• 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

#61 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 23 July 2010 - 09:50 PM

Height: 185
Weight: 60
BMI: 17.5

But I have little muscle and low bone density, so I think I can start CR and lose weight without too much to worry about.

This seems like a pretty significant non sequitur, and in fact is the opposite of my view (and I, like you, was already quite slim even ad lib): as a guy who already has little muscle and thin bones, you are unfortunately at more risk than an average person per kilo of mass lost ...

reading this I would suspect, that you are already doing CR for some time; 60 kg at 185 cm is certainly not the "normal" range for non-CRON people.

Lots of people, when young, have 'subnormal' BMIs (though it's becoming rarer all the time...). That doesn't mean they're CRed. As I've noted before, there's no such thing as being "naturally" calorie restricted:

No one is 'naturally CRed' (cf the studies in lean vs overweight-prone strains of mice). Wherever you start from, you need to cut Calories. That's probably a big part of the reason why the epidemiology fails to find a longevity benefit to low BMI: people with low BMI aren't on CR. If you're already skinny, you just need to get skinnier. ...Some skinnier people are eating tons but getting exercise, or have pre-existing illnesses or malabsorption issues, or what have you. ...

[U]nfortunately, as I've said before, determining exactly a given person's "% CR" as a translation of the equivalent rodent phenomenon is impossible in free-living, genetically unique humans, at a minimum, human CR should operationally be defined as restricting down from the level of intake that supports the lower of (a) your early-adult "setpoint" weight, and (if that 'setpoint' was already overweight) (b) a 'healthy' anthropometry, based on % body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, and (ideally) visceral adiposity. (Unless you've got a colony of a hundred or so identical twins that you can lock up and force to eat the same ad libitum diet and get the same amount of exercise for a decade or so ...).


  • dislike x 1

#62 Matt

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

Posted 23 July 2010 - 10:23 PM

I have my own issue with the statement, you can't be naturally CR'd. It is a 'fact' that i had significant weight loss from an already 'normal BMI' when i was 18 after i cut out lots of foods such as white sugar, white bread, less meat, no fruit juices, no pop, no fast food, no biscuits, chocolates or sweets. unfortunately i cannot recall my original BMI. Only recall the worry from parents, family and friends when i was 18 (which i made and saw a doctor about) with people saying that i had lost a lot of weight. If my memory recalls correctly, i might of gone from roughly

5ft 7"

145 lbs <18 years of age) to around 125 lbs from just REMOVING junk food. Conciously making healthier choices without intentional CR (and i was playing football less)

from 125 lbs i went to 104 lbs at my lowest. I'm now back at 119 lbs with NO CHANGE in body temperature (still at 36.0) no change in blood pressure (90/60) or pulse (50), and hopefully no change in blood work.

My increase in weight was something i want to do while i'm in my 20's.

Edited by Matt, 23 July 2010 - 10:25 PM.


#63 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 10 October 2011 - 01:41 PM

I have my own issue with the statement, you can't be naturally CR'd. It is a 'fact' that i had significant weight loss from an already 'normal BMI' when i was 18 after i cut out lots of foods such as white sugar, white bread, less meat, no fruit juices, no pop, no fast food, no biscuits, chocolates or sweets.

Sure -- lots of people have similar experiences (tho' they usually go from being at least moderately overweight to normal weight). But that isn't what people usually mean by being "naturally CRed:" they mean (as TFC meant in this case) that a person who is unusually slim while eating AL is ipso facto CRed. You lost weight, from a normal-weight AL intake; if you had continued stably at your lower weight without intentionally restricting Calories (rather than slowly, homeostatically drifting back to your previous AL weight), it's at least plausible that you would have been energy restricted (tho' perhaps not properly CRed due to micronutrient deficiencies or imbalances). But there, we're speculating on a counterfactual.

I must say, however, that I doubt you spontaneously lost 20 lbs off of that already-slim frame; it's unfortunate you don't have a pre-CR baseline.

#64 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 30 December 2011 - 09:39 PM

21.8 last november

#65 scottknl

  • Guest
  • 421 posts
  • 325
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 01 January 2012 - 06:03 AM

CRON 2.5 yrs, 1750 kcals, 20.2 BMI, 6'2", 157 lbs. BMI means something. Everyone with high BMI is dead before they hit 100. Lowish BMI is best for longevity.

#66 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 01 January 2012 - 06:18 AM

BMI means something. Everyone with high BMI is dead before they hit 100.


Source?

#67 scottknl

  • Guest
  • 421 posts
  • 325
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 01 January 2012 - 06:41 AM

http://www.google.co...dco6TZ9jC209-Aw

Dominica Centenarian Study

and

from http://okicent.org/study.html

Okinawan centenarians have been lean throughout their extraordinarily long lives, with an average body mass index (BMI) that ranged from 18 to 22 (lean is less than 23). The Okinawans have traditionally kept eating a low-calorie, low glycemic load diet... etc.


and

from http://matts-cr.blog...ntenarians.html

...Especially since we know how long certain groups of people live longer, one comes to mind is Seventh Day adventists, and they don't even do calorie restriction. This is quite obvious as various studies have shown their average BMI to be around 24 (ref 18.5-25). And the men live up to 9-10 years longer than the average american. This is just by eating a healthy diet!


Edited by scottknl, 01 January 2012 - 06:56 AM.

  • like x 1

#68 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 01 January 2012 - 03:01 PM

BMI means something. Everyone with high BMI is dead before they hit 100. Lowish BMI is best for longevity.

While I'd agree that a low-normal BMI is associated with a higher chance of exceptional survival in the general population,(eg. (1)) it is certainly not the case that "Everyone with high BMI is dead before they hit 100," and the lecture slides you link neither prove, nor even assert, that overweight is an absolute barrier to cent-ship. Certainly at least some people clearly do survive to currently exceptional ages -- for instance, in this population of Ashkenazi Jews with "longevity genes," "People with exceptional longevity had similar mean body mass index (men, 25.4±2.8 kg/m2 vs 25.6±4.0 kg/m2, P=.63; women, 25.0±3.5 kg/m2 vs 24.9±5.4 kg/m2; P=.90) ... as the NHANES I population," and 47.8% of men and 43.8% of women in that group had had a BMI ≥25 at some point in their lives.(2)

Thomas Perls, of the New England Centenarian Study, who is looking at genetic centenarians from a more diverse group of families, has informally reported that "I haven't ever seen an obese centenarian male... but a number of women get away with looking like the queen mum."

Again,low-normal lifelong BMI is associated with greater longevity the general population, thought I would add that IAC, absolute BMI per se has nothing to do with the effects of CR.

References
1: Willcox BJ, He Q, Chen R, Yano K, Masaki KH, Grove JS, Donlon TA, Willcox DC,
Curb JD. Midlife risk factors and healthy survival in men. JAMA. 2006 Nov
15;296(19):2343-50. PubMed PMID: 17105797.

2: Rajpathak SN, Liu Y, Ben-David O, Reddy S, Atzmon G, Crandall J, Barzilai N.
Lifestyle factors of people with exceptional longevity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011
Aug;59(8):1509-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03498.x. Epub 2011 Aug 3. PubMed
PMID: 21812767.
http://onlinelibrary...3498.x/abstract

Edited by Michael, 01 January 2012 - 03:02 PM.


#69 scottknl

  • Guest
  • 421 posts
  • 325
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 01 January 2012 - 05:37 PM

My statement was incorrect. I did indeed find photos of obese centenarians. Rare, but they do exist.
http://www.liveto100andbeyond.com/ see Florence Tuckman.

#70 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:57 AM

BMI is going to be inaccurate for outliers, the very tall or the very short. Height increases linearly, but mass increases roughly as a cubic function of height. So of course basketball players, though very lean, will have high BMI measurements.

My own BMI comes out to 23 or a little above, yet electronic measurement shows 10% body fat or less.

#71 Dorho

  • Guest
  • 354 posts
  • 56

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:19 AM

When i practiced CR it was a tad under 19. Currently it's about 22. I've really thought about going back to CR but it's practically impossible if you do physically demanding work. Plus, generally speaking girls don't like skinny dudes.

#72 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:03 PM

21.6 which I'm quite happy with two weeks before my 65th birthday. I don't know my fat% but I do exercise quite a bit including 2-3 hours of weights a week and a lot of walking and a little running.

#73 Mynona

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 43
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 25 March 2012 - 07:01 AM

BMI is going to be inaccurate for outliers, the very tall or the very short. Height increases linearly, but mass increases roughly as a cubic function of height. So of course basketball players, though very lean, will have high BMI measurements.

My own BMI comes out to 23 or a little above, yet electronic measurement shows 10% body fat or less.

That's correct, and the first time I read or hear someone else than myself pointing that out.

I am a female, 6 feet tall. I look skinnier than other females with my BMI.

Because of my height together with my gender, the formulas to estimate body fat % goes wrong too. Especially the one that do not use height but waist measurement. I tried one body fat calculator online, and it showed 26 % body fat, which obviously is not correct if one looks at me (I constantly am hearing that I look anorectic). I then put my length to 2 m (my 6 feet is 183-184 cm) with same other parameters. The body fat was the same. I then checked the formula, and saw that it just counted waistmeasurement, weight and age.

The other way to calculate body fat, by using BMI showed similar body fat % at first, but when I put a weight that gives me BMI 12, I got low body fat at 10 %.

I haven't analyzed the body fat formulas totally, just glanced at them and saw the obvious faults. Never used them before, and will not use them again.

In my case, BMI shows low (but not as low as it should due to the formula) and body fat % shows high due to my length (I can't get a smaller waistline, 60 cm here. Maybe some years after death ^_^).

#74 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:02 PM

Waist circumference is an indicator only, of visceral fat. The caliper pinch test indicates surface fat. But neither tells much, except statistically, about total body fat.
Electronic measurement is not all that accurate either, being based on a number of formulas, and requiring an adjustment for athletic individuals. Immersion in water to measure volume of displacement is the gold standard, but it too is not accurate for the very tall. I asked my doctor once what the most accurate method would be, and he chuckled and said "destructive autopsy".

#75 Mynona

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 43
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:03 PM

XD I believe your doctor :)

If one is over weight or under weight, it should tell by just looking?

As a former anorectic, I have heard such terrible stories of people not getting help due to BMI is 0.1 to high and similar. The BMI had been the only parameter to get help. Not "the eye" or blood work. For me it could have been bad, since I am very tall and have higher BMI than what I look to have.

I don't get using the waist circumference at all. One should see "this has stomach fat, this is tall and skinny, this has a straight figure and has therefore little difference between waist and hips and so on. And since every women differ in waist/hipo quote, I find it almost amusing that the person will be dangerously fat at one 0.001 and not fat at another 0.001, not speaking about measuring the waist alone. So I think it should not be measured at all.

I recently heard about a person who collapsed from low hb and "yellow skin due to liver thing". It was induced by a medicine, and a side effect they were looking for. Why did they miss it? The blood work did not show red on the screen (but had gone from high in range to low in range [or opposite]). The one who discovered and saw to that she got help, was nurses, not the doctors who looked at the screen, just scanning for red numbers... (did not look at what and how things changed). This is unfortunately not uncommon. Sorry if this was OT :S But I think it is a good example of how wrong it can go when looking at numbers and not use the brain or eyes.

#76 ReiMomo

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 6

Posted 02 April 2012 - 07:52 AM

Interesting to see the distribution curve

Statistically most people would be overweight here but it doesn't seem to be like that. I had expected that there would be more obese but also more moderately underweight people here.



Overweight?? Why did you expect that? I wouldn't call myself a life extensionist if i were overweight, neither would i be around this forum so frequently. I would be soo hypocrite (to myself!) to stay around here while being overweight...

Like if controlling weight were that easy, I've been a health freak since 10yr but started to get overweight for unknown reasons at 13, since then I have not being able to go back :(

#77 Chester Burton Brown

  • Guest
  • 8 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Canada

Posted 02 April 2012 - 05:40 PM

BMI == 23 and falling.

1.76 m in height, current weight 76 kg.

I take in between 1,000 and 1,500 calories per day, and dig into that with a minimum of 1,000 calories/week of exercise.

Everything is better.

#78 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 06 April 2012 - 11:55 PM

Interesting to see the distribution curve

Statistically most people would be overweight here but it doesn't seem to be like that. I had expected that there would be more obese but also more moderately underweight people here.



Overweight?? Why did you expect that? I wouldn't call myself a life extensionist if i were overweight, neither would i be around this forum so frequently. I would be soo hypocrite (to myself!) to stay around here while being overweight...

Like if controlling weight were that easy, I've been a health freak since 10yr but started to get overweight for unknown reasons at 13, since then I have not being able to go back :(


That's BS. Monitor your caloric intake, eat fewer calories but keep nutrient count high/eat only healthy foods, and you can't get and stay fat. No hormone imbalance will keep a person fat if he really puts his mind and efforts into getting thin.

Edited by forever freedom, 06 April 2012 - 11:58 PM.


#79 cheezeweezel

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 33
  • Location:US

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:46 PM

Interesting to see the distribution curve

Statistically most people would be overweight here but it doesn't seem to be like that. I had expected that there would be more obese but also more moderately underweight people here.



Overweight?? Why did you expect that? I wouldn't call myself a life extensionist if i were overweight, neither would i be around this forum so frequently. I would be soo hypocrite (to myself!) to stay around here while being overweight...

Like if controlling weight were that easy, I've been a health freak since 10yr but started to get overweight for unknown reasons at 13, since then I have not being able to go back :(


That's BS. Monitor your caloric intake, eat fewer calories but keep nutrient count high/eat only healthy foods, and you can't get and stay fat. No hormone imbalance will keep a person fat if he really puts his mind and efforts into getting thin.


Thanks for your sensitivity and understanding.

In the end we'll all be thin... much thinner than you are now. Life extended or not.

#80 scottknl

  • Guest
  • 421 posts
  • 325
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 09 April 2012 - 04:03 AM

Just a reminder to all here. Calorie restriction is not about losing weight, or attaining a certain BMI. The studies show that the benefits of CR hold as long as the calories are cut and good nutrition is maintained. Most CR followers do manage to get to a low BMI, but it's not a goal and it's certainly not universally true that every CR follower will eventually look similar. Different people each have a different level at which they're comfortable and healthy. I talk about CR here because this thread is under the CR category.

Reimomo/Cheezeweasel, If you've implemented CR, then you're doing the best you can. If you haven't, then I guess you haven't tried everything you can yet. Eh?

#81 cheezeweezel

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 33
  • Location:US

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:30 PM

Just a reminder to all here. Calorie restriction is not about losing weight, or attaining a certain BMI. The studies show that the benefits of CR hold as long as the calories are cut and good nutrition is maintained. Most CR followers do manage to get to a low BMI, but it's not a goal and it's certainly not universally true that every CR follower will eventually look similar. Different people each have a different level at which they're comfortable and healthy. I talk about CR here because this thread is under the CR category.

Reimomo/Cheezeweasel, If you've implemented CR, then you're doing the best you can. If you haven't, then I guess you haven't tried everything you can yet. Eh?


I heartily agree! I react when someone expresses frustration about their struggles, and are jumped on and told that they aren't trying hard enough. The body is complex, and everyone's hormonal system is different. It would be great if we could support those who are frustrated, instead of accusing them of BS.

For me personally, a CRON-like-lifestyle is working great, but it really seems like the body's adaptation time constant is measured in 1-2 years rather than in months. So I wouldn't consider myself successfully on CRON (or even post a BMI) until I thought I was in some sort of dynamic equilibrium. As long as I'm still adapting, I have no idea if I'm going to hit some sort of violent leptin-deficit-induced starvation response, and throw the towel in. But I'm loving it so far.

cw
  • like x 1

#82 LongerStronger

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 4
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:18 PM

BMI is 25

#83 CoffeeAHolic

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 6
  • Location:London

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:52 PM

Higher part of healthy range 22-25

Intresting results so far...

#84 hivemind

  • Guest
  • 417 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:55 AM

Just a reminder to all here. Calorie restriction is not about losing weight, or attaining a certain BMI. The studies show that the benefits of CR hold as long as the calories are cut and good nutrition is maintained. Most CR followers do manage to get to a low BMI, but it's not a goal and it's certainly not universally true that every CR follower will eventually look similar. Different people each have a different level at which they're comfortable and healthy. I talk about CR here because this thread is under the CR category.

Reimomo/Cheezeweasel, If you've implemented CR, then you're doing the best you can. If you haven't, then I guess you haven't tried everything you can yet. Eh?


Nobody is going to have a BMI over 21 on a CR diet. :)

#85 InquilineKea

  • Guest
  • 773 posts
  • 89
  • Location:Redmond,WA (aka Simfish)

Posted 29 March 2014 - 04:44 AM

16.6. Methylphenidate (which I take for other reasons) helps reduce it a lot.

I'm not totally sure if I'm metabolically CR'ed (I need to get my blood tests in the morning).

Edited by InquilineKea, 29 March 2014 - 05:14 AM.


#86 qlawi90

  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 6
  • Location:EU
  • NO

Posted 15 April 2014 - 11:07 PM

BMI 23.8.

 

Height: 181
Weight: 78



#87 The_Next_LX

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 18
  • Location:New York, USA

Posted 21 September 2014 - 04:38 PM

Age:        60.5

 

Height:    6'-0"

Weight:  146 lbs.

 

BMI:        19.8

Calories

per day:   1550-1600



#88 drew_ab

  • Guest
  • 121 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Earth

Posted 21 September 2014 - 05:44 PM

20.5 today.  5"10 @ 143. And I require many more calories than most people to maintain that, with moderate physical activity.



#89 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 September 2014 - 04:04 PM

PLoS One. 2014 Sep 8;9(9):e103483. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103483. eCollection 2014

Waist-to-Height Ratio Is More Predictive of Years of Life Lost than Body Mass Index.
Ashwell M, Mayhew L, Richardson J, Rickayzen B.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the effect of central obesity (measured by waist-to-height ratio, WHtR) and total obesity (measured by body mass index, BMI) on life expectancy expressed as years of life lost (YLL), using data on British adults.

METHODS: A Cox proportional hazards model was applied to data from the prospective Health and Lifestyle Survey (HALS) and the cross sectional Health Survey for England (HSE). The number of years of life lost (YLL) at three ages (30, 50, 70 years) was found by comparing the life expectancies of obese lives with those of lives at optimum levels of BMI and WHtR.

RESULTS: Mortality risk associated with BMI in the British HALS survey was similar to that found in US studies. However, WHtR was a better predictor of mortality risk. For the first time, YLL have been quantified for different values of WHtR. This has been done for both sexes separately and for three representative ages.

CONCLUSION: This study supports the simple message "Keep your waist circumference to less than half your height". The use of WHtR in public health screening, with appropriate action, could help add years to life.

→ source (external link)

 

I'm not at all surprised about those findings because it is well known that abdominal fat and central obesity are most strongly associated with adverse health outcomes. This and the fact that there is less confounding from outliers due to high muscle mass and sturdy build. Which means that the waist-to-height ratio is certainly a much more accurate measure than the BMI on an individual level. Therefore, and because it is much simpler to calculate and convey ("your waist should be no more than half your height" - anyone immediately understands that, as opposed to "your weight in kg devided by the square of your height in m should be less than 25" :-D), I think it absolutely should supersede the BMI in public policy and education.

 

This is dedicated to blood: My WHtR is 0.45, which puts me slightly below the statistical optimum. I guess I need to up my belly fat ;)


Edited by timar, 25 September 2014 - 04:49 PM.

  • like x 2

#90 blood

  • Guest
  • 926 posts
  • 254
  • Location:...

Posted 29 September 2014 - 10:24 AM

My WHtR is 0.45, which puts me slightly below the statistical optimum. I guess I need to up my belly fat...

 

Hope you weren't sucking in your stomach when you took those measurements. ;)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users