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.

Is it really all that bad to be slighly underweight?

70sthin
70sthin Posts: 29 Member
in Debate Club
My doctor had told me that she wanted me to gain weight, which I did a few years ago and I haven't felt all that good about it since doing so. I was only 8 lbs underweight. I gained 15lbs and don't feel like exercising as much. I don't have as much energy as I did when I was lighter. I know that body image and eating disorder problems can happen when one tries to attain a thin figure, but I did like the way I looked 15lbs ago. I honestly don't think I looked too thin when I was slightly underweight. I'm short, so 15lbs looks really big on me.
«1

Replies

  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,989 Member
    I always think about my grandmother, who was underweight her whole life.

    It didn't cause a problem until she got sick. An illness caused her to lose even more weight, she got dangerously low, and it greatly complicated her illness.

    Since then, I always thought it's a good idea to not be close to the edge of an unhealthy weight. Not that everyone is thinking about the possibility of serious illness, but I think it's a good idea to have a little bit of "padding" just in case.
  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,371 Member
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    I always think about my grandmother, who was underweight her whole life.

    It didn't cause a problem until she got sick. An illness caused her to lose even more weight, she got dangerously low, and it greatly complicated her illness.

    Since then, I always thought it's a good idea to not be close to the edge of an unhealthy weight. Not that everyone is thinking about the possibility of serious illness, but I think it's a good idea to have a little bit of "padding" just in case.

    That's exactly the worry that is always in the back of my mind, you may need a reservoir to draw upon. More so since my dad allowed himself to become extremely inactive, what little muscle he had evaporated and he ended up in chronic care for 5.5 months just to regain a minimum level of function. Mind you, he's done nothing to build anything beyond that minimum level in the past three years.

    On the other hand, during the appendix debacle I managed to beat peritonitis quite well despite a fairly substantial drop in weight and appalling nutrition for the first week.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    I think OP needs to answer the question posted upthread; 8lb underweight from what??

    If it is from mid range BMI - probably fine.

    If it is 8 lb under the lower limit of BMI - very unlikely - especially if OP is a shorter younger female.


    Yes Ive heard the argument that older people can be better off carrying a LITTLE bit of extra padding - but I dont think that applies to OP, my guess is she is not in the over 75 age group
  • 70sthin
    70sthin Posts: 29 Member
    Thank you all for the feed back. A healthy weight according to my doctor and the BMI calculator she used is something like a range of 98-132lbs for a 5'1" tall female I weighed 90lbs when she said I should gain weight. I weigh 105lbs now and felt better at 90lbs. I'm almost middle age (39) and had my weight ranges from 90-100lbs most of my adult life. I start feeling heavy and lethargic around 100lbs. Yes, I should be building muscle at this age and that was a very good suggestion. I have had little energy to exercise at all lately.
  • Xellercin
    Xellercin Posts: 924 Member
    It's quite simple: no, it's not a big deal to be underweight if you are optimally healthy and maintaining that weight while eating plenty of nutritious food, exercising, and easily maintaining good strength and muscle mass. Especially if you are taller.

    But in those cases, it's highly unlikely a doctor would bother telling you to gain weight.

    My sister is quite underweight, but with her tall height and extremely slender bone structure, it's quite self-evident that that's a healthy weight for her. She doesn't even look underweight, she has a normal amount of belly fat, she's just built extremely narrow with super long narrow limbs.

    It doesn't sound like this is you. So I would just listen to your doctor and focus on your health. Get to a state of being optimally, unquestionably healthy and then assess if your body can handle being that lean.

    If I were you, I would really put my focus on building muscle.
  • CurvyEmmy
    CurvyEmmy Posts: 225 Member
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.

    The two are not the same.

    8 pounds overweight is incredibly common, and honestly it’s perfectly normal. Science is showing that being slightly overweight is not unhealthy.

    8 pounds underweight is very abnormal and a sign that something is wrong.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,197 Member
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.

    If OP's doctor was saying she's underweight, that's different than someone just not hitting some abstract metric. (Sure, doctors can be wrong, but . . . .)

    There's some research suggesting that being somewhat clinically underweight is statistically associated with higher mortality rates than is being somewhat clinically overweight, even when study conditions control for depleting illnesses (cancer and whatnot), i.e., the studies have measures to exclude people who are thin because they're already en route to mortality. OP or you or I aren't statistics, so yes, individuals differ, and individual health is what counts (as Xellercin points out) . . . but again, this is OP's doctor telling her to gain weight.

    OP, I'm inclined to agree with others saying that working on increasing muscle mass would be a route to weighing more, but feeling/looking better. It's not that you have to pursue a bodybuilder look if you don't like that, but there's quite a range of positive non-bodybuilder body composition considered attractive in most of the developed-world culture that's likely to put person above a riskily underweight zone.
  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    edited October 2022
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    CurvyEmmy wrote: »
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.

    The two are not the same.

    8 pounds overweight is incredibly common, and honestly it’s perfectly normal. Science is showing that being slightly overweight is not unhealthy.

    8 pounds underweight is very abnormal and a sign that something is wrong.

    Being overweight has definitely been normalised in developed countries, but that doesn't mean it's inherently better than being a little underweight.

    While it's true that having a few spare pounds can be useful in case of a serious illness, that also has to be balanced against the increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.

    Some people just have very narrow frames and look and feel better a low BMI - which itself isn't an infallible metric.
    There is something to be said for that. As a Belgian, I have learned quite a bit about BMI, which I still learned as the "Quételet Index" for Adolphe Quételet who created the index to study populations. Despite its simplicity, it is surprisingly good for that, even now.

    However, I find that using it on a personal level is essentially a perversion. It was never meant for that, and despite studies that have shown is not all that bad, I balk when I hear people who swear by it and people who revile it. I also giggle seeing that people almost only look at the upper limit, not the lower one, and then complain that some "athlete" is considered obese even though he or she is not. Let's be honest here: you really don't have to study medicine to see that the younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was not obese. Anyone who insists he was, just of because of the BMI is an idiot. Also, how many of those athletes do we really have? I don't see very many of them when I go out.

    In addition, why not also look at the other side: an obese person who had her/his legs amputated and who, as a consequence, is now in the normal range despite being obese?

    Furthermore, on the level of an individual patient, BMI is needlessly complicated. Just look at a weight chart. Unless something really tragic happens to you, your height will stay the same for most of your adult life. Calculating the BMI is a waste of time and energy.

    I also noticed that MFP is going to retire it BMI calculator. I don't know why, the message did not say that, but it just might be a good idea.

  • benchstep
    benchstep Posts: 18 Member
    I am 5'2" and weigh 100 lbs. I have more energy now than I have had in years when I was overweight. I think you have to go by how you feel. I exercise daily and eat plenty of healthy foods.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    benchstep wrote: »
    I am 5'2" and weigh 100 lbs. I have more energy now than I have had in years when I was overweight. I think you have to go by how you feel. I exercise daily and eat plenty of healthy foods.

    well, you are only just under the BMI range - adding just 1lb puts you within but at bottom of range.

    not quite the same scenario as OP who is 8lb under the lower limit


  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    Let's be honest here: you really don't have to study medicine to see that the younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was not obese. Anyone who insists he was, just of because of the BMI is an idiot. Also, how many of those athletes do we really have? I don't see very many of them when I go out.

    In addition, why not also look at the other side: an obese person who had her/his legs amputated and who, as a consequence, is now in the normal range despite being obese?

    Furthermore, on the level of an individual patient, BMI is needlessly complicated. Just look at a weight chart. Unless something really tragic happens to you, your height will stay the same for most of your adult life. Calculating the BMI is a waste of time and energy.


    Seriously??? :*

    of course elite body builders and amputees are outliers - nobody here is disputing that at all. :*

    and just looking at a weight chart without height is meaningless - obviously what is a healthy weight range for somebody 6 ft 10 in is not the same as somebody 4 ft 10 in even though both are within normal adult height range. :*
  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Let's be honest here: you really don't have to study medicine to see that the younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was not obese. Anyone who insists he was, just of because of the BMI is an idiot. Also, how many of those athletes do we really have? I don't see very many of them when I go out.

    In addition, why not also look at the other side: an obese person who had her/his legs amputated and who, as a consequence, is now in the normal range despite being obese?

    Furthermore, on the level of an individual patient, BMI is needlessly complicated. Just look at a weight chart. Unless something really tragic happens to you, your height will stay the same for most of your adult life. Calculating the BMI is a waste of time and energy.


    Seriously??? :*

    of course elite body builders and amputees are outliers - nobody here is disputing that at all. :*

    and just looking at a weight chart without height is meaningless - obviously what is a healthy weight range for somebody 6 ft 10 in is not the same as somebody 4 ft 10 in even though both are within normal adult height range. :*
    I think you either misunderstood what I wrote, or I haven't been clear about "an individual patient". Individual patients do have heights, so of course it is part of the total equation.

    It is just that, barring extraordinary (and usually tragic) circumstances, your height will not change. So, once you have determined it, you no longer need to calculate your BMI, just look at the weight scale. There is no need to calculate the BMI. It is a needless complication that brings zero additional information to the equation.

    This is not the same as, for example, your weight (obviously) or your blood pressure or your GFR or most any other medically important marker and make no mistake, even those have to be interpreted in very judicious ways and it is quite possible to be diagnosed with a certain disease despite the fact that the generally accepted markers for that disease are perfectly normal or even excellent.

    Medicine is not something that can be learned from the back of a package of popcorn. There are reasons why medical studies are gruelling and take years and why even then mistakes and misinterpretations are common and there are reasons why the professional medical literature has numberless controversies about what the public considers completely uncontroversial and settled. Modern medicine, both the evidence-based and the science-based versions, is an astonishingly new field. Even the terms themselves did not exist yet when I was in med school.

    As for nobody disputing the outliers, you forget that BMI is often attacked publicly and even in medical circles precisely for that reason. It is the standard criticism trotted out to disparage BMI. It is important to take that into account. And again, BMI is a population-level measurement. On the level of the population, averages and other techniques like BMI are historically important, because of the massive amounts of data that have to be taken into account. That is slowly changing, thanks to ever larger available space for data storage, but we haven't quite reached the stage yet where we could be looking at real-time massive data sets without giving it a second thought.

    In short, BMI is still very useful for people in insurance, or public health and similar fields, but it is a needless complication on an individual level and while I haven't seen any explanation from MFP, I suspect that is at least part of the reason they decided to retire their BMI calculator. If am wrong about that, I am sure (or at least hope) someone from MFP will set the record straight.
  • tulips_and_tea
    tulips_and_tea Posts: 5,741 Member
    70sthin wrote: »
    Thank you all for the feed back. A healthy weight according to my doctor and the BMI calculator she used is something like a range of 98-132lbs for a 5'1" tall female I weighed 90lbs when she said I should gain weight. I weigh 105lbs now and felt better at 90lbs. I'm almost middle age (39) and had my weight ranges from 90-100lbs most of my adult life. I start feeling heavy and lethargic around 100lbs. Yes, I should be building muscle at this age and that was a very good suggestion. I have had little energy to exercise at all lately.

    I can relate, as we're similar. The best thing I did was start lifting 7 years ago. At the time, I was doing way too much cardio and no weights. Learning to lift was a life changer! And it doesn't have to be difficult, complicated, or time consuming. Start with body weight exercises and planks. It will make a huge difference for you!
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    It is just that, barring extraordinary (and usually tragic) circumstances, your height will not change. So, once you have determined it, you no longer need to calculate your BMI, just look at the weight scale. There is no need to calculate the BMI. It is a needless complication that brings zero additional information to the equation.

    snip

    Medicine is not something that can be learned from the back of a package of popcorn. There are reasons why medical studies are gruelling and take years and why even then mistakes and misinterpretations are common and there are reasons why the professional medical literature has numberless controversies about what the public considers completely uncontroversial and settled. Modern medicine, both the evidence-based and the science-based versions, is an astonishingly new field. Even the terms themselves did not exist yet when I was in med school.


    I disagree.

    Nobody is claiming your height will change - but of course you still need your height to calculate BMI. You dont have to re measure it but you do need it in the equation.

    and many basic things are basic and havent changed - including BMI range. One doesnt need a medical degree nor is the basic concept of healthy weight range an astonishingly new field.

    MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member

    <snip>
    MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.

    https://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmi-calculator
    (It's under "Apps" - along with other useful tools. :) )
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    It does say it will be gone on Nov 21st - but then directs you to CDC website for a BMI calculator.

    So, nothing to suggest MFP's reason for deleting it is any 'needless complications on an individual level'

    More likely just a cost cutting exercise.

  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    <snip>
    MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.

    https://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmi-calculator
    (It's under "Apps" - along with other useful tools. :) )
    It is good that you try to verify claims. But, it is only good if you read all the information, not just a part of it:
    ad3kybnw8dat.jpg


  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    edited November 2022
    paperpudding wrote: »
    It is just that, barring extraordinary (and usually tragic) circumstances, your height will not change. So, once you have determined it, you no longer need to calculate your BMI, just look at the weight scale. There is no need to calculate the BMI. It is a needless complication that brings zero additional information to the equation.

    snip

    Medicine is not something that can be learned from the back of a package of popcorn. There are reasons why medical studies are gruelling and take years and why even then mistakes and misinterpretations are common and there are reasons why the professional medical literature has numberless controversies about what the public considers completely uncontroversial and settled. Modern medicine, both the evidence-based and the science-based versions, is an astonishingly new field. Even the terms themselves did not exist yet when I was in med school.


    I disagree.

    Nobody is claiming your height will change - but of course you still need your height to calculate BMI. You dont have to re measure it but you do need it in the equation.

    and many basic things are basic and havent changed - including BMI range. One doesnt need a medical degree nor is the basic concept of healthy weight range an astonishingly new field.

    MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.
    You can disagree. That is your right. The point is that those websites are working on a population level, not on the level of an individual patient. Even IF you use BMI for yourself, which any statistician will tell you is a questionable practice, it does not mean you have to recalculate it every time. Using a 1.71 m person as an example, the "healthy" BMI range is between 18.5 and 25. That is not equivalent, but identical to a weight between 54.1 kg and 73.1 kg as given by the MFP calculator (and any other).
    2tpump3gjloh.jpg
    These are the two procedures you can follow:
    1. You stand on the scale, you notice you weigh 67.2 kg.
    1a. You use any BMI calculator (MFP = 23.0), or you calculate it yourself: 67.2/(1.71^2) = 22.98
    1b. You look it up and see that this is over 18.5 and under 25.0.
    1c. You happily conclude that you have a healthy weight.
    OR
    2. You stand on the scale, you notice you weight 67.2 kg.
    2a. You look it up and see that this is over 54.1 kg and under 73.1 kg.
    2b. You happily conclude that you have a healthy weight.

    Question: what is the difference?
    Answer: the amount of work you have to do. There is NO difference between the two. Calculating your BMI is an extra step that you do not need.

    On top of that, as said, any statistician will tell you that BMI is a tool for people who study populations. It is all but useless to individuals. It is, sadly, true that most people do not know this, for no other reason than that they don't learn it at school. It is why, and THIS IS AN OPINION: it is something that people should learn at school. There is a big difference between the value of markers at a population level and the value of those same markers at an individual level.

    Medicine at a population level is essentially a branch of statistics because it is impossible for a researcher or a policy maker to look at every individual case, so they have to simplify. Medicine at an individual level is still very much of an art. It is why doctors do gruelling studies that take years, and then still manage to disagree.

    That is why people are always being encouraged to talk to a doctor, a real one i.e. an MD, before making any health-related decisions. This is a complicated field, and people can get killed or (arguably even worse) harmed for a very long time when they make the wrong one. A doctor should always be your primary source of information.
  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    edited November 2022
    paperpudding wrote: »
    It does say it will be gone on Nov 21st - but then directs you to CDC website for a BMI calculator.

    So, nothing to suggest MFP's reason for deleting it is any 'needless complications on an individual level'

    More likely just a cost cutting exercise.
    That is a possible conclusion, but if you think about it, an unlikely one. MFP has had this calculator for a very long time, so it doesn't really cost them anything anymore.
    However, BMI –when used on an individual level– is controversial and subject to much (mostly well-founded) criticism and there are more and more people objecting to its use because its application to individuals is a perversion of its intended use.
    The best thing, of course, would be for MFP to explain why they are cutting it, not merely announce that they are cutting it. That way, speculation –which is never really helpful– would be unneeded.

    For completeness, this is what the website MFP is referring to says:

    How is BMI used?
    BMI can be a screening tool, but it does not diagnose the body fatness or health of an individual. To determine if BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider performs further assessments. Such assessments include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, and family history10.

    Source:
    https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_BMI/index.html

Categories