• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

What is your BMI


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

Poll: Bmi (276 member(s) have cast votes)

What is your BMI?

  1. emaciated <15 (1 votes [0.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.36%

  2. (severely underweight) 16 (4 votes [1.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.44%

  3. (Moderately underweight) 17 (14 votes [5.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.05%

  4. (slightly underweight) 18 (22 votes [7.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.94%

  5. Lower part of healthy range 18.5-22 (108 votes [38.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.99%

  6. Higher part of healthy range 22-25 (82 votes [29.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.60%

  7. Overweight 25-30 (25 votes [9.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.03%

  8. Obese 30-35 (9 votes [3.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.25%

  9. very obese 35-40 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  10. Morbidly obese >40 (3 votes [1.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.08%

  11. Overweight but due to muscles (9 votes [3.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.25%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#91 SIRT1

  • Guest
  • 29 posts
  • 16
  • Location: 

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.

 

 

 


  • like x 1

#92 Oakman

  • Location:CO

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.


#93 Saintor

  • Guest
  • 39 posts
  • 24

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?

 



#94 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 21 October 2017 - 04:49 PM

...Am I missing anything?


Keep calories lower than your body thinks it needs. The best and perhaps the only way to know your specific calorie consumption is to measure and weigh your food, then enter it into some tracker, Cronometer is a-okay. Enter your data, determine BMR, aim for lower calories, eat good food, hit RDA, supplement shortfalls.

BMI is less relevant, but not irrelevant. If you had a set point healthy weight in your late teens, early twenties, aim to lower that by some percentage. Over about eight years, for me, I'm around 12% calorie restricted, so I'm vaguely CRed, and my BMI is around 19, these are rough estimates, but rough is better than not knowing anything at all about what I'm putting into my body.

Michael Rae writes clearly, and here his very helpful, easy, and short read: https://www.crsociet...m-i/#entry22200
  • Informative x 1

#95 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

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. 

 


  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#96 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Files


Edited by Matt, 26 October 2017 - 03:20 PM.


#97 Leon93

  • Guest
  • 72 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Deventer

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.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#98 John250

  • Guest
  • 1,451 posts
  • 109
  • Location:Temecula
  • NO

Posted 15 June 2018 - 05:57 PM

BMI is worthless. I’m 5’11” 240lbs 14% bf(dexa scan) and my BMI is 33.5(clinically obese) lol
  • Agree x 1

#99 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 03 July 2019 - 11:28 AM

The vast majority of people aren't body builders, so I don't think it's 'worthless'.



#100 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

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

 

https://rfm.fitness

 



#101 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 11 July 2019 - 06:00 PM

Here you can compare your BMI to your RFM

 

https://rfm.fitness

 

In my case:

BMI 21.38 (Normal weight)

RFM 18.47 (Underweight)

 

Should I be concerned?



#102 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

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.


#103 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:46 PM

Via BBD, you're labeled "Athlete" on their scale:
 
Now that is sort of funny. I'm just over a 10 year health odyssey, where I went from a 60% walking-disability from PAD (and other chronic conditions: COPD, T2D, ME/CFS) into remission. No exercise at all. I do like to swim though. In warm climates on vacations even up to an hour at a time.


#104 Fernando G

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Curitiba

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 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users