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.

What is a good weight?

Options
MicheletteLew
MicheletteLew Posts: 9 Member
in Debate Club
Recently I saw a blog, I think on FaceBook where the couple do it are supposed to be fitness gurus. some of their stuff was pretty interesting - but then came THIS - the woman said she was heavy at 5'8" and 135 lbs when she went on her diet!!!!! And now she is fit at 119 lbs! Excuse me? When I was in my 20s I was told I was underweight at 5'3" and 115 lbs! And I was - bones sticking out everywhere. How can this woman say she is healthy at this weight?
Opinions?

Replies

  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    As it's already been mentioned, I think a good weight is going to vary depending on one's build. I'm the same height (5'8") and hover around the underweight/normal weight cutoff. If I intentionally and quickly tried to get up to 135 lbs without doing any resistance training, that would just lead to unnecessary fat gain. However, I'm young, have a small build, and also have more muscle than what would be the norm for a guy my size.
  • ReaderGirl3
    ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    MicheletteLew wrote: »
    Recently I saw a blog, I think on FaceBook where the couple do it are supposed to be fitness gurus. some of their stuff was pretty interesting - but then came THIS - the woman said she was heavy at 5'8" and 135 lbs when she went on her diet!!!!! And now she is fit at 119 lbs! Excuse me? When I was in my 20s I was told I was underweight at 5'3" and 115 lbs! And I was - bones sticking out everywhere. How can this woman say she is healthy at this weight?
    Opinions?

    She'd have an underweight bmi with the lower weight, so that's interesting that it was her goal.

    I know there's controversy with bmi, but I've found it to be a good rule of thumb for myself personally. I feel the best when my bmi is around 20. I've been lower than that (18.5 is the cut off for the healthy range and I got down to around 19), and I purposely gained to get back up to 20ish. Now I'm hovering around 21 and I'm working on getting back down to 20 (124lbs).

    At some point it comes down to personal preference-we all have an idea of where we look/feel best and that's subjective. I wouldn't recommend going below a healthy bmi but there's a pretty wide healthy range that gives people wiggle room.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    jholland927 wrote: »
    As a registered nurse, and after many discussions with dieticians and bariatric doctors, there is a consensus: BMI is garbage and meaningless. When Arnold Shchwarzenegger won Mr. Olympia, his BMI would have said he was obese. Laughable, at best.

    In my honest opinion, a person's health is not measured in weight, BMI, or even body fat percentage. Instead, it is measured in how active you can be and not become overly fatigued, how well you maintain blood sugars, and any presence of disease state (i.e. high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart diseases, sleep apnea).

    We fool ourselves into believing that health is measured on the scale. When in reality, that's the method that the insurance company uses (and we probably all know what a bunch of crooks the insurance companies are).



    BMI is not garbage. It is a fairly reliable indicator. It is not meant to diagnose.
    Yes, there are outliers. But the vast majority who fall outside the healthy range also fail other measures.

    "A high BMI can be an indicator of high body fatness. BMI can be used as a screening tool but is not diagnostic of the body fatness or health of an individual.

    To determine if a high BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider would need to perform further assessments. These assessments might include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, family history, and other appropriate health screenings."

    http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html

    ETA - I'm guessing that Mr. Olympia would have failed the initial BMI test but passed the others.
  • feisty_bucket
    feisty_bucket Posts: 1,047 Member
    Options
    MicheletteLew wrote: »
    How can this woman say she is healthy at this weight?

    We don't know from that limited info. A much more useful metric is bodyfat %.

    Intro:
    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/measure_up_body_fat.htm

    If she's over 30%, she should cut. Above the "essential fat" range, all good.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    I'm 5"8 and 143lbs is my goal weight, any lower than that and I start to look sick and gaunt.
  • BodyByBex
    BodyByBex Posts: 3,685 Member
    Options
    sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
    jholland927 wrote: »
    As a registered nurse, and after many discussions with dieticians and bariatric doctors, there is a consensus: BMI is garbage and meaningless. When Arnold Shchwarzenegger won Mr. Olympia, his BMI would have said he was obese. Laughable, at best.

    In my honest opinion, a person's health is not measured in weight, BMI, or even body fat percentage. Instead, it is measured in how active you can be and not become overly fatigued, how well you maintain blood sugars, and any presence of disease state (i.e. high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart diseases, sleep apnea).

    We fool ourselves into believing that health is measured on the scale. When in reality, that's the method that the insurance company uses (and we probably all know what a bunch of crooks the insurance companies are).



    Your opinion is at odds with the strong correlation between weight (and the better correlation between body fat percentage) and health. Granted, there are flaws with BMI but it is a very good starting point for an analysis.

    As for the reference to Arnold he had a very low body fat percentage and high muscle mass, and these factors were so extreme as to place him at the absolute top of the bodybuilding community so much so that he won Mr. Olympia 7 times, and people like you are still talking about him. To put it mildly, he is an extreme outlier.

    I used BMI because, like I said, it's a very good starting point for an analysis. Successful runners are often at the very low end of BMI or even below the "healthy" BMI range. Successful bodybuilders will be over the top of that range. Of course, BMI works just fine for the average couch potato. I wonder where someone complaining about some random fit person on FB would come in?

    All of this.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    jholland927 wrote: »
    As a registered nurse, and after many discussions with dieticians and bariatric doctors, there is a consensus: BMI is garbage and meaningless. When Arnold Shchwarzenegger won Mr. Olympia, his BMI would have said he was obese. Laughable, at best.

    In my honest opinion, a person's health is not measured in weight, BMI, or even body fat percentage. Instead, it is measured in how active you can be and not become overly fatigued, how well you maintain blood sugars, and any presence of disease state (i.e. high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart diseases, sleep apnea).

    We fool ourselves into believing that health is measured on the scale. When in reality, that's the method that the insurance company uses (and we probably all know what a bunch of crooks the insurance companies are).

    Arnold and other high level athletes are special snowflakes. BMI is a good indication of obesity for 85%+ of the population

    Anyone saying different is in denial IMO.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    I don't think this is a debate topic really. It clearly depends on the person and the person's build.

    My sister has been 5'3 and 110 and looked good. She's 5'3, 115 now and looks good also (she has a bit more muscle too). I would look fine at 5'3, 115, although I am aiming for 118 based on body fat calculations/goals--yes, not that different--and would like to build muscle so probably increase from there. (I've been 120 and though I looked fine I wasn't especially thin and I definitely have some fat to lose at 125 now, although I'm having trouble caring enough to get motivated to lose it.) I probably have a smaller build than you do, that's all.

    My former trainer was my height and more like 135 -- she was much more muscular and probably looked thinner than I did at 120. Anyway, she looked great.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    MicheletteLew wrote: »
    Recently I saw a blog, I think on FaceBook where the couple do it are supposed to be fitness gurus. some of their stuff was pretty interesting - but then came THIS - the woman said she was heavy at 5'8" and 135 lbs when she went on her diet!!!!! And now she is fit at 119 lbs! Excuse me? When I was in my 20s I was told I was underweight at 5'3" and 115 lbs! And I was - bones sticking out everywhere. How can this woman say she is healthy at this weight?
    Opinions?

    Truthfully, that person was factually wrong. You were still 11 lbs above the official threshold for being underweight at 5' 3".

    Perhaps that weight did not look good on you because of the way your fat is distributed. Perhaps it did look good on you and you had the same experience many here have had where people are telling you you're too thin when you aren't and don't look it. It doesn't really matter. As long as you were healthy and pleased enough with your weight than that's where you should have been.

    Once someone drops into official underweight territory, they should check in with their doctor to make sure they're healthy and not deluding themselves or unknowingly causing themselves harm. The person you're talking about falls in this category. That said, BMI is not exact. She may be an outlier and be perfectly fit and healthy at 119 lbs. But she definitely should check in with a doctor if she hasn't already to verify.
  • PiperGirl08
    PiperGirl08 Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    MicheletteLew wrote: »
    Recently I saw a blog, I think on FaceBook where the couple do it are supposed to be fitness gurus. some of their stuff was pretty interesting - but then came THIS - the woman said she was heavy at 5'8" and 135 lbs when she went on her diet!!!!! And now she is fit at 119 lbs! Excuse me? When I was in my 20s I was told I was underweight at 5'3" and 115 lbs! And I was - bones sticking out everywhere. How can this woman say she is healthy at this weight?
    Opinions?

    Wow, really? When I rowed in college, my race weight for lightweight was 118. When I rowed flyweight, I raced at 115. I'm 5'6. I was lean, not skinny.

    Our coxswains were in the 5'3 range and we wanted them at or under 110. 5'3, 115 = not exactly skin and bones, at least not in my world.

    Personally, regarding the woman in the article, I would hope that a so-called fitness guru would look the part, i.e. be on the leaner, rather than softer side of body comp.

Categories