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.
Is it really all that bad to be slighly underweight?
70sthin
Posts: 29 Member
in Debate Club
My doctor had told me that she wanted me to gain weight, which I did a few years ago and I haven't felt all that good about it since doing so. I was only 8 lbs underweight. I gained 15lbs and don't feel like exercising as much. I don't have as much energy as I did when I was lighter. I know that body image and eating disorder problems can happen when one tries to attain a thin figure, but I did like the way I looked 15lbs ago. I honestly don't think I looked too thin when I was slightly underweight. I'm short, so 15lbs looks really big on me.
0
Replies
-
8 pounds underweight sounds really unhealthy to me.
How did you gain the weight? If you were eating poorly before and you are eating a healthy diet now, your current weight is certainly healthier than your previous weight.
To be 8 pounds underweight, you must not have had much muscle mass. That’s why you feel like you have less energy now. If you put on 15 pounds of fat without building any muscle, you will just feel tired out because you’re carrying extra weight without any additional strength.
You should focus on weight lifting to build muscle. Muscle is denser than fat, so gaining muscle will help you get your weight into the healthy range while keeping a thin figure if that’s what you want. It will also help you feel more energetic at the higher weight because you will have the additional strength you didn’t have before.6 -
8 pounds under what weight? 8 pounds under ideal? 8 pounds under healthy range bmi? 8 pounds under what you consider best?
5 -
I really hesitate to post on threads like this because around here even the slightest suggestion that being underweight isn't a horrible, horrible thing gets conflated with "promoting anorexia" and turns into Big Drama. So the following is just my experience. YMMV.
I am a tall lanky beanpole and I've been underweight all of my almost 59 years. I get my physique from my tall lanky beanpole father who has also been underweight all his life (83). The only issues he currently has are gout and enlarged prostate so it hasn't had any negative impact on his health. We both have very small frames and struggle to build muscle. I am less underweight now than in my 20s so I've gradually been gaining about a half pound a year.
No doctor has never suggested that I gain weight. This is where you and I differ. Years ago, when they first went to electronic patient records and the program calculated BMI for her, my current GP did kind of mutter to herself "hmmm, your BMI might be a bit low" but that was the last I heard of it. My blood test results have always been excellent, I've enjoyed freakishly good health (haven't had flu since the mid 80s, very rarely catch colds), have plenty of energy. I also have hypertension (thanks, dad) and lymphedema, neither of which conditions would be improved by weight gain. Also now some hip joint problems and was told quite frankly (different doctor) that the issue would be worse if I weighed more.
Through my 20s and 30s my nutrition was much worse than it is now, I ate very high carb and low protein and way too much sugar. Back then there was no internet so you had to make quite an effort to seek out nutrition info to have any awareness that your chosen way of eating might not be the best. I was healthy so why change? Then I gradually started making improvements, starting with reducing sodium, decreasing sugar, increasing protein, fruit and veg. Along the way I also made the choice to stop eating meat which made the protein thing more challenging. Also took up strength training around 10 years ago.
I'm down in weight again as the result of having a complicated appendix rupture early last year, which kind of messed up my digestive system, plus some major life stress which always melts weight off me. So I've been in deliberate regain mode for over a year now, without much success. Note however that this is by my own choice and not based on my doctor's advice. I'm more worried about having lost/losing what little muscle I've managed to acquire than the number on the scale. My doc, on the other hand, initially tried to address the digestive stuff by sticking me on a low FODMAP diet which is super restrictive and resulted in even more loss, so she's really not concerned about my weight at all.
Bottom line is that my doctor is perfectly okay with my weight, based on other medical considerations, whereas yours doesn't seem to be happy with it. So I can't say whether it's "really all that bad" for you personally.6 -
I always think about my grandmother, who was underweight her whole life.
It didn't cause a problem until she got sick. An illness caused her to lose even more weight, she got dangerously low, and it greatly complicated her illness.
Since then, I always thought it's a good idea to not be close to the edge of an unhealthy weight. Not that everyone is thinking about the possibility of serious illness, but I think it's a good idea to have a little bit of "padding" just in case.4 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I always think about my grandmother, who was underweight her whole life.
It didn't cause a problem until she got sick. An illness caused her to lose even more weight, she got dangerously low, and it greatly complicated her illness.
Since then, I always thought it's a good idea to not be close to the edge of an unhealthy weight. Not that everyone is thinking about the possibility of serious illness, but I think it's a good idea to have a little bit of "padding" just in case.
That's exactly the worry that is always in the back of my mind, you may need a reservoir to draw upon. More so since my dad allowed himself to become extremely inactive, what little muscle he had evaporated and he ended up in chronic care for 5.5 months just to regain a minimum level of function. Mind you, he's done nothing to build anything beyond that minimum level in the past three years.
On the other hand, during the appendix debacle I managed to beat peritonitis quite well despite a fairly substantial drop in weight and appalling nutrition for the first week.2 -
No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.6
-
I think OP needs to answer the question posted upthread; 8lb underweight from what??
If it is from mid range BMI - probably fine.
If it is 8 lb under the lower limit of BMI - very unlikely - especially if OP is a shorter younger female.
Yes Ive heard the argument that older people can be better off carrying a LITTLE bit of extra padding - but I dont think that applies to OP, my guess is she is not in the over 75 age group0 -
Thank you all for the feed back. A healthy weight according to my doctor and the BMI calculator she used is something like a range of 98-132lbs for a 5'1" tall female I weighed 90lbs when she said I should gain weight. I weigh 105lbs now and felt better at 90lbs. I'm almost middle age (39) and had my weight ranges from 90-100lbs most of my adult life. I start feeling heavy and lethargic around 100lbs. Yes, I should be building muscle at this age and that was a very good suggestion. I have had little energy to exercise at all lately.1
-
It's quite simple: no, it's not a big deal to be underweight if you are optimally healthy and maintaining that weight while eating plenty of nutritious food, exercising, and easily maintaining good strength and muscle mass. Especially if you are taller.
But in those cases, it's highly unlikely a doctor would bother telling you to gain weight.
My sister is quite underweight, but with her tall height and extremely slender bone structure, it's quite self-evident that that's a healthy weight for her. She doesn't even look underweight, she has a normal amount of belly fat, she's just built extremely narrow with super long narrow limbs.
It doesn't sound like this is you. So I would just listen to your doctor and focus on your health. Get to a state of being optimally, unquestionably healthy and then assess if your body can handle being that lean.
If I were you, I would really put my focus on building muscle.1 -
And that is exactly what body fat is for. It is stored, just in case it is needed. While overweight and obesity are not good and detremintal in the long run, being right on the edge can be suicidal in the short term if something goes wrong, even if it may not be unhealthy and even quite healthy as long as everything is going great. Just a few kg go a very long way as an insurance policy against bad times. Unfortunately perhaps, biology is not unlike politics: most everything we do is a compromise.SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Since then, I always thought it's a good idea to not be close to the edge of an unhealthy weight. Not that everyone is thinking about the possibility of serious illness, but I think it's a good idea to have a little bit of "padding" just in case.
We should also not forget that everything said here is a compromise in and of itself: we don't even know how to accurately measure body fat. While there are several methods, with some better than others, all of them are estimates, nothing more. There is still a lot of room for improvement in medicine.
5 -
Thank you all for the feed back. A healthy weight according to my doctor and the BMI calculator she used is something like a range of 98-132lbs for a 5'1" tall female I weighed 90lbs when she said I should gain weight. I weigh 105lbs now and felt better at 90lbs. I'm almost middle age (39) and had my weight ranges from 90-100lbs most of my adult life. I start feeling heavy and lethargic around 100lbs. Yes, I should be building muscle at this age and that was a very good suggestion. I have had little energy to exercise at all lately.
So, 8lb under the bottom limit of healthy BMI range
No, I dont think that is a good idea.
Aim to lose 5kg perhaps and that could be good for you at 100lb.
5 -
czmiles926 wrote: »No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.
The two are not the same.
8 pounds overweight is incredibly common, and honestly it’s perfectly normal. Science is showing that being slightly overweight is not unhealthy.
8 pounds underweight is very abnormal and a sign that something is wrong.
3 -
Hmm, I think you should listen to your doctor who has seen you vs. People on MFP that haven't seen you8
-
czmiles926 wrote: »No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.
The two are not the same.
8 pounds overweight is incredibly common, and honestly it’s perfectly normal. Science is showing that being slightly overweight is not unhealthy.
8 pounds underweight is very abnormal and a sign that something is wrong.
Being overweight has definitely been normalised in developed countries, but that doesn't mean it's inherently better than being a little underweight.
While it's true that having a few spare pounds can be useful in case of a serious illness, that also has to be balanced against the increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.
Some people just have very narrow frames and look and feel better a low BMI - which itself isn't an infallible metric.
10 -
I agree that some people are better at a lower BMI - thats why BMI is a range not an absolute number.
so for some people the bottom of the range is their ideal.
but 8lb lower than the lowest of the BMI range? - not likely to be healthy5 -
czmiles926 wrote: »No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.
If OP's doctor was saying she's underweight, that's different than someone just not hitting some abstract metric. (Sure, doctors can be wrong, but . . . .)
There's some research suggesting that being somewhat clinically underweight is statistically associated with higher mortality rates than is being somewhat clinically overweight, even when study conditions control for depleting illnesses (cancer and whatnot), i.e., the studies have measures to exclude people who are thin because they're already en route to mortality. OP or you or I aren't statistics, so yes, individuals differ, and individual health is what counts (as Xellercin points out) . . . but again, this is OP's doctor telling her to gain weight.
OP, I'm inclined to agree with others saying that working on increasing muscle mass would be a route to weighing more, but feeling/looking better. It's not that you have to pursue a bodybuilder look if you don't like that, but there's quite a range of positive non-bodybuilder body composition considered attractive in most of the developed-world culture that's likely to put person above a riskily underweight zone.4 -
There is something to be said for that. As a Belgian, I have learned quite a bit about BMI, which I still learned as the "Quételet Index" for Adolphe Quételet who created the index to study populations. Despite its simplicity, it is surprisingly good for that, even now.czmiles926 wrote: »czmiles926 wrote: »No one would bat an eyelid if someone was 8 lbs overweight, I don't understand why being 8 lbs underweight is a big deal. Everyone's different.
The two are not the same.
8 pounds overweight is incredibly common, and honestly it’s perfectly normal. Science is showing that being slightly overweight is not unhealthy.
8 pounds underweight is very abnormal and a sign that something is wrong.
Being overweight has definitely been normalised in developed countries, but that doesn't mean it's inherently better than being a little underweight.
While it's true that having a few spare pounds can be useful in case of a serious illness, that also has to be balanced against the increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.
Some people just have very narrow frames and look and feel better a low BMI - which itself isn't an infallible metric.
However, I find that using it on a personal level is essentially a perversion. It was never meant for that, and despite studies that have shown is not all that bad, I balk when I hear people who swear by it and people who revile it. I also giggle seeing that people almost only look at the upper limit, not the lower one, and then complain that some "athlete" is considered obese even though he or she is not. Let's be honest here: you really don't have to study medicine to see that the younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was not obese. Anyone who insists he was, just of because of the BMI is an idiot. Also, how many of those athletes do we really have? I don't see very many of them when I go out.
In addition, why not also look at the other side: an obese person who had her/his legs amputated and who, as a consequence, is now in the normal range despite being obese?
Furthermore, on the level of an individual patient, BMI is needlessly complicated. Just look at a weight chart. Unless something really tragic happens to you, your height will stay the same for most of your adult life. Calculating the BMI is a waste of time and energy.
I also noticed that MFP is going to retire it BMI calculator. I don't know why, the message did not say that, but it just might be a good idea.
3 -
I am 5'2" and weigh 100 lbs. I have more energy now than I have had in years when I was overweight. I think you have to go by how you feel. I exercise daily and eat plenty of healthy foods.3
-
I am 5'2" and weigh 100 lbs. I have more energy now than I have had in years when I was overweight. I think you have to go by how you feel. I exercise daily and eat plenty of healthy foods.
well, you are only just under the BMI range - adding just 1lb puts you within but at bottom of range.
not quite the same scenario as OP who is 8lb under the lower limit
0 -
Let's be honest here: you really don't have to study medicine to see that the younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was not obese. Anyone who insists he was, just of because of the BMI is an idiot. Also, how many of those athletes do we really have? I don't see very many of them when I go out.
In addition, why not also look at the other side: an obese person who had her/his legs amputated and who, as a consequence, is now in the normal range despite being obese?
Furthermore, on the level of an individual patient, BMI is needlessly complicated. Just look at a weight chart. Unless something really tragic happens to you, your height will stay the same for most of your adult life. Calculating the BMI is a waste of time and energy.
Seriously???
of course elite body builders and amputees are outliers - nobody here is disputing that at all.
and just looking at a weight chart without height is meaningless - obviously what is a healthy weight range for somebody 6 ft 10 in is not the same as somebody 4 ft 10 in even though both are within normal adult height range.
0 -
I think you either misunderstood what I wrote, or I haven't been clear about "an individual patient". Individual patients do have heights, so of course it is part of the total equation.paperpudding wrote: »Let's be honest here: you really don't have to study medicine to see that the younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was not obese. Anyone who insists he was, just of because of the BMI is an idiot. Also, how many of those athletes do we really have? I don't see very many of them when I go out.
In addition, why not also look at the other side: an obese person who had her/his legs amputated and who, as a consequence, is now in the normal range despite being obese?
Furthermore, on the level of an individual patient, BMI is needlessly complicated. Just look at a weight chart. Unless something really tragic happens to you, your height will stay the same for most of your adult life. Calculating the BMI is a waste of time and energy.
Seriously???
of course elite body builders and amputees are outliers - nobody here is disputing that at all.
and just looking at a weight chart without height is meaningless - obviously what is a healthy weight range for somebody 6 ft 10 in is not the same as somebody 4 ft 10 in even though both are within normal adult height range.
It is just that, barring extraordinary (and usually tragic) circumstances, your height will not change. So, once you have determined it, you no longer need to calculate your BMI, just look at the weight scale. There is no need to calculate the BMI. It is a needless complication that brings zero additional information to the equation.
This is not the same as, for example, your weight (obviously) or your blood pressure or your GFR or most any other medically important marker and make no mistake, even those have to be interpreted in very judicious ways and it is quite possible to be diagnosed with a certain disease despite the fact that the generally accepted markers for that disease are perfectly normal or even excellent.
Medicine is not something that can be learned from the back of a package of popcorn. There are reasons why medical studies are gruelling and take years and why even then mistakes and misinterpretations are common and there are reasons why the professional medical literature has numberless controversies about what the public considers completely uncontroversial and settled. Modern medicine, both the evidence-based and the science-based versions, is an astonishingly new field. Even the terms themselves did not exist yet when I was in med school.
As for nobody disputing the outliers, you forget that BMI is often attacked publicly and even in medical circles precisely for that reason. It is the standard criticism trotted out to disparage BMI. It is important to take that into account. And again, BMI is a population-level measurement. On the level of the population, averages and other techniques like BMI are historically important, because of the massive amounts of data that have to be taken into account. That is slowly changing, thanks to ever larger available space for data storage, but we haven't quite reached the stage yet where we could be looking at real-time massive data sets without giving it a second thought.
In short, BMI is still very useful for people in insurance, or public health and similar fields, but it is a needless complication on an individual level and while I haven't seen any explanation from MFP, I suspect that is at least part of the reason they decided to retire their BMI calculator. If am wrong about that, I am sure (or at least hope) someone from MFP will set the record straight.
2 -
Thank you all for the feed back. A healthy weight according to my doctor and the BMI calculator she used is something like a range of 98-132lbs for a 5'1" tall female I weighed 90lbs when she said I should gain weight. I weigh 105lbs now and felt better at 90lbs. I'm almost middle age (39) and had my weight ranges from 90-100lbs most of my adult life. I start feeling heavy and lethargic around 100lbs. Yes, I should be building muscle at this age and that was a very good suggestion. I have had little energy to exercise at all lately.
I can relate, as we're similar. The best thing I did was start lifting 7 years ago. At the time, I was doing way too much cardio and no weights. Learning to lift was a life changer! And it doesn't have to be difficult, complicated, or time consuming. Start with body weight exercises and planks. It will make a huge difference for you!1 -
It is just that, barring extraordinary (and usually tragic) circumstances, your height will not change. So, once you have determined it, you no longer need to calculate your BMI, just look at the weight scale. There is no need to calculate the BMI. It is a needless complication that brings zero additional information to the equation.
snip
Medicine is not something that can be learned from the back of a package of popcorn. There are reasons why medical studies are gruelling and take years and why even then mistakes and misinterpretations are common and there are reasons why the professional medical literature has numberless controversies about what the public considers completely uncontroversial and settled. Modern medicine, both the evidence-based and the science-based versions, is an astonishingly new field. Even the terms themselves did not exist yet when I was in med school.
I disagree.
Nobody is claiming your height will change - but of course you still need your height to calculate BMI. You dont have to re measure it but you do need it in the equation.
and many basic things are basic and havent changed - including BMI range. One doesnt need a medical degree nor is the basic concept of healthy weight range an astonishingly new field.
MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.
1 -
<snip>
MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmi-calculator
(It's under "Apps" - along with other useful tools.
) 1 -
It does say it will be gone on Nov 21st - but then directs you to CDC website for a BMI calculator.
So, nothing to suggest MFP's reason for deleting it is any 'needless complications on an individual level'
More likely just a cost cutting exercise.
1 -
It is good that you try to verify claims. But, it is only good if you read all the information, not just a part of it:cmriverside wrote: »<snip>
MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmi-calculator
(It's under "Apps" - along with other useful tools. )
0 -
You can disagree. That is your right. The point is that those websites are working on a population level, not on the level of an individual patient. Even IF you use BMI for yourself, which any statistician will tell you is a questionable practice, it does not mean you have to recalculate it every time. Using a 1.71 m person as an example, the "healthy" BMI range is between 18.5 and 25. That is not equivalent, but identical to a weight between 54.1 kg and 73.1 kg as given by the MFP calculator (and any other).paperpudding wrote: »It is just that, barring extraordinary (and usually tragic) circumstances, your height will not change. So, once you have determined it, you no longer need to calculate your BMI, just look at the weight scale. There is no need to calculate the BMI. It is a needless complication that brings zero additional information to the equation.
snip
Medicine is not something that can be learned from the back of a package of popcorn. There are reasons why medical studies are gruelling and take years and why even then mistakes and misinterpretations are common and there are reasons why the professional medical literature has numberless controversies about what the public considers completely uncontroversial and settled. Modern medicine, both the evidence-based and the science-based versions, is an astonishingly new field. Even the terms themselves did not exist yet when I was in med school.
I disagree.
Nobody is claiming your height will change - but of course you still need your height to calculate BMI. You dont have to re measure it but you do need it in the equation.
and many basic things are basic and havent changed - including BMI range. One doesnt need a medical degree nor is the basic concept of healthy weight range an astonishingly new field.
MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.
These are the two procedures you can follow:
1. You stand on the scale, you notice you weigh 67.2 kg.
1a. You use any BMI calculator (MFP = 23.0), or you calculate it yourself: 67.2/(1.71^2) = 22.98
1b. You look it up and see that this is over 18.5 and under 25.0.
1c. You happily conclude that you have a healthy weight.
OR
2. You stand on the scale, you notice you weight 67.2 kg.
2a. You look it up and see that this is over 54.1 kg and under 73.1 kg.
2b. You happily conclude that you have a healthy weight.
Question: what is the difference?
Answer: the amount of work you have to do. There is NO difference between the two. Calculating your BMI is an extra step that you do not need.
On top of that, as said, any statistician will tell you that BMI is a tool for people who study populations. It is all but useless to individuals. It is, sadly, true that most people do not know this, for no other reason than that they don't learn it at school. It is why, and THIS IS AN OPINION: it is something that people should learn at school. There is a big difference between the value of markers at a population level and the value of those same markers at an individual level.
Medicine at a population level is essentially a branch of statistics because it is impossible for a researcher or a policy maker to look at every individual case, so they have to simplify. Medicine at an individual level is still very much of an art. It is why doctors do gruelling studies that take years, and then still manage to disagree.
That is why people are always being encouraged to talk to a doctor, a real one i.e. an MD, before making any health-related decisions. This is a complicated field, and people can get killed or (arguably even worse) harmed for a very long time when they make the wrong one. A doctor should always be your primary source of information.2 -
That is a possible conclusion, but if you think about it, an unlikely one. MFP has had this calculator for a very long time, so it doesn't really cost them anything anymore.paperpudding wrote: »It does say it will be gone on Nov 21st - but then directs you to CDC website for a BMI calculator.
So, nothing to suggest MFP's reason for deleting it is any 'needless complications on an individual level'
More likely just a cost cutting exercise.
However, BMI –when used on an individual level– is controversial and subject to much (mostly well-founded) criticism and there are more and more people objecting to its use because its application to individuals is a perversion of its intended use.
The best thing, of course, would be for MFP to explain why they are cutting it, not merely announce that they are cutting it. That way, speculation –which is never really helpful– would be unneeded.
For completeness, this is what the website MFP is referring to says:
How is BMI used?
BMI can be a screening tool, but it does not diagnose the body fatness or health of an individual. To determine if BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider performs further assessments. Such assessments include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, and family history10.
Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_BMI/index.html1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
That is a possible conclusion, but if you think about it, an unlikely one. MFP has had this calculator for a very long time, so it doesn't really cost them anything anymore.paperpudding wrote: »It does say it will be gone on Nov 21st - but then directs you to CDC website for a BMI calculator.
So, nothing to suggest MFP's reason for deleting it is any 'needless complications on an individual level'
More likely just a cost cutting exercise.
However, BMI –when used on an individual level– is controversial and subject to much (mostly well-founded) criticism and there are more and more people objecting to its use because its application to individuals is a perversion of its intended use.
The best thing, of course, would be for MFP to explain why they are cutting it, not merely announce that they are cutting it. That way, speculation –which is never really helpful– would be unneeded.
For completeness, this is what the website MFP is referring to says:
How is BMI used?
BMI can be a screening tool, but it does not diagnose the body fatness or health of an individual. To determine if BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider performs further assessments. Such assessments include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, and family history10.
Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_BMI/index.html
"BMI can be used as a screening tool" is an individual application of BMI. Not a definitive measure, but a screening tool to suggest which individuals should best be speaking with their doctor to see if their body weight goals are healthy for them as an individual.
OP's doctor told her to gain weight.
On the same page you link, above the section you quoted, in the introductory section, it says this (I'm using a screen grab):
---...---...---...---...
---...---...---...---...
"BMI appears to be strongly correlated with various metabolic and disease outcome . . . ".
To the line I bolded in your post:
I understand from your posts here that you went through medical education a few decades back. I'm thinking you may not have IT experience?
When an organization has a web page, they need to re-test and sometimes modify that page anytime the underlying technology is upgraded in relevant ways. Sometimes they even need to re-write the page using newer technology if some component used in the page has been technologically discontinued. In addition, they need to answer questions from users about the page via their support functions, if users have such questions.
It may not cost them lots to do those things, but it costs them, repeatedly. That's a distraction from core mission. There's a perfectly good, authoritative BMI calculator at the CDC site, where it will probably be upgraded and maintained well into the foreseeable future. The CDC contextualizes BMI well, for anyone who chooses to read the details. It makes much more sense for MFP to reference the CDC site, rather than duplicating it.
People here often complain about MFP bugs, and I understand why. Personally, I think it's a great thing that they're streamlining and getting rid of some functions that are available from other authoritative sources. That can potentially help them focus developers and support staff on the core of MFP. It's a better use of their resources.
As an observation, we've had this BMI argument over and over. Strictly speaking, "BMI good/bad" is not on topic for OP's question, though it's in the near neighborhood, and that's usually permitted in Debate Club threads.
Still, folks who want to debate BMI in and of itself might want to do so on one of the many existing threads, such as this one.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10713113/bmi-controversy-️/p1
Pleeeeaassse read the existing posts there before posting. I'd almost guarantee, whatever you want to say has already been said ad nauseum.
6 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
It is good that you try to verify claims. But, it is only good if you read all the information, not just a part of it:cmriverside wrote: »<snip>
MFP may have cut out its calculator, who knows why - but BMI calculations certainly havent been cut from websites such as Heart Foundation nor has it stopped being used in places like GP surgeries.
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmi-calculator
(It's under "Apps" - along with other useful tools. )
Oh, for Pete sake.
I linked to the STILL WORKING TOOL.
No need to come here and correct me. I don't use the (still available) tool, I just use the NIH one. Your post is written in quite the condescending tone and was not necessary - but thanks for playing.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions