Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.