2011 Weight Loss Thread!

It's quite fashionable to have a go at the BMI, but it has an *incredibly* broad range of healthy weight (to cover all frame sizes except maybe Goliath or Tiny Tim), and as far as I'm concerned I'd never dream of letting myself get near the top of the recommended range, let alone beyond it. For a start none of my clothes would fit!

There are very few examples (other than extreme body building, which is at the fringes of human behaviour) where BMI doesn't work pretty well IMO. There's always a queue of folk saying they're "special cases" for one reason or another, but that's to ignore the fact that evolution didn't equip us with superhuman joints and organs capable of sustaining long periods of excessive weight. And social norms have shifted a long way in the last 30+ years (I'm 48 -- no idea how I got there! -- and have seen this in action), so "excessive weight" means a lot more than it used to. After all, we compare ourselves with those around us, not some seemingly abstract charts.

IMO if you want an example of what we're supposed to look like "in the wild" you want to study lean Africa marathon runners designed to chase down Wildebeest for hours, not lardy (if muscular) Rugby League players designed to wrestle other lardy rugby players for a while, then stand around panting. :-)

Still, whatever guidelines people like to use, what matters most is the weight each individual person is content with. I feel most healthy and alive (and free from back pain) when towards the bottom end of my suggested BMI. And as both my younger brothers have had knee surgery I intend to stay in this range as long as I can, even if that means ignoring the 10p Cadbury's Creme Eggs I foolishly bought the other day when bargain-itis struck. :-) However others would feel like they were about to snap in half at my target weight.

Hopefully though, whether we all agree on ideal weight or not, we can all contribute advice which might be useful. And in that vein I will add another couple of tips to the pile.

1) I keep a cheap pack of lard in the freezer (so it won't go off). Whenever my resolve is flagging during lean spells I dig that out and have a good hard look at it. It tends to help focus your mind on what you're trying to dump. And if that doesn't work...

2) Weigh out 14lbs of assorted items*, put them in a rucksack, and wear it for a while. That *really* helps remind you what you're carrying around and why to might be a good idea to lose it.

Andrew McP

*Unless you only need to lose 7, obviously. ;-)
 
There are very few examples (other than extreme body building, which is at the fringes of human behaviour) where BMI doesn't work pretty well IMO.
*Unless you only need to lose 7, obviously. ;-)

Its not that I think BMI is bad & I do agree that people do seem to jump on it a bit too harshly - but there are better ways to monitor your overall health. I think your waist measurement is one of those ways.

I started the year weighing 114 KG, currently down to 102 KG. If I were to aim for the middle of the normal band of the BMI scale I would be aiming for 80 KG.

I really doubt I have 22 KG of body weight to lose to be in optimum shape.
 
It's quite fashionable to have a go at the BMI, but it has an *incredibly* broad range of healthy weight (to cover all frame sizes except maybe Goliath or Tiny Tim), and as far as I'm concerned I'd never dream of letting myself get near the top of the recommended range, let alone beyond it. For a start none of my clothes would fit!

There are very few examples (other than extreme body building, which is at the fringes of human behaviour) where BMI doesn't work pretty well IMO. There's always a queue of folk saying they're "special cases" for one reason or another, but that's to ignore the fact that evolution didn't equip us with superhuman joints and organs capable of sustaining long periods of excessive weight. And social norms have shifted a long way in the last 30+ years (I'm 48 -- no idea how I got there! -- and have seen this in action), so "excessive weight" means a lot more than it used to. After all, we compare ourselves with those around us, not some seemingly abstract charts.

IMO if you want an example of what we're supposed to look like "in the wild" you want to study lean Africa marathon runners designed to chase down Wildebeest for hours, not lardy (if muscular) Rugby League players designed to wrestle other lardy rugby players for a while, then stand around panting. :-)

Still, whatever guidelines people like to use, what matters most is the weight each individual person is content with. I feel most healthy and alive (and free from back pain) when towards the bottom end of my suggested BMI. And as both my younger brothers have had knee surgery I intend to stay in this range as long as I can, even if that means ignoring the 10p Cadbury's Creme Eggs I foolishly bought the other day when bargain-itis struck. :-) However others would feel like they were about to snap in half at my target weight.

Hopefully though, whether we all agree on ideal weight or not, we can all contribute advice which might be useful. And in that vein I will add another couple of tips to the pile.

1) I keep a cheap pack of lard in the freezer (so it won't go off). Whenever my resolve is flagging during lean spells I dig that out and have a good hard look at it. It tends to help focus your mind on what you're trying to dump. And if that doesn't work...

2) Weigh out 14lbs of assorted items*, put them in a rucksack, and wear it for a while. That *really* helps remind you what you're carrying around and why to might be a good idea to lose it.

Andrew McP

*Unless you only need to lose 7, obviously. ;-)

Sorry but who are you, are you a sports nutritionist or some uni student.

Broscience

BMI is designed for fat mass. It just takes weight/height and age thats it, no other measurement how can you determine someone's body mass from that,
 
Last edited:
Sorry but who are you, are you a sports nutritionist or some uni student.

Broscience

BMI is designed for fat mass. It just takes weight/height and age thats it, no other measurement how can you determine someone's body mass from that,

People are unique in composition..... thats why BMI has ranges.
 
It's quite fashionable to have a go at the BMI, but it has an *incredibly* broad range of healthy weight (to cover all frame sizes except maybe Goliath or Tiny Tim), and as far as I'm concerned I'd never dream of letting myself get near the top of the recommended range, let alone beyond it. For a start none of my clothes would fit!
This is quite simply false. My BMI currently is around 27, putting me in the "over weight" range. For me to get into the normal healthy range, I would have to either reduce my bodyfat to less than 10%, or lose a considerable amount of muscle mass.

It seems BMI doesn't take my frame into consideration...

There are very few examples (other than extreme body building, which is at the fringes of human behaviour) where BMI doesn't work pretty well IMO. There's always a queue of folk saying they're "special cases" for one reason or another, but that's to ignore the fact that evolution didn't equip us with superhuman joints and organs capable of sustaining long periods of excessive weight. And social norms have shifted a long way in the last 30+ years (I'm 48 -- no idea how I got there! -- and have seen this in action), so "excessive weight" means a lot more than it used to. After all, we compare ourselves with those around us, not some seemingly abstract charts.
Nonsense.

So me sitting at 15% (at a guess) bodyfat is an example of someone falsely claiming to be a "special case"? Despite the fact that I'm a very active individual, eat healthily most of the time, play american football, etc. etc...

I also propose that you don't actually know what you're talking about when you mention joints and organs, and actually, this isn't what BMI is about at all (as far as I'm aware). You can be heavier and not have any joint problems, with obvious limits that are outside of the BMI ranges. If you're interested, look up the forces involved in sprinting, you will probably be surprised. Also, provided you live a healthy lifestyle, your organs can adapt. How do I know this? Well, there would be a lot more people with serious health problems in certain walks of life. I for one intend to continue to lift weights and be active for a very long time.

IMO if you want an example of what we're supposed to look like "in the wild" you want to study lean Africa marathon runners designed to chase down Wildebeest for hours, not lardy (if muscular) Rugby League players designed to wrestle other lardy rugby players for a while, then stand around panting. :-)
:confused:

Ridiculous point of view, and borderline insulting.
Still, whatever guidelines people like to use, what matters most is the weight each individual person is content with. I feel most healthy and alive (and free from back pain) when towards the bottom end of my suggested BMI.

The only measure of health that's important (not including blood tests) is bodyfat percentage. BMI is a very inaccurate tool designed to give people a guide as to what's healthy, but it is frequently inappropriate to use. It's useful for a lot more women than men because women don't carry such varying degrees of muscle.

Get your bodyfat measured, or use a tape measure to track the changes in the circumference of your waist, thighs, upper arms, chest, etc.

BTW this is not a post written because I'm feeling defensive because my BMI result upset me, I couldn't care less about my BMI. In my case, and in many of your cases, BMI is a nonsensical proxy for health.
 
Last edited:
Where is it stated that it has limitations?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...ons+of+BMI&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g3g-j1g-m1&aql=&oq=
Important to you perhaps, strange that you don't know the only measure of your health that is important to you.
I know mine, 14% and it should be important to everyone.

BTW this is not a post written because I'm feeling defensive because my BMI result upset me, I couldn't care less about my BMI. In my case, and in many of your cases, BMI is a nonsensical proxy for health.

^This
 
FAO SuperBOB and Andrew_McP
BMI measures total body weight, not the actual amount of fat a person is carrying. Some people are naturally stocky and have a body mass index that is in the overweight category, when in fact their weight is due to muscle mass and a heavier bone structure rather than excess fat.

It is common for athletes such as rugby players and weight lifters to have a BMI indicating they are overweight when they are not. Their body mass index is higher because of their extra muscle mass, not because of excess body fat (muscle weighs more than fat).

Conversely, some athletes will be underweight according to their BMI (such as long distance runners). This is due to low body fat and aerobic slow twitch muscle fibres, which develop naturally as a result of their particular sport.

No lets get back on topic
 
It seems BMI doesn't take my frame into consideration...

The fact that you regularly weight train means you are not an average person however. BMI is a good estimation about AVERAGE peoples weights. Lots of people who have never seen a dumbbell in there life like to palm off their obese (note: Not overweight) bmi on "being big framed".
 
The fact that you regularly weight train means you are not an average person however. BMI is a good estimation about AVERAGE peoples weights. Lots of people who have never seen a dumbbell in there life like to palm off their obese (note: Not overweight) bmi on "being big framed".

But I do have a 'big frame', I always have, even without weight training.
 
But I do have a 'big frame', I always have, even without weight training.

and are you obese on the BMI scale? Like I said, its usually a good approximation for average people and is far too quickly disregarded.

(And this is coming from someone who is wrongly classed on it.)
 
I dont suggest this diet to everyone but i've lost 10kg (90kg to 80kg) in just over a month. I call it the "Don't eat much at all diet with a brisk walk every few days". Eat the bare minimum each day with some days skipping meals all together, drinking water if hunger pains arise. Another benefit is that if you eat very little your stomach eventually shrinks, thus making what used to be a regular portion now a rather big portion that will be hard to finish, Basically you are full up with less food. Like i said its not for everyone but hitting the age of 36 and being rather lazy for a few years its time to get the body back into shape. The beer gut is disappearing fast! Im not a great runner so i'm currently saving for a mountain bike so i can proceed to the next stage of training :)
 
Important to you perhaps, strange that you don't know the only measure of your health that is important to you.
Ok, I worded that badly, but I'm sure you know what I meant.

Bodyfat % is what can make someone unhealthy, their overall weight is not important.

As for not knowing my exact bodyfat percentage, what does me knowing my exact figure have to do with anything? I know that I don't have an unhealthy level, if that's what you're worried about.

Out of interest, why are you defending BMI?

The fact that you regularly weight train means you are not an average person however. BMI is a good estimation about AVERAGE peoples weights. Lots of people who have never seen a dumbbell in there life like to palm off their obese (note: Not overweight) bmi on "being big framed".

I know it's about averages, but the important point is that a lot of men fall outside of the average range that makes BMI useful because of the variation in muscle mass.
 
Back
Top Bottom