Super Sized OR Super Skinny?

Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Super Sized VS Super Skinny
Super Sized 43%  43%  [ 12 ]
Super Skinny 57%  57%  [ 16 ]
Total votes : 28

RainingRoses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 731
Location: New York City

27 Apr 2011, 8:24 pm

Grisha wrote:
I know a little about the subject because I am sometimes below 18 in BMI, especially in the summer when I'm really active...

I don't know much of anything about BMI, but I now know a little more than I did five minutes ago. I just used an online calculator to discover that a <18 BMI for me (at 6'4") cooresponds to a shockingly low weight. I don't know how I could possibly get there, even if I wanted to. I haven't been that weight since middle school(!)



Grisha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,336
Location: LA-ish

27 Apr 2011, 8:37 pm

RainingRoses wrote:
Grisha wrote:
I know a little about the subject because I am sometimes below 18 in BMI, especially in the summer when I'm really active...

I don't know much of anything about BMI, but I now know a little more than I did five minutes ago. I just used an online calculator to discover that a <18 BMI for me (at 6'4") cooresponds to a shockingly low weight. I don't know how I could possibly get there, even if I wanted to. I haven't been that weight since middle school(!)


I have an extremely thin frame, so I think maybe there should be an adjustment there but none of the tables I've seen have it.

BMI is just a general guideline - by far the best indicator of a "healthy" weight is actual health, and this varies greatly from person to person.

I am 6' tall, and when I get over 160lbs my blood pressure and cholesterol become elevated, and I have chronic GERD and headaches - even though by BMI I am "normal".

Arnold Schwarzenegger was quite "obese" in terms of BMI at the height of his bodybuilding
career



Embroglio
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

27 Apr 2011, 8:38 pm

Grisha wrote:
RainingRoses wrote:
I hope this is relatively on-topic. (Whatever the topic is ???) What would you think of a 30-something woman who is 5'7" - 5'8" and 105 lbs.? She is obviously "Super Skinny" but is there necessarily a problem there? I ask because I'm a little concerned about someone I'm getting to know IRL...


In addition to what the others said, I would add that if you look at the medical literature there's really no firm consensus about what "underweight" even is.

Overweight/obesity is associated with many weight-dependent medical issues (hypertension, diabetes, etc) which can be reduced by losing weight. There are very few equivalents in otherwise healthy, properly nourished people who are "underweight".

If she's eating properly and there's no underlying pathology causing it, then it should't be too concerning.

I know a little about the subject because I am sometimes below 18 in BMI, especially in the summer when I'm really active...

BMI is not the best indicator of being overweight or obese as it doesn't take in account one's body type and frame size. Those with a smaller frame would be overweight sooner than those with a larger frame.



sunshower
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Age: 119
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,496

27 Apr 2011, 9:27 pm

Embroglio wrote:
Grisha wrote:
RainingRoses wrote:
I hope this is relatively on-topic. (Whatever the topic is ???) What would you think of a 30-something woman who is 5'7" - 5'8" and 105 lbs.? She is obviously "Super Skinny" but is there necessarily a problem there? I ask because I'm a little concerned about someone I'm getting to know IRL...


In addition to what the others said, I would add that if you look at the medical literature there's really no firm consensus about what "underweight" even is.

Overweight/obesity is associated with many weight-dependent medical issues (hypertension, diabetes, etc) which can be reduced by losing weight. There are very few equivalents in otherwise healthy, properly nourished people who are "underweight".

If she's eating properly and there's no underlying pathology causing it, then it should't be too concerning.

I know a little about the subject because I am sometimes below 18 in BMI, especially in the summer when I'm really active...

BMI is not the best indicator of being overweight or obese as it doesn't take in account one's body type and frame size. Those with a smaller frame would be overweight sooner than those with a larger frame.


This is true, but a BMI of 16 is very extreme. This is taking into account that a healthy BMI ranges from 18.5-25, so anything under 20 is low. As I said, I am 19.something and I appear skinny (according to other people). At my thinnest I was an Australian size 6-8, I had very little muscle, and my BMI still was hovering around 19.0. 16 is not just at the lower end of the spectrum, that's 18. It's possible she just naturally has a very narrow frame, but I wouldn't discount the possibility she has an ED.

If you want an example of what an 19.0 looks like at 5'7'', this was me:
Image


_________________
Into the dark...


sunshower
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Age: 119
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,496

27 Apr 2011, 9:43 pm

^ taking into account that's around a 19.0, which is substantially heavier than a 16.0, and you can't account for the extra body mass in muscle as I was energetic but had very little muscle at that stage, plus it's relatively thin frame (although not as thin as some people, yes).

Yes, the BMI is misleading, but it is actually engineered to take individual differences into account; otherwise a normal healthy weight would be something like 22. Full stop. That's why there's a scale and leeway in what is healthy. Yes, of course it's possible to be overweight or underweight and actually be healthy, but the more extreme you go either way the more unlikely it is. 16 is very extreme. I'm not saying she definitely has an ED, I'm just saying the possibility shouldn't be discounted.

One good way might be to look at her arms, and upper thighs. People with an ED tend to have very bony looking arms - like there's no flesh there and you can see the bone sticking through their skin, and flesh on their legs may be non-existent - you may be able to see the bones. Naturally skinny people still have flesh in those places, although they may be slim. This is just my personal opinion, and isn't based on science or anything.


_________________
Into the dark...


hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,774
Location: None

27 Apr 2011, 9:46 pm

Supersized. I've never been a fan of skinny men, just not my type. Each to their own though, there is someone for everyone.

I would rather chubby over obese for sure though.



Last edited by hale_bopp on 27 Apr 2011, 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RainingRoses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 731
Location: New York City

27 Apr 2011, 9:47 pm

sunshower wrote:
I wouldn't discount the possibility she has an ED.

No, I'm pretty far from discounting it. Especially now. Thanks so much for your guidance.



sunshower
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Age: 119
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,496

27 Apr 2011, 10:12 pm

RainingRoses wrote:
sunshower wrote:
I wouldn't discount the possibility she has an ED.

No, I'm pretty far from discounting it. Especially now. Thanks so much for your guidance.


Sorry if I went a bit overboard, I was just worried by how other people responded. Yeah, if someone's an 18 you probably don't need to be too worried, but if they're below 17 I wouldn't be blowing it off.

Are you sure she's 5'7'' though and not shorter? It sounded like you were guessing her height, and height can make a big difference.

If she actually does have an ED then I'm not really sure I can advise you on what to do about it except perhaps ask her friends/family about it and see if there's any way she could be encouraged to get help? Most people with ED's (especially anorexia) are in denial about it, so I'm not sure whether asking her directly would be any use.


_________________
Into the dark...


RainingRoses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 731
Location: New York City

27 Apr 2011, 10:19 pm

sunshower wrote:
Sorry if I went a bit overboard, I was just worried by how other people responded.

You didn't go overboard ... no worries.

sunshower wrote:
Are you sure she's 5'7'' though and not shorter? It sounded like you were guessing her height, and height can make a big difference.

I think I said 5'7"-5'8" -- she's in between.

sunshower wrote:
If she actually does have an ED then I'm not really sure I can advise you on what to do about it except perhaps ask her friends/family about it and see if there's any way she could be encouraged to get help? Most people with ED's (especially anorexia) are in denial about it, so I'm not sure whether asking her directly would be any use.

Just about every woman I've ever been involved with has had an eating disorder, so this will be pretty far from a unique situation. <Sigh> I'll see how things go.

Again, I really appreciate your concern.



Grisha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,336
Location: LA-ish

27 Apr 2011, 10:24 pm

sunshower wrote:
If you want an example of what an 19.0 looks like at 5'7'', this was me:
Image


Setting aesthetics aside, how did you feel (health-wise) when you were that weight?

I feel best when I'm at the low end of my weight range, even though it looks pretty bad.

I try to find a balance between the two, but if someone can't get over the fact that I'm thin then I'm not going to waste my time with them anyway (romantically speaking, of course).

But like I said earlier, unless it's a symptom of malnutrition or underlying disease "underweight" is really meaningless from a medical standpoint. This isn't my opinion, look at the medical literature on the subject...



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

27 Apr 2011, 10:36 pm

Grisha wrote:
sunshower wrote:
If you want an example of what an 19.0 looks like at 5'7'', this was me:
Image


Setting aesthetics aside, how did you feel (health-wise) when you were that weight?

I feel best when I'm at the low end of my weight range, even though it looks pretty bad.

I try to find a balance between the two, but if someone can't get over the fact that I'm thin then I'm not going to waste my time with them anyway (romantically speaking, of course).

But like I said earlier, unless it's a symptom of malnutrition or underlying disease "underweight" is really meaningless from a medical standpoint. This isn't my opinion, look at the medical literature on the subject...

incorrect, sir. a few side effects of being underweight:

anemia, hair loss, infertility, osteoporosis, malnutrition, impaired immune system, heart irregularities, memory loss, cancer, digestive diseases and hypothermia, fatigue.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


Grisha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,336
Location: LA-ish

27 Apr 2011, 10:43 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Grisha wrote:
sunshower wrote:
If you want an example of what an 19.0 looks like at 5'7'', this was me:
Image


Setting aesthetics aside, how did you feel (health-wise) when you were that weight?

I feel best when I'm at the low end of my weight range, even though it looks pretty bad.

I try to find a balance between the two, but if someone can't get over the fact that I'm thin then I'm not going to waste my time with them anyway (romantically speaking, of course).

But like I said earlier, unless it's a symptom of malnutrition or underlying disease "underweight" is really meaningless from a medical standpoint. This isn't my opinion, look at the medical literature on the subject...


incorrect, sir. a few side effects of being underweight:

anemia, hair loss, infertility, osteoporosis, malnutrition, impaired immune system, heart irregularities, memory loss, cancer, digestive diseases and hypothermia, fatigue.


That's not what I read.

Except for amenorrhea and female infertility, the rest of those symptoms are associated with malnutrition.



sunshower
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Age: 119
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,496

27 Apr 2011, 10:49 pm

Grisha wrote:
Setting aesthetics aside, how did you feel (health-wise) when you were that weight?

I feel best when I'm at the low end of my weight range, even though it looks pretty bad.


Well, I'm not sure that was the absolute lowest - I think I was a bit lighter than that at one point, but I don't have photos from that time that I know of. It was a stressful time. The period of time I was around this weight was the last years of high school, and I was on ritalin (which has a side effect of reducing appetite). I felt pretty good, but sometimes a bit light headed or emancipated, and my ribs used to stick out a bit too - sometimes it was uncomfortable to sleep on them. When I went off ritalin on the holidays I would eat like a horse, so I don't think I was getting enough nutrition. I feel best a bit heavier (1-2kg heavier) than I was then but a bit lighter (1-2kg) than I am now. All this being said, we're only talking about a 5-6kg length weight change scale max (thinnest at around 54kg, heaviest at around 59kg, currently 58ish due to inactivity and stress). 1kg heavier/lighter does make a very big difference to how I feel though.

Quote:
I try to find a balance between the two, but if someone can't get over the fact that I'm thin then I'm not going to waste my time with them anyway (romantically speaking, of course).


Yes, it's most important to feel good within yourself. I always aim for 56kg - I feel best at that weight. People who like you based on appearance are a waste of time. I may have discussed this in another thread, but in summary I get hit on a lot by people who don't even know me (so I'm assuming it's appearance based), but I've never found a match in one of those people.

Quote:
But like I said earlier, unless it's a symptom of malnutrition or underlying disease "underweight" is really meaningless from a medical standpoint. This isn't my opinion, look at the medical literature on the subject...


Yes, I agree with this. In my opinion the BMI is more a measure of how likely the person is to have malnutrition or underlying disease. As I said before, 16 is off the scale, it's below underweight and in the danger zone. I'm not discounting the possibility she is healthy in spite of this.


_________________
Into the dark...


hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

27 Apr 2011, 10:56 pm

Grisha wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
incorrect, sir. a few side effects of being underweight:

anemia, hair loss, infertility, osteoporosis, malnutrition, impaired immune system, heart irregularities, memory loss, cancer, digestive diseases and hypothermia, fatigue.


That's not what I read.
Except for amenorrhea and female infertility, the rest of those symptoms are associated with malnutrition.

interestingly, there is a higher risk of mortality for underweight people than overweight or normal people (not the case for obese people though - morbid obesity leads to increased deaths too).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/293/15/1861.short

also, from the International Journal of Epidemiology (link):

Quote:
Except at true statistical extremes, high body mass is a very weak predictor of mortality, and may even be protective in older populations. In particular, the claim that ‘overweight’ (BMI 25–29.9) increases mortality risk in any meaningful way is impossible to reconcile with numerous large-scale studies that have found no increase in relative risk among the so-called ‘overweight’, or have found a lower relative risk for premature mortality among this cohort than among persons of so-called ‘normal’ or ‘ideal’ [sic] weight. Among the obese, little or no increase in relative risk for premature mortality is observed until one reaches BMIs in the upper 30s or higher. In other words, the vast majority of people labelled ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’ according to current definitions do not in fact face any meaningful increased risk for early death. Indeed the most recent comprehensive analysis of this question within the context of the US population found more premature deaths associated with a BMI of <25 than with a BMI above it. This was largely owing to the finding that lowest death rates fell within the BMI range of 25–29.9—some 86 000 fewer ‘excess’ deaths than was observed in the referent group, the so-called ‘normal weight’ BMI range of 18.5–24.9. Additional analyses that controlled for potential confounders such as length of follow-up, weight stability, weight loss caused by illness, or smoking status did not change the results. For this nationally representative cohort of US adults—National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys I, II, and III—the ‘ideal’ weight for longevity was ‘overweight’.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


sunshower
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Age: 119
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,496

27 Apr 2011, 11:06 pm

Perhaps the whole health system is wrong. Perhaps what's defined as overweight is actually a healthy weight, and what's defined as a healthy weight is actually underweight. Do you know how they originally determined the BMI system?


_________________
Into the dark...