PDA

View Full Version : What would you guys do?



junglesteve
2011-02-26, 01:19 AM
I am on the last stretch of my goal and slowly reaching my way toward 150lbs; I weigh in at 160lbs (Used to weigh 272lbs). My parents are up in arms at the moment because they think I have some sort of mental disorder and I am at an unhealthy weight reaching for a further unhealthy weight. They have pretty much convinced my entire family I am some kind of self image nut job! I've tried to ignore it but thats all they ever try to bring up and shove down my throat. I have no idea what to do beyond completely ignoring my family for a few years... which I really don't want to do.

(I am 5'10" by the way and according to the air force weight chart the minimum weight I could be for recruitment purposes is 132lbs.)

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 01:25 AM
What's your hip-to-waist ratio? You should be around 0.9 (assuming you are male). If you're much less, they might have a point. If you're significantly higher, you're porbably about on tract.*
Basically, get some evidence. Check your health and what approximate weight you should be at, ask a doctor, etc.


*edit: You know... those typos are so silly I'm just gonna leave 'em there.

rakkoon
2011-02-26, 02:38 AM
Have nice and quiet sit down with them and quietly explain to them why you are doing this. The pamflet from the air force and and explanation about BMI might help too.

Don Julio Anejo
2011-02-26, 04:42 AM
IMO you're fine at 160 pounds if you've been exercising to lose this weight (instead of just dieting). 150 at 5'10" is borderline too little unless it's your natural weight and you have the build of a crackhead emo in skinny jeans. Seriously, this is a pretty damn good point to stop losing weight and only exercise to maintain your current condition. Or even start packing on muscle (although that actually requires you to _gain_ weight).

If you're doing it for air force recruitment, again, you're fine where you are. If you're doing it to look good --> tall and muscular (lean/swimmer's body, not Arnold/The Rock) >> tall and skinny any day of the week.

Cespenar
2011-02-26, 05:51 AM
Show them this (http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/) and move on.

Icewalker
2011-02-26, 06:09 AM
Serp is right: what's your build like? 150 lbs at 5' 10" could be anything from perfectly average, to a bit underweight, to somewhat overweight, depending on your build (but probably just very healthy). I have a very wiry build myself, so that kind of ratio would be unusual (I'm about 145 at 6'). Sounds like your family is having a huge overreaction.

Yep. Just checked the BMI calculator there. 160 at that height is within the healthy range. 150 is even closer to the middle of the healthy range, which is 'ideal' although it varies person to person.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 06:50 AM
Yep. Just checked the BMI calculator there. 160 at that height is within the healthy range. 150 is even closer to the middle of the healthy range, which is 'ideal' although it varies person to person....but the hip-to-waist ratio is a better indicator of health etc. and is generally all-round better :smallwink:

Castaras
2011-02-26, 07:35 AM
Meh, I ignore BMI. I'm perfectly healthy (fast metabolism, and just an overall thin body shape) and am 5' 9'' with a weight of just over 120 pounds. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to put on a few pounds but I'm not fussed about weight. :smallsmile:

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 07:36 AM
Yes, but what's your hip-to-waist ratio?

Noone ever answers me :smallsigh: :smalltongue:

Castaras
2011-02-26, 07:37 AM
That would be because I'm not too certain how to measure it. :smalltongue: Is it just measure hip, measure waist, then divide or what?

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 07:40 AM
Measure your waist at its narrowest (for me, slightly above my bellybutton), your hips at their widest (for me, right on line with my... nevermind), and divide the former by the latter (waist/hips). As a girl, your ideal is probably* around 0.7.


*It still isn't completely accurate for every single person, but it works for the vast majority and a lot more and better than the BMI.

edit: The best image I could find to help is just a touch borderline. I think I could get away with it, but I should probably ask first, so instead I'll just tell you that there's guides to measuring properly online.

Castaras
2011-02-26, 07:43 AM
Found a cool calculator that'd do the stuff for me. Tada! (http://www.bmi-calculator.net/waist-to-hip-ratio-calculator/)

And a chart (http://www.bmi-calculator.net/waist-to-hip-ratio-calculator/waist-to-hip-ratio-chart.php).

I'm 0.78. I think that means I'm healthy? :smallbiggrin:

Eldan
2011-02-26, 07:44 AM
Would that be diameter or circumference?

Asta Kask
2011-02-26, 07:48 AM
I think you should ask yourself - What Would Thor Do?

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 07:49 AM
Circumference, but I think it might not actually quite matter.

Cassie: Huh... So many of those things don't have anything below 0.8. This one (http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/WHR.htm) goes into a bit more detail, which puts you in "good". So not too shabby :smallsmile: 0.7's the ideal, though - and my target.

Asta Kask
2011-02-26, 07:51 AM
And ATM you are at?

*nosy*

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 07:52 AM
According to the last time I measured. 0.81. However, as I lose weight off my waist I lose it off my hips, as well, which makes my ratio take longer to come down...
My weight is just under 95kg, and I'm aiming at 70-75.

Asta Kask
2011-02-26, 07:55 AM
0.81 is pretty good. I a good bit over 1... :smallfrown:

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 07:58 AM
For guys the ideal is 0.9... which makes that chart I linked to really odd :smallconfused: Checking wiki... Yeah, 0.9 and 0.7. Weird :smallconfused:

edit: Castaras' chart is pretty much the same for that end, though. Man, men have even less wriggle-room than women :smalleek:

Keveak
2011-02-26, 08:23 AM
I need a tape measurer, but until then I will just sort to asking stupid questions. :D

I'm 188 cm (6'2 feet for those of you in America) tall and weigh 67-69 kg (147-152 lbs) depending on how I've been eating and exercising at the time.

Does anyone know if this is healthy or not? The BMI say so but as it has been said, that maybe inaccurate. ^_^'

Thank you. :smallsmile:

Spiryt
2011-02-26, 08:28 AM
I need a tape measurer, but until then I will just sort to asking stupid questions. :D

I'm 188 cm (6'2 feet for those of you in America) tall and weigh 67-69 kg (147-152 lbs) depending on how I've been eating and exercising at the time.

Does anyone know if this is healthy or not? The BMI say so but as it has been said, that maybe inaccurate. ^_^'

Thank you. :smallsmile:

Asking assh.... guys over the Internet isn't really going to lead anywhere.:smallamused:

Aside from things like heavily promoted (by one person, but still strongly :smalltongue:) waist to hip ratio, you can always check your Body Fat - there are electronic scales for that, and plenty of methods, may post some later.

Anyway - if you're healthy depends entirely on.... your health. Nothing can be told from 3 numbers, maybe picture would help.

Anyway, you're obviously of thin stature, but there's nothing inherently unhealthy about it.

As I mentioned, details would depend on how much of that is fat. Should be not a lot of that, but again it varies.

I've had a friend who was in fact about 193 and weighted around the same as you. Just laaaanky dude.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 08:28 AM
Sounds underweight, to me... Fun fact: you can just use a couple of pieces of string and a ruler :smallwink:

Castaras
2011-02-26, 08:29 AM
Sounds underweight, to me... Fun fact: you can just use a couple of pieces of string and a ruler :smallwink:

You don't even need a ruler! This online ruler is good enough (http://www.iruler.net/).

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 08:30 AM
Handy!
Also: I think it roughly works with a photo, too.

Spiryt
2011-02-26, 08:32 AM
Yo!

Link (http://www.linear-software.com/online.html)

Orzel
2011-02-26, 10:06 AM
As a 5' 10" guy who is currently 160, I say you are fine... just a little underweight.

I had weight gaining issues and not until I hit 20 have I be not very underweight depise eating everyone's food. But the whole time i've been healthy.

snoopy13a
2011-02-26, 10:18 AM
Junglesteve: Your weight is fine. 150 would be fine as well. I wouldn't suggest going lower because it can be nice to have some fat reserves in case you get the flu or pnemunoia or something.

Keveak: Your weight is borderline healthy. It is fine but again, unless you are a distance runner or something (where being low weight but healthy is ideal), adding 5-10 pounds won't be a problem.

Castaras: Unless you have a really light frame, you should probably gain weight.

For the majority of people, BMI is a fine estimation of body fat. It only runs into problems with two classes of people:

1) Those who strength train. Building up a significant amount of muscle will cause a healthy individual to appear overweight or in extreme cases, obese.

2) Those with little muscle mass such as the elderly. Their healthy weight is a little less than the average person.

Unfortunately, it seems everyone on the internet thinks they fall into category 1 so they decry BMI as inaccurate. Essentally it is because they don't want to admit to themselves that their 5'11 190 pound frame is overweight. Quite frankly, if you're not working out on a regular basis and have built up serious muscle, the BMI is probably accurate in your case.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 10:35 AM
Castaras: Unless you have a really light frame, you should probably gain weight.Where are you getting that from? :smallconfused: According to her the BMI puts her in the Healthy range, and according to the WHR she's healthy-to-could-lose-a-bit.

For the majority of people, BMI is a fine estimation of body fat.Not really, because that's not what it was made for.

Unfortunately, it seems everyone on the internet thinks they fall into category 1 so they decry BMI as inaccurate. Essentally it is because they don't want to admit to themselves that their 5'11 190 pound frame is overweight. Quite frankly, if you're not working out on a regular basis and have built up serious muscle, the BMI is probably accurate in your case.Uh... No? :smallconfused: Because the WHR is demonstrably more accurate an indicator of body fat, health, diabetes and other health risks, fertility and aesthetics. And, by the way, I'm overweight either way and fully acknowledge that :smallannoyed: Hell, I'm probably exactly the sort of shape that fits into it absolutely perfectly (at a healthy weight I'm pretty much a perfect hourglass, and when I was smack-bang in the middle of "healthy weight" way back in high school I looked healthy weight), but that doesn't change the fact that the Waist-to-Hip Ratio is just plain better.
The BMI can be useful, but it certainly shouldn't be relied upon, and certainly not at the expense of other, better, systems.

Spiryt
2011-02-26, 10:43 AM
Unfortunately, it seems everyone on the internet thinks they fall into category 1 so they decry BMI as inaccurate. Essentally it is because they don't want to admit to themselves that their 5'11 190 pound frame is overweight. Quite frankly, if you're not working out on a regular basis and have built up serious muscle, the BMI is probably accurate in your case.


Not really. It doesn't estimate body fat or anything, because those are two damn numbers with dividing, without estimating anything at all.

If someone has to large BMI, he can very well see himself somethings wrong.

On the other hand, other guy won't see anything, because he has just simply bigger build. So what's the use of it?


Because the WHR is demonstrably more accurate an indicator of body fat, health, diabetes and other health risks, fertility and aesthetics.

OK, I must ask, how the hell is WHR supposed to indicate fertility or aesthetics ?? :smallconfused:

I will stand by the positions that you must just tell if body's allright or not.

Even BF isn't all that helpful, if you have low leves, but all happened to gather in hanging tires here and there, it won't be that good either.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 10:48 AM
OK, I must ask, how the hell is WHR supposed to indicate fertility or aesthetics ?? :smallconfused:Experiment. A WHR of ~0.7 for women and 0.9 for men corresponded with peak fertility, and when given a variety of body shapes to rate people of both sexes from different races and cultures it was always an average peak preference at 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men.
Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio#Indicator_of_health)

edit: I see the wiki article doesn't actually support my "from different races and cultures" bit so much. I know I read that at least one study found that, for example, even though Africans preferred a larger bottom on their women, it still came out to approximately a 0.7 ratio (a bit off, but not much).

Spiryt
2011-02-26, 10:56 AM
Experiment. A WHR of ~0.7 for women and 0.9 for men corresponded with peak fertility, and when given a variety of body shapes to rate people of both sexes from different races and cultures it was always an average peak preference at 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men.
Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio#Indicator_of_health)

edit: I see the wiki article doesn't actually support my "from different races and cultures" bit so much. I know I read that at least one study found that, for example, even though Africans preferred a larger bottom on their women, it still came out to approximately a 0.7 ratio (a bit off, but not much).

As I thought, it's worse than a fact, it's a statistic :smallwink:

Anyway, I can easily see how it works for aesthetics in some limited way, but I can't see how loosing a bit of fat there or there would really change much about health.

Maybe a bit with hormonal stuff (less fat there, less estrogen there)... but it usually works precisely the other way around.

I appear to have this ratio at about 0.75 to 0.8. Pretty low for a dude, no?

At the same time, my fat level around there and everywhere is pretty damn low.

So it had essentially showed me that I have rather wide hips/pelvis relatively to my general dimensions.

And again, that's something I managed to notice without any help. :smallwink:

EDIT: There's also high possiblity that I screwed up the measuring, but still, point stands, as it wouldn't bring that inaccurate results.:smallwink:

snoopy13a
2011-02-26, 11:41 AM
Where are you getting that from? :smallconfused: According to her the BMI puts her in the Healthy range, and according to the WHR she's healthy-to-could-lose-a-bit.


She said she was 5'9" and 120 pounds. That's a BMI of 17.7 which is normally underweight.

Also, from the Mayo Clinic:


Body mass index (BMI) is a formula that uses weight and height to estimate body fat. Excess body fat is related to serious health conditions. For most people, BMI provides a reasonable estimate of body fat. The BMI's biggest weakness is that it doesn't consider individual factors such as bone or muscle mass. BMI may:

Underestimate body fat for older adults or other people with low muscle mass

Overestimate body fat for people who are very muscular and physically fit

Inadequately evaluate health risks of people with excess abdominal fat

In addition, people of Asian descent may have an increased risk of health problems at a lower BMI threshold than the general population. Asians with a BMI of 23 or higher may be at risk.

Talk with your doctor if you have questions about your BMI. (emphasis added)

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597 (run through the formula and click on "What BMI means").

Quite frankly, I find the Mayo Clinic to be a reliable source.

Castaras
2011-02-26, 12:28 PM
She said she was 5'9" and 120 pounds. That's a BMI of 17.7 which is normally underweight.

BMI doesn't work for me. :smallsmile: My family on my father's side are all skinny as rakes until they get to their 40s. I take after dad in that respect. If I could put on weight I would, I eat like a horse. :smalltongue:

Plus the fact that I am a weakling when it comes to muscles. In your quote it states as such that BMI underestimates when you have little muscle. So ya... I'm perfectly healthy, provided I don't lose weight. ^^

KuReshtin
2011-02-26, 06:04 PM
She said she was 5'9" and 120 pounds. That's a BMI of 17.7 which is normally underweight.

Also, from the Mayo Clinic:

Body mass index (BMI) is a formula that uses weight and height to estimate body fat. Excess body fat is related to serious health conditions. For most people, BMI provides a reasonable estimate of body fat. The BMI's biggest weakness is that it doesn't consider individual factors such as bone or muscle mass. BMI may:

Underestimate body fat for older adults or other people with low muscle mass

Overestimate body fat for people who are very muscular and physically fit

Inadequately evaluate health risks of people with excess abdominal fat

In addition, people of Asian descent may have an increased risk of health problems at a lower BMI threshold than the general population. Asians with a BMI of 23 or higher may be at risk.

Talk with your doctor if you have questions about your BMI.
(emphasis added)

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597 (run through the formula and click on "What BMI means").

Quite frankly, I find the Mayo Clinic to be a reliable source.

On the other hand, they do emphasise that it has drawbacks and isn't always reliable (my emphasis added in your quote), which is why it doesn't work as a body fat indicator. It's a body weight indicator tha is used to see if people weigh more than what might be good for them, but it doesn't necessarily mean they've got too much body fat.

Me: I'm very overweight and I know I am. I found a tape measure and did the WHR that Serps advocates, and it had me at 1.01 (if I measured the right bits :smallwink:) but on the other hand, I also used one of the BMI calculators and found that my 5'10, 320lbs is around a 46.5 BMI.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 09:24 PM
As I thought, it's worse than a fact, it's a statistic :smallwink:My words:

Because the WHR is demonstrably more accurate an indicator of body fat, health, diabetes and other health risks, fertility and aesthetics.This is, in fact, true: according to the experiments done, the further from the ideal WHR you are, the more or less body fat you have, the more likely you are to have health problems including diabetes and fertility problems, and the less aesthetically appealing you will be on average (compared with if you were the ideal WHR, mind - you can still be fat and hawt :smallwink:).
It's neither a fact nor a statistic, it's an observation, which makes the WHR a useful indicator and predictor of certain factors, and a better one than the BMI.
Anyway, I can easily see how it works for aesthetics in some limited way, but I can't see how loosing a bit of fat there or there would really change much about health.

Maybe a bit with hormonal stuff (less fat there, less estrogen there)... but it usually works precisely the other way around.Just because you can't imagine how it would work doesn't mean it doesn't. It should be pretty self-evident how it works for aesthetics, and "losing a bit of fat here or there" actually makes a HUGE difference to health - including fertility - regardless of your opinions.

I appear to have this ratio at about 0.75 to 0.8. Pretty low for a dude, no?

At the same time, my fat level around there and everywhere is pretty damn low.Uh... That is exactly what your low WHR says. That you have low body fat :smallconfused: More specifically, that you might have unhealthily low body fat, and it might be worth talking to a doctor about whether you need to put on some more.
Significantly under 0.9 on a guy = underweight, significantly over = overweight.

Marillion
2011-02-26, 09:26 PM
Circumference, but I think it might not actually quite matter.

Cassie: Huh... So many of those things don't have anything below 0.8. This one (http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/WHR.htm) goes into a bit more detail, which puts you in "good". So not too shabby :smallsmile: 0.7's the ideal, though - and my target.

"Average" is unacceptable? BOOOOO:smallannoyed:

Right now, my ratio is .9. But, when I was in the best shape I've ever been in, I had a ratio of .75. And I'm a dude.

Yyyyep.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 09:40 PM
"Average" is unacceptable? BOOOOO:smallannoyed:Yeah, that was weird. Not sure what they were doing with that. Unless maybe they meant "average" as in "the average American (or wherever) fits in here, and is also overweight"?
That's why I hate the new tendency to put "DI" values - the "average daily intake" - on food, instead of the "RDI" - "recommended daily intake". The average intake is the reason why the average person is overweight :smallannoyed:

Right now, my ratio is .9. But, when I was in the best shape I've ever been in, I had a ratio of .75. And I'm a dude.

Yyyyep.All it can tell you is your likely health based on body fat. If you're overweight or underweight but get a lot of exercise, you're likely to be healthier than the person who's a healthy weight who just sits on their arse all day. But, well, probably not as healthy as a person who's a healthy weight and exercises...

Marillion
2011-02-26, 09:48 PM
I was at a healthy weight. I just have child-bearing hips :smalltongue:

Icewalker
2011-02-26, 09:56 PM
Yeah, from what I can see, the WHR is probably a better system than BMI, but honestly both are relatively sketchy, just because people can vary so much that it's really hard for there to be a numerical standard that applies to everyone, due to significant differences in build person to person.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 10:00 PM
That's why you use it as a guide, and ask a doctor if you're worried *shrug*

Worira
2011-02-26, 10:01 PM
The same goes for BMI.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 10:09 PM
Yes, but the WHR is more likely to be accurate :smalltongue:

Icewalker
2011-02-26, 10:11 PM
I'm curious about mine but too lazy to check right now. I'm guessing I'd fall a bit below the male average, because I have a veeery thin build.

Don Julio Anejo
2011-02-26, 10:35 PM
Serp, I think you're confusing the waist to hip ratio as an aesthetic measure rather than a health one. Body fat percentage is much easier to use to tell if someone is fat or not. Yes, it's more difficult to calculate (and the simplest method requires 5 or so tape measures), but it says a lot more about whether a person is healthy, overweight or underweight.

Waist : hip ratio is pretty much just a measure of attractiveness, and even then, is more important for women to take into consideration than for men. Men need to work on having a nice butt and nice shoulders.

Serpentine
2011-02-26, 11:03 PM
:sigh:
No, it isn't. See the wiki link I posted before - and do searches on Google Scholar if you want to. Aesthetics is one of the things indicated by WHR, which is a rough measure of body fat percentage and therefore a decent predictor of various health issues.


A WHR of 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men have been shown to correlate strongly with general health and fertility. Women within the 0.7 range have optimal levels of estrogen and are less susceptible to major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and ovarian cancers.[4] Men with WHRs around 0.9, similarly, have been shown to be more healthy and fertile with less prostate cancer and testicular cancer.[5]Several (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3618826) different (http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/whr-singh2002.pdf) sources (https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_11_011203/wel10182_fm-1.pdf).

valadil
2011-02-26, 11:42 PM
Run. Odds are, you're faster than your parents and should have no trouble escaping their inane ramblings.