 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / June 2004Normal vs. Average
Something I found interesting: Though I don't put a lot of store in BMI (for reasons that have been discussed here a lot), I went to this site that someone referenced -- http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm -- and calculated my BMI, which is 24. This is just a little below the boundary between "overweight" and "normal". But then this site lets you compare yourself to other people of your same gender, and age group. It tells me that among women in the 50-59 age group, I'm in the 22nd percentile for BMI. Thus my BMI, while barely into the "normal" range, is significantly below "average" for women my age. I was surprised by this, rather. And given that I have far more muscle mass than the average 50-59 year old woman, my BF% is almost certainly even more below average. Chris 252/149/ (145-150) (I'm 5'6", by the way.) And neither "normal" nor "average" mean much. What's really important is "healthy," which these days is significantly lower than either "normal" or "average." -- bicker® http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html >And neither "normal" nor "average" mean much. What's really >important is "healthy," which these days is significantly >lower than either "normal" or "average." Well, I've no doubt that I'm healthy, thanks. Chris A Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:14:17 GMT, Chris Braun <braun_chris@mindspring.com> escribió: > >And neither "normal" nor "average" mean much. What's really > >important is "healthy," which these days is significantly > >lower than either "normal" or "average." > Well, I've no doubt that I'm healthy, thanks. Then the rest doesn't matter. A healthy weight is more important than being at some arbitrary position with respect to everyone else. -- bicker® http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html > A Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:14:17 GMT, Chris Braun > <braun_chris@mindspring.com> escribi?: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > important than being at some arbitrary position with respect > to everyone else. On a personal level, yes. But, if you ever have to apply for life insurance you may reach a different conclusion. GG > -- > bicker? > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html A Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:03:36 -0700, "GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> escribió: > > Then the rest doesn't matter. A healthy weight is more > > important than being at some arbitrary position with respect > > to everyone else. > On a personal level, yes. But, if you ever have to apply for life insurance > you may reach a different conclusion. No. This is because a healthy weight is considered to be a specific position, from which there is no data indicating there to be a better position. So if you're at a healthy weight, normal and average don't matter. -- bicker® http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html > A Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:03:36 -0700, "GaryG" > <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> escribi?: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > there to be a better position. So if you're at a healthy > weight, normal and average don't matter. Hmmmm...not sure I understand. We all want to be at a "healthy weight", but what does that mean? Is it a single number? And, how is it calculated? In my own case, what I consider my healthy weight during the cycling season is about 10 lbs less than my healthy weight during the fall and winter when I lift weights more often. Regardless, my comment was about the impact of body weight on life insurance rates. Insurance companies mostly just focus on Body Mass Index, regardless of body fat or lifestyle. Folks who lift weights and have increased musculature, can find themselves in the "overweight" or even "obesee" categories, resulting in higher rates for insurance. This, despite having low body fat and leading active presumably healthy lives. So, if you lift weights regularly you might want to check with your insurance agent prior to filling out an application, and diet down to get below their cutoff - it could save you a lot of money. GG > -- > bicker? > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html A Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:41:30 -0700, "GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> escribió: > > No. This is because a healthy weight is considered to be a > > specific position, from which there is no data indicating > > there to be a better position. So if you're at a healthy > > weight, normal and average don't matter. > Hmmmm...not sure I understand. We all want to be at a "healthy weight", but > what does that mean? Is it a single number? And, how is it calculated? While opinions about the exact way to know this vary, what we do know without dissent, is that it lies somewhere below the current "normal" and "average". -- bicker® http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/Diet_registry_040602.html >> A Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:14:17 GMT, Chris Braun >> <braun_chris@mindspring.com> escribió: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >GG At the 22nd percentile for BMI for my age, I hardly think it's going to cause me a problem applying for life insurance! Chris 252/149/ (145-150) > >> A Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:14:17 GMT, Chris Braun > >> <braun_chris@mindspring.com> escribi?: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > At the 22nd percentile for BMI for my age, I hardly think it's going > to cause me a problem applying for life insurance! They should give you a "healthy discount"!! :-) GG > Chris > 252/149/ (145-150) > Something I found interesting: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 252/149/ (145-150) > (I'm 5'6", by the way.) That was an interesting site. My BMI is 26.4 but I'm in the 34th percentile for my BMI and age (61). My current weight is also within the ranges for someone with a large frame. I'm not sure about the BF% but from looking around at other women in my age group I can only guess that it's better than average. Beverly >That was an interesting site. My BMI is 26.4 but I'm in the 34th >percentile for my BMI and age (61). My current weight is also within the >ranges for someone with a large frame. I'm not sure about the BF% but from >looking around at other women in my age group I can only guess that it's >better than average. I've no doubt your BF% is better than average, given your exercise level. I see older women in the gym locker room (who at least presumably exercise) who undoubtedly weigh much less than I -- small people with small frames -- who are just so flabby. They may not even fall into overweight categories in BMI, but they have no muscle and lots of jiggly fat. I'd take my muscular, large-framed body any day. My mother (who's 88 and has some good reasons for not exercising) is my height and weighs around 107, but is one of these flabby thin people. She and I are close to the same clothing size and can wear some of the same things. I'd say she's more a 6-8 and I'm an 8-10, but we have the same Liz Claiborne pants in a size 8. I fill them out more in the leg, but not in a bad way :-). This seems to me a particularly striking illustration of the difference muscle vs. fat makes. Chris 262/149/ (145-150) > Something I found interesting: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And given that I have far more muscle mass than the average 50-59 year > old woman, my BF% is almost certainly even more below average. And your bones may be heavier (due to being denser thanks to weight lifting), as well. i > Something I found interesting: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 252/149/ (145-150) > (I'm 5'6", by the way.) Thanks for sharing. I found this site to be very interesting and I have bookmarked it. :-)  Signaturejmk in NC Chris, we're twins! My wt 158, height 5' 8" - BMI 24 - pc rank 22. Of course, you're much more of a hero than I am since you've lost over 100 pounds and I've only lost 18 lbs. I'd be happy with my weight now if my waistline was slimmer - but I've lost weight everywhere except my gut. > Something I found interesting: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 252/149/ (145-150) > (I'm 5'6", by the way.) >Chris, we're twins! My wt 158, height 5' 8" - BMI 24 - pc rank 22. That's pretty funny :-). (By the way, Brad, I don't know if you saw my post saying that DH and I were up at Brown the same weekend you were -- another thing we have in common. Bob and I are alumni.) >Of course, you're much more of a hero than I am since you've lost over >100 pounds and I've only lost 18 lbs. I'd be happy with my weight now >if my waistline was slimmer - but I've lost weight everywhere except >my gut. I don't know if that makes me a hero. One could argue that you were more of a hero for maintaining a healthier weight. It took me a while to really feel I was getting a nice waistline, but now I think it's pretty good. Weight comes off where it wants to, I think. My Olympic lifting coach insists it comes off from the top down, which seems totally silly but wasn't far wrong in my case. Chris 262/149/ (145-150) >Something I found interesting: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >252/149/ (145-150) >(I'm 5'6", by the way.) Quite interesting. I've got a bmi of 22.5 and am in the 24 percentile for average. As in, 76% of the population my age weigh more than me. Based on life's observation, I'd say that's utter bull honkies! :-) I'd love to know where they gather this data from, as nobody has ever asked me to gather this information with. I take that site with a *huge* grain of salt. Depending on the figures I put into it (my weight fluctuates somewhat), it claims I'm underweight...to barely normal, if I take a few-pound higher weight (in case my scale is off) and a inch lower height (for the half-inch shorter my last doc visit claimed I was). Supposedly, I'm at or under the 4th percentile, and perhaps even under the 2nd percentile, for a woman my height and age. Frankly, I'm sure the BMI measurement is off (I lack muscle), and I really doubt all those same-aged women my height weigh more than I do...I've seen enough of them that I envy for their svelteness. Anyway, that's my two cents' worth. beeswing, who's just being practical > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > beeswing, > who's just being practical Well, if you are down in the 2nd percentile or so for your age, height, and gender, then yes, you may in fact be underweight. I've exchanged emails with Dr. Hall, and discussed with him how he developed his formulas. His is one of the best sites on the web for information about BMI, and the results on his site are accurate. re: > Frankly, I'm sure the BMI > measurement is off (I lack muscle) BMI has nothing to do with muscle. It is merely a number relating weight to height. re: > and I really doubt all those same-aged > women my height weigh more than I do...I've seen enough of them that I envy for > their svelteness. The numbers are accurate - roughly 97% of women your age and height weigh more than you do. Your comments regarding your weight raise some red flags. If your BMI is in the teens (which I suspect), and you truly don't believe that the vast majority of women your age weigh more than you, and you talk about "envying their svelteness"...it sounds to me like you may have an eating disorder. I urge you to discuss this with your doctor and/or a nutritionist. GG > Well, if you are down in the 2nd percentile or so for your age, height, and > gender, then yes, you may in fact be underweight. I've exchanged emails > with Dr. Hall, and discussed with him how he developed his formulas. His is > one of the best sites on the web for information about BMI, and the results > on his site are accurate. Weird, I just had my monthly weigh in at Curves last night (as well as my measurements) and they tallied my BMI to be 29.1, whereas this site says I'm 24.5! I'll take the number from the site anyday! -coop >> Well, if you are down in the 2nd percentile or so for your age, height, > and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -coop what is your weight and height? BMI is your weight in kilograms, divided by the square of yur height in meters. It is not some mystical formula. i > > Well, if you are down in the 2nd percentile or so for your age, height, > and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -coop Are you sure you're not confusing Body Mass Index with Body Fat Percentage? These two are commonly confused. Body Mass Index is based on a standard formula that uses your weight and height. Your BMI is always calculated, never estimated (assuming you know your weight and height). Body Fat Percentage is an estimate of the percentage of your body weight that is fat. It is estimated using a number of different techniques (skinfold caliper measurements, body circumference measurements, bio-electric impedance, etc.). GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary > > > Well, if you are down in the 2nd percentile or so for your age, height, > > and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Are you sure you're not confusing Body Mass Index with Body Fat Percentage? > These two are commonly confused. Curves measures the body fat percentage. I don't believe they ever calculated my BMI while I was a member. Maybe it varies from location to location. >>>>Well, if you are down in the 2nd percentile or so for your age, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > calculated my BMI while I was a member. Maybe it varies from location to > location. And this is an excellent example of why you'd want BF% calculated. 24 is a reasonable BMI, IIRC. But 29% body fat is not exactly trim. (22-23% is fit.) I've read Dr. Hall's stuff. It's lovingly packaged bullshit. BMI's are not sensible things to aim for at an individual level. You MUST know your body fat percentage to make a reasonable goal. Otherwise you're just hoping to weaken your bones and reduce your muscle mass driving your metabolism - in other words, you're after non-sensical goals. Strive to be strong and healthy, people, being the best YOU that you can be. It is unique and wonderful. Don't pay attention to those damn BMI charts! Dally 42%/27.8%/23% >> Curves measures the body fat percentage. I don't believe they ever >> calculated my BMI while I was a member. Maybe it varies from location to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is a reasonable BMI, IIRC. But 29% body fat is not exactly trim. > (22-23% is fit.) I don't know how Curves calculated bodyfat, but if it's with a scale or hand-held bioimpedance doodad, you can lower it by more than 10 percent by trying it when you're thirsty, and trying it again after a large drink. I've done that with the hand-held bodyfat calculators in stores like Sharper Image and others in malls. Your hydration has a huge effect on the readings. (I don't know about other Curves, but I have a hard time picturing the saleswomen at the local Curves having a clue about using calipers.) The home scales that "measure" bodyfat are known to read an average of nine percent high on women, from what I recall of a Consumer Reports article quite some time ago. They're only useful for observing a downward trend, and not for actual bodyfat percentages. Signaturejamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com) "There's a seeker born every minute." > Are you sure you're not confusing Body Mass Index with Body Fat Percentage? > These two are commonly confused. Ah, maybe that's it. That makes sense. Ig, I'm 5'4" and 145. I've been cycling for the better part of 2 months now and after my weigh in I expected to be closer to my 20 pound loss mark, however I didn't take into account the fact that my legs are putting on muscle LOL. In that one month, although I lost an INCH on my waist (and various other parts) I only lost 2 pounds. 2 pounds. *sigh* But I went down a jean size, so I'm making progress, I just didn't account for the heavier muscle mass. -coop >> Are you sure you're not confusing Body Mass Index with Body Fat > Percentage? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -coop I did not post the message that you responded to, but, I heard from many people that when they start exercising heavily, they stop losing weight for some time, but lose inches. i > >Something I found interesting: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Based on life's observation, I'd say that's utter bull honkies! :-) I've exchanged emails with Dr. Hall and discussed his formulas with him. I'm pretty certain that they are correct. However, they are based on US averages, so might not be applicable in other countries. One clarification, however...you state that "76% of the population my age weigh more than me". This is not quite accurate - you left out height. The weight percentile is based on age, weight, gender, and height. GG > I'd love to know where they gather this data from, as nobody has ever > asked me to gather this information with. > I've exchanged emails with Dr. Hall and discussed his formulas with him. > I'm pretty certain that they are correct. However, they are based on US > averages, so might not be applicable in other countries. His formulas are no different that the general BMI calculation formulas that can be found on one of hundreds, if not thousands of sites out there, or calculated by inserting your age, weight and height into the BMI formula. Its the "national averages" that I tend to question. Where he gets that data from. I'd love to know where these obesity reports come from and the "average weight" reports come from. As, I've certainly never been sampled for any report study like this, nor have I ever heard of one. > > I've exchanged emails with Dr. Hall and discussed his formulas with him. > > I'm pretty certain that they are correct. However, they are based on US [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can be found on one of hundreds, if not thousands of sites out there, or > calculated by inserting your age, weight and height into the BMI formula. Correct, as far as the BMI number is concerned. BMI is based on a standard formula and most sites on the web get it right (although I've seen some that are mis-programmed and get it wrong). He has, however, added his own medical judgement to the interpretation of BMI (i.e., the categorization of "Normal Range", "Overweight", "Obese", etc.), and has developed his own proprietary formulas for categorizing it. Specifically, he has taken into account age and gender, and used his knowledge of national weight averages and trends. He has also added a category of "Marginally Overweight" that the Centers for Disease Control and World Heath Organization do not recognize (in their scheme, you go straight from Normal Range to Overweight at BMI=25). I've discussed this with him, and his reasoning is sound, in my opinion. His categories are especially applicable to older adults, as BMI tends to naturally increase with age. His categories also take into account gender. Both age and gender are omitted in the CDC/WHO BMI interpretations - this makes interpretations easier (you can simply read them off a chart), but somewhat less applicable. > Its the "national averages" that I tend to question. Where he gets that > data from. I'd love to know where these obesity reports come from and the > "average weight" reports come from. As, I've certainly never been sampled > for any report study like this, nor have I ever heard of one. They don't do surveys or samples to establish national weight averages. The data is available from a wide variety of medical studies. I don't know which specific source he chose when he developed his formulas, but based on the quality of analysis on the rest of his site, I trust that he used reputable data. GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.