BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?
Options
Replies
-
Lets be honest, most people who are legitimate outliers will know they're outliers. A woman earlier in the thread has a profile picture up of, what I assume, is her with six pack abs on a cut physique. She obviously isn't going to require any guidance by a BMI chart. That she isn't fat is the definition of common sense.
However how typical is this? Really? It seems to me the far more likely perception is that we've become collectively so much larger that our idea of "normal" has likewise shifted up. Which would help explain the incredible backlash against once-normal, lower body weights and a fear/anxiety about thinness.
Again, and this does go well beyond MFP, how are so many claiming to just be naturally bigger, when that simply wasn't the case a couple generations ago?
1960-1962:
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 166.3
1999-2002
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 191.0
Further study into the statistics show that it's middle aged men and women tend to even larger than their mid-20th century counterparts (who were even larger than their earlier 20th century counterparts). And this data is over 10 years old. The weight increase also can't be accounted for the slight increase in height, which is an average of 1 inch.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf0 -
i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Lets be honest, most people who are legitimate outliers will know they're outliers. A woman earlier in the thread has a profile picture up of, what I assume, is her with six pack abs on a cut physique. She obviously isn't going to require any guidance by a BMI chart. That she isn't fat is the definition of common sense.
However how typical is this? Really? It seems to me the far more likely perception is that we've become collectively so much larger that our idea of "normal" has likewise shifted up. Which would help explain the incredible backlash against once-normal, lower body weights and a fear/anxiety about thinness.
Again, and this does go well beyond MFP, how are so many claiming to just be naturally bigger, when that simply wasn't the case a couple generations ago?
1960-1962:
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 166.3
1999-2002
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 191.0
Further study into the statistics show that it's middle aged men and women tend to even larger than their mid-20th century counterparts (who were even larger than their earlier 20th century counterparts). And this data is over 10 years old. The weight increase also can't be accounted for the slight increase in height, which is an average of 1 inch.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf
yeah, the woman earlier in the thread is an extreme outlier, so her saying that is sort of irrelevant to all other women. most women probably can't even look as muscular as she does even if they do lift. she is extreme.0 -
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »I'm wondering how all of you use/interpret BMI. For my height I should be between 97-128 pounds. I'm 5 feet tall and currently 154 pounds. I have a moderate-heavy muscle mass from working on my family's ranch, and genetically I know I'm predisposition-ed to higher protein needs and larger muscles than average for a woman. My ideal weight range for BMI seems like a bad/wrong goal. How would I adjust for my body type/muscling?
Wow, we could be twins. That's my exact Height and weight! I ignore BMI; when I go to my doctor I always ask about it, she knows how anxious I get when it comes to my body/weight, and she always tells me that I look fine and she reminds me that I do weights and dance classes so I mostly have muscle. BMI just takes your height-to-weight in to consideration and not your fat-muscle ratio so don't worry about it. As long as you're eating healthy, keeping up with exercises, you are fine
But, I can also see where you are coming from. When I see the BMI, it is disappointing because I don't want to be categorized as over weight, you know?
For someone who is *starting out* in the working out thing, I would say to start looking at lowering BMI and making a goal to lower it to a certain point but BMI shouldn't be taken as serious, you know? Hope I made sense, I feel like I rambled
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.
i HAVE taken a&p and never came across that. source please?
as for BMI.. it's just a tool. if you're pretty average it's a good goal target. if you are significantly over- or under-muscled it will be wrong, and waist/hip ratio (for women) and body fat % are more meaningful.
You're also 40. The information taught when you were in school is different from the information taught nowadays. It's common sense that the heart has to work harder when a person is overweight or obese which can lead to a number of health complications.
"The more you weigh, the more blood you have flowing through your body. The increased amount of blood means your heart has to pump more blood with each beat. This makes the heart work harder. It stretches and expands. The extra work makes the heart muscle thicker. The thicker the heart muscle gets, the harder it is for it to squeeze and relax. Over time, the heart may not be able to keep up with the load. You may then have heart failure."
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks
http://www.cardiacsolutions.net/obesity_effects_on_the_heart.htm0 -
BMI is a range in order to take into account different body types, etc. Someone with a more athletic build would look weird at the lower end of BMI...someone with a petite build will look weird at the higher end.
It's not meant to be something where you just arbitrarily pick some number in that range...that number may not be appropriate for your body type.
I agree with this. BMI is one of many potential tools for information. But, you would base it upon your own body, and gathering information on your own and with your personal doctor about your body type, your goals/lifestyle, your personal history of weight and size, your family genetics, etc. Even kids on a growth chart will consistently be in a certain place. It's about your personal pattern and wild fluctuations that indicate a change of personal gain or loss.
^^This^^0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.
i HAVE taken a&p and never came across that. source please?
as for BMI.. it's just a tool. if you're pretty average it's a good goal target. if you are significantly over- or under-muscled it will be wrong, and waist/hip ratio (for women) and body fat % are more meaningful.
You're also 40. The information taught when you were in school is different from the information taught nowadays. It's common sense that the heart has to work harder when a person is overweight or obese which can lead to a number of health complications.
"The more you weigh, the more blood you have flowing through your body. The increased amount of blood means your heart has to pump more blood with each beat. This makes the heart work harder. It stretches and expands. The extra work makes the heart muscle thicker. The thicker the heart muscle gets, the harder it is for it to squeeze and relax. Over time, the heart may not be able to keep up with the load. You may then have heart failure."
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks
http://www.cardiacsolutions.net/obesity_effects_on_the_heart.htm
Being overweight definitely puts a strain in your organs! But, just because someone is 'categorized' as overweight or obese on the BMI (body mass index)scale, does not mean they are unhealthy.
BMI takes into consideration height and weight and not take into consideration body fat, muscle, lifestyle etc. I fall under the over weight category; my heart, cholesterol, everything the doctor checks - is fine and within normal range. I eat healthy and i exercise practically every day (2+hours)..It's just I have a higher percentage of muscle than fat. I'm going to weigh more compared to my height and therefore fall under overweight, but physically, I am fine and normal.
BMI is a tool and can and should be used a resource to become healthier but no one should be obsessed with the BMI scale. I even use the BMI scale to see my progress. I check my BMI once a month to see where I am, where I was, and set goals for my next month BMI check up. It's a tool.
That's my opinion, though.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
I think the original notion of "skinny fat" has merit. It described people who were in a normal BMI range, but who had a high body fat percentage. It's awesome to be reminded that while weight plays a significant role in this story, it's not by any means the only role. It also helps legitimize weight loss goals for those who are "normal" weight, or for those who were overweight and obese it's a good reminder that not even a "normal" weight will necessarily mean you've arrived at a "normal" body fat percentage.
The concept has just been pushed too far. Now I see it commonly being used to refer to people who are just skinny/thin, with normal to low body fat levels. I see it being used to shame people who are a little soft, but far from fat. I see people being told that they HAVE to lift heavy in order to avoid being "skinny fat" or "flabby". I see what was once considered perfectly normal, non-fat bodies being referred to as "skinny fat" for not being lean, athletic, musclar bodies.0 -
As another petite female, it's hard for me to imagine having an extra 26 lbs of muscle. I'm not saying you don't, I just can't picture it. So my question is, what does your doctor tell you?0
-
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.
but i'd assume it's entirely possible to have small wrists, but larger bones elsewhere. my wrists are small, but my ribcage and hips are large/wide. it's bones, it's not fat. the bones stick out.0 -
I wonder about that. I hope that people aren't tacking the word "fat" onto the word "skinny" in an attempt to shame women for not having a lean, athletic body.Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
I think the original notion of "skinny fat" has merit. It described people who were in a normal BMI range, but who had a high body fat percentage. It's awesome to be reminded that while weight plays a significant role in this story, it's not by any means the only role. It also helps legitimize weight loss goals for those who are "normal" weight, or for those who were overweight and obese it's a good reminder that not even a "normal" weight will necessarily mean you've arrived at a "normal" body fat percentage.
The concept has just been pushed too far. Now I see it commonly being used to refer to people who are just skinny/thin, with normal to low body fat levels. I see it being used to shame people who are a little soft, but far from fat. I see people being told that they HAVE to lift heavy in order to avoid being "skinny fat" or "flabby". I see what was once considered perfectly normal, non-fat bodies being referred to as "skinny fat" for not being lean, athletic, musclar bodies.
I'll take skinny-fat. It's so much better than fat-fat. I don't want to be skinny-muscular, anyway.
Hell, at this point, I'll take thin. Or thin-fat, lol.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
Some people have a smaller frame size, and are healthier at a lower weight. Being low-weight does not always feel great. I was 116 pounds and 5'6" when I was 15, and was the most miserable I have ever been in my life. At a BMI of 18.7, I wasn't quite underweight, however I was tired, cold, and hungry all the time, out of shape, my fingernails were purple and blue due to poor oxygen circulation, and I was socially shunned. I was eating on $40/mth, around 800 calories a day from Mars bars and sunflower seeds, so I was suffering from malnutrition. Being skinny isn't a magical formula for health and happiness.
Right now I am obese (BMI of 30) and feel healthier than I ever have. I can do sit ups and push ups, get into the plow, jog for 1/2 hour steadily, keep up with my kids, have energy through a 2 hour karate class, and be refreshed after 7-8 hours sleep. I'm regular (was not at 116 pounds), my blood pressure and blood sugar levels are healthy, and my mood is generally stable, positive, and optimistic (was not at 116 pounds).
Being underweight can make your heart fail. People who are underweight (under 18.5 BMI) are at higher risk of slow healing, impaired immune system (sick more often and for longer), thin bones, heart attacks, infertility, and heart arrhythmias.
The healthy weight for any individual is unique, based on genetics, development, and activity levels. That's why BMI has weight ranges that span dozens of pounds per inch. I'm glad you and your Dr have found a healthy range for you, but there's probably 5,999,999,999 people on the planet that it won't work for. They aren't necessarily at or aiming at an unhealthy weight, they just aren't you.
Good luck on your continuing journey
0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.
but i'd assume it's entirely possible to have small wrists, but larger bones elsewhere. my wrists are small, but my ribcage and hips are large/wide. it's bones, it's not fat. the bones stick out.
So your wrists are small in terms of body frame? I.e. under 5.5" if you are less than 5'2", under 6" if you are 5'2" to 5'5", and under 6.25" if you are over 5'5"?0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.
http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
I've lost 100 pounds, and my wrists haven't changed (even though I've lost 13 inches from my hips). And yes, I measured them to calculate body fat percentage and figure out goal weight. Wrists don't change that much, that's why they are the standard for estimating frame size.
but i'd assume it's entirely possible to have small wrists, but larger bones elsewhere. my wrists are small, but my ribcage and hips are large/wide. it's bones, it's not fat. the bones stick out.
So your wrists are small in terms of body frame? I.e. under 5.5" if you are less than 5'2", under 6" if you are 5'2" to 5'5", and under 6.25" if you are over 5'5"?
pretty sure. i'll have to measure them when i get home, but the method of wrapping your fingers around your wrist seems small to me.0 -
NoelFigart1 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
What also is interesting is a lot of the men regulars here say they're so against 1200 calorie diets because so many young women here use it to try to get to unhealthily low weights. Yet they also often say BMI is useless at the individual level. What other tools do we have to give evidence to these young girls that their goal is unhealthy?WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Body fat percentage is much, MUCH better. Though I concede a significant pain in the *kitten* to get accurate.
Then it's not better.
0 -
My wrist was measured when I started dieting, it was over 6" and I was deemed a "large" frame. 61 lbs. later, it measures 6" and now I am a "medium" frame, but I still am not at goal yet, not even sure where that will be, but I did have 4 links taken out of my watch band when I sent it in for maintenance a few months ago, it was too big and down on my hand.CarrieCans wrote: »
Thanks for the info. I really didn't think there could be that much variation in the wrist area. My wrists hardly change size, 20 lbs down no change here. I am also measuring at the same size i had when i was below my goal weight which would be more than 25 lbs less than i am now. My forearms are another story, they really change.
I have a feeling i am going to be stalking strangers and checking out their wrists from now on lol
0 -
I remember being a child in the 60's and being at elementary school, and most of the Mothers who came to pick their kids up (including my own Mom) were much more overweight/obese than the Moms I see picking up their kids these days. I think you better make that or so another 10 or 20 years because from the mid-50s (or so, lol) people started getting fatter when there were more convenience foods, like those TV dinners in the aluminum tins (actually they were probably closer to the real thing than what you can get now). Most of the adults I knew when I was a child and even a teenager (in the late 70s) were at least overweight, if not obese, at least half my teachers were obese. I guess we must have had very different life experiences. I also remember picking up my own son from school in the 1980s/1990s, and the majority of the women my age/generation were for the most part not even overweight much less obese, I was normal BMI at that time myself, although I feel like I am healthier with even more muscle even if I weigh more now, and even though I have always been muscular and always weighed more than I looked like I did, which always made me get a lot of questions when I was weighed at the Doctor, or weighed twice, or really? You weigh THAT much? Now they are surprised I look as good as I do and am as small as I am although I weigh even more.Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
0 -
perseverance14 wrote: »
I remember being a child in the 60's and being at elementary school, and most of the Mothers who came to pick their kids up (including my own Mom) were much more overweight/obese than the Moms I see picking up their kids these days. I think you better make that or so another 10 or 20 years because from the mid-50s (or so, lol) people started getting fatter when there were more convenience foods, like those TV dinners in the aluminum tins (actually they were probably closer to the real thing than what you can get now). Most of the adults I knew when I was a child and even a teenager (in the late 70s) were at least overweight, if not obese, at least half my teachers were obese. I guess we must have had very different life experiences.Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
I'm pretty sure the statistics are based on national studies of weight and not anyone's personal opinion. People are heavier now than they were in the 60's.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions