Re: Set points and BMI

[Guest guest]

BMI is a crude measure. Individuals must evaluated its relevance to their

own situation. It is probably best to ignore it.

>From: " chris " <motjuste@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: [ ] Set points and BMI

>Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:07:44 +0300

>

>All this talk about " set points " and using BMI to calculate it makes me

>wonder if it is possible to apply BMI equally to all people. I admit to

>having a bias against the BMI method and have always felt that using it

>would be like trying to fit a square peg (me) into a round hole (BMI).

>

>I'm only 5'10 " , so the BMI scale is always telling me that I should weigh

>under 165 lbs or so . However, whenever I get below 200 (BMI 29, which

>even

>*I* think I look good at) people start telling me i look " too thin " . I've

>just got a large and heavy skeletal structure. I had my bone density

>tested

>once and the result was off the scale. I *like* the fact that I've never

>broken a bone. I *like* having a strong build. Can get the same

>disease-reducing benefits of the " under 22's " at a BMI more in proportion

>to

>my build? Say at 25 or 26?

>

> (|-|ri5

>

>

> > The " set point " is defined as the " weight toward which one naturally

> > drifts if he or she neither under- nor overeats " . The definition

> > of " set point " is problematic because there are subjective

> > variables. If you leave the table hungry are you undereating? If

> > you eat an extra apple are you overeating? How much extra should you

> > eat if you exercise vigorously?

> >

> > It may be better to identify your best weight on the basis of the

> > maximum BMI that will decrease your chances of disease. In the CRON

> > Science section of the FILES there is an informative spreadsheet.

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris:

Lots of us have difficulty with BMI. (As JR here says, it is popular

only because it is easy to calculate!) Anyone who is materially

above or below the norm in bone structure or muscle should be very

wary of it. As an example, I have calculated that at a BMI of 20 I

would have a negative body fat percent - which clearly would be very

unhealthy.

So look at a lot of alternative indicators. One that may be better

than BMI is body fat percent. The problem is that it is not so easy

to measure. If you check the archives here you will find a US Navy

method for determining body fat percent. You could use that, and if

you are male make sure you do not go below, say, a BF% of 6%. (For

females the 'do-not-go-below' number is MUCH higher).

Similarly there are serious problems with 'set point'. My guess is

that for those who were reasonably fit/healthy as young adults,

their 'fit' weight at age 22 (fully grown, not yet over weight!) may

be a decent set point value. This will shock many people, me

included, because dropping twenty pounds from this weight will seem

ridiculous. But from what I have seen that may be the best measure.

Rodney.

> All this talk about " set points " and using BMI to calculate it

makes me

> wonder if it is possible to apply BMI equally to all people. I

admit to

> having a bias against the BMI method and have always felt that

using it

> would be like trying to fit a square peg (me) into a round hole

(BMI).

>

> I'm only 5'10 " , so the BMI scale is always telling me that I should

weigh

> under 165 lbs or so . However, whenever I get below 200 (BMI 29,

which even

> *I* think I look good at) people start telling me i look " too

thin " . I've

> just got a large and heavy skeletal structure. I had my bone

density tested

> once and the result was off the scale. I *like* the fact that I've

never

> broken a bone. I *like* having a strong build. Can get the same

> disease-reducing benefits of the " under 22's " at a BMI more in

proportion to

> my build? Say at 25 or 26?

>

> (|-|ri5

>

>

> > The " set point " is defined as the " weight toward which one

naturally

> > drifts if he or she neither under- nor overeats " . The definition

> > of " set point " is problematic because there are subjective

> > variables. If you leave the table hungry are you undereating? If

> > you eat an extra apple are you overeating? How much extra should

you

> > eat if you exercise vigorously?

> >

> > It may be better to identify your best weight on the basis of the

> > maximum BMI that will decrease your chances of disease. In the

CRON

> > Science section of the FILES there is an informative spreadsheet.

> > >

[Guest guest]

People said I was thin (and I'm not that thin - it's just compared to them). But I notice the folks who say/said that are getting fewer, either because they are now doing it or they're not here. I live in a county where if you want to shop walmart, you must be thin enough to get past the 350#ers. I think there's a lot to be said for having some build, especially when you're >65. I don't know if you know it or not, but old folks become targets for youngers if they think you're weak.

Violence is still here, or lets call it "would you help me kind sir" and you know it'd be better to give the guy 5$ than kick his teeth in.

Physical appearance could be an element in longer life.

I'm 5' 9.5" and I like being <185# which was my best "fit weight", but I don't think that's necessarily the set point, but I have no idea and neither does Walford. It's probably highly individualistic.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: chris

Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:07 AM

Subject: [ ] Set points and BMI

All this talk about "set points" and using BMI to calculate it makes mewonder if it is possible to apply BMI equally to all people. I admit tohaving a bias against the BMI method and have always felt that using itwould be like trying to fit a square peg (me) into a round hole (BMI).I'm only 5'10", so the BMI scale is always telling me that I should weighunder 165 lbs or so . However, whenever I get below 200 (BMI 29, which even*I* think I look good at) people start telling me i look "too thin". I'vejust got a large and heavy skeletal structure. I had my bone density testedonce and the result was off the scale. I *like* the fact that I've neverbroken a bone. I *like* having a strong build. Can get the samedisease-reducing benefits of the "under 22's" at a BMI more in proportion tomy build? Say at 25 or 26?(|-|ri5

[Guest guest]

The problem I have with body fat % is "that fat" that won't go away. After losing 54#, at age, it's just not an easy thing to rid of. So the effect, eg, of starving oneself, MAYBE to get to a bodyfat assumed to be GOOD with not the slightest idea what that does to heart muscle, well, it's just not something I can use.

Maybe for the youngers.

My problem with set point is that I was 135# at 20yo (the skinny kid on the block). Maybe the whole school. I know I'm not going there or near there.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:48 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Set points and BMI

Hi Chris:So look at a lot of alternative indicators. One that may be better than BMI is body fat percent. The problem is that it is not so easy to measure. If you check the archives here you will find a US Navy method for determining body fat percent. You could use that, and if you are male make sure you do not go below, say, a BF% of 6%. (For females the 'do-not-go-below' number is MUCH higher).Similarly there are serious problems with 'set point'. My guess is that for those who were reasonably fit/healthy as young adults, their 'fit' weight at age 22 (fully grown, not yet over weight!) may be a decent set point value. This will shock many people, me included, because dropping twenty pounds from this weight will seem ridiculous. But from what I have seen that may be the best measure.Rodney.