# "How Big A Boy Are You?" (an AAAC poll)



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Last night over drinks I was asked what I attributed my holding onto a healthy weight into my 50s, and without hesitation I answered "I give all credit to my wardrobe."

Though my response got a laugh, it really wasn't tongue-in-cheek. I want to keep my weight in check for health reasons, but admit that my greatest motivator in staying trim is the investment I've made in classically-tailored, well-made clothes that fit well. They have an excellent chance of being useful for a very long time (as my 25 year old tuxedo attests) as long as I don't mess things up.

I further hold that while us clothes-hounds may not be Greek gods underneath, our clothing investments and our critical eyes make us more body-aware than the average man. As such I contend we may indeed be as a group trimmer than the general population, and devised a simple poll to see if this assumption is correct.

A BMI (Body Mass Index) calculator is available here - https://www.mayoclinic.org/bmi-calculator/itt-20084938

While not perfect a BMI number helps resolve a wide range of physiques into a meaningful comparison opportunity. A "healthy" BMI number for an adult 1st world male is typically between 18-25, but the _average _BMI has been creeping up around the globe - most recent estimates have pushed it today as high 28-30 in North America and Europe.

So take a look at your BMI result via the link, then hit the appropriate category in the poll, and let's see how we stack up.

PS - Your poll entry is confidential, so no need to post your result in comments unless you feel the urge. :cool2:


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Damn.
It tells me I'm 26.1


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"Your BMI is 23. Congratulations! Your healthy weight is well worth the effort. It reduces your risk of serious health conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and diabetes."


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I rounded up and got a 22.5 which looks to be middle average healthy. I already knew that I was not a big fattie, just untoned.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm not where I want to be. Let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Semper Jeep (Oct 11, 2011)

The Mayo Clinic webapp pegged me at 24.6 but we have a health screening at our office every spring that measures BMI by also taking waist circumference and some calipers to the love handles and thigh into account and mine came in at 22 when I had it done a few weeks ago. I'm not the tallest guy by any standard but I'm pretty solidly built so the measurements that are just height and weight usually work against me.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

^^^ I think since it still had you in the "normal/healthy" range the result is still valid. The range is intended to cover different frames and within-norms muscle mass. When an individual drifts outside of averages (whether due to genetics or physical training) then other measurements like you mention are needed to clarify results.

Since I lighted this candle, my own results (50 year-old 5'9" male at 160lbs) indicate a BMI of 23.6. My own frame is very light but with higher-than-normal muscle mass due to training. Bottom lining it, I have a 30" waist yet still I too come in at the "high side" of normal. If I had average bone structure I'd definitely score even higher, but I could add another ten pounds before my BMI ticks me into the "overweight" category.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

I recently lost around 75 lbs by dieting and exercise.

I am 31 yrs young, 6'2 and 220 lbs and can run 1.5 miles VERY comfortably.

I am aiming hard for 205 lbs but I cannot, for the life of me, get this last 15 lbs off. No matter how much I diet.

So, very soon, I will be going in to see a dietician for a little better game plan. Looks like I will be going for the 5 day work out regimen and not so much dieting. I was dieting so hard that I had no energy to work out, so, it was a paradoxical situation.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

I'm listed at 26.3 (58 y.o., 5'9" 180 lbs. more or less), though from all indications (blood chemistry and coronary calcium screening), my cardiologist says that I'll live forever, and that, at least from a cardiovascular perspective, I'm fine. To the OP's point, however, I do maintain my weight in large part for the fact that I've got a lot of clothes into which I've got to fit.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While my BMI may say I'm normal and healthy, my waist measurement has definitely shifted a long way in the wrong direction over the past 15 to 20 years! Still working on that.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Considering that BMI is expected to rise in any given individual up to age 60, I've got to say I'm heartened by a number of us "old farts" reporting that we are coming in on the slender side. 

Younger guys... I hope you're taking notes. :cool2:


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

25.9, but that's due to a known limitation of BMI if you're an athlete:


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

^yup. 29.6, down from ~36 in my playing day.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I got a 22, I'm 5'11" and recently dropped from 195 to 158 lbs. Much better place than I was in this time last year.


----------



## jsgoode (Nov 3, 2006)

19.6 BMI. Like many others, I have too many clothes that fit great now, and can't afford to outgrow them!


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

22.8, for what its worth, and that is very little. BMI is amazingly rough. It does not even consider gender, and as Stephen said, if you're an athlete, or really even if you're in good shape, it will tell you that you're overweight or even obese. All it really has going for it is that its very easy to calculate. Percentage of body fat is a better indicator, but that's also very hard to measure, even with sophisticated equipment. The mirror is really your best indicator.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

23.2, It´s not the family history of diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, and stroke that motivates me. It´s all the money invested in clothes and how they look on me now. Does that mean I´m shallow, or just a typical AAAC member_


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

Watchman said:


> I recently lost around 75 lbs by dieting and exercise.


Congrats, good work!



> I am aiming hard for 205 lbs but I cannot, for the life of me, get this last 15 lbs off. No matter how much I diet.
> 
> So, very soon, I will be going in to see a dietician for a little better game plan. Looks like I will be going for the 5 day work out regimen and not so much dieting. I was dieting so hard that I had no energy to work out, so, it was a paradoxical situation.


Very frustrating. What's your workout plan? Generally there is a theory that if that last ft is around your belly, as is true for many men, your best bet to cut it is HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). In this case, doing high intensity intervals for 12 or so minutes, followed by 35 or so minutes of steady state cardio, will first mobilize fat and then consume it. Weight training is also a big win, as muscle will burn up calories. Of course, building muscle adds to the scale, so as you get close to your goal its the tape measure that needs your attention.

Be sure you're eating fats and carbs in addition to protein. Eating fat won't make you fat! If you're willing to couple your diet with strength training, you can check out www.iifym.com for a great plan, no dietition needed.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Agree that BMI is marginally useful at best, used to play football in College and nearly every player on the team was in the 25 to 30 range and these guys could lift 500 or 600 lbs and run 5 miles without breaking a sweat.

But to Grayson's original premise - could not agree more. Was actually just talking to my tailor this week and he mentioned that I lost some weight lately. I told him I always bounce up and down in the 5 to 7 lb range - but that I have too many nice clothes to gain too much weight. Investing in a nice wardrobe absolutely is a deterrent form over doing it.


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

In the last year, I have gone from 318lbs to 190lbs. 
I have hit my limit. I exercise, walk 3 miles a day, do push ups, sit-ups, etc....
I limit my carbs, eat no sugar. I had a dessert at Christmas, no soft drinks, drink water and coffee only,
maybe 1400 calories a day is my intake. I have been hungry for the last year, and no matter what foods I have tried, nothing satisfies me. 
I refuse to do anymore. My weight loss has ended, I literally have hit a plateau. 
I am pushing 60 and still my BMI says 26.3, overweight. 
Even my doctor has said, you've lost enough. " we don't want you scrawny" is what he said the last time I was in his office.
I call bull mess on the BMI.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

thegovteach said:


> ...I call bull mess on the BMI.


I agree that BMI is flawed, but there's a 10-item limit on poll choices. I would've broken the website if I tried to address every variable/caveat on what makes a "healthy weight". :crazy:


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

This stuff drives me crazy.

I'm currently a 37 BMI, but not particularly overweight, especially considering my age (56).

Now that my knees are healing and summer's finally here, I'll probably drop 10 pounds and still be a 36 BMI.

My weight this morning was 288 lbs, and my lean body mass is 221 - which means I'm about 23% body fat.

Here's a somewhat more useful chart.

https://cdn.builtlean.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Ideal-Body-Fat-Percentage-Chart2.jpg


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

As said, BMI is a terrible fit for many people who exercise. But I thought we were all the about fit around here!


----------



## kaehlin (Mar 29, 2014)

24.7 for me. I guess my ideal would be a few pounds lighter, but I have a lot of muscle mass in my legs from cycling. Or so I keep saying.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Yeah, for what it's worth, my BMI is 29, but i'm only 14% body fat.

That being said, two years ago, I was 25% body fat and a lot of the change has been clothing driven, not gonna lie.

Sent from the TARDIS using the chameleon circuit


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

L-feld said:


> Yeah, for what it's worth, my BMI is 29, but i'm only 14% body fat.
> 
> That being said, two years ago, I was 25% body fat and a lot of the change has been clothing driven, not gonna lie.
> 
> Sent from the TARDIS using the chameleon circuit


I keep meaning to tell you on WAYWT, you've been looking great recently!


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

It's understood that BMI criteria (while simple and consistent) is flawed, so I suggest for those who wish to participate (but who do not accept BMI criteria) below the essay form of the same question...

*"Does your clothing habit provide a positive motivation for your weight and/or physique maintenance, and if so how?"

*Regale us!


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

Grayson said:


> It's understood that BMI criteria (while simple and consistent) is flawed, so I suggest for those who wish to participate (but who do not accept BMI criteria) below the essay form of the same question...
> 
> *"Does your clothing habit provide a positive motivation for your weight and/or physique maintenance, and if so how?"
> 
> *Regale us!


It has. 
I still have my fat guy clothes, but I am now getting into new clothes. 
Being trad and a thrifter, it makes it much easier to find clothes. 
I went from a 52R to a 41R, my pants were 48 and I now wear 36. 
Even my shoes have changed. 13 to 11. ( heck my hat size went from 7 5/8 to 7 3/8.)


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

thegovteach said:


> I still have my fat guy clothes...


You need to donate them... sell them at a consignment store... burn them on a ceremonial pyre... but by all means remove them from your closet!

Your old clothes are (1) taking up valuable space and (2) are a safety net for an eventual slide back to where you were. Don't give them that chance.


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

Grayson said:


> You need to donate them... sell them at a consignment store... burn them on a ceremonial pyre... but by all means remove them from your closet!
> 
> Your old clothes are (1) taking up valuable space and (2) are a safety net for an eventual slide back to where you were. Don't give them that chance.


That's what my wife has said....I think they would make a good donation....:biggrin:


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

BMI is not a good indicator of anything if you lift weights and exercise. I am on a bodybuilding forum and of course by BMI standards we are all "overweight". It simply does not account for muscle vs fat.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

BMI is a flawed measurment, but for most people of average build it is a good indicator of weight health. The bodybuilders and very athletic people will fall outside the norms. The question is by how much. More imprtantly, the question is, are you fooling yourself? The vast majority of people I see claim to be "big boned", or athletic, but that is not the truth. For a cold slap in the face, lets examine four men who we all would agree are in top "world class" shape at the time of these measurements. If you think you are as conditioned an athlete as them so be it, but really?

Mohammed Ali 
Height: 6'3"
Weight: 210.5
BMI: 26.3

Michael Phelps
Height: 6'3"
Weight 165
BMI: 20.6

Roger Federer
Height: 6'1"
Weight: 187
BMI: 24.7

Arnold Schwarzeneggar
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 235
BMI: 30

Notice how all are within or near the normal BMI range with the exception of the freakishly steroid drenched Arnold. So do any of you "athletes" out there want to rethink your positions?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Grayson said:


> (2) are a safety net for an eventual slide back to where you were.


Every time that my body has rebounded from the latest crash diet, I have been thoroughly grateful for that "safety net".


----------



## zeppacoustic (Apr 5, 2014)

5"10 172>>24.7


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I am 24.6 and freely admit that I need to lose a few pounds. But I can still fit into my clothes from my mid 20's, which isn't so bad at all.

Edit to answer the original question. Yes, my clothes do provide significant motivation for me to maintain my weight.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

momsdoc said:


> Notice how all are within or near the normal BMI range with the exception of the freakishly steroid drenched Arnold. So do any of you "athletes" out there want to rethink your positions?


Let's take me at my highest weight, 265. At 6'1" that put me at a BMI of 35, obese bordering on morbidly so. At that time I was squatting 650 lbs, benching 355 lbs, and clinging about 275. I was running a 4.9 second 40, exercising 10-25 hrs a week, and had a 52" chest and a 40" waist. I'm pretty confident the BMI was completely off for me. As of now, I've dropped 40lbs, 46" chest and a 38-37" waist, don't lift nearly as much but run about five miles four to six days a week. Still pretty confidant that my BMI is pretty off. Nope, don't want to rethink my position.


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

>> Does your clothing habit provide a positive motivation for your weight and/or physique maintenance, and if so how

Oh my, yes.

I can kid myself about any number of things, but once the suit jackets and slacks start to feel tight I know I've slipped too far. And, like many others, I have far too much invested in my wardrobe to replace it with larger items (even though I sort of have two wardrobes already: a "skinny" and a "fat" version). And it's a good sanity check to ensure I'm not becoming seriously overweight, which (often unfairly) has negative connotations with respect to professional work.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

DeNile is not just a river in Africa.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Try comparing athletes that are in non-weight-restricted power sports.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Like Asashōryū Akinori ? 
Height: 6'3"
Weight: 326
BMI: 41.9


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

I'm with Reuben on athletes and BMI. Basketball players routinely get well into overweight or past it.

As for the point of the original question that started the thread (and I'm sorry to have contributed to the thread drift), I'm new at this so I don't have a big expensive wardrobe, yet. My motivations include staying in shape for sailing and cycling, more recently, being able to look good in some nice clothing and, last but very far from least, women.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Skyjumper said:


> I'm with Reuben on athletes and BMI. Basketball players routinely get well into overweight or past it.
> 
> As for the point of the original question that started the thread (and I'm sorry to have contributed to the thread drift), I'm new at this so I don't have a big expensive wardrobe, yet. My motivations include staying in shape for sailing and cycling, more recently, being able to look good in some nice clothing and, last but very far from least, *women*.


That's as good a reason as you can get. My wife is very appreciative of my new physique, and I appreciate being able to look good in clothes.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

momsdoc said:


> DeNile is not just a river in Africa.


Cant tell if you are joking or trolling here.

LeBron James (NBA)
6' 8"
260
28.6 BMI

Adrian Peterson (NFL)
6' 1"
225
29.7 BMI

John Beason (NFL)
6'
235 lbs
31.9 BMI

Does this dude look out of shape to you? ic12337:


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Wlad Klitschko: 6'7", 245lb, 27.6BMI.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Neither joking or trolling. Just pointing out that those who are at a healthy weight will for the most part fall into the normal BMI range. The *exceptions *are invariably world class athletes. There are so *few* Olympians, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB players in the world, that they should be excluded from the conversation. Us mere mortals will rarely if ever acheive their level of fitness no matter how much we percieve we work out. The *few* who can acheive this are at a healthy weight for themselves. My experience, and common sense indicates that the *majority* who think they are overweight because they are athletic and work out, are misleading themselves. They may not be heavy enough to be causing serious medical problems, but they are not thin. Our viewpoint has been skewed since the Industrial Revolution by the general increase in weight of the population, to the point that we percieve optimal weight as being skinny, not "normal".

Since losing weight I have a BMI that varies from ~23-24, certainly not skinny. Yet I universally am met with comments that I have lost too much weight, when in reality it is just adequete. I have found that most tailored clothing looks best with a BMI of 23 or less. Yet this is now considered a slim fit instead of a regular fit. This seems to be especially prominent with shirts, where I have to buy CT in trim or preferably extra trim, and find companies with larger waists such as BB to fit like a tent. Even their extra trim are less flattering. I did not have this problem 35 years ago when I was a bit thinner than I am now. This leads me to believe that manufacturers have progressivly increased the girth of their cuts as the population has swelled. Another factor in skewing our perception of "normal". With 2/3 of the adult US population overweight or obese, is it any wonder that we see things differently than in all the centurys of mankinds existance?

As a physician, this is a battle I fight everyday. We watch the cost of medical care go up and up, when a nationwide diet would balance the healthcare budget, extend longevity, productivity, and make us all look fabulous in our clothes. As part of the Affordable Care Act. I am now obligated to address my patient's weight issues at every visit, even for a cold, devise a plan for remediation, and face financial loses if they fail to meet the BMI goals. That's right, I am penalized if my patient's BMI are above the government's guidlines. Thank you Michelle Obama.:icon_pale:


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> Since losing weight I have a BMI that varies from ~23-24, certainly not skinny. Yet I universally am met with comments that I have lost too much weight, when in reality it is just adequete.


And this is what anyone who understands fitness will say; that as a fit person, they are often told they look too skinny. I hear it from time to time as well.



> As part of the Affordable Care Act. I am now obligated to address my patient's weight issues at every visit, even for a cold, devise a plan for remediation, and face financial loses if they fail to meet the BMI goals. That's right, I am penalized if my patient's BMI are above the government's guidlines. Thank you Michelle Obama.:icon_pale:


Oh good God! Amazing. I'm tempted to go see my doctor just to see if he mentions weight!

May I humbly suggest that you advise the patients that you're required to raise that issue? I am fairly well informed on this issue and I didn't know that. I believe people should know who is responsible for things that bother them, and I'll bet having a doctor address weight when the patient didn't come in about a weight related issue will surely bother them!


----------



## GWW (Jan 3, 2014)

"Your child's BMI is 20.1"Ok, I never mentioned a child of mine, nor does one exist in this universe, but if these guys tell me my child's BMI is 20.1 it has to be true, doesn't it?

The amazing thing is that they found out my child's BMI using my height and weight.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Oh, it becomes obvious very quickly what changes have been wrought by Obamacare. That quick 10 minute visit for your pink eye may be the only time you come in that year. So the status of your colonoscopy, Pap smear, Bone density, rectal exam, stool blood, mammogram, cholesterol screening, diabetes , must be documented with the actual results at that visit. These need to be on the chart once every year or I am penalized. As well as an annual physical for every adult or I am penalized, and depression screening every year or I am penalized, and smoking cessation counseling must be done, or I am penalized, high blood pressure if you are greater than 119 or 79 must be addressed or I am penalized, power of attorney, medical will, end of life planning, must be documented or I am penalized. Flu and Pneumonia vaccination status must be documented or I am penalized. All for a simple visit for a sore throat. For if I do not see you again, it will not be charted once every year, and I will be penalized.

This takes at least 45 minutes for every single patient, and must be done in an electronic medical record, or I am penalized. Imagine how few patients can be seen in a day this way, and how low the billing becomes. Yet the landlord, utilities, staff, suppliers, insurance scompanies, etc. must still get paid. It is onerous, Draconian, and impeding access to care across the country. What will be the long term effects on the public health? "If you're happy with the insurance you have, you can keep it", yet each and every one of us must comply with the dictates of ObamaCare.

This message has been brought to you by a Doctor in your neighborhood who voted twice for the current sitting President. 
You may commence with the I told you so now.

I might feel better if he at least wore AE PA's to the inauguration.

BTW: for more accurate results, use the US Navy's body fat calculator, or the more accurate and depressing US Army body fat calculator. Interestingly the Marine Corp calculator is the most liberal, so I don't use it. The *YMCA* formula gives a reading that is a balance of the other three, so that is probably the *most accurate*.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

GWW said:


> *"Your child's BMI is 20.1"*
> 
> Ok, I never mentioned a child of mine, nor does one exist in this universe, but if these guys tell me my child's BMI is 20.1 it has to be true, doesn't it?
> 
> The amazing thing is that they found out my child's BMI using my height and weight.


None that you know of.:devil:


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

26.4 at 6', 195 lbs. We did this at work last year and the guy said "BMI is a little high, but you do resistance training, right?"


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

momsdoc said:


> The *exceptions *are invariably world class athletes. There are so *few* Olympians, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB players in the world, that they should be excluded from the conversation. Us mere mortals will rarely if ever acheive their level of fitness no matter how much we percieve we work out.


Not really, no. You find the same results for collegiate players and for quite a few high school players as well.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

I agree, varsity athletes are just younger, or 2nd tier versions of that elite group. They are only a small percentage compared to their classmates. Most of them will never retain that level of conditioning once school has ended and they have to work at a nonathletically competitive job for a living.

Ah, the joys of youth.


----------



## GWW (Jan 3, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> None that you know of.:devil:


Let's hope that none of the other kind exist either!


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> This message has been brought to you by a Doctor in your neighborhood who voted *twice* for the current sitting President.
> *You may commence with the I told you so now.*


Reminds me of that old expression, something like "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

You mentioned briefly the electronic medical record part of all this. As someone with many years experience in designing large scale computer systems, this is what scares me the most. Although, I do wish I could have put even a small fraction of the money we US taxpayers shelled out to build that horrific web site into my pocket. Sadly, I was ineligible. I didn't donate any money to his election.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Moving to the Interchange in 3 - 2 - .........


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Grayson said:


> I want to keep my weight in check for health reasons, but admit that my greatest motivator in staying trim is the investment I've made in classically-tailored, well-made clothes that fit well. They have an excellent chance of being useful for a very long time (as my 25 year old tuxedo attests) as long as I don't mess things up.


Ditto. Another crucial thing for motivation is that a paunch looks terrible so I try not to eat a lot (even though it is not easy and I suffered from the compulsive overeating disease intensely back in the day). As for BMI. It is 22.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Skyjumper said:


> Reminds me of that old expression, something like "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."


I remember the video where George W. Bush forgot this expression. Lol


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Anyway, all these discussions about BMI are useless since we do not know the percent of muscles. E.g. all great bodybuilders have high BMIs, but they are not obese.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

mrkleen said:


> Moving to the Interchange in 3 - 2 - .........


the proper place to continue off topic.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Ran my last Boston marathon with a BMI of 25--and still under 29 18 years later. There is no question that BMIs over 30 increase our risk of our PAs ending up in the thrift store--but, like salt, cholesterol moderate overweight isn't a health risk. I'm on vacation and I hate to quote from the Huffington Post, but

"A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that overweight people are the least likely to die from any cause -- even when compared to those who are of normal weight. 

Adults with a body mass index that qualifies them as overweight but not obese -- between 25 and 29.9 -- were the least likely to die of any group, with a 6 percent reduced risk of all-cause death, compared to normal-weight individuals with BMIs of between 18.5 to 24.9. About 30 percent of the U.S. adult population has a BMI of 25 to 29.9, reported the Wall Street Journal. 

Overall, any level of obesity was associated with an 18 percent increased risk of death. But those who were on the lower-end of obesity -- scoring 30 to 35 on the BMI scale -- had a five percent reduced risk of dying, though this was considered statistically insignificant. And those with a BMI of at leasperct 35 were 29 percent more likely to die for any reason, found the study's researchers, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

We're not talking fat folks here--but just overweight by the charts.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Skyjumper said:


> Congrats, good work!
> 
> Very frustrating. What's your workout plan? Generally there is a theory that if that last ft is around your belly, as is true for many men, your best bet to cut it is HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). In this case, doing high intensity intervals for 12 or so minutes, followed by 35 or so minutes of steady state cardio, will first mobilize fat and then consume it. Weight training is also a big win, as muscle will burn up calories. Of course, building muscle adds to the scale, so as you get close to your goal its the tape measure that needs your attention.
> 
> Be sure you're eating fats and carbs in addition to protein. Eating fat won't make you fat! If you're willing to couple your diet with strength training, you can check out www.iifym.com for a great plan, no dietition needed.


Thanks. It has been loads of hard work and sacrifice. I went from a 52 jacket to a 44.

I was doing the no carb thing for awhile until I plateaued. I was doing 3 days a week, 2 hours, total body with cardio. I gained muscle and then would not loose fat. Then, I wanted to drop the rest of the weight and cannot.

I hate starving myself and no carbs was killing me. So, off to the personal trainer and dietitian.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

The greatest sartorial benifit of lowering my BMI was the ability to wear high rise trousers without a belt. Now that they stay where they should, I no longer have to worry about a droopy behind, or buying jackets 2 sizes too big just to have enough room to let out the waist and then have to worry about taking in the shoulders. The magic number where clothes were proportioned properly in classic fit was around 26. By 24 and below a whole new world of clothing options appeared. Not only slim fit, but the ability to wear more youthfull colors and styles. 

I found that come the Spring, pastel shirts and sweaters seem more appropriate than on my larger frame. Seersuckers look spiffy as opposed to channeling Burl Ives. The shouders of shirts and sweaters are no longer 3 inches down my arms. Best of all, my belly's shadow doesn't distract me while putting.

An added benifit that I was forewarned would occur by my Urologist friend. Without an enlarged fat pad above your pubic bone, a certain vital organ appears longer and protrudes more. Talk about Big Boy, it doesn't get any better than that.:icon_cheers:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Watchman said:


> Thanks. It has been loads of hard work and sacrifice. I went from a 52 jacket to a 44.
> 
> I was doing the no carb thing for awhile until I plateaued. I was doing 3 days a week, 2 hours, total body with cardio. I gained muscle and then would not loose fat. Then, I wanted to drop the rest of the weight and cannot.
> 
> I hate starving myself and no carbs was killing me. So, off to the personal trainer and dietitian.


When considering weight loss, there's nothing wrong with a low carb diet, and in fact I adhere to one myself as a matter of course. I've done so for well over 10 years.

When you first start ANY diet, you will experience a rapid period of weight loss as your metabolism begins to adapt. There's really nothing magic about a low carb diet. It basically makes you consume calories that won't spike your blood sugar and in turn trigger a hunger response.

At some point, and this is different for everyone, your body will adjust and the low carb thing won't give you the dramatic results you once experienced. It then becomes a simple mathematical formula: Calories consumed < calories burned = weight loss. Your body really doesn't care where the calories come from. It's the secondary consequences of those calories (spikes in blood sugar).

As for BMI, I fully concur that it has many flaws and does not take into account the source of weight (fat vs. lean muscle). As factors such as muscle mass are difficult to calculate and to individualize, a more general method is needed, hence the BMI.

The BMI is meant to be just one piece of a puzzle. It should not be relied upon as the definitive authority of whether someone is overweight or not.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

cdavant said:


> "A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that overweight people are the least likely to die from any cause -- even when compared to those who are of normal weight.
> 
> Adults with a body mass index that qualifies them as overweight but not obese -- between 25 and 29.9 -- were the least likely to die of any group, with a 6 percent reduced risk of all-cause death, compared to normal-weight individuals with BMIs of between 18.5 to 24.9. About 30 percent of the U.S. adult population has a BMI of 25 to 29.9, reported the Wall Street Journal.


Well said. Yet another strike against an outdated, 150 year old metric developed by a statistician who had absolutely ZERO medical training.


----------



## 3degrees (Jul 8, 2013)

5'10" - 180 pounds is considered overweight? Holy cow. Have we become a nation of sticks?


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

This turned out to be a pretty interesting topic. 

At 25.3 I guess I am still "overweight". Although it's pretty good considering my BMI was 29.3 in college and 32.3 in high school. 
I inadvertantly lost a lot of weight about three years ago and suddenly found myself in my best shape in years. Since then, I exercise regularly and made a concious effort to watch what I eat. The main reason is that I suddenly found myself being able to wear regular sized clothes now. And last year I started wearing tailored clothes and reading this forum and well, there really is no going back now is there? It is pretty addictive. And although I don't have much of a wardrobe right now, I like how they fit me. 

The second reason is because my girlfriend likes my new figure and has threathened to leave me if I ever revert back to how I was. :tongue2:


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I am stoked... I only have to lose 100 pounds to get into the "normal" category! :crazy:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

My BMI Is 19.3 and I'm 50 years old. I made a decision in my 30s, when I saw my friends start to put on weight (and I felt my body just starting to change) that I wanted to stay thin and in shape - for health reasons, for clothes reasons, for vanity reasons, but the biggest reason is I like feeling thin and in shape. 

I work out a lot, I stretch a lot and I watch what I eat (for me, it's more about just keeping the quantity down than anything else - I literally eat a third less than I did twenty years ago just to be at the same weight, even though I work out more). 

But it is all worth it when I throw on a pair of old size 32 chinos, a fifteen year old and frayed OCBD and bound up the stairs to go grab the mail - it just feels good to me. That feeling is my biggest motivation - the feeling of lightness, being flexible, being easy and comfortable with my body - that is my motivation. Second is probably health and a close third is I would not want to have to buy more close or (more importantly) not be able to wear the twenty year old items that I still own.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

3degrees said:


> 5'10" - 180 pounds is considered overweight? Holy cow. Have we become a nation of sticks?


We haven't.

No... we certainly haven't.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

thegovteach said:


> In the last year, I have gone from 318lbs to 190lbs.
> I have hit my limit. I exercise, walk 3 miles a day, do push ups, sit-ups, etc....
> I limit my carbs, eat no sugar. I had a dessert at Christmas, no soft drinks, drink water and coffee only,
> maybe 1400 calories a day is my intake. I have been hungry for the last year, and no matter what foods I have tried, nothing satisfies me.
> ...


Congrats on the weight loss and exercise. If you are always hungry, you need to eat a higher percentage of protein. I'm surprised your doctor hasn't mentioned that to you.

We are waiting for you to put those old clothes on the thrift exchange, not donate them.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

3degrees said:


> 5'10" - 180 pounds is considered overweight? Holy cow. Have we become a nation of sticks?


Well, if you consider a 5'11" sequoia stump a stick, then yes.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> When considering weight loss, there's nothing wrong with a low carb diet, and in fact I adhere to one myself as a matter of course. I've done so for well over 10 years.
> 
> When you first start ANY diet, you will experience a rapid period of weight loss as your metabolism begins to adapt. There's really nothing magic about a low carb diet. It basically makes you consume calories that won't spike your blood sugar and in turn trigger a hunger response.
> 
> ...


Re: the conversation about carbs. This was my biggest issue when I was heavier, I've never had a sweet tooth and thought I was doing okay because I wasn't eating candy, desserts, and soft drinks, but the fact of the matter was that I was gorging on pasta and breads all day long. To give an example, in grad school for lunch and dinner, I would eat 2 bricks per meal of crushed ramen noodles. 1/2 a brick is a serving with 33g of carbs, x4 per meal, x2 per day, x6 days a week...you get the idea. I have a family history of type 2 diabetes in heavier family members, and all it took was a conversation with my doctor at 195lbs about how I was borderline diabetic for me to realize I had to change and drastically cut carbs. The biggest thing that helped my wife and I though (she lost 40 lbs a couple years ago) was a complete lifestyle change. We don't even keep chips around the apartment, sacks are a piece of fruit or a handful of carrots or something. To give an idea of how much we changed, she and I (pre weight loss) used to sit in front of the tv with a full pizza apiece at least once a week-she just signed up for a 1/2 marathon tonight and we're doing the MS150 next year. It was all about changing the lifestyle.

/soapbox


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

What Fury said! And what others have said, especially about protein. But carbs are not necessarily evil, nor is fat. You need protein, carbs and fat, just in the proper proportion. To lose weight, the most important thing - really the only thing - to do is to eat fewer calories than you burn. Its that simple. People tell me that they do eat fewer calories than they burn, but when pressed, they learn that they are not recording what they eat, or they don't count calories from what they drink, or they don't count "free" calories, or they allow themselves a "cheat day" that they don't count and so on.

Next problem is properly calculating the cals burned each day. There are calculators for that, I'll link one later.

Finally, its challenging to figure out how many calories to eat from each of protein, fat and carbs. Fat and carbs don't make you gain weight, eating too many calories does. This has been tested. People have eaten ice cream and similar stuff for weeks, but just not much of it, and lost weight. A good, although very difficult to achieve, goal is to get one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight each day. I have no interest in the site I'm about to link other than being a believer that it works. www.iifym.com has calculators that help you calculate your daily cals burned, and how much to eat each day to lose or gain weight.

Do that, plus add some weight lifting and you'll lose weight and tone up. Its not easy, but its soooo worth the results! Cardio is good to do, of course, but not mandatory.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Me thinks that many people on this survey are being decidedly less than honest. There are not that many people with "ideal" BMIs versus obese.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

My point all along. 

Could it be that our overseas members from less obese countries are voting disproportionatly?

What if Grayson is correct, and we are a fitter segment of society? Imagine a new demographic unknown to the CDC. It night inspire a goverment subsidy for the purchase of tailored clothing, in the name of public health.

Free Canali suits in every home!:icon_cheers:

OOPs, my bad. It would be a US government subsidy.

Free Hickey Freeman suits in every home.:icon_cheers:


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

My takeaways so far...

(1) My original theory that well-clothed appear to be more fit than the general population, seems to remain intact.

(2) But results may be skewed by a high proportion of heavily-muscled elite athletes and/or professional bodybuilders in our midst.

That second one may require a bit more back-up. :icon_scratch:


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

For what it is worth, anyone who knows me knows that I like to shop at a thrift store from time to time. The *vast *majority of nice suits and jackets that I find are from sizes 44-48. However, most of the less than nice clothing that I find is typically in the smaller size ranges. Could it be a coincidence? Or perhaps the people who can afford Oxxford and Kiton tend to over-indulge in large meals? Either way, I see some very smartly dressed people who will never see a sub-30 BMI. And I have observed many "fit" people who dress shabbily.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> ...I see some very smartly dressed people who will never see a sub-30 BMI. And I have observed many "fit" people who dress shabbily.


I believe we can agree that the smartly dressed population will always be in the minority, and that there are big guys who dress well. My goal here was to consider how a good clothes habit overlays on our body image and weight management.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Grayson said:


> My takeaways so far...
> 
> (1) My original theory that well-clothed appear to be more fit than the general population, seems to remain intact.
> 
> ...


LOL. Does anyone other than me find it necessary to 'eat like a sissy' and periodically fast up to two days a week, just to be able to continue to fit into all those nice clothes? Paraphrasing That old singing group The Lovin Spoonful, "It's not always easy and it's not always kind, but did you ever have to shrink your behind?"


----------



## VaEagle (Oct 15, 2013)

Grayson - I'm very similar to you in age, height and weight. 51 years old, 5'9" and 169, with the extra 9 lb giving me a BMI of 25. But I lift a lot and many people tell me I look too thin at times, so the BMI means little to me. I will say that having nicely tailored clothing is a huge motivating factor for staying in shape. I get incredibly upset with myself if a gain weight and suddenly my nicest suits don't fit or don't fit well. Then I reach for the backup "fat pants" ... and head to the gym.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> When considering weight loss, there's nothing wrong with a low carb diet, and in fact I adhere to one myself as a matter of course. I've done so for well over 10 years.


With a low carb diet people tend to lose not only a couple of inches in the waist but a couple of inches in the smile also.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Fading Fast said:


> My BMI Is 19.3 and I'm 50 years old.


19.3? You are probably thin enough to fit into most skinny jeans.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

blue suede shoes said:


> Congrats on the weight loss and exercise. If you are always hungry, you need to eat a higher percentage of protein. I'm surprised your doctor hasn't mentioned that to you.


A lot of protein can hurt kidneys. My nephrologist doesn't recommend to eat too much protein.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> Me thinks that many people on this survey are being decidedly less than honest. There are not that many people with "ideal" BMIs versus obese.


I agree on that. Some people who voted either don't know the exact figures or being dishonest. A lot of people call me skinny, I weigh around 165 pounds with a height of 6 foot 1. My BMI is around 22. One should suffer from exhaustion to look skinnier than I do having BMI less than 22.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> Could it be that our overseas members from less obese countries are voting disproportionatly?


:biggrin::thumbs-up:


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

VaEagle said:


> Grayson - I'm very similar to you in age, height and weight. 51 years old, 5'9" and 169, with the extra 9 lb giving me a BMI of 25. But I lift a lot and many people tell me I look too thin at times, so the BMI means little to me. I will say that having nicely tailored clothing is a huge motivating factor for staying in shape. I get incredibly upset with myself if a gain weight and suddenly my nicest suits don't fit or don't fit well. Then I reach for the backup "fat pants" ... and head to the gym.


I have sort of the same case. I have a couple of inches in the belly area I'd like to get rid of but people always tell me I'm skinny. However, I don't care about their opinion since I hate these extra inches in the belly area anyway.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

VaEagle said:


> Grayson - I'm very similar to you in age, height and weight. 51 years old, 5'9" and 169, with the extra 9 lb giving me a BMI of 25. But I lift a lot and many people tell me I look too thin at times, so the BMI means little to me. I will say that having nicely tailored clothing is a huge motivating factor for staying in shape. I get incredibly upset with myself if a gain weight and suddenly my nicest suits don't fit or don't fit well. Then I reach for the backup "fat pants" ... and head to the gym.


Not to :deadhorse-a: but I too take a lot of "you're too thin" criticisms, even with a somewhat fit/symmetrical build at 5'9" of 40" chest, 30"W, and 16" biceps/calves. When I was 20 years old this was considered normal, but as a middle-aged man I find "normal" no longer equals a fit or even healthy physique.

A bit of Googling discovered this piece - https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/is-fat-the-new-normal

I have to say I've also noticed a definite uptick in larger people in advertisement for everything except fast restaurants. I notice McDonalds and their like focus on using fit and pretty people in their commercials. Sort of like how Marlboro ads focus on kayakers and hikers. :devil:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

take_five said:


> 19.3? You are probably thin enough to fit into most skinny jeans.


I can, but I like the, what I call, not baggy cut - usually a brand's first "thinner" cut, but not its extreme or most skinny cut. So, for example, in J.Crew I buy the Urban Slim not the 484s (their skinniest cut), because the Urban Slims fit nicely without being baggy and without looking skinny on me. The Urban Slim look on me like most regular cuts look on others. The only thing I like about the skinny clothes movement is that I can now find not-baggy clothes everywhere if I just buy the brands "middle" cut (usually between its "regular or classic" cut and before its "skinny or super slim" cut).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

take_five said:


> A lot of protein can hurt kidneys. My nephrologist doesn't recommend to eat too much protein.


A high protein diet is not necessarily bad for one's kidneys. If an individual already has normal renal function then they should be ok. Also, it's animal derived proteins that are typically associated with this. Proteins derived from legumes and other plants and vegetables are safer.

Of course, you should always consult your physician before embarking on any major changes in diet.


----------



## Jonas937 (May 7, 2014)

I have invested heavily in high quality suits, shirts..too much to let them retire any time soon, I always personalize them.. all the way from the collars to buttons. I still wear suits from my college years..


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I'm skeptical of BMI as a useful indicator. I'm 27.4 based upon a height of 6'4" and a weight of 225lbs. Very similar height and weight to Terrell Owens...


----------



## Greenshirt (May 22, 2013)

This is a good poll -- I am a 22.5 in BMI, below 150 lbs. I try to maintain my weight and physique in recent years for two reasons: a) avoid health-related issue especially on the cardiovascular part; b) recoup my wardrobe investment especially on my bespoke suits. In maintaining my weight, I am very careful on my diet and do my tread mills 5x a week for 30 minutes per session.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> I'm skeptical of BMI as a useful indicator. I'm 27.4 based upon a height of 6'4" and a weight of 225lbs. Very similar height and weight to Terrell Owens...


In specifics, it's lousy! In general, it's a good start. There's really no way to take into account the multitude of physical factors that determine one's overall health status, barring systemic and chronic illnesses.

The BMI is a starting point, and that's all. It should not be viewed as the end all be all. I think that's why so many of our more fit members are getting a bit of a chuckle out of it. It should be taken as one piece of the puzzle, and nothing more.


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> A high protein diet is not necessarily bad for one's kidneys. If an individual already has normal renal function then they should be ok. Also, it's animal derived proteins that are typically associated with this. Proteins derived from legumes and other plants and vegetables are safer.
> 
> Of course, you should always consult your physician before embarking on any major changes in diet.


The only side effect of eating too much protein that I know of is increased flatulence. :confused2:

A friend of mine told me this when he started drinking protein supplements for working out.


----------



## Starting Late (Apr 26, 2010)

I am 59 years old, and my BMI fluctuates between 24.9 and 25.1 (I am 5'10 3/4" and usually about 176 lbs.) Everyone I know thinks I'm thin, but I am right at the border of being overweight, according to the government guidelines. I could care less about the guidelines, but I care very much about how my clothes fit. And it would be very expensive to adjust my wardrobe for weight gain or redistribution. That is my real motivation.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Mine is 23, it's considered healthy but it may vary. I still need to try to eat a bit more healthier. I do eat a lot of junk food sometimes but I burn it off when I work outside. And then I come home from work and eat more food cause I haven't eaten for a few hours and I much on toast with butter and coffee.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Howard:
Forget the buttered toast and snack on low fat cottage cheese, flavored with a liberal spritz of Sriracha Sauce. You taste buds will be begging for seconds and your waistline will wither away, as your BMI declines!


----------



## jm22 (Apr 18, 2013)

Ummm, 31,5. I don't pay attention to these as I'm a serious weightlifter and bike 100+ miles a week. Plus my bp, lipids, etc are all very low.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Grumpton (May 22, 2014)

Hello everyone. This is actually my first post. I've been lurking far too long and gaining far too much education from you, so I finally registered. Thank you to everyone on the boards!

My BMI based on the Mayo tool comes in at 20.7. Like many others here, I think this is complete crap. I'm 6 feet tall and a hair over 150 lbs. Basically, I'm one skinny bastard. I'm also Asian, so I may have slightly less "robust" bone structure than some others from other races, so if someone with larger bones than me had the same bodyfat and muscle tissue, they'd end up at a 23 BMI - they would be high in the normal range, but still skinny ass bastards.

But to answer the original question, yes, I recently lost 3 lbs to make sure I was still fitting into my shirts comfortably. Unfortunately, that means they are loose in the morning, and comfortable after dinner. (I go from a 31 in waist to 33+ after a large meal)


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Grayson said:


> I notice McDonalds and their like focus on using fit and _*pretty*_ people in their commercials.


Are you insinuating that only lower BMI (physically "fit") people can be considered "pretty"?


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

drlivingston said:


> Are you insinuating that only lower BMI (physically "fit") people can be considered "pretty"?


Yes, but only in regards to women.

Sent from the TARDIS using the chameleon circuit


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Howard:
> Forget the buttered toast and snack on low fat cottage cheese, flavored with a liberal spritz of Sriracha Sauce. You taste buds will be begging for seconds and your waistline will wither away, as your BMI declines!


I never thought to put sriracha in cottage cheese. That sounds really good! Maybe I will try that instead of my usual pre gym casein shake.

Sent from the TARDIS using the chameleon circuit


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^My friend,
sriracha sauce is but another name for "mother's milk" to my taste buds. It makes virtually any food item taste better and I'm told it actually jacks up the metabolism...just a bit! Used to buy it in a quart sized container at Costco, until they quit carrying it. Thank gawd Walmart has not failed me and I can still buy it there...but in smaller containers.


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^My friend,
> sriracha sauce is but another name for "mother's milk" to my taste buds. It makes virtually any food item taste better and I'm told it actually jacks up the metabolism...just a bit! Used to buy it in a quart sized container at Costco, until they quit carrying it. Thank gawd Walmart has not failed me and I can still buy it there...but in smaller containers.


Now I'm going to have to try this stuff... But what else can it go on besides cottage cheese? I can't stand that stuff :-(


----------



## Bootz (May 21, 2014)

OMG...

I need Dr. Bernstein. LOL. It said I'm obese. Go figure, obcourse I already knew that, but since we're on the topic of BMI. I'd like to point out a few things. \

Please DON'T judge your body by what an internet calculation tells you! 
Please DON'T judge your weight by what the scale tells you!

I go by inches. I was a few years back, heavily into weight lifting, until I blew out my shoulders. The scale was always accurate, but the scale didn't match my body size. OR my bodyfat content.

To really measure body fat, you have to get a professional with calipers to measure in 5 - 8 spots of the body. To accurately calculate your body fat. 

And also do not pay too much mind, to those charts in the Doctor's office that says, your x'xx" you should be yyy - zzz lbs. 

The reason is this: I'm 5'7. According to the doctor's chart: I'm Suppose to be between 159 - 167 lbs. ROFLMAO

Now that handy dandy BMI calculator: I put in my current weight of 

239 LBS (yes your reading it right). 37.4 (obese)
220 LBS BMI 34.5 (obese)
200 LBS BMI 31.3 (obese)
190 LBS BMI 29.8 (over-weight)
180 LBS BMI 28.2 (over-weight)
170 LBS BMI 26.6 (over-weight)
160 LBS BMI 25.1 (over-weight)
159 LBS BMI 24.9 (normal)
118 LBS BMI 18.5 (normal)
115 LBS BMI 18 (under-weight)

The problem with this. Its a theoretical calculation. But it doesn't hold true in real life. If ever got UNDER 180lbs. I would look gaunt. My bones would begin showing through my skin, my friends would question my health, and my doctor would be yelling at me. Also keep in mind, the physical dimensions of your body. I'm short and stocky, like a tank. at 5'7, I have a 28 inseam, and minimum 22inch quad (without working out). I also have 48 chest (without working out) and 16 inch arms (without working out). Granted my waistline is around the 38 mark. (Eeeek), however, with the return to normal hours, and regular gym routine starting. My weight will go from 240 -> 195. My chest will stay around the 47 - 49 mark. My arms will go from the 16 - 17ish mark. My quads will stay around the 22 - 23 mark. and my waist will drop to about a 33-34. I have very broad shoulders, and a large bone size. These are things the BMI calculator does not take into consideration. 

At 180lbs I would have a bodyfat ratio of about 12%, which is managable. For all of you who want 6 packs. Know that to see the 6pack its all about cardio. A flat stomach is around 12% - 10%, with abs showing around 8%. Competition bodybuilders who are ripped go down to 4 - 5%, but ONLY for one day. Your body can not sustain that. Further, to maintain 10 - 12% body fat, you have to watch what you eat like a hawk. Forgo any alcohol, sweets, and you have to count every single calorie. 

So I'm sorry, I don't put much credence into this BMI calculator. I go by how a) I feel, and b) I look, c) how my clothes fit. d) how much energy I have. So Remember to see the big picture when looking at your own physical body and how its physique is...its more than just a number from a calculation. 

Best...

-Bootz

PS: Do not use weight scales for this reason alone: Muscle weighs more than fat. How do you know if your burning off fat, or burning that precious muscle your trying to build.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Skyjumper said:


> Now I'm going to have to try this stuff... But what else can it go on besides cottage cheese? I can't stand that stuff :-(


Anything you'd normally put hot sauce on works well. I really like it on steamed vegetables, particularly broccoli and okra.

It's also great on grilled chicken or pork tenderloin.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Howard:
> Forget the buttered toast and snack on low fat cottage cheese, flavored with a liberal spritz of Sriracha Sauce. You taste buds will be begging for seconds and your waistline will wither away, as your BMI declines!


Well Eagle I'm hungry and I haven't eaten since this afternoon cause I work all day on carts so I come home and have toast with coffee.


----------



## AnthonyFuller (Apr 11, 2013)

An interesting topic I've shown up late to. I don't claim to be an elite athlete, yet the BMI as many have stated is simply too generalized to apply to many, including me.

At around 5'8 195 currently I'm on the cusp of being not just overweight but obese! 

I do not go to the gym as in years past nor do I run, but my BMI has stayed consistent for the most part as I've converted muscle to fat.

I am still wearing the following sizes - medium shirts, slim fit CT shirts, and extra slim BB shirts. My waist went up from a 36 in high school to a 38 and has finally come back down to a 34/35.

Most has been due to a change in lifestyle and diet. It isn't one of low carb, but paleo (which I did before it was overexposed) that gets car a from fruit and veggies, but eliminates grains and processed foods. I was able to lose about 40lbs on this method from diet alone and more importantly have kept the weight off for about a year without issue. 

As to Grayson's original question, my drive to maintain weight and proportions is greatly influenced by my clothing. Once i have something tailored i do not hope to have the work redone.

While weight is just a number my ultimate goal is to lose about 20 pounds more and so I'm hesitant to have my wardrobe tailored knowing it wont last long (in theory)

Sent from my Lumia 1520 using Tapatalk


----------



## espressocycle (Apr 14, 2014)

At 28 I guess I'm overweight, but the 15 lbs I'd need to lose to get to normal simply will not come off and the doctor doesn't think I should lose more than 10 with my frame. I'm just going to keep my pot belly from getting any bigger.


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

espressocycle said:


> At 28 I guess I'm overweight, but the 15 lbs I'd need to lose to get to normal simply will not come off and the doctor doesn't think I should lose more than 10 with my frame. I'm just going to keep my pot belly from getting any bigger.


Your choice of course, but you can drop that 15 and more if you want to.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

So what is considered a normal BMI?


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

18.5 to 24.9

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm


----------



## S.Masterson (Jun 17, 2013)

6'0 and about 149lb at the moment, so current BMI of 20.2. I'm a cyclist, but a little 'out of shape'. 

My weight last summer was about 143lb. I'm a classic road cyclist build - not a lot of upper body muscle to speak of, though I've been wondering about bulking my chest out a bit in a bid to better fit clothes!


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> Are you insinuating that only lower BMI (physically "fit") people can be considered "pretty"?


Nooo.... I'm *stating* that McDonalds (and most fast food restaurants) regularly present fit and pretty people as their customer base in their commercials.

Exhibit A:




Though I admit that as actors/models with above-average builds they do probably have "overweight" BMI ratings. :devil:


----------



## Consul the Almost Human (Nov 12, 2012)

Very interesting responses. My peak BMI was 28.x in late 2012, 27.1 in January 2014. I have lost ~35 lbs in the past few months, and the calculator now says ~22. 

Clothing as an incentive: It has become a mild incentive since the weight loss. More off-the-rack stuff fits now so there is a little more choice for daily wear. My custom suit looked good at my higher weight but looks much, much better after the alterations required by the weight loss. (The alterations cost about as much as an OTR suit!)
It is a mild incentive to keep watching what I eat as is having people used to the chubbier, schlubbier me doing doubletakes wondering what I am up to. 

The bigger incentive is substantially lower knee and ankle pain, more alertness through the workday, and a different (better?) voice now that my breathing is freer.

In other measurement news, I went from a 42 jacket to a 38.5, ~38" waist to ~33", ~30% body fat per my bathroom scale to about 21%. I have the same concerns about the BMI as many others but since I am not an elite athlete, it is probably correlative of something or the other.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Grayson said:


> Nooo.... I'm *stating* that McDonalds (and most fast food restaurants) regularly present fit and pretty people as their customer base in their commercials.
> 
> Exhibit A:
> 
> ...


So how come you don't see 400-500 pound people in McDonald's commercials?


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

I wanted to share some preliminary findings. If I compare our results to the in-place statistics in place with the CDC and focus on North America (though a global community, most AAAC members are still US-based) here's what we see for the general population's obesity levels...










GIVEN around *7% *here reported themselves as "obese" by the same (30+ BMI) measurement criteria, and IF we assume our collective honesty in the anonymous poll reporting, THEN we can assume that we in the AAAC community are indeed overall a more fit lot than average, as obesity levels are approaching *33.5%* of the general male population. Please also note the obesity is hitting almost *40%* for our key membership demographic of men aged 40-59.

The essay answers in the post also seemed to indicate that our clothing habit *is* a strong factor in our weight management.

So Andy... maybe you should do a fitness/healthy eating book next... maybe with a title "Eat Like A (Clothes)Horse!"??? 

Just a thought. :redface:


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

Grayson said:


> The essay answers in the post also seemed to indicate that our clothing habit *is* a strong factor in our weight management.
> 
> So Andy... maybe you should do a fitness/healthy eating book next... maybe with a title "Eat Like A (Clothes)Horse!"???


Perhaps Michele Obama should begin funding our clothing choices...


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

^^^ Keep it in The Interchange there, tiger. 
We're trying to have fun here.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Grayson said:


> I wanted to share some preliminary findings. If I compare our results to the in-place statistics in place with the CDC and focus on North America (though a global community, most AAAC members are still US-based) here's what we see for the general population's obesity levels...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the reason most of us are overweight or obese is because we make poor choices in what we eat at breakfast lunch and dinner.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Well done with the stats Grayson, I get the impression you and I would get along well lol


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

Howard said:


> I think the reason most of us are overweight or obese is because we make poor choices in what we eat at breakfast lunch and dinner.


And every snack in between.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

I started to reply on this thread, but then thought about it but just thinking about it is really weighting me down! :crazy:

I sort of remember being a little heavy in High School, then normal to skinny in college and fairly fit during my work career. The best shape I was in when my wife and I joined a running club and did 10 K's.

Lately I've seem some waist measurement increase. When we moved my wife and I both lost around 10 pounds. One day was full of moving boxes and unpacking them. When we got ready for bed we both remarked that we had forgotten to eat that day! (Didn't say anything about not drinking !!):biggrin:

But you'll note that my recent sport jacket from *MyTailor.com* that they were amazed that the jacket they made from my 2002 specs fit perfectly.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...?189089-Latest-Sport-Jacket-from-MyTailor-com

Plus there is a book out just as it was announced that the USA has the highest percentage of overweight people, that it's better to be overweight! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Skyjumper said:


> And every snack in between.


There is an article in the newspaper that The United States is now considered obese.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

It seems our take on things as shared still seems on-target. The latest global studies are in, showing that while obesity levels are leveling out in the US and Europe the problems are expanding alarmingly around the globe....

https://online.wsj.com/articles/nearly-30-of-world-population-is-overweight-1401365395

It's worth noting that obesity is epidemic even in the world's poorest countries, and childhood obesity is accelerating sharply.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Perhaps a reasonable question to be asked, given the realities reported in the linked article, is the noted expansion of this troublesome trait the result of increased consumption on decreases in our activity levels? Is man becoming ever more gluttonous or lazily drifting toward absolute lethargy? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Perhaps a reasonable question to be asked, given the realities reported in the linked article, is the noted expansion of this troublesome trait the result of increased consumption on decreases in our activity levels? Is man becoming ever more gluttonous or lazily drifting toward absolute lethargy? :icon_scratch:


Coupled with a decrease in the quality of food available - especially processed food. The Codex Alimentarius is something of a farce.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ...The Codex Alimentarius is something of a farce.


For those who are not adept in the art of Google Fu -

To my eye the Codex seems more about trade practices and food safety, and not much at all about food quality or nutritional density. This explains why the fast food and processed food business have been able to expand into markets in recent years the same way tobacco companies went global in the 1960s-80s. They are likely also hedging their bets for when/if the more affluent countries start walking away from their products.... or their key consumer demographics start dying off.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Grayson said:


> For those who are not adept in the art of Google Fu -
> 
> To my eye *the Codex seems more about trade practices and food safety, and not much at all about food quality or nutritional density*. This explains why the fast food and processed food business have been able to expand into markets in recent years the same way tobacco companies went global in the 1960s-80s. They are likely also hedging their bets for when/if the more affluent countries start walking away from their products.... or their key consumer demographics start dying off.


You are quite correct in your interpretation Grayson* - however this is exactly the problem - in any code of governance worth a fig then these aspects you describe would be inextricably linked.

*although the CA does rather like to bandy the phrase 'quality' around quite liberally


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Perhaps a reasonable question to be asked, given the realities reported in the linked article, is the noted expansion of this troublesome trait the result of increased consumption on decreases in our activity levels? Is man becoming ever more gluttonous or lazily drifting toward absolute lethargy? :icon_scratch:


we're eating a lot and not enough excersize and a lot of electronic gadgets at home.


----------



## red_shift (Aug 8, 2013)

I struggled with my weight for all of my childhood and most of my adult life. One of the things I learned through dieting is that the body doesn't need as much food as I was raised to believe. Weight gain and loss are slow processes and it is very difficult to correlate that overeating by 350 calories each day leads to a subsequent 36lb weight gain over a year. 

350 calories is a cupcake, or a stout and some potato chips, or 1.5 pieces of pizza and all of these are things that are considered completely normal. We have created a food culture that eats 'festival foods', things that in the past were so labor or resource intensive that they were only made occasionally, as our normal diet and it's affecting our health. Companies have gladly taken on the challenge of making these foods readily available and will continue to do so until we either die of our own habits or move back toward a staple food diet.


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

red_shift said:


> 350 calories is a cupcake, or a stout and some potato chips, or 1.5 pieces of pizza and all of these are things that are considered completely normal. We have created a food culture that eats 'festival foods', things that in the past were so labor or resource intensive that they were only made occasionally, as our normal diet and it's affecting our health. Companies have gladly taken on the challenge of making these foods readily available and will continue to do so until we either die of our own habits or move back toward a staple food diet.


I agree with all this, except the implied blame of the food companies. Food companies make what people buy, like any company will. I don't blame distillers for drunk drivers. Likewise, I expect people to eat responsibly. At least in most of the world, and everywhere in the world where people here hail from, there is no shortage of healthy food available. Its up to the consumer to buy it.


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

Related to the topic of the economics behind poor nutrition, I was recently in Guatemala and ran into a fellow who was a nutritionist in the country with an NGO. Apparently, many of the indigenous Mayan people have been largely selling the traditional fruits and vegetables they grow because it is relatively lucrative. But then with the proceeds they tend to buy cheap, unnutritious foods like white flour and toritillas to feed themselves, so that then they suffer from diabetes, obesity, and such. So this NGO was partnering with local Mayan leaders to promote nutritional education.

Sortof similar, quinoa was traditionally a peasant food eaten by poor Bolivians, and was looked down upon as "poor people's food." Now that western yuppies have discovered it, the price has gone way up, which has done some good for Bolivian growers but then also threatens to price out poor Bolivian consumers, making this nutritious food out of their reach.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Skyjumper said:


> I agree with all this, except the implied blame of the food companies. *Food companies make what people buy*, like any company will. I don't blame distillers for drunk drivers. Likewise, I expect people to eat responsibly. At least in most of the world, and everywhere in the world where people here hail from, there is no shortage of healthy food available. Its up to the consumer to buy it.


Not neccesarily - you underestimate the power of advertising. Many food companies make the cheapest [email protected] which they are legally permitted to sell, as fit for human consumption, and promote it as a luxury lifestyle choice. As example - in the UK there is a company 'Mr Kipling' whose T.V. ads claim that they make 'exceedingly good cakes' when in reality they operate at the perimeter of legal obligation. I would suggest the converse of your statement is more accurate - people buy what food companies make.


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Not neccesarily - you underestimate the power of advertising. Many food companies make the cheapest [email protected] which they are legally permitted to sell, as fit for human consumption, and promote it as a luxury lifestyle choice. As example - in the UK there is a company 'Mr Kipling' whose T.V. ads *claim that they make 'exceedingly good cakes'* when in reality they operate at the perimeter of legal obligation. I would suggest the converse of your statement is more accurate - people buy what food companies make.


Well to be fair, what is a "good" cake? One that tastes good or one that is healthy? Given its a cake, one should not expect it to be healthy and one should expect it to taste good. But your overall point is not lost. Its fair to say that food companies, like any company, seek to establish or expand a market through promotion and this is effective. I still don't feel that the existence of promotion relieves the consumer of their responsibility to eat appropriate food. An exceedingly good cake may be fine for most people every few weeks, but not daily. Its just a matter of having enough discipline to make good choices.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Skyjumper said:


> Well to be fair, what is a "good" cake? One that tastes good or one that is healthy? Given its a cake, one should not expect it to be healthy and one should expect it to taste good. But your overall point is not lost. Its fair to say that food companies, like any company, seek to establish or expand a market through promotion and this is effective. I still don't feel that the existence of promotion relieves the consumer of their responsibility to eat appropriate food. An exceedingly good cake may be fine for most people every few weeks, but not daily. Its just a matter of having enough discipline to make good choices.


There is some truth in this.

However, if I might make a loose analogy, a car manufacturer who sold a car that fanned exhaust fumes directly into the driver's face would not be allowed to counter 'well, only drive the car once a week and you will be ok!'

Food manufacturers have a responsibility not to pump food full of sugar, salt and trans-fats* to mask the fact that it is cheap tasteless garbage which they are packaging.

*Not to mention the habituation this engenders in the consumer: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011...ve-as-cocaine-in-growing-body-of-science.html


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Skyjumper said:


> Well to be fair, what is a "good" cake?


Easy, homemade twelve-layer caramel cake.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

Another low quality food product - not sure if it's still for sale, but as of a couple years ago one of the snack companies (Frito Lay maybe?) sold a "Guacamole dip" that contained no avocado in it whatsoever. It sat on the shelf at room temperature with the salsas.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

alkydrinker said:


> Another low quality food product - not sure if it's still for sale, but as of a couple years ago one of the snack companies (Frito Lay maybe?) sold a "Guacamole dip" that contained no avocado in it whatsoever. It sat on the shelf at room temperature with the salsas.


Kraft: https://articles.latimes.com/2006/nov/30/business/fi-fakeguac30


----------



## red_shift (Aug 8, 2013)

Saying that people just need to be disciplined to avoid high calorie foods is not acknowledging that we as a group are fortunate enough to be having this conversation. The products on offer from companies do influence behaviour and we are in a world where the KFC double down is considered food. I appreciate Michael Pollan's argument that if you are going to eat 'bad' foods (french fries, cake, Monte Cristos etc) then make them at home. The ingredients you choose and the time it takes to make the dishes will limit your consumption and they will be less calorie dense since you don't need to make them to be shelf stable for months.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Didn't read pages 3-5, but I'm pretty sure that BMI has pretty universally been proven to be bad science, bad statistics, and bad logic. The important number is your body fat percentage, but that is impossible to calculate by using just your height, weight, and age. Eg., when I was a college athlete, I had a 28 BMI but 9% body fat. I qualified as just under obese by BMI standards, but I was far from it. In an extreme case on that end of the spectrum, it is easy to see how wrong BMI is in terms of a body fat predictor, but for some one who is, say 5'10 and 180, but leads an entirely sedentary lifestyle and has little to no muscle mass and a BFP of 26% (entirely reasonable figures, BTW), the bad science is less obvious and the BMI results indicate a healthy person while the BFP indicated an obese person.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

As an aside, race plays a big role in weight and what is considered "healthy" by the members of respective races. Black and Hispanics (and to some extend, Indians) see heavier weights (to a point) as healthy so they do little to control their weight until a certain point. For black women of a certain height, 200lbs is seen as healthy by her peers and attractive (biologically, at least - the look of fertility is lots of "curves," and Indians tend to agree with this) while a white woman of the same height might see her self as looking healthy at 130lbs. Hispanic children are almost always heavier than their peers because, culturally, a fat kid is a well-fed kid and a skinny kid can often indicate that mom and dad are struggling financially. I used to do some epidemiological research on hispanic children in the US and the findings were that, almost always, hispanic parents saw their child as being a healthy weight if and only if that child was, by other standards, somewhat to significantly overweight.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Tilton said:


> Didn't read pages 3-5, but I'm pretty sure that BMI has pretty universally been proven to be bad science, bad statistics, and bad logic. The important number is your body fat percentage, but that is impossible to calculate by using just your height, weight, and age. Eg., when I was a college athlete, I had a 28 BMI but 9% body fat. I qualified as just under obese by BMI standards, but I was far from it. In an extreme case on that end of the spectrum, it is easy to see how wrong BMI is in terms of a body fat predictor, but for some one who is, say 5'10 and 180, but leads an entirely sedentary lifestyle and has little to no muscle mass and a BFP of 26% (entirely reasonable figures, BTW), the bad science is less obvious and the BMI results indicate a healthy person while the BFP indicated an obese person.


Dear AAAC Community;
Yes, you can find holes in the BMI formula by pointing to evidence of highly fit individuals that will show it in error, but as a statistical tool BMI still has merit as it shows (especially when used over a very large population) a reasonable finding as those who deviate from the norms are a small (no pun intended) minority. And while one can debate over whether they are "overweight" due to a few extra pounds of estra muscle or excess fat, a BMI of 30+ really still works as marking obesity for all but highly-developed strength athletes and bodybuilders.

I don't think anyone here is going to deny the statement that around the globe the human race is getting fatter, and that as the "new normal" is established we will risk the temptation to redefine ourselves instead of making the correct lifestyle choices that our ancestors could take for granted.

If you don't believe that last sentence to be true... THEN we can continue arguing.









_Exhibit A - The prophetic film "Wall-E"
_


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

red_shift said:


> Saying that people just need to be disciplined to avoid high calorie foods is not acknowledging that we as a group are fortunate enough to be having this conversation. The products on offer from companies do influence behaviour and we are in a world where the KFC double down is considered food. I appreciate Michael Pollan's argument that if you are going to eat 'bad' foods (french fries, cake, Monte Cristos etc) *then make them at home.* The ingredients you choose and the time it takes to make the dishes will limit your consumption and they will be less calorie dense since you don't need to make them to be shelf stable for months.


But making them at home requires a level of discipline, both to avoid them at the restaurant and to go to the market, gather the ingredients and prepare the meal. Right? I'll concede that such a level of discipline is difficult for many, perhaps even most, people. I never meant to imply that eating reasonably well, like many things in life, is easy. The advertizing you guys cite, the stress of life, the great taste of unhealthy food all conspire to make good food discipline more difficult. Still, would you at least concede that each person has some level of personal responsibility toward their own health? The real question is where is the balance between holding people accountable for their own condition. If we tell people its the food company's fault, well, we are saying they are helpless, they will always be fat, and they won't take any action to improve their health.

So often, people look to find someone - usually some big nameless, faceless company, to blame for whatever evil exists in the world. Sometimes this is quite valid. If I recall correctly, Ford did decide fixing the gas tank in the Pinto was more expensive than paying the lawsuits from the burn victims. Tobacco companies did include cigs in care packages to soldiers knowing about the addictive qualities of their products while hiding info they had about the health risks of smoking. But these examples involve deliberate wrongdoing and hiding knowledge of a defect or quality that carried no redeeming benefit. The analogy proposed by Shaver is specious (although he did conceded it is loose). There is no redeeming benefit to venting poison into the passenger cabin of an auto and it will kill 100% of the people subjected to it. We don't allow rat poison to be used in food, even if it tasted great. (I could also go down the road of free market forces bankrupting companies that poison their customers, but this diatribe is long enough already.)

Food products are different. At least in the civilized world, people know full well that eating "exceedingly good cakes" in excess will make them fat. The calorie content and other nutritional information is clearly printed on the label of almost every food and, if its not, then that data is only a google search away. And, to close the loop on my argument, good tasting food does have redeeming value; it tastes good. I might even (might) go so far as to say that these days, everyone knows that cigarettes are both addictive and horrifically unhealthy. Some people enjoy smoking. Because everyone knows the health risks and the product has a redeeming value (enjoyment), I do not favor a ban on them (although I would personally never use them, or even date a girl who does).

I also understand that reasonable people can differ, especially in some gray areas. Trans fat, for example. I never eat trans fat, not even a gram. Well, okay, I may, if there is so little that it need not be listed on the label. But in general, if I know there is trans fat in the food, I do not eat it. Should we ban trans fat? Its very unhealthy, and its primarily a benefit to the food company. I oppose a ban on trans fat, but I respect there are good arguments the other way.

Let me propose one more radical idea. I believe that the diet industry is promoting obesity (although not causing it - people still make their choices) through its advertizing. In losing weight there is only one truism for otherwise healthy people: Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. But the diet industry pushes books and food products that confuse everyone. Low carb, low fat, paleo, vegetarian, the melon diet, the hard boiled egg diet, grapefruit, weight watchers and points, Nutri system, on and on and on. People seem to think that losing fat (not weight) is complicated, requires special food or books, blah blah blah. This helps people believe its not their fault they are fat, or that losing fat requires a complex way of eating, or it gets people to expend more effort than needed to lose fat. When the complex diet fails to produce results, well lets just try another diet. Or maybe they take it as evidence that they can't lose fat. Or maybe it works, and now its time to go back to eating badly because a "diet" is just for losing weight, not for establishing a healthy way of living. I am always amazed when see how many people just don't understand that basic rule about caloric consumption.

Ok, to lighten it a bit, how about we do this. Let's launch an advertising campaign encouraging men to eat more exceedingly good cakes, while encouraging women to eat healthy and exercise. Based on the poll results on page one, I see that almost everyone here will benefit tremendously from this approach!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Whilst my ananalogy was concededly loose it was assuredly not specious. The poor quality of food supplied by multi-nationals is adversely affecting the health of its consumers, at the very least the rise in diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is alarming (a 30% rise between 2000 & 2009 in America).

The anti-smoking lobby has grossly exaggerated the harmful effects of tobacco. In the UK our NHS has to treat more people suffering from obesity related illness than from (allegedly) smoking-related illness*. Carcinogenics are notoriously difficult to isolate from the range of chemicals ingested by an individual, coupled with a wide variance of susceptibility between alternate genetic sequences. If I may be permitted another loose analogy - if you fire a hundred arrows into a man's heart how do you identify the lethal piercing?

*

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Knowledge is the keystone. I often hear confusion from my patients as to how the food they eat affects them. They seem to think the science of healthy lifestyle eating is mysterious and complicated. I explain that they learned the tools needed by 3rd grade. These tools consist of reading and arithmetic. If they can balance a checkbook, they can eat healthy. 100% of my patients admit to being able to read, add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Once they are educated that these are the only tools they need, along with internet access, or a pocket calorie guide, or phone app, the battle is half won. The diet industry, and doctors have created a mystique around a healthy diet so as to confuse and confound the public. Ten minutes of education coupled with an admonition to balance ones diet as humans always did before the advent of machines and gunpowder results in an Aha! moment. I find this the first positive step on their unravelling the "mystery" of healthy eating.

Don't knock the Monte Cristo, it's one of my favorite breakfast foods. Filling, decadent tasting, and well balanced/low calorie.I have the deli near my office make it frequently to my specifications.

2 slices ham
3 slices turkey
3 slices tomato
2 slices rye bread

Assemble and dip in egg whites, then fry on a dry griddle using only cooking spray

Total Calories approx. 280
Total fat 6 gm 21% of total calories
Sat Fat 1 gm
Carbs 31 gm 43% of total calories
Protein 25 gm 36% of total calories

Eating well and eating good are compatible with just a little education.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> Knowledge is the keystone. I often hear confusion from my patients as to how the food they eat affects them. They seem to think the science of healthy lifestyle eating is mysterious and complicated. I explain that they learned the tools needed by 3rd grade. These tools consist of reading and arithmetic. If they can balance a checkbook, they can eat healthy. 100% of my patients admit to being able to read, add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Once they are educated that these are the only tools they need, along with internet access, or a pocket calorie guide, or phone app, the battle is half won. The diet industry, and doctors have created a mystique around a healthy diet so as to confuse and confound the public. Ten minutes of education coupled with an admonition to balance ones diet as humans always did before the advent of machines and gunpowder results in an Aha! moment. I find this the first positive step on their unravelling the "mystery" of healthy eating.
> 
> Don't knock the Monte Cristo, it's one of my favorite breakfast foods. Filling, decadent tasting, and well balanced/low calorie.I have the deli near my office make it frequently to my specifications.
> 
> ...


Crikey! I _*really*_ miss taking breakfast in a NY Jewish deli. I could scoff a Reuben right now.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Come on over, the weather's beautiful. Finally.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> Come on over, the weather's beautiful. Finally.


Meet you in Carnegie's at midday?

I wish.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

The Rueben's on me.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

momsdoc said:


> The Rueben's on me.


You rang?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I have a deep respect for momsdoc. However, I have to respectfully disagree with him in terms of the great Monte Cristo preparation. I love to make them, but I assure you that egg whites and cooking spray are nowhere in sight when I am preparing it. :cool2:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

red_shift said:


> I struggled with my weight for all of my childhood and most of my adult life. One of the things I learned through dieting is that the body doesn't need as much food as I was raised to believe. Weight gain and loss are slow processes and it is very difficult to correlate that overeating by 350 calories each day leads to a subsequent 36lb weight gain over a year.
> 
> 350 calories is a cupcake, or a stout and some potato chips, or 1.5 pieces of pizza and all of these are things that are considered completely normal. We have created a food culture that eats 'festival foods', things that in the past were so labor or resource intensive that they were only made occasionally, as our normal diet and it's affecting our health. Companies have gladly taken on the challenge of making these foods readily available and will continue to do so until we either die of our own habits or move back toward a staple food diet.


That's the problem, we're a nation of food and gluttony. we are eating food with loads of calories that we know that are bad for us but we eat it cause it's so delicious.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Reuben said:


> Easy, homemade twelve-layer caramel cake.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


with a dollop of ice cream on the side.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

momsdoc said:


> The Rueben's on me.


I'll join you.


----------



## red_shift (Aug 8, 2013)

momsdoc said:


> Don't knock the Monte Cristo, it's one of my favorite breakfast foods. Filling, decadent tasting, and well balanced/low calorie.I have the deli near my office make it frequently to my specifications.
> 
> 2 slices ham
> 3 slices turkey
> ...


I totally agree; if you are informed about the what and how of making a dish you can have good food and still stay within your boundaries. The problem I see is that most prepared food isn't made to order or it's made without a calorie conscious process. Whenever I get a lunch with my work peers I can't find an entree that is less than 650 calories, generally restaurant food is in the 1000kcal+ range.

I've taken the calorie count model to heart and its worked for me for a few years now. I have issues with the general culture and the fact that most 'normal' food is out of bounds for me unless I want to make one dish my entire day.


----------

