Jump to content

Menu

Have I mentioned how much I loathe BMI tables?


Recommended Posts

My family is changing the way we eat... in some major ways.

 

My DH and I are taking things even more seriously and working towards losing a lot of weight, and regaining a more healthful shape.

 

I just had my body fat calcuated, as a part of figuring out my healthy goal weight.

 

Based upon my age... a healthy (fit) body fat percentage would be 23% to 31%. I'm aiming for 25% :D

 

So, that would be a weight of 148# (assuming I don't add *any* lean muscle :glare:). Plugging that number into a BMI chart and I am "just" inside the healthy weight range by about .3 :tongue_smilie:

 

I tell you, when I get to the doctor at the end of May, after all of this (assuming I'm close to my goal, and), and she tells me I need to lose X pounds because of that stooopid BMI thing, it's going to take a lot to maintain my composure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll join you in despising BMI. The Army now uses it to determine 'healthy' weight, but it doesn't allow for more muscle on a short body. DH is not tall but is all muscle - so he is always borderline on his weight vs. height. they have to tape him to determine that he isn't fat. Seriously? The man has a perfect score on his PT test every. single. time. and they're worried about his weight? Argh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my 23ds falls into the overweight category by quite a bit BUT he wears a size 29 waist pants and is SOLID muscle. He is not even 1 pound overweight at this point. Throw away the chart and focus on healthy eating and moderate exercise and enjoy life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your doctor may not say that. I'm just guessing, but I think most docs would be happy with somewhere in the range of a "normal" BMI.

 

When I was in my 20's... following the doctor's diet for cholesterol... and 18% body fat (considered "underfat" for a normal woman of my age... but on the higher end of athletic), my doctor DID tell me that maybe if I exercised a bit more, and lost 10-15 more pounds my cholesterol would drop into the normal range...:glare: (FTR, I was already exercising two hours a day, 6 days a week already!)

 

I have been to a doctor for a general physical twice since then... and both times it was for insurance. My cholesterol is no better on my "regular" diet than on the "doctor's" diet. Maybe a little worse... but if cutting out meat, eggs, and all forms of dairy, fats...etc. doesn't significantly lower my cholesterol, I felt like, why bother?

 

I am hopeful that this time with the low sugar, low carb, raw veg, plus the vitamin therapy (niacin & vit c, plus others), and once I get my life stabilized, I'll head in for an annual physical & blood work and see if there is any difference.

 

I already "feel" better... but I would really like those numbers to LOOK better too. I've let my weight be of little concern for far too long after the birth of my oldest son...I will probably never be the svelte vixen I was in my 20's, but I'll take a size 8! (which is me at 155#)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH THE BMI!

I remember in highschool they took us girls up the college and made us do a weird bmi test underwater (I totally freaked and couldnt stay underwater:eek:

 

I ended up getting the caliper test and even though I weight lifted 3 times a week and worked out daily (and was 18!) I still came out way to high.

 

20 yrs and 4 kids later i really dont want to know it now! (Im a fireplug:glare:)

 

Eat healthy make those changes but dont let the numbers get you down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bmi-comparison.gif

 

Much of the research linking excess weight and an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, among other chronic diseases, has been done on people who are obese, with a BMI of 30 or more. When the merely overweight folks are separated out, the health risks drop and sometimes even disappear.

Being overweight may not be associated with ANY risk of heart disease.

Although obese folks have a greater risk of dying from cancer or heart disease, those who are simply overweight have, surprisingly, no greater risk than normal-weight people. This was found from Britain’s Million Women Study.

----

 

Scientists from the Mayo Clinic were questioning the accuracy and usefulness of the BMI. Reviewing data from 40 studies involving 250,000 people with heart disease, they found that while severely obese patients had a higher risk of death, overweight people had fewer heart problems than those with a normal BMI.

Because muscle weighs more than fat, many physically fit people are mistakenly classified as "overweight", while they are actually less likely to die young than a "normal" weight individual whose excess weight is mostly fat.

----

 

BMI’s downfall is that it does not take into account body composition - whether or not excess weight is fat or muscle - which is why fit people often find themselves in the fat category of the BMI rating system.

The important thing to consider is how body fat is distributed around the body, as the real problems occur when fat accumulates in the central abdominal region.

Some physicians suggest that a waist circumference measurement is more informative, in that it is a direct measure of the part of the body that tends to accumulate fat. Having a waistband of more than 35in in women and 40in in men indicates the highest risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disease. There is an increased risk of the diseases for women with measurements of more than 32in and men whose measurement is over 37in.

----

 

Many of us have been programmed to worship a number on the scale, but waist circumference is more important than weight. A large waist can increase your risk of insulin resistance, the body’s inability to process sugars, which raises your risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Women should have no more than a 35-inch waist, and men should measure 40-inches or less. If your waist circumference is more than that, the advice is simple: Cut down on food intake, exercise more – or even better, do a combination of the two.

----

 

The more I have read and keep reading, the more I realize that waist measurement is KEY. As a friend once wrote here: "My goal is to get my waist under the 33" -- Everything I read leads me to believe that the most important factor for health is your waist size-- not and arbitrary number on a scale.

In my reading I have discovered that the fat around your mid-section actually acts as an organ--secreting hormones and disrupting your health. It adheres to your internal organs. It is not good. That is what I want gone."

 

I have come to the realization that weight and waist measurement are very closely related. I don't think I have ever been at an ideal weight and had a large waist, or vice versa, had a small waist and weighed a lot. I guess the two do go hand-in-hand ... Just different ways of measuring, I guess. I figure they're both important. I just read this from one of the links below: "As your weight changes, you can expect to lose about 1" from your waistline for each 6-8 lbs of weight loss."

 

http://www.collectivewizdom.com/NormalWaistSize.html

 

How to Reduce Your Waist

The best way to reduce your waist size is first to get as close as you can to your ideal body weight. In addition to that, research studies have found that certain foods can help you to reduce fat around your abdomen, particularly foods high in omega-3 fatty acids such as halibut and salmon.

 

It turns out that your waistline measurement may tell us more about your overall health than any other statistic. Why? All fat is not created equal. And fat around the middle may be the worst fat of all.

Your waist line measurement may be the most important indicator of your overall health. There is a direct correlation between the size of your waist and your risk for developing heart disease, stroke and diabetes and, if you are a man, erectile dysfunction.

How?

In contrast to the popular notion of fat as an inert blob, fat is actually an active substance. Fat leaks a constant stream of hormones into your bloodstream and some of these hormones are quite harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:so completely Negin. I broke my leg late this summer and then I had at least two blood clots. I started researching into who dies with blood clots. Imagine my surprise when I read that overweight people (like me) have much, much better survival rates than think people and better than normal weight people too. Since another risk factor I have is higher in lower weight people (osteoporosis), I have decided that while I would like to lose some weight, I should never become thin.

 

The really interesting thing about low weight and mortality is that they used to dismiss these findings with well, cancer patients lose weight and so do tuberculosis patients. WIth these recent large studies, they have found that low weight is a risk factor for death even when cancer patients are weeded out. With no additional risk factors, thinness is still not good. I have no idea why the federal government continues with the lies about weight and health- I think it is because they dumb down all campaigns so because they think people can't understand that obesity is a bad thing but overweight is okay they just say all weight over normal is bad. Just like the issue with salt and hypertension. Yes, some people are salt sensitive and it raises their blood pressure to bad levels. No, not all and not even a majority of people have this issue. Yet we are constantly urged to have everyone eat less sodium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine my surprise when I read that overweight people (like me) have much, much better survival rates than think people and better than normal weight people too. Since another risk factor I have is higher in lower weight people (osteoporosis), I have decided that while I would like to lose some weight, I should never become thin.

 

The really interesting thing about low weight and mortality is that they used to dismiss these findings with well, cancer patients lose weight and so do tuberculosis patients. WIth these recent large studies, they have found that low weight is a risk factor for death even when cancer patients are weeded out. With no additional risk factors, thinness is still not good. I have no idea why the federal government continues with the lies about weight and health- I think it is because they dumb down all campaigns so because they think people can't understand that obesity is a bad thing but overweight is okay they just say all weight over normal is bad. Just like the issue with salt and hypertension. Yes, some people are salt sensitive and it raises their blood pressure to bad levels. No, not all and not even a majority of people have this issue. Yet we are constantly urged to have everyone eat less sodium.

:iagree:

I'm so sick and tired of the lies about weight and health and the whole stupid BMI charts.

Fully agree about osteoporosis, blood clots, etc. Seen it first-hand amongst my own relatives. The very thin or the obese are at highest risk for most things. The average or overweight seem to be much healthier overall. I'm always in that category. My dh is thin and he's much less healthy than I. Yet I'm the one that has to pay more health insurance, since I'm considered far too overweight. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh. I hate the BMI charts. When I was in college and doing roughly six hours of mixed martial arts a day, I was considered overweight. Right around the same BMI as I am now, actually. And now I'm out of shape, have had a kid, and couldn't run a mile to save my life. :D And it just doesn't take into account natural variations in body type, like my freakishly broad shoulders. People need to just ignore the charts and go by how they feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because muscle weighs more than fat, many physically fit people are mistakenly classified as "overweight", while they are actually less likely to die young than a "normal" weight individual whose excess weight is mostly fat.

----

 

BMI’s downfall is that it does not take into account body composition - whether or not excess weight is fat or muscle - which is why fit people often find themselves in the fat category of the BMI rating system.

The important thing to consider is how body fat is distributed around the body, as the real problems occur when fat accumulates in the central abdominal region.

Some physicians suggest that a waist circumference measurement is more informative, in that it is a direct measure of the part of the body that tends to accumulate fat. Having a waistband of more than 35in in women and 40in in men indicates the highest risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disease. There is an increased risk of the diseases for women with measurements of more than 32in and men whose measurement is over 37in.

 

 

This is so frustrating for me. I naturally carry excess weight in my waist. It will be the last place I lose weight. I've lost about 17 pounds. My pants are now extremely baggy around my hips and thighs, but still a bit tight around the waist. I have no idea what my waist measurement will be once I've finished losing weight, but I will probably have to go lower on the scale than others to get that waist measurement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so frustrating for me. I naturally carry excess weight in my waist. It will be the last place I lose weight. I've lost about 17 pounds. My pants are now extremely baggy around my hips and thighs, but still a bit tight around the waist. I have no idea what my waist measurement will be once I've finished losing weight, but I will probably have to go lower on the scale than others to get that waist measurement.

 

:iagree: Me too! It is so frustrating. When I hear about women weighing 150 or more and fitting a size 8 or smaller, I cringe. I have come to accept my body shape and learn that I will never be curvy but be more or less straight up and down. I have found that low rise jeans fit better on me because they do not go in at the waist.

 

Sorry to hijack, but this is a sore spot for me as I work on becoming healthier and having a better body shape hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: Me too! It is so frustrating. When I hear about women weighing 150 or more and fitting a size 8 or smaller, I cringe. I have come to accept my body shape and learn that I will never be curvy but be more or less straight up and down. I have found that low rise jeans fit better on me because they do not go in at the waist.

 

Sorry to hijack, but this is a sore spot for me as I work on becoming healthier and having a better body shape hopefully.

 

Just keep in mind, that while I wear a size 8 at that weight, it is due to my body's muscle mass. There are certain things (styles) I cannot pull off. I look awful in a tank top, because it accentuates my very broad shoulders. I look HUGE. I also cannot pull off low-rise jeans...no matter how "fit" I am, without plumbers' crack. I cannot wear a size 8 dress...no matter what. My shoulders are just too large for that to be comfortable, so I am forever tied to having dresses altered, having jeans taken up in the length... to having sleeves shortened... the problems go both ways, we just have different problems.

 

Just like women like me with straight hair wishing their hair was curly... and my girls with curly hair wishing they had straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll join you in despising BMI. The Army now uses it to determine 'healthy' weight, but it doesn't allow for more muscle on a short body. DH is not tall but is all muscle - so he is always borderline on his weight vs. height. they have to tape him to determine that he isn't fat. Seriously? The man has a perfect score on his PT test every. single. time. and they're worried about his weight? Argh!

 

I was in the air force, and the same thing happened to me quite a bit. I was fit, but had more muscle on my 5'5" body. I *always* ended up being taped, but *always* passed. It was very annoying and sort of messed with my self-esteem. I really wish they'd either update the BMI somehow or do away with it totally (probably the better of the two options)!:glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, if I got down to a 'normal' weight on the BMI chart, people would think I was dying of some wasting disease. Even when I was a very non over-weight teen, at the same height, I wasn't in the healthy range. I'm dense :tongue_smilie: and come from a dense family. My dad, who is a RAIL that you can see every vein, muscle and sinew on his body weighs over 210lbs at 6'3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certain things (styles) I cannot pull off. I look awful in a tank top, because it accentuates my very broad shoulders. I look HUGE. I also cannot pull off low-rise jeans...no matter how "fit" I am, without plumbers' crack. I cannot wear a size 8 dress...no matter what. My shoulders are just too large for that to be comfortable, so I am forever tied to having dresses altered, having jeans taken up in the length... to having sleeves shortened... the problems go both ways, we just have different problems.

Just like women like me with straight hair wishing their hair was curly... and my girls with curly hair wishing they had straight.

:iagree:

It is so hard to wear certain styles. I hardly ever, ever wear sleeveless, since my triceps are one of my biggest problem areas. Plus, I have broad shoulders. I now, at the age of almost 43, feel very comfortable about what clothes look good and don't look good on me.

This book is GREAT - teaches you a lot - plus lots and lots of episodes of What Not to Wear - which, dd (the fashionista :D who always helps me and who designs and sews clothes) and I need to watch more often.

 

never-look-fat_cover_md.jpg

 

Anyway, I absolutely love this book. Sort of book I'll be re-reading every year or so. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negin, thanks for the book rec, that looks great.

 

My body shape is odd. At 147lbs I can wear a 6 top and still need an 8-10 bottom. (I'm not there now, but was a few years ago)I inherited my father's figure, including a larger curvy derrière. It's been a source of angst all my life. Jean have to have some stretch to fit me correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negin, thanks for the book rec, that looks great.

My body shape is odd. At 147lbs I can wear a 6 top and still need an 8-10 bottom. (I'm not there now, but was a few years ago)I inherited my father's figure, including a larger curvy derrière. It's been a source of angst all my life. Jean have to have some stretch to fit me correctly.

Paula, can I just say (been meaning to say this for some time :)) that I love your avatar and location :D.

I love that book and have found it so helpful. Trinny and Susannah's "What Not to Wear" books are also great in addressing specific body types. I've never had the chance to look through Clinton and Kelly's books. A good book by Tim Gunn is another one I would really like to have. Too many books, too little time and money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...