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

zarckon wrote: »

Thanks for your interesting question.

I've never eaten everything I wanted, and I've always done at least some exercise. So if I truly gave up on my weight, ate when I was hungry or something looked yummy, and didn't do any exercise with weight loss in mind, I'd probably weigh over 400 lbs. Maybe more, as my ability to exercise "for fun" would decrease over time.

rosebette wrote: »

cloudi2 wrote: »

rosebette wrote: »

It depends what you mean by "no exercise." Do you mean being completely sedentary, or just doing your normal routine and not going to the gym or doing anything extra? If you mean literally no exercise (completely sedentary or just having an office job), I'd probably weigh around 140, which gives me a BMI of around 26.5-27. This is what I weighed when I broke my foot and was sedentary for about 3 months. However, if you just mean no "extra exercise," my weight would probably be around 126-130, BMI between 24-26, not that much heavier than I am now. When I go on vacations and eat what I want, this is typically where my weight goes. But on vacation, I still have some activity since I do a lot of walking and use the pool. Because I teach, I still have a moderate level of activity because I'm walking on a large campus and on my feet most of the day. Except with an injury, I've never done no activity at all.

I meant no extra or formal excersize like gym, running, etc.

Thanks for sharing! So do you diet or keep your calories at a certain level then to maintain this? just letting yourself eat naturally on holidays only?

I have been trying to get down to 115 for a year, but have never been able to maintain a weight below 120. I average between 120-123. I had my BMR tested in November, and it's only around 1136 calories; I have been netting between 1100-1200 (I eat back exercise calories), so you could say I'm "maintaining" on a net of around 1200, or a "gross" of between 1400-1500. If I were to eat whatever I want, I'd probably be eating around 2000 a day; even "uncontrolled," I usually can't finish an average restaurant meal. I'm also 56 years old, which explains the lower BMR and appetite. BTW, I am finding the whole discussion about whether a higher BMI is healthier for people over 50 very interesting. I had tried CRON (Calorie restriction with Optional Nutrition) earlier last year, which is the principle that restricting calories to 20% below BMR promotes longevity. It didn't last very long; I felt weak and tired most of the time. And apparently, the studies that a few folks are posting above disprove the CR for longevity theory.

Holla4mom wrote: »

That's a tough one. I've been gaining about a pound a year since my 20's, and then had a big increase when I changed medications a few years ago. SO, I think I'd weigh about 160 at 40 5'7" and gain 1-2 pounds a year. However, once I started a medication that upped my appetite at night I started eating like a crazy person and gained 25-30 pounds in three years.

smashley_mashley wrote: »

I stabilized and maintained at 204 for about 4 years. I ate what I wanted and exercised in frequent (tennis in the summer and some biking... Not much in winter) At 5'7" I was at bmi of about 31.

zyxst wrote: »

cloudi2 wrote: »

So looks like everyone here is convinced that without dieting and 'formal' out of the ordinary excersize they will become something they can't live with?

Not me. I was much happier mentally when I was over 300#. 2 reasons I decided to drop weight are I got tired of only have 1 pair of pants to wear and my GP saying losing weight would fix my HBP.

jonsmithkidd wrote: »

At my worst I ate roughly 7,000 calories a day. On a weekend this would go up to 10-12,000 calories. I did that for about 5 years and only put on about 15lbs in each of those years, but as my body slowed down it's metabolism, I think I would gain a lot more and at 5'7 probably hit 300lbs within a few years!