BMI is like a rough guide to healthy weight.
It's more meaning full when combined with body fat percentage.
Mine is usually around 18-19.
Posted 27 November 2014 - 12:04 AM
BMI is like a rough guide to healthy weight.
It's more meaning full when combined with body fat percentage.
Mine is usually around 18-19.
Posted 18 June 2017 - 12:22 PM
I'm a .478 waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) using this formula found on Dr. Rhonda Patrick's twitter feed (or 23.5 BMI). Partner is .40 WHtR (or 17.8 BMI). Both of us are on a reasonable CR diet, but more importantly limited "added sugar", that is, for example, no processed food labeled with significant "sugar' grams. We sub fruits for sweets.
> http://journals.plos...al.pone.0177175 (as found on Dr. Rhonda Patrick's twitter feed).
Prediction of whole-body fat percentage and visceral adipose tissue mass from five anthropometric variables
Background
The conventional measurement of obesity utilizes the body mass index (BMI) criterion. Although there are benefits to this method, there is concern that not all individuals at risk of obesity-associated medical conditions are being identified. Whole-body fat percentage (%FM), and specifically visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass, are correlated with and potentially implicated in disease trajectories, but are not fully accounted for through BMI evaluation. The aims of this study were (a) to compare five anthropometric predictors of %FM and VAT mass, and (b) to explore new cut-points for the good of these predictors to improve the characterization of obesity.
Results
The best predictor of both %FM and VAT mass in men and women was WHtR. Derived cut-points for predicting whole body obesity were 0.53 in men and 0.54 in women. The cut-point for predicting visceral obesity was 0.59 in both sexes.
Edited by Oakman, 18 June 2017 - 12:40 PM.
Posted 21 October 2017 - 02:24 PM
If someone's food intake is in deficit of 500cal a day, then I can guess that the body will ultimately adjust.past a lower threshold and this can result in a BMI like 16.5 (just an example).
If someone increases his food intake in order to be at 18.5+,it is just eating to stay thin, as opposed as be in real caloric restriction state and let the body deal with it.
Not to offense any feeling, but when I hear somebody tell that he/she is a CR practitioner and has a BMI of 18.5-20..., sorry but I don't think that this person is a real CR practitioner any longer. Am I missing anything?
Posted 21 October 2017 - 04:49 PM
...Am I missing anything?
Posted 22 October 2017 - 02:07 AM
@Saintor: there is another form of CR, which is periodic fasting. You lose weight during a fast but then you regain it. Depending on severity of your fast, for how long and how often you do it, in the end of the year you consume the same amount of calories as a person on a 'sustained CR' of a certain % (I call sustained CR the usual CR society method). To me it's also more natural: just like in nature, you go through seasonal feasts and fasts, and in the end you maintain normal weight and strength.
You may want to read about the advantages of periodic fasting in one of the studies by Valter Longo (last 2-3 years -?) . His periodically fasted mice had (almost-?) the same weight as the ad lib. group, though they enjoyed all the benefits of CR.
Other than keeping normal weight, the other advantage of a periodic fasting method is that you rebuild, renew and rejuvenate during the refeeding stage, which is lacking in the 'sustained CR' method. (Longo mentions this too).
Though of course, in the end, this is a question of lifestyle -- whatever is more convenient and/or doable at the moment. Some people find it easier not to eat at all, for a stretch, than suffer from constant hunger and irritability, which is common on 'sustained CR'. To each his own.
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:19 PM
The lowest I went to on CR was around BMI of 16 and I was eating approx 1550 k/cal per day when I was 20 years old. Before "serious" CRON I already had lost quite a bit of was in the previous 2 years from cutting out junk food and eating moderately health, and high protein (whey). After 6 years, I decided to increase my caloric intake a bit to around 1750k/cal and I gained some weight back. BMI held steady around 17.5 for a few years... and for the last 5 years it's been about 18.0 to 18.7.
Not to offense any feeling, but when I hear somebody tell that he/she is a CR practitioner and has a BMI of 18.5-20..., sorry but I don't think that this person is a real CR practitioner any longer. Am I missing anything?
I can eat 1500-1600 k/cal a day now at a BMI of 18.5 and my weight doesn't seem to drop so easily like it used to. I've gone days without eating properly and my body just seems to resist losing weight.
I am CR'd. My blood work shows it and my body temperature is lower than ever. It's not unusual for my temperature to drop to around 35.0. It rarely goes much above 36.0.
Edited by Matt, 26 October 2017 - 03:20 PM.
Posted 05 January 2018 - 04:56 PM
I´m probably CR´ing without me knowing it. 193/194 centimeters, and I pretty much always weigh in between 66 and 74kg. Is 66 of now, lower than I expected, so yeah, probably CR´ing without me knowing it. Is also partly caused be some muscle loss as I´m currently looking into more nutrition data, so I want to finish this first before building muscle again. At most I weighed 80kg, but people started calling me fat (most of that weight was fat indeed, not muscle). So BMI is always between 17.5 and 19.5, and was one time at about 21/21.5.
Edited by Leon93, 05 January 2018 - 04:57 PM.
Posted 15 June 2018 - 05:57 PM
Posted 03 July 2019 - 11:28 AM
The vast majority of people aren't body builders, so I don't think it's 'worthless'.
Posted 11 July 2019 - 02:47 PM
Relative Fat Mass (RFM) -- calculated by 1) height and 2) waist size around belly button,
has been shown to be an improvement over BMI:
https://www.nature.c...598-018-29362-1
Abstract:
High whole-body fat percentage is independently associated with increased mortality. We aimed to identify a simple anthropometric linear equation that is more accurate than the body mass index (BMI) to estimate whole-body fat percentage among adult individuals. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2004 data (n = 12,581) were used for model development and NHANES 2005–2006 data (n = 3,456) were used for model validation. From the 365 anthropometric indices generated, the final selected equation was as follows: 64 − (20 × height/waist circumference) + (12 × sex), named as the relative fat mass (RFM); sex = 0 for men and 1 for women. In the validation dataset, compared with BMI, RFM better predicted whole-body fat percentage, measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), among women and men. RFM showed better accuracy than the BMI and had fewer false negative cases of body fat-defined obesity among women and men. RFM reduced total obesity misclassification among all women and all men and, overall, among Mexican-Americans, European-Americans and African-Americans. In the population studied, the suggested RFM was more accurate than BMI to estimate whole-body fat percentage among women and men and improved body fat-defined obesity misclassification among American adult individuals of Mexican, European or African ethnicity.
Here you can compare your BMI to your RFM
Posted 11 July 2019 - 06:00 PM
In my case:
BMI 21.38 (Normal weight)
RFM 18.47 (Underweight)
Should I be concerned?
Posted 12 July 2019 - 08:17 PM
Interesting to see the comparison.
It seems various groups label the % differently.
Via BBD, you're labeled "Athlete" on their scale:
bbdnutrition.com/2018/08/28/an-accurate-new-estimator-of-whole-body-fat-percentage
Farther down on that page... NIH/WHO calls it "Healthy" ...but can change depending on age.
Concerning this sliding scale for age and body fat ranges...
seriously doubt being fatter at 40 is more healthy than being fatter at 39.
Rather... it's just more normalized.
Also, interesting to see how the NIH/WHO calls it "Underfat" ... where others call it "Essential Fat", etc.
Edited by Bruce Klein, 12 July 2019 - 08:27 PM.
Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:46 PM
Via BBD, you're labeled "Athlete" on their scale:
Posted 02 September 2021 - 12:22 PM
1.83m and 61.2 kg 18.2 BMI in bioimpedance scale 17.6 BMI in DEXA.10.1% body fat adipometer when i have 18.5 BMI in bioimpedance scalee.I not remember DEXA,probably much higher than 10.1%
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users