27 should be considered obese BMI now?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal body types:












That's how Americans used to look when they were healthier. Now we try to reframe the narrative after everyone has become obese blobs.

I looked like that in my 20’s was called olive oil and wore size 8.

You aren’t making the point you think you are making.

My son’s skinny AF, his BMI is 25, he wears XL.

Suuuuure.. I'm sure your son has the body of a Greek god to throw off BMI.

Every mom of a fat kid never admits they're overweight but rather 'big boned'.

He’s a D1 athlete so.., your a sad human, eat some carbs it helps your brain work.

Imagine being too stupid to understand basic statistics.


Ahhhhhh....DCUM. Where everyone has a BMI of 25+ yet no one is obese because they must be one or two sigmas away from the average body in terms of muscle mass.

Ha, yeah right. I'm sure you're all hulking, fit beasts built like tanks with clear muscle definition to the point of striations and massive, solid bulk.

You are all delusional.

The delusion in these posts is mostly coming from middle aged women. That group at 25+ BMI is virtually always (like 95%, minimum) on the wrong side of body fat to muscle ratio. That’s just the reality of our species. One that’s easily objectively measured.

But when you have an objective measure where people don’t like the results, the answer is always to attack the measurement.

Again, research shows BMI 26-27 is the healthiest. Sorry you don’t like that.

DP. But what research says that? I find that very hard to believe. I don’t pay any attention to my bmi, but I’m well aware that 25+ extra pounds is hard on any body.

read the thread - it has been posted repeatedly. an extra 25lbs on older women is much healthier than being skinny. skinny and older is not a healthy combo.

You mean the shape.com article that explicitly stated that the results were due to medical advances, not that being 25 pounds overweight is somehow now “healthy”? Seems like someone struggled to read the article, and it was me.

Lol yes. 26-27 BMI is healthiest when they can put you on a lifetime supply of statins and high blood pressure meds.


Lol 26-27 and you're fat. No, you're not a body builder or NFL linebacker with huge mass. Very few people are. And they need hours per week at the gym. Lifting very heavy weights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal body types:












That's how Americans used to look when they were healthier. Now we try to reframe the narrative after everyone has become obese blobs.

I looked like that in my 20’s was called olive oil and wore size 8.

You aren’t making the point you think you are making.

My son’s skinny AF, his BMI is 25, he wears XL.

Suuuuure.. I'm sure your son has the body of a Greek god to throw off BMI.

Every mom of a fat kid never admits they're overweight but rather 'big boned'.

He’s a D1 athlete so.., your a sad human, eat some carbs it helps your brain work.

Imagine being too stupid to understand basic statistics.


Ahhhhhh....DCUM. Where everyone has a BMI of 25+ yet no one is obese because they must be one or two sigmas away from the average body in terms of muscle mass.

Ha, yeah right. I'm sure you're all hulking, fit beasts built like tanks with clear muscle definition to the point of striations and massive, solid bulk.

You are all delusional.

The delusion in these posts is mostly coming from middle aged women. That group at 25+ BMI is virtually always (like 95%, minimum) on the wrong side of body fat to muscle ratio. That’s just the reality of our species. One that’s easily objectively measured.

But when you have an objective measure where people don’t like the results, the answer is always to attack the measurement.

Again, research shows BMI 26-27 is the healthiest. Sorry you don’t like that.

That study is from 2013. I’m sure if I spent time on it, I could find something supporting the opposite. Science doesn’t work where by finding something that confirmation bias supports your lifestyle choice and then you stop looking.

For example, how does a BMI of 26-27 possibly square with the idea that VO2Max is the best indicator of longevity when the bottom number of that calculation is weight? It can’t. Because it’s effectively physically impossible to do sufficient steady state cardio exercise to continue training the cardio part of that metric while also managing to carry around all that extra weight - the weight would come off, unless the person has a bad cheesecake and ice cream habit.

I totally agree. Unfortunately we are at a point in history where facts don't matter, science isn't real, people want to listen to their own echo chamber, and differing perspective are wrong and stupid. Just look at the political landscape. We have 2 geriatric white guys fighting like children for power over a world they won't be alive to see the impact of their decisions. And even more baffling is people don't care!! ....and will even justify their vote for one of them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal body types:












That's how Americans used to look when they were healthier. Now we try to reframe the narrative after everyone has become obese blobs.

I looked like that in my 20’s was called olive oil and wore size 8.

You aren’t making the point you think you are making.

My son’s skinny AF, his BMI is 25, he wears XL.

Suuuuure.. I'm sure your son has the body of a Greek god to throw off BMI.

Every mom of a fat kid never admits they're overweight but rather 'big boned'.

He’s a D1 athlete so.., your a sad human, eat some carbs it helps your brain work.

Imagine being too stupid to understand basic statistics.


Ahhhhhh....DCUM. Where everyone has a BMI of 25+ yet no one is obese because they must be one or two sigmas away from the average body in terms of muscle mass.

Ha, yeah right. I'm sure you're all hulking, fit beasts built like tanks with clear muscle definition to the point of striations and massive, solid bulk.

You are all delusional.

The delusion in these posts is mostly coming from middle aged women. That group at 25+ BMI is virtually always (like 95%, minimum) on the wrong side of body fat to muscle ratio. That’s just the reality of our species. One that’s easily objectively measured.

But when you have an objective measure where people don’t like the results, the answer is always to attack the measurement.

Again, research shows BMI 26-27 is the healthiest. Sorry you don’t like that.

DP. But what research says that? I find that very hard to believe. I don’t pay any attention to my bmi, but I’m well aware that 25+ extra pounds is hard on any body.

read the thread - it has been posted repeatedly. an extra 25lbs on older women is much healthier than being skinny. skinny and older is not a healthy combo.

You mean the shape.com article that explicitly stated that the results were due to medical advances, not that being 25 pounds overweight is somehow now “healthy”? Seems like someone struggled to read the article, and it was me.

If any of these people read the actual study and not simply the blurb in Shape (seriously?) they would see that nowhere does the study say a BMI of 27 is the “healthiest” but that is correlated with lower all-cause mortality. Those are not necessarily the same.

Furthermore, when looking at the oldest cohort of participants (in which 78% of participants had died by the time of publication), the BMI associated with lowest all-cause mortality was actually 23.7. The newest cohort (only 6% of participants had died at the time of publication) is the one in which see BMI 27 correlated with lowest all-cause mortality. Make of that what you will.

And finally read this little gem from the publication itself:

“Diabetes, hypertension, and history of cardiovascular disease were deliberately excluded as potential confounders as they would act in the causal pathway between obesity and mortality.15,19-22 That is, potential confounders were selected a priori based on what has been shown to be associated with mortality and obesity, but variables thought to lie in the causal pathway between obesity and mortality were excluded. ”

I don’t know that any reasonable person thinks excess fat directly causes poor health. I think we’re all aware that it contributes to metabolic syndrome. Unless I am reading this wrong, it would appear that the study *excludes* those people who are already in poor health from many of the issues that obesity is known to have a direct correlation. So what exactly are these results supposed to mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For goodness sake, my BMI is 25 and I’m a size 8. What world are people living in?

8 is a 14 of non vanity sizes.

Eating disorder chick is all over this thread

Hardly. I'm a 4 or 8 in old school sizes. I am not thin. My BMI is 20. If my BMI was 24, I would indeed be fat.

Thanks for pointing out just how disordered you are.

DP

I think it's disordered that people want to push the fat agenda to make themselves feel better about being fat. Whatever floats your boat. Guidelines and numbers published by medical organizations are not made up. Your pop science and advice from whatever magazine you pulled from the gutter is made up.

+100.

Fat is now healthy. I'm sure Novo Nordisk loves the fat pushers. Wegovy sales through the roof!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal body types:












That's how Americans used to look when they were healthier. Now we try to reframe the narrative after everyone has become obese blobs.

I looked like that in my 20’s was called olive oil and wore size 8.

You aren’t making the point you think you are making.

My son’s skinny AF, his BMI is 25, he wears XL.

Suuuuure.. I'm sure your son has the body of a Greek god to throw off BMI.

Every mom of a fat kid never admits they're overweight but rather 'big boned'.

He’s a D1 athlete so.., your a sad human, eat some carbs it helps your brain work.

Imagine being too stupid to understand basic statistics.


Ahhhhhh....DCUM. Where everyone has a BMI of 25+ yet no one is obese because they must be one or two sigmas away from the average body in terms of muscle mass.

Ha, yeah right. I'm sure you're all hulking, fit beasts built like tanks with clear muscle definition to the point of striations and massive, solid bulk.

You are all delusional.

The delusion in these posts is mostly coming from middle aged women. That group at 25+ BMI is virtually always (like 95%, minimum) on the wrong side of body fat to muscle ratio. That’s just the reality of our species. One that’s easily objectively measured.

But when you have an objective measure where people don’t like the results, the answer is always to attack the measurement.

Again, research shows BMI 26-27 is the healthiest. Sorry you don’t like that.

DP. But what research says that? I find that very hard to believe. I don’t pay any attention to my bmi, but I’m well aware that 25+ extra pounds is hard on any body.

read the thread - it has been posted repeatedly. an extra 25lbs on older women is much healthier than being skinny. skinny and older is not a healthy combo.

You mean the shape.com article that explicitly stated that the results were due to medical advances, not that being 25 pounds overweight is somehow now “healthy”? Seems like someone struggled to read the article, and it was me.

If any of these people read the actual study and not simply the blurb in Shape (seriously?) they would see that nowhere does the study say a BMI of 27 is the “healthiest” but that is correlated with lower all-cause mortality. Those are not necessarily the same.

Furthermore, when looking at the oldest cohort of participants (in which 78% of participants had died by the time of publication), the BMI associated with lowest all-cause mortality was actually 23.7. The newest cohort (only 6% of participants had died at the time of publication) is the one in which see BMI 27 correlated with lowest all-cause mortality. Make of that what you will.

And finally read this little gem from the publication itself:

“Diabetes, hypertension, and history of cardiovascular disease were deliberately excluded as potential confounders as they would act in the causal pathway between obesity and mortality.15,19-22 That is, potential confounders were selected a priori based on what has been shown to be associated with mortality and obesity, but variables thought to lie in the causal pathway between obesity and mortality were excluded. ”

I don’t know that any reasonable person thinks excess fat directly causes poor health. I think we’re all aware that it contributes to metabolic syndrome. Unless I am reading this wrong, it would appear that the study *excludes* those people who are already in poor health from many of the issues that obesity is known to have a direct correlation. So what exactly are these results supposed to mean?

Thanks for digging in here. Seems the results may be “being slightly overweight is not that bad” and not the ideal that posters here want it to be. Shocking that idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal body types:












That's how Americans used to look when they were healthier. Now we try to reframe the narrative after everyone has become obese blobs.

I looked like that in my 20’s was called olive oil and wore size 8.

You aren’t making the point you think you are making.

My son’s skinny AF, his BMI is 25, he wears XL.

Suuuuure.. I'm sure your son has the body of a Greek god to throw off BMI.

Every mom of a fat kid never admits they're overweight but rather 'big boned'.

He’s a D1 athlete so.., your a sad human, eat some carbs it helps your brain work.

Imagine being too stupid to understand basic statistics.


Ahhhhhh....DCUM. Where everyone has a BMI of 25+ yet no one is obese because they must be one or two sigmas away from the average body in terms of muscle mass.

Ha, yeah right. I'm sure you're all hulking, fit beasts built like tanks with clear muscle definition to the point of striations and massive, solid bulk.

You are all delusional.

The delusion in these posts is mostly coming from middle aged women. That group at 25+ BMI is virtually always (like 95%, minimum) on the wrong side of body fat to muscle ratio. That’s just the reality of our species. One that’s easily objectively measured.

But when you have an objective measure where people don’t like the results, the answer is always to attack the measurement.

Again, research shows BMI 26-27 is the healthiest. Sorry you don’t like that.

DP. But what research says that? I find that very hard to believe. I don’t pay any attention to my bmi, but I’m well aware that 25+ extra pounds is hard on any body.

read the thread - it has been posted repeatedly. an extra 25lbs on older women is much healthier than being skinny. skinny and older is not a healthy combo.

You mean the shape.com article that explicitly stated that the results were due to medical advances, not that being 25 pounds overweight is somehow now “healthy”? Seems like someone struggled to read the article, and it was me.

If any of these people read the actual study and not simply the blurb in Shape (seriously?) they would see that nowhere does the study say a BMI of 27 is the “healthiest” but that is correlated with lower all-cause mortality. Those are not necessarily the same.

Furthermore, when looking at the oldest cohort of participants (in which 78% of participants had died by the time of publication), the BMI associated with lowest all-cause mortality was actually 23.7. The newest cohort (only 6% of participants had died at the time of publication) is the one in which see BMI 27 correlated with lowest all-cause mortality. Make of that what you will.

And finally read this little gem from the publication itself:

“Diabetes, hypertension, and history of cardiovascular disease were deliberately excluded as potential confounders as they would act in the causal pathway between obesity and mortality.15,19-22 That is, potential confounders were selected a priori based on what has been shown to be associated with mortality and obesity, but variables thought to lie in the causal pathway between obesity and mortality were excluded. ”

I don’t know that any reasonable person thinks excess fat directly causes poor health. I think we’re all aware that it contributes to metabolic syndrome. Unless I am reading this wrong, it would appear that the study *excludes* those people who are already in poor health from many of the issues that obesity is known to have a direct correlation. So what exactly are these results supposed to mean?

Oh wow, that's my exact BMI now, 23.7

I lost weight last year. I'm at what I thought was my goal weight but actually I do still have some pounds to loose (not trying to be super thin at all, just fit).
I do lift weights and eat healthy now.
However, due to the paper towel effect (see the thread about that) perhaps I only need to lose 4-5 more pounds, as each pound lost at this weight should have a much bigger effect on the body. So I just don't know, I guess I will see how it goes as I lose the next pound or two etc.
If anyone has any first hand knowledge of pounds lost at a healthy BMI versus overweight BMI let me know for inspiration, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal body types:












That's how Americans used to look when they were healthier. Now we try to reframe the narrative after everyone has become obese blobs.

I looked like that in my 20’s was called olive oil and wore size 8.

You aren’t making the point you think you are making.

My son’s skinny AF, his BMI is 25, he wears XL.

Suuuuure.. I'm sure your son has the body of a Greek god to throw off BMI.

Every mom of a fat kid never admits they're overweight but rather 'big boned'.

He’s a D1 athlete so.., your a sad human, eat some carbs it helps your brain work.

Imagine being too stupid to understand basic statistics.


Ahhhhhh....DCUM. Where everyone has a BMI of 25+ yet no one is obese because they must be one or two sigmas away from the average body in terms of muscle mass.

Ha, yeah right. I'm sure you're all hulking, fit beasts built like tanks with clear muscle definition to the point of striations and massive, solid bulk.

You are all delusional.

The delusion in these posts is mostly coming from middle aged women. That group at 25+ BMI is virtually always (like 95%, minimum) on the wrong side of body fat to muscle ratio. That’s just the reality of our species. One that’s easily objectively measured.

But when you have an objective measure where people don’t like the results, the answer is always to attack the measurement.

Again, research shows BMI 26-27 is the healthiest. Sorry you don’t like that.

DP. But what research says that? I find that very hard to believe. I don’t pay any attention to my bmi, but I’m well aware that 25+ extra pounds is hard on any body.

read the thread - it has been posted repeatedly. an extra 25lbs on older women is much healthier than being skinny. skinny and older is not a healthy combo.

You mean the shape.com article that explicitly stated that the results were due to medical advances, not that being 25 pounds overweight is somehow now “healthy”? Seems like someone struggled to read the article, and it was me.

Lol yes. 26-27 BMI is healthiest when they can put you on a lifetime supply of statins and high blood pressure meds.


Lol 26-27 and you're fat. No, you're not a body builder or NFL linebacker with huge mass. Very few people are. And they need hours per week at the gym. Lifting very heavy weights.

People at 26-27 are not on drugs crazy lady.

[Anonymous]

My friend told me a bit about the history of BMI and who created it. Thought other people might find it interesting.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-02/the-problem-with-the-body-mass-index-bmi/100728416

[Anonymous]

bmi seems like a very blunt tool. Body fat and visceral fat would be better indicators no? My bmi is 21 but really lost a lot of muscle in past few years and am trying to put on muscle now, trainer is really pushing me to eat more protein (and more in general as I am chronic undereater). I also think as you get older having a bit more weight is good. I see how fast my mom drops weight when she’s not feeling well and how frail the old people in her assisted living facility are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:bmi seems like a very blunt tool. Body fat and visceral fat would be better indicators no? My bmi is 21 but really lost a lot of muscle in past few years and am trying to put on muscle now, trainer is really pushing me to eat more protein (and more in general as I am chronic undereater). I also think as you get older having a bit more weight is good. I see how fast my mom drops weight when she’s not feeling well and how frail the old people in her assisted living facility are.

It is acknowledged as a blunt tool because it’s easy to figure out. The other measures not so much.

And a blunt tool that is very effective. People just don’t like the result.

Sure as you are over the age of 65, carrying some extra weight is probably not a bad idea. As in don’t be at the lower end of normal or underweight. That doesn’t translate to 27+ BMI being a good idea; nor does it indicate 26-27 is somehow ideal as people here have proposed without actually reading ONE source study review they believe supports that view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My friend told me a bit about the history of BMI and who created it. Thought other people might find it interesting.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-02/the-problem-with-the-body-mass-index-bmi/100728416

Sort of like how math is somehow racist.

Not surprisingly, the author is “big boned.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bmi seems like a very blunt tool. Body fat and visceral fat would be better indicators no? My bmi is 21 but really lost a lot of muscle in past few years and am trying to put on muscle now, trainer is really pushing me to eat more protein (and more in general as I am chronic undereater). I also think as you get older having a bit more weight is good. I see how fast my mom drops weight when she’s not feeling well and how frail the old people in her assisted living facility are.

It is acknowledged as a blunt tool because it’s easy to figure out. The other measures not so much.

And a blunt tool that is very effective. People just don’t like the result.

Sure as you are over the age of 65, carrying some extra weight is probably not a bad idea. As in don’t be at the lower end of normal or underweight. That doesn’t translate to 27+ BMI being a good idea; nor does it indicate 26-27 is somehow ideal as people here have proposed without actually reading ONE source study review they believe supports that view.

It’s really not hard for Doctors to measure your bone density and then give you an appropriate BMI scale.

Also, hip ratio is much better measurement and just as quick. The problem is skinny girls who are low in BMI and have very small hips. Don’t like that measurement.

It’s not hard to have different measurements for different body types. The military has done it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For goodness sake, my BMI is 25 and I’m a size 8. What world are people living in?

8 is a 14 of non vanity sizes.

Eating disorder chick is all over this thread

Hardly. I'm a 4 or 8 in old school sizes. I am not thin. My BMI is 20. If my BMI was 24, I would indeed be fat.

Thanks for pointing out just how disordered you are.

DP

I think it's disordered that people want to push the fat agenda to make themselves feel better about being fat. Whatever floats your boat. Guidelines and numbers published by medical organizations are not made up. Your pop science and advice from whatever magazine you pulled from the gutter is made up.

+100.

Fat is now healthy. I'm sure Novo Nordisk loves the fat pushers. Wegovy sales through the roof!

There is no doubt that the makers of semaglutides will start pushing the government to change these standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend told me a bit about the history of BMI and who created it. Thought other people might find it interesting.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-02/the-problem-with-the-body-mass-index-bmi/100728416

Sort of like how math is somehow racist.

Not surprisingly, the author is “big boned.”

Ok so you are have some issues. I believe where the fat matters. Around the waist very bad but not so much on the hips. My sibling who was always thin and had a very low BMI got stage 4 lung cancer. So you can be unhealthy and sick and yet be thin. Imagine that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal body types:












That's how Americans used to look when they were healthier. Now we try to reframe the narrative after everyone has become obese blobs.

I looked like that in my 20’s was called olive oil and wore size 8.

You aren’t making the point you think you are making.

My son’s skinny AF, his BMI is 25, he wears XL.

Suuuuure.. I'm sure your son has the body of a Greek god to throw off BMI.

Every mom of a fat kid never admits they're overweight but rather 'big boned'.

He’s a D1 athlete so.., your a sad human, eat some carbs it helps your brain work.

Imagine being too stupid to understand basic statistics.


Ahhhhhh....DCUM. Where everyone has a BMI of 25+ yet no one is obese because they must be one or two sigmas away from the average body in terms of muscle mass.

Ha, yeah right. I'm sure you're all hulking, fit beasts built like tanks with clear muscle definition to the point of striations and massive, solid bulk.

You are all delusional.

The delusion in these posts is mostly coming from middle aged women. That group at 25+ BMI is virtually always (like 95%, minimum) on the wrong side of body fat to muscle ratio. That’s just the reality of our species. One that’s easily objectively measured.

But when you have an objective measure where people don’t like the results, the answer is always to attack the measurement.

Again, research shows BMI 26-27 is the healthiest. Sorry you don’t like that.

DP. But what research says that? I find that very hard to believe. I don’t pay any attention to my bmi, but I’m well aware that 25+ extra pounds is hard on any body.

read the thread - it has been posted repeatedly. an extra 25lbs on older women is much healthier than being skinny. skinny and older is not a healthy combo.

You mean the shape.com article that explicitly stated that the results were due to medical advances, not that being 25 pounds overweight is somehow now “healthy”? Seems like someone struggled to read the article, and it was me.

Lol yes. 26-27 BMI is healthiest when they can put you on a lifetime supply of statins and high blood pressure meds.


Lol 26-27 and you're fat. No, you're not a body builder or NFL linebacker with huge mass. Very few people are. And they need hours per week at the gym. Lifting very heavy weights.

People at 26-27 are not on drugs crazy lady.

I'm 56 and have a 25 BMI. On blood pressure lowering medications and have been for a decade. Healthy diet, tons of exercise. It's just congenital.