Posted on 12/13/2004 3:41:22 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
At 5'10 and 170 pounds I register a 24.4 on the bmi scale.
Not the way I would recommend it, but sickness this weekend [think Wyatt Earp ;-( ] helped me to shed 5 pounds. Not the weigh (pun intended) I would like to drop those extra pounds.
I'm 5'3", 105 lbs., and have a very small frame.
My BMI is 18.6.
They said I was underweight.
I beg to differ.
While I am small, I do NOT look like Calista Flockhart.
The BMI isn't realistic for 'maternal use'. It is marketing not norm.
And MERRY CHRISTMAS to you.
BTW, I drive too fast, too. ;o)
You are right xjcsa, it does not factor in ectomorph, mesomorph, and endomorph
>>> Not realistic for moms, but very realistic for the diet industry.
Bingo!
My BMI = 34.4 (240 pounds), and yes, I am losing weight. I would like to get to around 220 where I have always felt best. The recommendation according to the chart is 132 - 174 lbs. The smallest I have been in my adult life was just under 180 – when I returned from Viet Nam. I was downright emaciated. My collarbones, ribs and hipbones were clearly visible and I felt run down and weak.
The Army weight standards when I retired were based primarily on a weight/height chart, and according to it I could weigh no mare than about 160 – but every year I saw the doc for a body fat measurement and was given a clean go. At 220 I still had about 15 pounds to spare.
Thing is, I'm over 6'2.
"185" might be normal for a 6'2 stack of Pez candy but a 6'2+ man is underweight until 200.
Do tell.
Based on weak evidence, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel in 1998, chaired by pharmaceutically-funded obesity researcher Xavier Pi-Sunyer, shifted the definition of "overweight" from a BMI of 27.8 for men and 27.3 for women all the way down to 25 for both genders.
No less than Judith Stern of the American Obesity Association -- the scaremongering lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical and weight-loss industry -- came out against the redefinition.
There's no difference between the Fat Warriors and the global warming crowd.
It's agenda driven junk science with the aim of more government funding and control.
We have to stop fooling ourselves. We are a fat nation and we might as well just admit to it. The BMI is an excellent indicator for most people of obesity. Only one in a thousand of us are professional athletes or body-builders who can be in great shape regardless of BMI. For the rest of us couch potatos, the BMI is a pretty good guideline.
wonder what her BMI is?
Surgeons Remove Woman's 66-Pound Tumor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300684/posts
Yeah, that's what I've decided. For anyone with an average build, the BMI is pretty much right on. But it's easy not to realize just how overweight you are. I'm 6'1" and I didn't think I was all that fat when I weighed 240, but then I just kept losing and losing and losing on Atkins...and I feel rather overweight now at 178! BMI says perfection for me is 165, and that's probably true.
Im 6' 4" @ 325 # My index is 39.6 WOW im a fatty fatty fatso
Given your size and screen name, I doubt anyone would call you that face to face!
I'm no doctor, but I think your body was interpreting your condition as borderline starvation, and was shutting down non-essential body functions.
No, that is a common condition for female body builders. I also was heavily into kata (well, still am); but I was way too low on body fat then.
# Secondary (adult onset): previously menstruating woman has no menses for > 3 cycles or for 6 mo
* In nonpregnant women, most common causes of secondary amenorrhea
I had Hypothalamic dysfunction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.