Do BMI's seem unrealistic to anyone else?
Replies
-
If you do a dunk water B.M.I (Body Mass Index) test it's very accurate.
I find it gives me the exact amount of weight I would need to lose compared to just guessing where I need to be on the scale.0 -
I think unless someone is especially athletic/into body building, the BMI is a perfectly adequate indicator. It gives quite a large weight range for each height, to take into account different frame sizes. I think people just want an excuse to remain fat, and are so accustomed to seeing themselves fat, and seeing others fat, that they have lost all sense of what is a healthy size.0
-
Oops... one sec here. Messed this up...0
-
My son's school nurse and doctor both say that my son is overweight. This is based solely on his BMI. They say "Well, he doesn't look 'fat' because he's tall." He's 5'6" 147 pounds. The thing is, he has a perfectly flat stomach and wears size 32-34 pants. I just can't see where he's overweight. She says he should weigh 130 pounds. But when he sucks in his stomach you can see the bottom of his rib cage. So I guess I gotta put my kid on a diet. :-(
Some people carry their weight in areas other than stomach. For example: when I gain, it always happens in my thighs first. It's not about how it LOOKS, but more about what it's doing to the person carrying it. It's very bad for the body's internal organs to be too overweight. Your son's nurse is probably right, and you're doing the right thing putting him on a diet!0 -
I'll only say it once: the long and short of it is that BMI has more to do with what your body can and should handle than it does with how you LOOK. If you think you LOOK fine at 29% body fat, no one is telling you you are wrong. You are, however, putting a very unnecessary strain on your internal organs because they have to work harder to feed and maintain all of that extra body weight. There are more specific charts than the normal "calculators" you find online, and I think the best one I have found is by Metlife. It tells you how to gage whether you have a small, average or large bone structure, and then calculates your BMI based on THAT figure, followed by a chart of whether you are in a healthy range or not.
I would strongly suggest that people not base their health on how they look. Some of the healthiest looking people in the world are in hospital beds with post op wounds for heart disease, organ failure and pre-cancerous/cancerous issues because they didn't keep an eye on this and on what kind of food they were eating. Just because you look "okay" in your own opinion, doesn't mean you are. It's good to know these things and to take steps to get yourself there.
Anyway. That's my two cents.0 -
I'll only say it once: the long and short of it is that BMI has more to do with what your body can and should handle than it does with how you LOOK. If you think you LOOK fine at 29% body fat, no one is telling you you are wrong. You are, however, putting a very unnecessary strain on your internal organs because they have to work harder to feed and maintain all of that extra body weight. There are more specific charts than the normal "calculators" you find online, and I think the best one I have found is by Metlife. It tells you how to gage whether you have a small, average or large bone structure, and then calculates your BMI based on THAT figure, followed by a chart of whether you are in a healthy range or not.
I would strongly suggest that people not base their health on how they look. Some of the healthiest looking people in the world are in hospital beds with post op wounds for heart disease, organ failure and pre-cancerous/cancerous issues because they didn't keep an eye on this and on what kind of food they were eating. Just because you look "okay" in your own opinion, doesn't mean you are. It's good to know these things and to take steps to get yourself there.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
I think you are getting body fat and BMI mixed up in that first part. 29% BF for a woman is in the healthy range, BMI does not take body fat into consideration at all. Two totally different things.
And you don't get cancer from poor eating habits.0 -
I'll only say it once: the long and short of it is that BMI has more to do with what your body can and should handle than it does with how you LOOK. If you think you LOOK fine at 29% body fat, no one is telling you you are wrong. You are, however, putting a very unnecessary strain on your internal organs because they have to work harder to feed and maintain all of that extra body weight. There are more specific charts than the normal "calculators" you find online, and I think the best one I have found is by Metlife. It tells you how to gage whether you have a small, average or large bone structure, and then calculates your BMI based on THAT figure, followed by a chart of whether you are in a healthy range or not.
I would strongly suggest that people not base their health on how they look. Some of the healthiest looking people in the world are in hospital beds with post op wounds for heart disease, organ failure and pre-cancerous/cancerous issues because they didn't keep an eye on this and on what kind of food they were eating. Just because you look "okay" in your own opinion, doesn't mean you are. It's good to know these things and to take steps to get yourself there.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
I think you are getting body fat and BMI mixed up in that first part. 29% BF for a woman is in the healthy range, BMI does not take body fat into consideration at all. Two totally different things.
And you don't get cancer from poor eating habits.
You do get cancer from poor eating habits, actually. Soda, preservatives, especially artificial sweeteners, and most of the processed foods you get in drive thru's, restaurants, frozen food aisles and anywhere generally create serious problems with long term consequences. I'm not saying diet is COMPLETELY responsible for cancer of all types, but for many types it has a major part in it.
And overweight is defined as a BMI >25kg/m2, where as obese is defined as a body mass index (BMI) >30kg/m2. It varies by your age, height, sex, and bone structure. I'm 5'7" and 26 years old, and my "average" BMI is considered 22-23%. 29% would be extremely overweight for me, bordering or crossing the brink into obesity. I'm currently sitting at 20%.0 -
I'll only say it once: the long and short of it is that BMI has more to do with what your body can and should handle than it does with how you LOOK. If you think you LOOK fine at 29% body fat, no one is telling you you are wrong. You are, however, putting a very unnecessary strain on your internal organs because they have to work harder to feed and maintain all of that extra body weight. There are more specific charts than the normal "calculators" you find online, and I think the best one I have found is by Metlife. It tells you how to gage whether you have a small, average or large bone structure, and then calculates your BMI based on THAT figure, followed by a chart of whether you are in a healthy range or not.
I would strongly suggest that people not base their health on how they look. Some of the healthiest looking people in the world are in hospital beds with post op wounds for heart disease, organ failure and pre-cancerous/cancerous issues because they didn't keep an eye on this and on what kind of food they were eating. Just because you look "okay" in your own opinion, doesn't mean you are. It's good to know these things and to take steps to get yourself there.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
I think you are getting body fat and BMI mixed up in that first part. 29% BF for a woman is in the healthy range, BMI does not take body fat into consideration at all. Two totally different things.
And you don't get cancer from poor eating habits.
You do get cancer from poor eating habits, actually. Soda, preservatives, especially artificial sweeteners, and most of the processed foods you get in drive thru's, restaurants, frozen food aisles and anywhere generally create serious problems with long term consequences. I'm not saying diet is COMPLETELY responsible for cancer of all types, but for many types it has a major part in it.
And overweight is defined as a BMI >25kg/m2, where as obese is defined as a body mass index (BMI) >30kg/m2. It varies by your age, height, sex, and bone structure. I'm 5'7" and 26 years old, and my "average" BMI is considered 22-23%. 29% would be extremely overweight for me, bordering or crossing the brink into obesity. I'm currently sitting at 20%.
Smh0 -
I'll only say it once: the long and short of it is that BMI has more to do with what your body can and should handle than it does with how you LOOK. If you think you LOOK fine at 29% body fat, no one is telling you you are wrong. You are, however, putting a very unnecessary strain on your internal organs because they have to work harder to feed and maintain all of that extra body weight. There are more specific charts than the normal "calculators" you find online, and I think the best one I have found is by Metlife. It tells you how to gage whether you have a small, average or large bone structure, and then calculates your BMI based on THAT figure, followed by a chart of whether you are in a healthy range or not.
I would strongly suggest that people not base their health on how they look. Some of the healthiest looking people in the world are in hospital beds with post op wounds for heart disease, organ failure and pre-cancerous/cancerous issues because they didn't keep an eye on this and on what kind of food they were eating. Just because you look "okay" in your own opinion, doesn't mean you are. It's good to know these things and to take steps to get yourself there.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
I think you are getting body fat and BMI mixed up in that first part. 29% BF for a woman is in the healthy range, BMI does not take body fat into consideration at all. Two totally different things.
And you don't get cancer from poor eating habits.
You do get cancer from poor eating habits, actually. Soda, preservatives, especially artificial sweeteners, and most of the processed foods you get in drive thru's, restaurants, frozen food aisles and anywhere generally create serious problems with long term consequences. I'm not saying diet is COMPLETELY responsible for cancer of all types, but for many types it has a major part in it.
And overweight is defined as a BMI >25kg/m2, where as obese is defined as a body mass index (BMI) >30kg/m2. It varies by your age, height, sex, and bone structure. I'm 5'7" and 26 years old, and my "average" BMI is considered 22-23%. 29% would be extremely overweight for me, bordering or crossing the brink into obesity. I'm currently sitting at 20%.
Smh
LOL at what? The fact that you can't put a percentage on every woman in the world without a formula? Or at the theory that a diet heavy in hormones and foods your body can't physically process could possibly lead to cancerous cells? I'm not sure why that's so hard to believe. I mean, absorbing the same chemicals through long term exposure in a work setting or drinking water tainted with the same stuff has lead to law suits in this country for almost a century.0 -
I'll only say it once: the long and short of it is that BMI has more to do with what your body can and should handle than it does with how you LOOK. If you think you LOOK fine at 29% body fat, no one is telling you you are wrong. You are, however, putting a very unnecessary strain on your internal organs because they have to work harder to feed and maintain all of that extra body weight. There are more specific charts than the normal "calculators" you find online, and I think the best one I have found is by Metlife. It tells you how to gage whether you have a small, average or large bone structure, and then calculates your BMI based on THAT figure, followed by a chart of whether you are in a healthy range or not.
I would strongly suggest that people not base their health on how they look. Some of the healthiest looking people in the world are in hospital beds with post op wounds for heart disease, organ failure and pre-cancerous/cancerous issues because they didn't keep an eye on this and on what kind of food they were eating. Just because you look "okay" in your own opinion, doesn't mean you are. It's good to know these things and to take steps to get yourself there.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
I think you are getting body fat and BMI mixed up in that first part. 29% BF for a woman is in the healthy range, BMI does not take body fat into consideration at all. Two totally different things.
And you don't get cancer from poor eating habits.
You do get cancer from poor eating habits, actually. Soda, preservatives, especially artificial sweeteners, and most of the processed foods you get in drive thru's, restaurants, frozen food aisles and anywhere generally create serious problems with long term consequences. I'm not saying diet is COMPLETELY responsible for cancer of all types, but for many types it has a major part in it.
And overweight is defined as a BMI >25kg/m2, where as obese is defined as a body mass index (BMI) >30kg/m2. It varies by your age, height, sex, and bone structure. I'm 5'7" and 26 years old, and my "average" BMI is considered 22-23%. 29% would be extremely overweight for me, bordering or crossing the brink into obesity. I'm currently sitting at 20%.
Smh
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/dietandphysicalactivity/diet-and-physical-activity0 -
I had the opposite problem. When I hit a healthy weight range at 122 pounds I automatically expected clothes to fit and to look aesthetic in the mirror. But at a BMI of 24 I still had a lot of excess poundage on my body, enough to make my jogging days harder. I'd say I started to feel healthy as I got around 110 pounds (around a BMI of 22 - 23).
I also take issue with waist / hip ratios for women with athletic, leaner builds. Since dropping 50 pounds my hip / waist ratio has gone up to .87 because I lost so much on my hips, and not quite as much on my waist. I am continuing to lean out but I'm pretty sure that my heart disease risk is much lower than when I was obese with a WHR of .840 -
No because the numbers you get by calculating your BMI have nothing to do with body fat%
You can have a BMI of 22 but have BF % of 29
And I'm not touching the cancer thing anymore, I've had a lot of very health conscious people in my life die of cancer that ate the food they grew and animals they raised, not processed crap, so to say that a poor diet causes cancer seems a bit irresponsible. ANYONE at ANYTIME can get cancer.0 -
No because the numbers you get by calculating your BMI have nothing to do with body fat%
You can have a BMI of 22 but have BF % of 29
And I'm not touching the cancer thing anymore, I've had a lot of very health conscious people in my life die of cancer that ate the food they grew and animals they raised, not processed crap, so to say that a poor diet causes cancer seems a bit irresponsible. ANYONE at ANYTIME can get cancer.
I never said ANYONE could not get it. I said there are people out there who are in hospitals with these conditions. I understand you're sensitive about it, but this is not a personal thing and was never meant as such.0 -
Anyway, here's the Met life chart I was talking about earlier with the chart describing how to figure out what size bone structure you have. It's pretty interesting info. I'll go ahead and disclaim and say this is not the ONLY theory out there about this, but it does give more insight than a lot of the calculators out there today. You measure your bone structure at your elbow.
http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heightweightchart.htm#frame
^This one's better than the OP. Like I said, this is a theory, not a law. See a doc, do your own research, whatev. But I have found it to be pretty accurate for me personally.0 -
I had the opposite problem. When I hit a healthy weight range at 122 pounds I automatically expected clothes to fit and to look aesthetic in the mirror. But at a BMI of 24 I still had a lot of excess poundage on my body, enough to make my jogging days harder. I'd say I started to feel healthy as I got around 110 pounds (around a BMI of 22 - 23).
I also take issue with waist / hip ratios for women with athletic, leaner builds. Since dropping 50 pounds my hip / waist ratio has gone up to .87 because I lost so much on my hips, and not quite as much on my waist. I am continuing to lean out but I'm pretty sure that my heart disease risk is much lower than when I was obese with a WHR of .84
Good freakin' job dropping 50 lbs! That's a pretty substantial victory!
0 -
I feel like my BMI is unrealistic. I'm 5'6" and 155 and I'm overweight. I don't feel or look overweight in my opinion, but I am still striving to look better. However I feel like I'm at least average weight... Such is not the case according to BMI. 154.9 is average. Still working on meeting that goal.0
-
Are people seriously suggesting that even a quarter of the 33% (1/3rd!) of Americans classified as obese (not overweight, obese) are athletes (!) or 'big boned'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_obesity
(Lest it occurs to anyone to bring ethnicity into things, there's a similar distribution of groups in Canada, which has an obesity rate of 23% - still not great, but shows a 10% difference. One could also look to people's countries of origin to make comparisons. Look at the bloody maps.)0 -
I think body fat percentage is more important than weight, honestly. Once I hit a certain point in my fitness routine, I stop losing weight and start gaining it because I build muscle in place of fat. I continue losing inches off of my waist, thighs and neck, but I usually gain anywhere between 2 and 7 pounds in the process. Once you've started toning your body after weightloss, I think fat percent is more attention-worthy than weight.0
-
I think body fat percentage is more important than weight, honestly. Once I hit a certain point in my fitness routine, I stop losing weight and start gaining it because I build muscle in place of fat. I continue losing inches off of my waist, thighs and neck, but I usually gain anywhere between 2 and 7 pounds in the process. Once you've started toning your body after weightloss, I think fat percent is more attention-worthy than weight.
I agree, and bf% is the main thing generally. But I will not be easily convinced that even 1/4th of the 33% of Americans who are obese all have ideal or even normal bf%, and that the real problem is their massive biceps aren't being properly accounted for.
Trying to say there is definitely a problem with a shift in perception, among other things.0 -
I think body fat percentage is more important than weight, honestly. Once I hit a certain point in my fitness routine, I stop losing weight and start gaining it because I build muscle in place of fat. I continue losing inches off of my waist, thighs and neck, but I usually gain anywhere between 2 and 7 pounds in the process. Once you've started toning your body after weightloss, I think fat percent is more attention-worthy than weight.
I agree, and bf% is the main thing generally. But I will not be easily convinced that even 1/4th of the 33% of Americans who are obese all have ideal or even normal bf%, and that their real problem is too much muscle.
Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of slightly disturbing images floating around of a nation more likely to accept unhealthy weights and out of shape bodies than to strive for health and wellness. I'm also seeing a lot of "skinny" shaming happening lately which is uncalled for, imho. I'm not saying they're bad people, but I AM saying that the bar should not be lowered because there are more people now who refuse to reach it than there used to be. Curves are gorgeous! Being overweight or morbidly obese is really not.0 -
I think body fat percentage is more important than weight, honestly. Once I hit a certain point in my fitness routine, I stop losing weight and start gaining it because I build muscle in place of fat. I continue losing inches off of my waist, thighs and neck, but I usually gain anywhere between 2 and 7 pounds in the process. Once you've started toning your body after weightloss, I think fat percent is more attention-worthy than weight.
I agree, and bf% is the main thing generally. But I will not be easily convinced that even 1/4th of the 33% of Americans who are obese all have ideal or even normal bf%, and that their real problem is too much muscle.
Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of slightly disturbing images floating around of a nation more likely to accept unhealthy weights and out of shape bodies than to strive for health and wellness. I'm also seeing a lot of "skinny" shaming happening lately which is uncalled for, imho. I'm not saying they're bad people, but I AM saying that the bar should not be lowered because there are more people now who refuse to reach it than there used to be. Curves are gorgeous! Being overweight or morbidly obese is really not.
Agree again! Well, I think it would be hard not to want to resist a beauty ideal that is so difficult for people to get anywhere near. That 33% of Americans wouldn't be obese if society didn't make it so easy. Even just walking is not something modern US work arrangements and city design support.
If everyone around you, where you live, work, & study looks so completely different from the most common examples of mid-range BMI (distorted images of celebrities), 'normal' bmi must feel like an unreal thing.0 -
BMI is usually only unrealistic for those who are extremely muscular or have a warped perception of what would be good for their body or willingness to put in the effort needed to achieve a normal BMI. The range is so wide of what is a normal BMI that there are very few people who don't fit into normal at a good weight.
It might feel unrealistic now but your perceptions might change as you lose weight!0 -
I think body fat percentage is more important than weight, honestly. Once I hit a certain point in my fitness routine, I stop losing weight and start gaining it because I build muscle in place of fat. I continue losing inches off of my waist, thighs and neck, but I usually gain anywhere between 2 and 7 pounds in the process. Once you've started toning your body after weightloss, I think fat percent is more attention-worthy than weight.
I agree, and bf% is the main thing generally. But I will not be easily convinced that even 1/4th of the 33% of Americans who are obese all have ideal or even normal bf%, and that their real problem is too much muscle.
Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of slightly disturbing images floating around of a nation more likely to accept unhealthy weights and out of shape bodies than to strive for health and wellness. I'm also seeing a lot of "skinny" shaming happening lately which is uncalled for, imho. I'm not saying they're bad people, but I AM saying that the bar should not be lowered because there are more people now who refuse to reach it than there used to be. Curves are gorgeous! Being overweight or morbidly obese is really not.
Agree again! Well, I think it would be hard not to want to resist a beauty ideal that is so difficult for people to get anywhere near. That 33% of Americans wouldn't be obese if society didn't make it so easy. Even just walking is not something modern US work arrangements and city design support.
If everyone around you, where you live, work, & study looks so completely different from the most common examples of mid-range BMI (distorted images of celebrities), 'normal' bmi must feel like an unreal thing.
Excellent point. But instead of saying "this is the new OK," we should be figuring out ways to change the norm to better fit a healthier lifestyle. I see this beginning (painfully) slowly in several areas around the US. I'm hoping it takes off in a very good direction soon.0 -
Reading this thread it seems that some people are confused on the purpose of the BMI scale is. It is not designed to give specific tailored information for every individual. It is a broad brush approach based on averages of the general population at large. It is simple to use so that it can be used without any specialist equipment and is a good general guide if your not a body builder or International Rugby player. Use it for what it is a guide and in all likelihood you should fit within their weight ranges but weight is not the only measure of health it is just one of the many aspects of it.0
-
I think body fat percentage is more important than weight, honestly. Once I hit a certain point in my fitness routine, I stop losing weight and start gaining it because I build muscle in place of fat. I continue losing inches off of my waist, thighs and neck, but I usually gain anywhere between 2 and 7 pounds in the process. Once you've started toning your body after weightloss, I think fat percent is more attention-worthy than weight.
I agree, and bf% is the main thing generally. But I will not be easily convinced that even 1/4th of the 33% of Americans who are obese all have ideal or even normal bf%, and that their real problem is too much muscle.
Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of slightly disturbing images floating around of a nation more likely to accept unhealthy weights and out of shape bodies than to strive for health and wellness. I'm also seeing a lot of "skinny" shaming happening lately which is uncalled for, imho. I'm not saying they're bad people, but I AM saying that the bar should not be lowered because there are more people now who refuse to reach it than there used to be. Curves are gorgeous! Being overweight or morbidly obese is really not.
Agree again! Well, I think it would be hard not to want to resist a beauty ideal that is so difficult for people to get anywhere near. That 33% of Americans wouldn't be obese if society didn't make it so easy. Even just walking is not something modern US work arrangements and city design support.
If everyone around you, where you live, work, & study looks so completely different from the most common examples of mid-range BMI (distorted images of celebrities), 'normal' bmi must feel like an unreal thing.
Excellent point. But instead of saying "this is the new OK," we should be figuring out ways to change the norm to better fit a healthier lifestyle. I see this beginning (painfully) slowly in several areas around the US. I'm hoping it takes off in a very good direction soon.
I hope so too. I think a lot of it will have to come, as you suggest, through cultural conversations, because people are so attached to what they think of as freedom from government regulation (around cars/roads, calorie counts on menus, whatever). Which makes things a million times harder for any individual, especially once they've gained weight.
But change is happening, as you point out
And MFP and other sites like it are part of it. I think apps have made it easier for a lot of people to feel more in control of their food intake. And talk to others 0 -
No because the numbers you get by calculating your BMI have nothing to do with body fat%
You can have a BMI of 22 but have BF % of 29
And I'm not touching the cancer thing anymore, I've had a lot of very health conscious people in my life die of cancer that ate the food they grew and animals they raised, not processed crap, so to say that a poor diet causes cancer seems a bit irresponsible. ANYONE at ANYTIME can get cancer.
And also, is it just a coincidence that my BMI is the same thing as my body fat percentage? Because I don't think it is... BMI is a measure of your body fat percentage based on your age, height and weight.
This is STRAIGHT from the Mayo Clinic website:
"Body mass index (BMI) is a formula that uses weight and height to estimate body fat. Excess body fat is related to serious health conditions. For most people, BMI provides a reasonable estimate of body fat. The BMI's biggest weakness is that it doesn't consider individual factors such as bone or muscle mass."
And that's what I meant about finding out what size your bone structure is. With the Metlife chart or something like it. See what I'm getting at there? Where are you getting this "the numbers have nothing to do with fat percentage" from?0 -
'BMI doesn't figure in cup size either. I read that a woman with D or DD breasts is carrying an extra 8-10 pounds of weight. Since you can't lose weight from your breasts (once they're down to their natural size, of course), worrying about those extra few pounds isn't worth it. The only way to lose that weight would be a surgical reduction. Nobody can blame you for being heavier in the chest.
Whoever told you that you can't lose weight in your breasts once they are natural size was kidding right? All my life, even when I was 14 & skinny as hell I had big boobs. We are talking BIG. Now that I'm down to the same weight I was back then my boobs are way way way smaller than "natural" size for me. I've lost a huge amount from there.
I don't know where some people get BS from. Seriously...boobs are made of fat...once the fat goes unless you have built up the muscle under it......... ummm sorry but your getting smaller.0 -
I think body fat percentage is more important than weight, honestly. Once I hit a certain point in my fitness routine, I stop losing weight and start gaining it because I build muscle in place of fat. I continue losing inches off of my waist, thighs and neck, but I usually gain anywhere between 2 and 7 pounds in the process. Once you've started toning your body after weightloss, I think fat percent is more attention-worthy than weight.
I agree, and bf% is the main thing generally. But I will not be easily convinced that even 1/4th of the 33% of Americans who are obese all have ideal or even normal bf%, and that their real problem is too much muscle.
Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of slightly disturbing images floating around of a nation more likely to accept unhealthy weights and out of shape bodies than to strive for health and wellness. I'm also seeing a lot of "skinny" shaming happening lately which is uncalled for, imho. I'm not saying they're bad people, but I AM saying that the bar should not be lowered because there are more people now who refuse to reach it than there used to be. Curves are gorgeous! Being overweight or morbidly obese is really not.
Agree again! Well, I think it would be hard not to want to resist a beauty ideal that is so difficult for people to get anywhere near. That 33% of Americans wouldn't be obese if society didn't make it so easy. Even just walking is not something modern US work arrangements and city design support.
If everyone around you, where you live, work, & study looks so completely different from the most common examples of mid-range BMI (distorted images of celebrities), 'normal' bmi must feel like an unreal thing.
Excellent point. But instead of saying "this is the new OK," we should be figuring out ways to change the norm to better fit a healthier lifestyle. I see this beginning (painfully) slowly in several areas around the US. I'm hoping it takes off in a very good direction soon.
I hope so too. I think a lot of it will have to come, as you suggest, through cultural conversations, because people are so attached to what they think of as freedom from government regulation (around cars/roads, calorie counts on menus, whatever). Which makes things a million times harder for any individual, especially once they've gained weight.
But change is happening, as you point out
And MFP and other sites like it are part of it. I think apps have made it easier for a lot of people to feel more in control of their food intake. And talk to others
Ya. This site is pretty bad ayse. 0 -
Ya. This site is pretty bad ayse.
Agree again! 0 -
<--- 5'9" 170lbs BMI lists me as overweight.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 424 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