This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I decided I want to lose a bit of weight and tone up. I have had too good a summer drinking lager and watching the sport. So, I did my BMI thingy on nhs.uk site. Now I am 30, 182cm and 95kg. I would descirbe myself as stocky, with a podge appearing. But it says i need to lose 23kg! How is that right? I dont think I have been 72kg since I was about 18!
In reply to mh554:
This website, from the NHS, gives a different result. Maybe you could check it?:
http://www.nhs.uk/tools/pages/healthyweightcalculator.aspx?WT.mc_id=101007
PS I don't know anything about BMI - I just know this website.
This website, from the NHS, gives a different result. Maybe you could check it?:
http://www.nhs.uk/tools/pages/healthyweightcalculator.aspx?WT.mc_id=101007
PS I don't know anything about BMI - I just know this website.
In reply to mh554:
OK, but when I entered your figures, 30/182/95, it says "Healthy weight range: 61.3 - 83.1 KG", which isn't 23 KG overweight [it's only 12 KG]? I'm a bit confused...
OK, but when I entered your figures, 30/182/95, it says "Healthy weight range: 61.3 - 83.1 KG", which isn't 23 KG overweight [it's only 12 KG]? I'm a bit confused...
In reply to abseil:
yes, if you follow it through, it then goes on to say i need x amount of calories and to be in the middle of the healthy band i need to lose 23kg.
yes, if you follow it through, it then goes on to say i need x amount of calories and to be in the middle of the healthy band i need to lose 23kg.
In reply to mh554:
OK, now I see your calculation - you did to the centre of the healthy band, whereas I assumed the top of the healthy band would be OK. Sorry for the confusion, my fault... (For myself, reaching the top of the healthy band is good enough - there's the difference).
> (In reply to abseil)
>
> yes, if you follow it through, it then goes on to say i need x amount of calories and to be in the middle of the healthy band i need to lose 23kg.
>
> yes, if you follow it through, it then goes on to say i need x amount of calories and to be in the middle of the healthy band i need to lose 23kg.
OK, now I see your calculation - you did to the centre of the healthy band, whereas I assumed the top of the healthy band would be OK. Sorry for the confusion, my fault... (For myself, reaching the top of the healthy band is good enough - there's the difference).
In reply to mh554:
Hiya, Note BMI is extremely arbitrary and takes no note of muscle mass etc. I would get an accurate body fat measurement and cut down on the pies!
Hiya, Note BMI is extremely arbitrary and takes no note of muscle mass etc. I would get an accurate body fat measurement and cut down on the pies!
In reply to mh554:
Bmi is a bit meaningless because it doesn't take in to things like muscle mass. You need to measure body fat%.
Bmi is a bit meaningless because it doesn't take in to things like muscle mass. You need to measure body fat%.
In reply to mh554:
People interpret it wrong. To take account of things like muscle mass (which it does badly[1], admittedly) you have the ranges. You are healthy *anywhere* in the range, not just right in the middle. So to be in the normal range you only need to lose just over 10kg.
For me the healthy range is 10st 12 to 14st 10 (sorry, I don't really do weight in kilos). I'm 17st 3 at present. Yes, I'm overweight but not stupidly so. Before I started climbing, which has bulked me up a lot, the lowest I've been is 13st 7, and people said I looked unhealthily skinny then. The only way I would be 10 stone anything would be if I was dead. I actually think I should be about 15 stone.
Neil
People interpret it wrong. To take account of things like muscle mass (which it does badly[1], admittedly) you have the ranges. You are healthy *anywhere* in the range, not just right in the middle. So to be in the normal range you only need to lose just over 10kg.
For me the healthy range is 10st 12 to 14st 10 (sorry, I don't really do weight in kilos). I'm 17st 3 at present. Yes, I'm overweight but not stupidly so. Before I started climbing, which has bulked me up a lot, the lowest I've been is 13st 7, and people said I looked unhealthily skinny then. The only way I would be 10 stone anything would be if I was dead. I actually think I should be about 15 stone.
Neil
In reply to Graham Booth:
> and cut down on the pies!
... pies, greggs sausage rolls, coke, pizza, takeaway.... hahahaIn reply to mh554:
Yum Yum!, interesting comment about climbing "bulking you up", never found that in 20 years!
Yum Yum!, interesting comment about climbing "bulking you up", never found that in 20 years!
In reply to Graham Booth:
Probably depends on your genetics. I used to have massive legs (from cycling) and almost no upper body strength/bulk (other than lard), climbing has evened it up a bit.
Neil
Probably depends on your genetics. I used to have massive legs (from cycling) and almost no upper body strength/bulk (other than lard), climbing has evened it up a bit.
Neil
Post edited at 20:24
In reply to Graham Booth:
"Hiya, Note BMI is extremely arbitrary and takes no note of muscle mass etc."
While that's true, unless you are doing a lot of weight training, or have a very physical job, then you probably don't have the sort of exceptionally high muscle mass which makes this relevant.
"Hiya, Note BMI is extremely arbitrary and takes no note of muscle mass etc."
While that's true, unless you are doing a lot of weight training, or have a very physical job, then you probably don't have the sort of exceptionally high muscle mass which makes this relevant.
In reply to mh554:
Good start! But I'm competing with you ... tomorrow I'm going to have 7 pints a curry and a pizza. So there...
> but failed yday. 6 pints of lager and a curry :-/
Good start! But I'm competing with you ... tomorrow I'm going to have 7 pints a curry and a pizza. So there...
In reply to abseil:
thats just greedy!
> Good start! But I'm competing with you ... tomorrow I'm going to have 7 pints a curry and a pizza. So there...
thats just greedy!
In reply to mh554:
When I was fat I used to think the BMI range was ridiculous. NOw I have lost fat and am now in the healthy range I realise I was wrong!
When I was fat I used to think the BMI range was ridiculous. NOw I have lost fat and am now in the healthy range I realise I was wrong!
In reply to Ava Adore:
Well I was pleased with my cycling efforts. Then got chatting to mates... But it couldnt be 7, I cant do odd numbers (except 5). So can only drink the following number of pints:
0,2,4,5,6,8,10 (vomit) 12
> On the bright side, it wasn't 7 pints and a curry
Well I was pleased with my cycling efforts. Then got chatting to mates... But it couldnt be 7, I cant do odd numbers (except 5). So can only drink the following number of pints:
0,2,4,5,6,8,10 (vomit) 12
In reply to brigsy:
There's a Venn Diagram somewhere of 'people who say BMI is crap' and 'people for whom BMI is crap'. There isn't much overlap
There's a Venn Diagram somewhere of 'people who say BMI is crap' and 'people for whom BMI is crap'. There isn't much overlap
In reply to mh554:
MD over here. Bmi is solely based on height and weight, as mention above takes no consideration what that weight is built by. Muscle is three time heavier then fat by volume so you it's a great tool to help set goals and numbers for obese patients
MD over here. Bmi is solely based on height and weight, as mention above takes no consideration what that weight is built by. Muscle is three time heavier then fat by volume so you it's a great tool to help set goals and numbers for obese patients
In reply to Polandrox:
<<Bmi is solely based on height and weight, as mention above takes no consideration what that weight is built by>>.
Also, there is The waist : hip ratio - a useful test because it assesses your fat distribution and calculates whether you have too much fat around the abdomen - which, as experts tell us, isn't good:
1. Measure your waist (mid-way between the lowest rib and top of the hip bone) and hips (at their widest part).
2. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement to get the ratio. For example, if your waist is 90cm and your hips 105cm, the ratio is 0.86. If your ratio is greater than 0.95, you need to loose some weight!
<<Bmi is solely based on height and weight, as mention above takes no consideration what that weight is built by>>.
Also, there is The waist : hip ratio - a useful test because it assesses your fat distribution and calculates whether you have too much fat around the abdomen - which, as experts tell us, isn't good:
1. Measure your waist (mid-way between the lowest rib and top of the hip bone) and hips (at their widest part).
2. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement to get the ratio. For example, if your waist is 90cm and your hips 105cm, the ratio is 0.86. If your ratio is greater than 0.95, you need to loose some weight!
In reply to Woodman:
Well I eat loads and right now my waist would be too much in the wrong direction,but it does go down by morning.
In serious mode I would say that the best thing to do is( apart from cutting the alcohol consumption in half)to cut down seriously on glucose.It is what I had to do as I was given the tag of being pre-diabetic.I did not want to lose weight,but it had that effect.
I was 82Kg plus in October and this week I weighed myself on the walk-on scales and with my shoes on weighed 76.2Kg.My friends say that I now look too skinny,but my glucose levels are doing better.(50+,1.89m so don't know what that equates to w BMI).
So to me the answer is for the government to enforce reduced levels of sugar addition in food.
Sadly dried fruit is a bad deal on the sugar front,as I used to cook with it a lot.(Mind you I still ate a fair amount of my home made Christmas cake).
I cut out all chocolate biscuits and all squash.They were probably what sent me towards DM.So just drink water now and eat oatcakes(which are not so enticing as cake and chocolate biscuits,but you get used to it to some degree).I also cut down on my other weakness,Cheese.
Well I eat loads and right now my waist would be too much in the wrong direction,but it does go down by morning.
In serious mode I would say that the best thing to do is( apart from cutting the alcohol consumption in half)to cut down seriously on glucose.It is what I had to do as I was given the tag of being pre-diabetic.I did not want to lose weight,but it had that effect.
I was 82Kg plus in October and this week I weighed myself on the walk-on scales and with my shoes on weighed 76.2Kg.My friends say that I now look too skinny,but my glucose levels are doing better.(50+,1.89m so don't know what that equates to w BMI).
So to me the answer is for the government to enforce reduced levels of sugar addition in food.
Sadly dried fruit is a bad deal on the sugar front,as I used to cook with it a lot.(Mind you I still ate a fair amount of my home made Christmas cake).
I cut out all chocolate biscuits and all squash.They were probably what sent me towards DM.So just drink water now and eat oatcakes(which are not so enticing as cake and chocolate biscuits,but you get used to it to some degree).I also cut down on my other weakness,Cheese.
In reply to veteye: I feel sorry for you, I could never give up cheese.
I have always felt lucky that I can eat as much or as fatty food as I want and not gain any weight it is really annoying to any of my friends who are trying to lose weight (and is probably not very healthy for me).
I have literally no body fat on me and I had one BMI tester say I was overweight so I think it is totally useless.
I have always felt lucky that I can eat as much or as fatty food as I want and not gain any weight it is really annoying to any of my friends who are trying to lose weight (and is probably not very healthy for me).
I have literally no body fat on me and I had one BMI tester say I was overweight so I think it is totally useless.
In reply to mh554:
Cut down on beer is my advice. The volume of calories you're ingesting in a 6 pints and a curry sesh is a large amount...
You can significantly improve your calories in vs burned ratio by drinking wine or spirits instead.
Cut down on beer is my advice. The volume of calories you're ingesting in a 6 pints and a curry sesh is a large amount...
You can significantly improve your calories in vs burned ratio by drinking wine or spirits instead.
In reply to 999thAndy:
Yes, but beer has a lot more additional sugar. You can get equally drunk on far fewer calories with wine.
Yes, but beer has a lot more additional sugar. You can get equally drunk on far fewer calories with wine.
In reply to Neil Williams:
You are healthy when you're healthy and the range is a useful guide to a healthy weight.
If you're pretty fit and well built, then you'll probably be healthy at the heavy end of the range. If you're not fit and of a small natural build you'll probably be healthier towards the bottom end of the range.
If you fall outside the range, or have less 'median' body type then you'll need to carefully assess what the BMI means for you.
The point of the BMI is that it a 'poor' indication should prompt you to look at your lifestyle.
> (In reply to mh554)
>
> People interpret it wrong. To take account of things like muscle mass (which it does badly[1], admittedly) you have the ranges. You are healthy *anywhere* in the range, not just right in the middle. So to be in the normal range you only need to lose just over 10kg.
>
Neil- you're nearly right in your interpretation >
> People interpret it wrong. To take account of things like muscle mass (which it does badly[1], admittedly) you have the ranges. You are healthy *anywhere* in the range, not just right in the middle. So to be in the normal range you only need to lose just over 10kg.
>
You are healthy when you're healthy and the range is a useful guide to a healthy weight.
If you're pretty fit and well built, then you'll probably be healthy at the heavy end of the range. If you're not fit and of a small natural build you'll probably be healthier towards the bottom end of the range.
If you fall outside the range, or have less 'median' body type then you'll need to carefully assess what the BMI means for you.
The point of the BMI is that it a 'poor' indication should prompt you to look at your lifestyle.
In reply to Ander:
bmi is just rubbish though, often giving results way of the mark.
I am one of those people where a bmi calculator shows that I'm overweight and unless I'm extremely delusional that just isn't the case. I'm not a normally muscley, but just have a fairly average athletic build, but without the pot belly that most men my age seem to have.
I don't know what I'm trying to say really but I think a much better way of telling if you're overweight is to look in a mirror! With the exceptions of people suffering eating disorders ( in which case bmi's could cause more harm than good) we can all tell if we're overweight or not by looking at our bellies and arses.
We don't need formulae to tell us this simple information, especially formulae that doesn't work.
bmi is just rubbish though, often giving results way of the mark.
I am one of those people where a bmi calculator shows that I'm overweight and unless I'm extremely delusional that just isn't the case. I'm not a normally muscley, but just have a fairly average athletic build, but without the pot belly that most men my age seem to have.
I don't know what I'm trying to say really but I think a much better way of telling if you're overweight is to look in a mirror! With the exceptions of people suffering eating disorders ( in which case bmi's could cause more harm than good) we can all tell if we're overweight or not by looking at our bellies and arses.
We don't need formulae to tell us this simple information, especially formulae that doesn't work.
In reply to mh554:
Weirdly because they seem to use the same BMI chart for women as men, the result for women seems the opposite to men, i.e. I'm pretty muscular for a woman, but sit right near the bottom of the 'healthy' weight range. I cannot imagine how chunky you'd have to be to get to overweight or obese! Surely as women weigh less at the same volume as men (seeing as we have a higher % of essential fat, so a lower % of muscle/bone for the same weight) we should have a different healthy weight? I found a little page which explains it a bit more - http://halls.md/bmi/gap.htm I suppose that is the point of having a wide range, but many people on seeing a range will naturally want to be towards the lower end of the scale as they perceive it as being healthier, so it winds up being counter-productive particularly for men.
Weirdly because they seem to use the same BMI chart for women as men, the result for women seems the opposite to men, i.e. I'm pretty muscular for a woman, but sit right near the bottom of the 'healthy' weight range. I cannot imagine how chunky you'd have to be to get to overweight or obese! Surely as women weigh less at the same volume as men (seeing as we have a higher % of essential fat, so a lower % of muscle/bone for the same weight) we should have a different healthy weight? I found a little page which explains it a bit more - http://halls.md/bmi/gap.htm I suppose that is the point of having a wide range, but many people on seeing a range will naturally want to be towards the lower end of the scale as they perceive it as being healthier, so it winds up being counter-productive particularly for men.
In reply to Wee Davie:
That's the plan. No midweek booze. And more gym time. Been doing 90mins fatburn and cardio plus free weights and core exercises. Working well so far. 3 unsolicited "you've lost weight" comments. Not that I am counting...
> Cut down on beer is my advice. The volume of calories you're ingesting in a 6 pints and a curry sesh is a large amount...
> You can significantly improve your calories in vs burned ratio by drinking wine or spirits instead.
That's the plan. No midweek booze. And more gym time. Been doing 90mins fatburn and cardio plus free weights and core exercises. Working well so far. 3 unsolicited "you've lost weight" comments. Not that I am counting...
In reply to mh554:
I think BMI works quite well for what its designed for. I think one of the main problem is were all used to the world being pretty fat so "normal" is actually high end of healthy and "a bit fat" is well on the way to proper fat.
I think BMI works quite well for what its designed for. I think one of the main problem is were all used to the world being pretty fat so "normal" is actually high end of healthy and "a bit fat" is well on the way to proper fat.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...