If You Ate Whatever you wanted, no excersize, what do you think would be your stable bmi/ weight?

cloudi2 wrote: »

Hi emdeesa, how old are you?

I'm 43.

Probably BMI 26 (161lbs), which in itself is still a respectable weight range, IMO. That's where I ended up after quitting my physical job to be a housewife (and a terrible housekeeper, so I was less than sedentary ). I always ate what I wanted, and was always slender to average, as long as I was active (walking/owned no car, on my feet/lifting/walking 8 hrs/day, etc.).

So, clearly I *can* maintain a "naturally" slim weight, but my appetite and food preferences dictate that I be an active person to maintain an average weight range. Take away the activity, and I'd carry a little extra, assuming I ate to my appetite, no care to calories.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100128091740.htm

I admit I only skimmed this article but yeah, I remember being taught this a bit in nursing school, that older people who have some weight on them fare better healthwise than those who are obese to morbidly obese and those who are rail thin.

The idea we were taught is that if you have some fat on you, you have some fallback if you become ill and for some reason can't eat. If you end up in the hospital on parenteral nutrition, you've got some fat stores to fall back on. You've also got some cushioning for those frailer bones.

I maintained for about 3 years at about 200-205lbs (before that I was 14 so I probably didn't weigh that much - I'm just guessing there, though). I didn't overeat that much day-to-day, so I maintained. I just had 'treat' days where I'd consume a hell of a lot of calories so I'd gain maybe a couple lbs every year. I crawled up to 211lbs once I was put on steroids at 18 back in April because it made me more hungry so I ate more. I started MFP in June last year so I don't know how much I would have gained otherwise... now down 47lbs

emdeesea wrote: »

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100128091740.htm

I admit I only skimmed this article but yeah, I remember being taught this a bit in nursing school, that older people who have some weight on them fare better healthwise than those who are obese to morbidly obese and those who are rail thin.

The idea we were taught is that if you have some fat on you, you have some fallback if you become ill and for some reason can't eat. If you end up in the hospital on parenteral nutrition, you've got some fat stores to fall back on. You've also got some cushioning for those frailer bones.

Thanks. This one was focused on folks over 70, while she mentioned folks in their 50s. Clearly there's a bit left to learn about the aging body. Thanks for linking this.

Okay, the article and the charts prove that people who are obese have a higher likelihood of dying PRIOR to age 70 then people who are overweight or ideal BMI. What the charts show is nothing more then natural course of lives of people(how many?!? IDK he doesn't say). Think about a few things; as we age do we lose muscle mass? Do we stay the same weight? Wouldn't it make sense our BF increases as a function of muscle loss and decrease bone density as we age(age going from 50 to 75)? What else happens during the years of 70 to 75? People begin slowing down physically. They move less, sit more, and would be classified sedentary. Who knew? Dr Hall hasn't done or shown anything and the study by the Professor in Australia using 9,200 people doesn't reveal anything we didn't already know. Fact: Morbidly obese and obese people classified by BMI have a higher likelihood to be at room temperature(dead i.e.--pushing up daisies, permanently horizontal to the planet) then folks either in the ideal range or low end of overweight according to BMI. Why? They, folks who are morbidly obese or obese, overweight mid to high end range, have a higher likelihood of dying from a stroke, becoming or being diabetic, and heart disease. 2 of 3 of these conditions have a higher death rate then another, but they all lead to an earlier exit then not having these conditions. This has been a PSA provided by a lay person who can read and understand charts and graphs provided by some knucklehead thinking he unearthed some magical secret to BMI.

I was @ 220ish when I was eating what I wanted with no exercise. BF% well into the 30s I last competed at 184, BF 5.5%. 2 1/2 years between.

I would probably go on as I did in the past gaining approximately 10 pounds a year.

Before losing the weight I was at around 302, but I wasn't stable. My activity had decreased substantially so I was still gaining weight. Looking at my average calories consumed if I totally let go, I would be at around 320-340.

If science proved that a bmi in the overweight and above range was not unhealthy in any way, would you keep dieting?

No I wouldn't keep dieting. I was a happy fat person. Sadly this isn't the case for me. The reason I started losing was because I was diagnosed with pre-diabetes and high blood pressure. Losing the weight has taken care of my pre-diabetes and my blood sugar is now in the normal range, and my blood pressure has improved, but it's not in the normal range yet so I will keep going until it is (hopefully)

If I ate out at restaurants like I constantly did, my weigh would gradually rise. If I only ate my own cooked food I'd be around BMI 25. If I worked out and ate my own cooked food, probably a bit less than that.

I expect I would slowly put on a pound a year until I was 172 (BMI 25). That's what I did and where I was for around 5 years. I'm now 150.

But at this point I am eating everything I want, just less of it. I learned the things in my diet that caused me to put that pound a year on and cut them out. They weren't that important to me.