Weight target based on sitting height

Options
2»

Replies

  • charmmeth
    charmmeth Posts: 936 Member
    Options
    msalicia07 wrote: »
    TI also figured (incorrectly) that whatever your height and weight is, regardless where the weight is carried, you just need to find your TDEE and make adjustments from there depending on the goal. That unless you were carrying some serious muscle, one would typically fall in the BMI range.

    I would say that both these are correct. Why do you think figuring out TDEE and making adjustments is incorrect? Isn't that exactly what we are all doing?
    And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes). Build does make a difference to how people at the same bmi will carry their weight. As i reflected in my previous post, I think that since I have less torso than legs, I therefore have less space on my torso to carry the excess weight, so presumably look heavier. (I do carry weight on my legs too, but it's mostly round my midriff.)
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    Ideally if you think there is a discrepancy that impacts your TDEE for this or any reason you would just calculate it based on actual results and not try to get fancy anyway. An estimate should provide results and in about 6 weeks after any initial water weight drop, you should have at least a first draft of a weight trend.

    This has been interesting. I am not sure how many people set their goal weights by things like BMI charts and BF percentages. Some definitely do. I think a fair amount of people either know what weight they last appreciated or they are like me, and since they have never been there they are just waiting for it to show up.

  • Ddsb11
    Ddsb11 Posts: 607 Member
    Options
    charmmeth wrote: »
    msalicia07 wrote: »
    TI also figured (incorrectly) that whatever your height and weight is, regardless where the weight is carried, you just need to find your TDEE and make adjustments from there depending on the goal. That unless you were carrying some serious muscle, one would typically fall in the BMI range.

    I would say that both these are correct. Why do you think figuring out TDEE and making adjustments is incorrect? Isn't that exactly what we are all doing?
    And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes). Build does make a difference to how people at the same bmi will carry their weight. As i reflected in my previous post, I think that since I have less torso than legs, I therefore have less space on my torso to carry the excess weight, so presumably look heavier. (I do carry weight on my legs too, but it's mostly round my midriff.)

    That’s what I thought it was, but it sounds like the OP is stating otherwise as far as having a higher BMI due to her torso to legs ratio which is a .54.
  • Dazz123456789
    Dazz123456789 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    charmmeth wrote: »
    Dazz123456789 wrote: »
    Think about the calculation of BMI. It's just weight divided by height squared. There's nothing in the formula to account for differing torso to leg ratio, and per unit height, torsos weigh a lot more than legs. So someone the same height as me, but with a shorter torso, of course will be lighter than me, for the same BMI

    I think you have got a bit confused here. BMI is weight/(height)^2 so if two people are the same height and the same bmi then they are the same weight. What this thread is pondering is how that weight is likely to be distributed. Assuming that legs are lighter than torso, then the person with longer legs is likely to be carrying more of that weight proportionately in their torso, so they would probably have a bigger bust/waist/hips measurement and look heavier than the person at the same weight with shorter legs.


    Sounds like you just agreed with me just by saying it differently. I think you didn't understand my point, and as for what the thread is about, yes, but I started the thread, so I knew that already
  • Dazz123456789
    Dazz123456789 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    NovusDies wrote: »
    I am not sure how many people set their goal weights by things like BMI charts and BF percentages. Some definitely do. I think a fair amount of people either know what weight they last appreciated or they are like me, and since they have never been there they are just waiting for it to show up.

    Dieticians in this country are obsessed with BMI. I was just talking to a friend (with a phd in related areas) and she was complaining about the same thing.
  • Dazz123456789
    Dazz123456789 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    msalicia07 wrote: »
    That’s what I thought it was, but it sounds like the OP is stating otherwise as far as having a higher BMI due to her torso to legs ratio which is a .54.

    No, it is sitting height to standing height - different ratio.

  • Dazz123456789
    Dazz123456789 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    charmmeth wrote: »

    And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes).

    Read the linked paper. The BMI ranges do not account for the "normal" torso to total height range of people from different ethnic backgrounds - in the case of the paper, far east asians and Inuits - and those of us who inherited similar body types. As the paper says, this has lead to incorrect diagnosing these people (Inuits) as being obese when they are not.
  • charmmeth
    charmmeth Posts: 936 Member
    edited November 2020
    Options
    Dazz123456789 wrote: »

    Original quote: So someone the same height as me, but with a shorter torso, of course will be lighter than me, for the same BMI

    Sounds like you just agreed with me just by saying it differently. I think you didn't understand my point, and as for what the thread is about, yes, but I started the thread, so I knew that already

    Apologies, I had indeed got confused about who started the thread!

    What I was querying is your use of "lighter" here. If you mean lighter in terms of weight, then this makes no sense since to people who are the same height with the same bmi are also the same weight by definition.

    However, I guess the point is that you have realised that your torso length is what would result in a 6 foot height if your proportions were average, so that if you take that height and calculate your bmi then it will come out lower compared with someone of your height with a torso that is more closely approximated to the average.
    Dazz123456789 wrote: »
    charmmeth wrote: »

    And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes).

    Read the linked paper. The BMI ranges do not account for the "normal" torso to total height range of people from different ethnic backgrounds - in the case of the paper, far east asians and Inuits - and those of us who inherited similar body types. As the paper says, this has lead to incorrect diagnosing these people (Inuits) as being obese when they are not.

    Thank you for pointing me to the paper, and I stand corrected. What your thread has made me think - and reading the paper confirmed) is that ingeneral people with shorter legs and longer torso would probably be well advised to looking at a goal weight in the upper part of the normal bmi (or just above in your case), whereas people with shorter torso and longer legs might be better advised aiming for the lower half. I was struck by the comment that "BMI will tend to underestimate obesity among those with long legs and over-estimate obesity among those with short legs relative to torso length." The former is me and I was aiming for a weight which would give me a bmi of ca. 23, but have already been thinking I might need to adjust that down a bit. This is more evidence to suggest that i should. (I'll decide when I get there.)

    You have raised a really interesting question and train of thought for me about my own weight loss journey and aims: thank you.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    Dazz123456789 wrote: »
    NovusDies wrote: »
    I am not sure how many people set their goal weights by things like BMI charts and BF percentages. Some definitely do. I think a fair amount of people either know what weight they last appreciated or they are like me, and since they have never been there they are just waiting for it to show up.

    Dieticians in this country are obsessed with BMI. I was just talking to a friend (with a phd in related areas) and she was complaining about the same thing.

    That has not been my experience. The ones I have talked with are so desperate for any level of client improvement they can't even begin to think about end goals. The stories are of people who consult them to lose weight and continue to gain. They seem pretty unhappy they can not make more of a difference for so many.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    edited November 2020
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Dazz123456789 wrote: »
    It does not account for the full range. At my very fittest around 20 yo, with practically no body fat, I was about 170. Yes, some was muscle, but still.
    I'm 5'7" and at 170lbs I'd still be around 12% body fat. I think you underestimate what no body fat looks like. When I competed at the same height, my competition weight was around 158lbs and that was at about 7% bodyfat.
    Like others I think you're overthinking this. If you were around the 180lbs range, you'd be just fine.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    She may indeed be fine at 180, but at 5'7", that would give her an Overweight BMI of 28, which was kind of her point.

    (Not sure you meant to say 180. In case not, an Overweight BMI starts at 160.)
  • SharpWellbeing
    SharpWellbeing Posts: 68 Member
    Options
    You could have the longest or shortest legs in the world and it would make no odds. Weight loss is individual, don't put such reliance on calculators and just play around with trial and error and find what works for you.
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,467 Member
    Options
    This is very interesting. When I was a teenager, my dad, siblings and I were all about 19 on the BMI chart. None of us looked “skinny”, even though we were slim built. When I lost 10 pounds temporarily, I got lots of compliments on how nice I looked.
    When I wore shirtwaist dresses, off the rack were fine. But all my pants had to be made at home to get them long enough, or I had to wear boys jeans.

Categories