We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
I can't reach my calorie count of 1200
Replies
-
cerise_noir wrote: »
In all BMI charts I've viewed, 19 is just at the very top of underweight BMI...
According to the NIH a bmi of 19 is a healthy bmi, below 18.5 is considered underweight.1 -
msalicia116 wrote: »
I'm not intimidated by you or anyone on this thread. I didn't charge in here or do anything but state she should focus on her nutrition, and because her goal is in the healthy range, really other people's opinions (mine included) doesn't matter.
You and your "you can't sit here" mentality because I have a different opinion than you and your friends doesn't phase me. She stated she wanted to lose weight, separate from her bf. Respecting that note, I gave my opinion keeping in mind her goals were in the "healthy range". My goals and preference has nothing to do with her. The only thing that matters was that she was in a healthy range for her goal, and doing it in a healthy way. What you, I, or anyone else went through have nothing to do with her.
You're obviously emotional and spend a lot of time here.
1) She isn't eating 1200 calories, therefor highly unlikely that she is losing in a healthy manner.
2) Whether or not her goals are appropriate is something that should be discussed with her GP. BMI is population measures, and has been demonstrated to be inaccurate/inappropriate for some individuals.
3) OP is 18 and has been in an emotionally/verbally abusive relationship where her self-esteem has been run down for the last 2 years. Her own perceptions of what is an appropriate goal may be skewed.
4) Talking down to people isn't helping the OP.19 -
I'd love to know how anyone can keep chirping "19 is in the healthy range" when it's been pointed out more than once that a BMI below 20 is associated with significant increases in mortality from a range of causes. I suspect "healthy" in this scenario means "pretty to look at" and not much else.18
-
I'd love to know how anyone can keep chirping "19 is in the healthy range" when it's been pointed out more than once that a BMI below 20 is associated with significant increases in mortality from a range of causes. I suspect "healthy" in this scenario means "pretty to look at" and not much else.
In my case, my glucose numbers are directly related to my weight (I have years of of blood tests that show this), and a weight at a lower bmi produces better glucose results. All my other health markers are better at the lower healthy bmi range as well.
1 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »
In my case, my glucose numbers are directly related to my weight (I have years of of blood tests that show this), and a weight at a lower bmi produces better glucose results. All my other health markers are better at the lower healthy bmi range as well.
Respectfully, in your case, with your particular health conditions.
The OP's situation is complicated in an entirely different way.6 -
That sounds like it's directly related to your personal medical issues, @crzycatlady1. With respect, that doesn't mean 19 is in the healthy BMI range; it means you're an outlier.5
-
Lets not forget that the work will truly begin when trying to consistently maintain such a low weight.8
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »
1) She isn't eating 1200 calories, therefor highly unlikely that she is losing in a healthy manner.
2) Whether or not her goals are appropriate is something that should be discussed with her GP. BMI is population measures, and has been demonstrated to be inaccurate/inappropriate for some individuals.
3) OP is 18 and has been in an emotionally/verbally abusive relationship where her self-esteem has been run down for the last 2 years. Her own perceptions of what is an appropriate goal may be skewed.
4) Talking down to people isn't helping the OP.
I don't retract saying her goal ( per the general consensus) is fine if she focuses on nutrition and is doing it for her.
The other issues I refrained from Commenting on because I don't have all the facts, no one here does.
My response is in direct correlation to the manner I was treated. I don't need to be accepted by "the group" before stating an opposing opinion. Besides, I stated there is nothing wrong with saying she doesn't need to lose but should consider recomping. But that it was also important to note her goal was also acceptable. Like it or don't, I don't care either way.2 -
I'd love to know how anyone can keep chirping "19 is in the healthy range" when it's been pointed out more than once that a BMI below 20 is associated with significant increases in mortality from a range of causes. I suspect "healthy" in this scenario means "pretty to look at" and not much else.
Healthy BMI is from 18.5-24.9. Those ailments occur in those who are considered underweight from everything I have read. If I read the reverse, my entire pov on her goal would be showing her the healthy range and suggesting her goal shift slightly to fit that criteria. Not to dismiss her goal entirely.1 -
That sounds like it's directly related to your personal medical issues, @crzycatlady1. With respect, that doesn't mean 19 is in the healthy BMI range; it means you're an outlier.
Even more so since I'm one of the very few people who are successfully maintaining as well, and have have been for several years now. I'm pretty much a special freak snowflake
5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Lets not forget that the work will truly begin when trying to consistently maintain such a low weight.
agreed, tough stuff...but u just gotta do what u need do 2 b personally happy/satisfied1 -
I don't agree that "healthy" and "increased risk of death" are synonymous, @msalicia116. I admire the way you stand up for your opinions, but I don't find them as valid as scientific studies of health at BMI below 20.
@crzycatlady1 That's awesome! Shout your snowflake status from the rooftops -- sounds like you've earned it.
9 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »
Even more so since I'm one of the very few people who are successfully maintaining as well, and have have been for several years now. I'm pretty much a special freak snowflake
That's great!
I'm glad your health markers have improved, and that you are able to maintain.5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
That's great!
I'm glad your health markers have improved, and that you are able to maintain.
Thanks
0 -
I don't agree that "healthy" and "increased risk of death" are synonymous, @msalicia116. I admire the way you stand up for your opinions, but I don't find them as valid as scientific studies of health at BMI below 20.
@crzycatlady1 That's awesome! Shout your snowflake status from the rooftops -- sounds like you've earned it.
I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.2 -
msalicia116 wrote: »I wasn't stating my opinion, I'm not a scientist/expert. I was using the BMI chart stating the healthy BMI range. Nothing more. If that chart changes, which it may in the future, I will always suggest that in regards to goals. And I do my best not to recommend my personal preferences on others. I know we all have our own standards.
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.13 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
That's an awesome explanation!0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
This is great
It's essential to work with your own body alongside BMI.
I lost my period at a BMI of just under 19- still technically within the "healthy" BMI range. Obviously not healthy for me. I'm now BMI 21 and it still hasn't returned, so I'm still trying to gain weight until I'm healthy again- even though I've technically been in a healthy BMI range the whole time.
It's different for different people, and that's so important to remember!
6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
And just to reiterate, the OP is 5'8 so would definitely fit in that tall range for whom those lower BMIs would be unhealthy.
Quibbling over numbers based on such a broad range of averages seems kind of silly when we are dealing with a very young OP who is in an abusive relationship, clearly has body image issues, is struggling to eat a minimum of calories and is going through some tough emotional stuff right now. It seems some (not you @SusanMFindlay ) want to pick a fight with more experienced members over a silly number on a chart, just for the sake of telling this OP that she can make her own decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are in the best emotional and physical interest of OP.
14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
And just to reiterate, the OP is 5'8 so would definitely fit in that tall range for whom those lower BMIs would be unhealthy.
Quibbling over numbers based on such a broad range of averages seems kind of silly when we are dealing with a very young OP who is in an abusive relationship, clearly has body image issues, is struggling to eat a minimum of calories and is going through some tough emotional stuff right now. It seems some (not you @SusanMFindlay ) want to pick a fight with more experienced members over a silly number on a chart, just for the sake of telling this OP that she can make her own decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are in the best emotional and physical interest of OP.WinoGelato wrote: »
And just to reiterate, the OP is 5'8 so would definitely fit in that tall range for whom those lower BMIs would be unhealthy.
Quibbling over numbers based on such a broad range of averages seems kind of silly when we are dealing with a very young OP who is in an abusive relationship, clearly has body image issues, is struggling to eat a minimum of calories and is going through some tough emotional stuff right now. It seems some (not you @SusanMFindlay ) want to pick a fight with more experienced members over a silly number on a chart, just for the sake of telling this OP that she can make her own decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are in the best emotional and physical interest of OP.
Are you for real. You have to be kidding.
You ladies are really something else. Now it's boring and pointless since you didn't even bother to read my pov, and there's obviously some weird petting going on. Oh well.-5 -
msalicia you are now no longer addressing OP's concerns at all.
Thread is about OP's concerns - if you find it boring and pointless please just let those who are giving constructive advice to OP continue to do so.
OP is 5 ft 8 in tall - above average height for a woman.
19 is very lower limit of healthy BMI - almost certainly lower than is healthy for OP.
Moving back to original question.........5 -
No, I didnt see her doing that.
Anyway returning to OP's concerns and not what other posters said to each other...........0 -
Anyway, back to OP's concerns........3
-
msalicia116 wrote: »
I'm not intimidated by you or anyone on this thread. I didn't charge in here or do anything but state she should focus on her nutrition, and because her goal is in the healthy range, really other people's opinions (mine included) doesn't matter.
You and your "you can't sit here" mentality because I have a different opinion than you and your friends doesn't phase me. She stated she wanted to lose weight, separate from her bf. Respecting that note, I gave my opinion keeping in mind her goals were in the "healthy range". My goals and preference has nothing to do with her. The only thing that matters was that she was in a healthy range for her goal, and doing it in a healthy way. What you, I, or anyone else went through have nothing to do with her.
You're obviously emotional and spend a lot of time here.
Thanks for the armchair diagnosis, but... you quite missed the mark, dear.4 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »
According to the NIH a bmi of 19 is a healthy bmi, below 18.5 is considered underweight.
It's healthy because it covers a range of heights and frame sizes. Let's be objective here and get back to the OP and determine if it's healthy for her. She is 5'8" tall and doesn't look like she has the delicate features of someone with a small frame. A 19 BMI wouldn't be appropriate for her. Lower BMIs can be healthy, but they are only healthy for smaller framed people who are, for the most part, shorter.
So, again, going back to the OP, and not talking in generalities, the OP is the one who wants to reach it.
Right now, she said her goal weight in MFP is 135. That's fine, and I'd support her in that if all she wanted to do is lean out.
She's very young and in a fragile place. Let's be real and focus on HER.2 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »
The "healthy" range on the chart was originally 20-25. They lowered the bottom end to 18.5 because, for a small number of short women, 18.5-20 was okay too. It's not okay for the vast majority of tall women (though, like any other statistic, there will be a few outliers).
Why is height relevant? Because BMI doesn't actually scale properly with height. You divide weight (proportional to volume which is proportional to height cubed) by height squared. Basic math shows that, as height increases, height cubed increases faster than height squared. So, as a healthy individual gets taller (e.g. as a teenager), their BMI increases unless they simultaneously get thinner. As such, the real "healthy" range for tall people is higher than the real "healthy" range for short people. But tables for the general public are generally made to be as simple and math-free as possible (and involve round numbers since round numbers seem to make us happy), so the medical establishment just gives one blanket range for everybody.
MsAlicia, this is why I asked how tall you were.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
It's healthy because it covers a range of heights and frame sizes. Let's be objective here and get back to the OP and determine if it's healthy for her. She is 5'8" tall and doesn't look like she has the delicate features of someone with a small frame. A 19 BMI wouldn't be appropriate for her. Lower BMIs can be healthy, but they are only healthy for smaller framed people who are, for the most part, shorter.
So, again, going back to the OP, and not talking in generalities, the OP is the one who wants to reach it.
Right now, she said her goal weight in MFP is 135. That's fine, and I'd support her in that if all she wanted to do is lean out.
She's very young and in a fragile place. Let's be real and focus on HER.
I was responding to someone who said a bmi of 19 was in the underweight category, which isn't true according to the NIH. There's lots of great advice in this thread to the OP, as well as several people who are making broad generalizations about bmi and stating that a bmi of 19 is unhealthy/is underweight/is going to cause health problems etc. That may be the case for the OP, but it's not the case for everyone. That's why I jumped into this thread, because other people besides the OP are reading it and may now be questioning their own goals, even though having a lower bmi may be perfectly fine for them. If people hadn't started making these generalizations then I would not have engaged.
6 -
Let's not forget that BMI is an archaic system and should only be used as a guide for establishing "healthy" weight.
It does not account for individual differences such as fat distribution, bodyfat percentage/Lean mass, muscle shape etc.
I am obese according to BMI, sit within the athletic bodyfat range and have no health issues.3 -
Locked for moderator review.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions