Community Chat

[Bri33]

I've heard waist size is a better indicator for health than weight or BMI charts.

[Pqfan]

I like the weight they have listed for me and I have tried for the last 25+ years or so to get to it.

I should be there soon give me another 10 years.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@Bri33 wrote:

I've heard waist size is a better indicator for health than weight or BMI charts.

---

Yes, the WHR (Wasit-to-Hip Ratio)

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@qualitygal wrote:

To me those are like trying to get a herd of camels through the eye of a needle. Is that too sharp of a point?

I once had caliphers, but not sure of how great they are for determining things. I probably didn't do it right.

Don't you think since we are all so individual that there is a better way than those charts? I mean, even where they draw the line on obesity and morbidly obese. How do they determine where those lines are in catagories?

---

@qualitygal

Where is the chart you are referring to?  Do you have a link you can provide?   Was this chart for a specific company or a "general guideline" chart?

Most of them were created many, many years ago .....   before free weights were a common fitness tool, so muscle mass usually throws them off.

A couple years ago, I wrote a life insurance policy for a body builder, and the application was denied.  According to his weight and height, he was categorized as morbidly obese.    The guy didn't have an ounce of fat on his body, lol!   So, I took a couple pictures of him and disputed the application denial .... they reconsidered with more information, and issued the policy.  In spite of the stats, he was a very strong and healthy guy.

[chrystaltree]

No, I don't.  There was never any scientific basis to them.  They were just averages that were taken back in the 1940's and over the years morphed into what we all "should weigh".  They are garbage.  Today physician's bmi to assess weight rather than those charts.  Also, physicians know now that we each have an "optimum" weight that varies from person to person.  Muscle weighs more than fat, so an active woman with muscles might be overweight on those charts but in reality she isn't overweight at all.   I believe they say that being 20% over ones weight on those charts is obese and mobid obesity is when a person is 100lbs over their weight on those charts. I personally, use my common sense and things like my blood pressure and my blood sugar and my fitness level and my dress size.  So, my optimum weight is around 155.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

No, I don't.  There was never any scientific basis to them.  They were just averages that were taken back in the 1940's and over the years morphed into what we all "should weigh".  They are garbage.  Today physician's bmi to assess weight rather than those charts.  Also, physicians know now that we each have an "optimum" weight that varies from person to person.  Muscle weighs more than fat, so an active woman with muscles might be overweight on those charts but in reality she isn't overweight at all.   I believe they say that being 20% over ones weight on those charts is obese and mobid obesity is when a person is 100lbs over their weight on those charts. I personally, use my common sense and things like my blood pressure and my blood sugar and my fitness level and my dress size.  So, my optimum weight is around 155.

---

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

No, I don't.  There was never any scientific basis to them.  They were just averages that were taken back in the 1940's and over the years morphed into what we all "should weigh".  They are garbage.  Today physician's bmi to assess weight rather than those charts.  Also, physicians know now that we each have an "optimum" weight that varies from person to person.  Muscle weighs more than fat, so an active woman with muscles might be overweight on those charts but in reality she isn't overweight at all.   I believe they say that being 20% over ones weight on those charts is obese and mobid obesity is when a person is 100lbs over their weight on those charts. I personally, use my common sense and things like my blood pressure and my blood sugar and my fitness level and my dress size.  So, my optimum weight is around 155.

---

One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat.

One pound of muscle, however, takes up less space than one pound of fat.

It is also metabolically active.  Fat isn't. 

[Moonchilde]

@sidsmom, for my height (5'7") the chart seems fairly accurate and a wee bit generous. I think they've always been just slightly on the generous side.

As others have said, it depends very much on frame and how and where you carry the weight. I'm not small-boned, but I don't think I'm large-boned either - somewhere in the middle. Before I gained weight I was firmly in the small-boned weight category for my height.

I've always, even when thin, been a size larger on the bottom than the top. The shorter you are, the more likely you'll wear a "normal" size even if you weigh more than a friend an inch or two taller.  

[blackhole99]

As a senior, I will no doubt be 10 lbs over my ideal weight until I get sick or don't enjoy food anymore. When my doctor says anything about my cholesterol I tell him if I can't enjoy my food, I might as well be dead.LOL I do agree with the weight chart though.

[chrystaltree]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

No, I don't.  There was never any scientific basis to them.  They were just averages that were taken back in the 1940's and over the years morphed into what we all "should weigh".  They are garbage.  Today physician's bmi to assess weight rather than those charts.  Also, physicians know now that we each have an "optimum" weight that varies from person to person.  Muscle weighs more than fat, so an active woman with muscles might be overweight on those charts but in reality she isn't overweight at all.   I believe they say that being 20% over ones weight on those charts is obese and mobid obesity is when a person is 100lbs over their weight on those charts. I personally, use my common sense and things like my blood pressure and my blood sugar and my fitness level and my dress size.  So, my optimum weight is around 155.

---

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

No, I don't.  There was never any scientific basis to them.  They were just averages that were taken back in the 1940's and over the years morphed into what we all "should weigh".  They are garbage.  Today physician's bmi to assess weight rather than those charts.  Also, physicians know now that we each have an "optimum" weight that varies from person to person.  Muscle weighs more than fat, so an active woman with muscles might be overweight on those charts but in reality she isn't overweight at all.   I believe they say that being 20% over ones weight on those charts is obese and mobid obesity is when a person is 100lbs over their weight on those charts. I personally, use my common sense and things like my blood pressure and my blood sugar and my fitness level and my dress size.  So, my optimum weight is around 155.

---

One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat.

One pound of muscle, however, takes up less space than one pound of fat.

It is also metabolically active.  Fat isn't. 

---

       So you are going to get all scientific and mathy on me....lol   You're right, of course.  The point I was trying to make is that if a muscular person goes strictly by those silly charts, they might get the impression that they are overweight when in fact they are not.