RE: BMI chart . . .Re: Introduction

[Guest guest]

One thing though -- you can be above this BMI and be at lower risk than some

people in this BMI. BMI is based strictly on height and weight correlation.

The lower your weight the healthier you are provided you are not too thin

(below 20 bmi). However, this number does not take into consideration your

muscle mass vs. body fat percentage. If your BMI is 30 but you are very

athletic and hence have a low body fat percentage you are healthier than

someone with a BMI of 24 whose body fat is higher. MOst athletes when they

are training have higher BMIs yet you really can't say that they are

unhealthy (think marathon runners, crew teams, swimmers, etcetera). That is

why I don't see the BMI as the be all and end all of health. Does that make

sense? It is a statistical AVERAGE but it alone does not determine health.

One reason why I don't aim for numbers. I aim for health and feeling good. I

hate seeing people aiming for an elusive weight because they think they HAVE

to weigh it for no other reason than it is on the scale. Does that make

sense?

Rasley

mailto:drasley@...

BTC, Columbus, 10/7/98

Lost over 90% of excess and maintaining

Gained a beautiful daughter on 8/9/00

BMI chart . . .Re: Introduction

In a message dated 7/13/2002 4:38:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,

drasley@... writes:

A normal BMI is 20-25. With a 23.5

you are almost smack dab in the middle of the normal weight range for

your

height. Normal according to those stupid charts.

The ideal range of the BMI chart is not based on what society thinks is

the appropriate weight for a given height or body type. It is based on a

national data base which tracks mortality (death) and morbidity (illness)

and how it relates to body mass. It is not based on size or appearance. I

personally had WLS because of where my health was heading. My goal was to

not have my weight or body mass be a negative factor when tracking my

prospects for health and longivity. It is also dangerous (perhap even more

so) to have a BMI under 20. So some of you may think the BMI range is

" unfair, stupid, or impossible, " but know its not about some random societal

appearance value . . . its about our best chance at living a long healthy

life. Isn't that why most of us had surgery in the first place???

So when you think about your goal and BMI, think about your health

first and foremost!

) Vicki

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 07/10/2002

[Guest guest]

No need to get defensive or explain this to me personally. Even the " chart "

itself explains that the numbers don't apply for weight lifters and

professional athletes. The fact is, most of us on the list are not

professional athletes or real body builders and we can look at the chart as a

decent range of healthy weight for us. This isn't the old medical charts

that used to say 100 pounds at 5 " tall and to add 5 pounds for every inch

over that . . . that wasn't based on axtuarial information and was unlikely

for even healthy people who never struggled with their weight. The BMI range

is very reasonable and livable for many people. Of course when a pewrson is

struggling with weight and weight gain, it all seems difficult or even

impossible. I remember when I'd do anything (take diuretics or laxatives) to

get the scale to read a certain number. LOL, I tell people now that say I

have never been as thin as I am now that I have actually weighed less, but

was bigger because I was just a dehydrated 160 pounder Vs a real 130 pounder.

And yes, if I would have died, that data would have gone into the actuarial

data and the higher fat and dehydration wouldn't be accounted for.

There is no reason to attach so much emotion to the numbers or try and

shoot them down or make justifications. Most of us know how we are doing

without even stepping on a scale. The reason we all avoided it when we were

gaining is because we knew we were goining and weren't ready to face it.

When a person is paying close attention and health and body conscious it is

different. As you know,(but others may not know), I didn't weigh myself for

almost 2 years. I stepped on the scale backwards at the doctor and I payed

close attention to how I felt and how clothes fit. That is what it took for

me to concentrate on reconnecting with body and learning to honor it. The

numbers meant so much to me that what they said effected my ability to

respect and honor my own physical needs. (If I had a gain I'd eat from

depression, a good loss and I'd eat in celebration . . .that is why it made

more sense for me not to weigh!) Now, due to surgery in Dec. and then again

last month, I know what I weigh and what my BMI is. I am excited because it

is real, not pushed by being naked, empty and leaning in the right

direction! (You all know what I mean, especially those that only weigh naked

first thing inb the AM after using the bathroom, leaning to the left or

right!) I'm not an athlete, nor do I have any other special considerations,

so I believe the BMI range is applicable to me and my health. For those of

us that have been MO unless we have plastic surgery to remove excess skin,

the upper range is probably indicative of better health than it is for a

person that has never been morbidly obese.

) Vicki

In a message dated 7/16/2002 5:52:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,

drasley@... writes:

> One thing though -- you can be above this BMI and be at lower risk than some

> people in this BMI. BMI is based strictly on height and weight correlation.

> The lower your weight the healthier you are provided you are not too thin

> (below 20 bmi). However, this number does not take into consideration your

> muscle mass vs. body fat percentage. If your BMI is 30 but you are very

> athletic and hence have a low body fat percentage you are healthier than

> someone with a BMI of 24 whose body fat is higher. MOst athletes when they

> are training have higher BMIs yet you really can't say that they are

> unhealthy (think marathon runners, crew teams, swimmers, etcetera). That is

> why I don't see the BMI as the be all and end all of health. Does that make

> sense? It is a statistical AVERAGE but it alone does not determine health.

> One reason why I don't aim for numbers. I aim for health and feeling good.

> I hate seeing people aiming for an elusive weight because they think they

> HAVE to weigh it for no other reason than it is on the scale. Does that

> make sense?

>

> Rasley

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No need to get defensive or explain this to me personally. Even the " chart "

itself explains that the numbers don't apply for weight lifters and

professional athletes. The fact is, most of us on the list are not

professional athletes or real body builders and we can look at the chart as a

decent range of healthy weight for us. This isn't the old medical charts

that used to say 100 pounds at 5 " tall and to add 5 pounds for every inch

over that . . . that wasn't based on axtuarial information and was unlikely

for even healthy people who never struggled with their weight. The BMI range

is very reasonable and livable for many people. Of course when a pewrson is

struggling with weight and weight gain, it all seems difficult or even

impossible. I remember when I'd do anything (take diuretics or laxatives) to

get the scale to read a certain number. LOL, I tell people now that say I

have never been as thin as I am now that I have actually weighed less, but

was bigger because I was just a dehydrated 160 pounder Vs a real 130 pounder.

And yes, if I would have died, that data would have gone into the actuarial

data and the higher fat and dehydration wouldn't be accounted for.

There is no reason to attach so much emotion to the numbers or try and

shoot them down or make justifications. Most of us know how we are doing

without even stepping on a scale. The reason we all avoided it when we were

gaining is because we knew we were goining and weren't ready to face it.

When a person is paying close attention and health and body conscious it is

different. As you know,(but others may not know), I didn't weigh myself for

almost 2 years. I stepped on the scale backwards at the doctor and I payed

close attention to how I felt and how clothes fit. That is what it took for

me to concentrate on reconnecting with body and learning to honor it. The

numbers meant so much to me that what they said effected my ability to

respect and honor my own physical needs. (If I had a gain I'd eat from

depression, a good loss and I'd eat in celebration . . .that is why it made

more sense for me not to weigh!) Now, due to surgery in Dec. and then again

last month, I know what I weigh and what my BMI is. I am excited because it

is real, not pushed by being naked, empty and leaning in the right

direction! (You all know what I mean, especially those that only weigh naked

first thing inb the AM after using the bathroom, leaning to the left or

right!) I'm not an athlete, nor do I have any other special considerations,

so I believe the BMI range is applicable to me and my health. For those of

us that have been MO unless we have plastic surgery to remove excess skin,

the upper range is probably indicative of better health than it is for a

person that has never been morbidly obese.

) Vicki

In a message dated 7/16/2002 5:52:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,

drasley@... writes:

> One thing though -- you can be above this BMI and be at lower risk than some

> people in this BMI. BMI is based strictly on height and weight correlation.

> The lower your weight the healthier you are provided you are not too thin

> (below 20 bmi). However, this number does not take into consideration your

> muscle mass vs. body fat percentage. If your BMI is 30 but you are very

> athletic and hence have a low body fat percentage you are healthier than

> someone with a BMI of 24 whose body fat is higher. MOst athletes when they

> are training have higher BMIs yet you really can't say that they are

> unhealthy (think marathon runners, crew teams, swimmers, etcetera). That is

> why I don't see the BMI as the be all and end all of health. Does that make

> sense? It is a statistical AVERAGE but it alone does not determine health.

> One reason why I don't aim for numbers. I aim for health and feeling good.

> I hate seeing people aiming for an elusive weight because they think they

> HAVE to weigh it for no other reason than it is on the scale. Does that

> make sense?

>

> Rasley

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No need to get defensive or explain this to me personally. Even the " chart "

itself explains that the numbers don't apply for weight lifters and

professional athletes. The fact is, most of us on the list are not

professional athletes or real body builders and we can look at the chart as a

decent range of healthy weight for us. This isn't the old medical charts

that used to say 100 pounds at 5 " tall and to add 5 pounds for every inch

over that . . . that wasn't based on axtuarial information and was unlikely

for even healthy people who never struggled with their weight. The BMI range

is very reasonable and livable for many people. Of course when a pewrson is

struggling with weight and weight gain, it all seems difficult or even

impossible. I remember when I'd do anything (take diuretics or laxatives) to

get the scale to read a certain number. LOL, I tell people now that say I

have never been as thin as I am now that I have actually weighed less, but

was bigger because I was just a dehydrated 160 pounder Vs a real 130 pounder.

And yes, if I would have died, that data would have gone into the actuarial

data and the higher fat and dehydration wouldn't be accounted for.

There is no reason to attach so much emotion to the numbers or try and

shoot them down or make justifications. Most of us know how we are doing

without even stepping on a scale. The reason we all avoided it when we were

gaining is because we knew we were goining and weren't ready to face it.

When a person is paying close attention and health and body conscious it is

different. As you know,(but others may not know), I didn't weigh myself for

almost 2 years. I stepped on the scale backwards at the doctor and I payed

close attention to how I felt and how clothes fit. That is what it took for

me to concentrate on reconnecting with body and learning to honor it. The

numbers meant so much to me that what they said effected my ability to

respect and honor my own physical needs. (If I had a gain I'd eat from

depression, a good loss and I'd eat in celebration . . .that is why it made

more sense for me not to weigh!) Now, due to surgery in Dec. and then again

last month, I know what I weigh and what my BMI is. I am excited because it

is real, not pushed by being naked, empty and leaning in the right

direction! (You all know what I mean, especially those that only weigh naked

first thing inb the AM after using the bathroom, leaning to the left or

right!) I'm not an athlete, nor do I have any other special considerations,

so I believe the BMI range is applicable to me and my health. For those of

us that have been MO unless we have plastic surgery to remove excess skin,

the upper range is probably indicative of better health than it is for a

person that has never been morbidly obese.

) Vicki

In a message dated 7/16/2002 5:52:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,

drasley@... writes:

> One thing though -- you can be above this BMI and be at lower risk than some

> people in this BMI. BMI is based strictly on height and weight correlation.

> The lower your weight the healthier you are provided you are not too thin

> (below 20 bmi). However, this number does not take into consideration your

> muscle mass vs. body fat percentage. If your BMI is 30 but you are very

> athletic and hence have a low body fat percentage you are healthier than

> someone with a BMI of 24 whose body fat is higher. MOst athletes when they

> are training have higher BMIs yet you really can't say that they are

> unhealthy (think marathon runners, crew teams, swimmers, etcetera). That is

> why I don't see the BMI as the be all and end all of health. Does that make

> sense? It is a statistical AVERAGE but it alone does not determine health.

> One reason why I don't aim for numbers. I aim for health and feeling good.

> I hate seeing people aiming for an elusive weight because they think they

> HAVE to weigh it for no other reason than it is on the scale. Does that

> make sense?

>

> Rasley

>

>

>