks, is in some respects worse than being a little bit overweight, statistically.)

    It's a good thing that we don't need to know a definitive goal weight at the outset of weight loss: Goal weight has no direct effect on calorie goal whether MFP or a TDEE calculator estimates it. (It can matter in figuring how fast a loss rate is sensible, of course.) It's hard to predict a good goal weight, if someone hasn't been that weight as an adult, in a lot of cases.

    The risk, IMO, comes if we select an aggressively low goal weight up front, and feel very committed to it. It's common to not quite see ourselves clearly yet when we get close to goal weight, even though in theory that's the time to decide. Quite a few people still see a fat self in photos or mirrors, when the actual self isn't fat anymore (I did). Not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. Can't really rely on friends' opinions, because so often they're freaked out that we're so much smaller, so say "too skinny" when that's not actually the case.

    In practice, this is kind of hard, IMO.

    I think this makes a lot of sense. I have always had broad shoulders and back, even as a kid. I also have hips and a butt, and have always been built this way. Not to mention, I have a big head, so for me to get to the low end of the healthy BMI for my height looks weird on me.

    Right now I'm sitting at 140 at 5'8, so I think right in the middle. I have noticed, though, that as I lose more weight at my age (44) things start to look veiny and crepey. I'm also really wanting to build muscle and get stronger, so losing much more wouldn't be doing me a ton of favors. I've been on an elimination diet for food sensitivities, so limited right now in what I can eat. I "lost" more than 5 pounds in the first 2 weeks alone, which as i know is a lot of water weight. However, I've consciously started eating a bit more so I can preserve muscle. Never, EVER thought I'd get to that point in my life! I still think some parts of me look "big," but I don't know if I'll ever be satisfied.
  • Beverly2HansenBeverly2Hansen Member Posts: 184 Member Member Posts: 184 Member
    I think that a lot of people want instant gratification and by setting more short term goals you can help the majority get more feel good boosts to inch closer to that pie in the sky long term goal. Trainers and fitness friends have seen many people give up when the 6pk isn't there by day 90. While you're point of view is valid most people are used to receiving fast rewards and need a different approach that's broken up into smaller groups. I'm very disciplined and blunt unlike most of my peers so when I set a goal I am far more likly to get there and I'm guessing you are too. I think it's easier to develop long term relationships with people like trainers and coaches where of a period of 6months you show them what type of discipline you have and then reiterate what the goal is. People treat me very different than others after dealing with me for 3-6 months because I am often the exception.
Sign In or Register to comment.