It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I don't think the body is that 'clever' - I've seen lots of prople claiming that they can't shift the last stone, yet when they go away on an activity holiday (trekking, snow sports etc) they lose the weight and find that they feel all the better for it - then they decide to knuckle down to maintain that weight, and after a short time, it becomes second nature to eat smaller amounts at mealtimes. The stomach - and the appetite - adapts.
It's been shown that people automatically eat more when given bigger portions. Anybody who's been on a cruise ship will know that it is very difficult not to put on a lot of weight during the trip.
(http://www.pimpthatsnack.com/images/graphs/pimpdaddy_bodymass.png) if this doesn't display well.
This applies to me rather more than the rest of you because I'm definitely more paunch than power, but if I could hit the lovely 'normal' zone I'd be happy regardless.
Felt compelled to add in my views about BMI as for years it has been annoying how so-called experts drag it up time and time again. I am 6 ft 2 and seem to have plateaued at around 92 kg ( yes one tall woman!) which would make me close to obese. But I have a big frame and have always done a lot of exercise so there is plently of muscle sitting on it. Ok if I was to be honest I could lose a bit off the lower half, but there isn't much fat on the rest of me.
As for losing weight, even when training for the marathon and putting in the mileage, I just seem to lose inches ( particularly around the stubborn lower half) not weight. So as long as the trousers are getting looser, I'm not fussed about the weight. Plus the fact that life is too short to cut out all the cakes just for a few extra seconds.
If your (Gina34) waist measurement is below 31 1/2 inches, I wouldn't worry too much about what the scales say. Ideally you could check your body fat % using one of the many available scales that combine a body fat monitor (like Tanita). Or just jump up and down without clothes on: all the bits that wobble are fat, not muscle!
If you're pear-shaped you're at fairly low risk of heart disease etc, even if you're a little overweight, because your fat is on your hips and bottom rather than visceral (within the abdomen, around the internal organs). But if you're apple-shaped, beware! If you're eating a lot of cakes and other junk food, it might be a good idea to get your cholesterol checked as those so-called 'foods' are loaded with saturated and trans fats. High cholesterol and dyslipidaemia is associated with bad diets and obesity, and is as big a killer as smoking.
Wouldn't worry about BMI anyway,
If this is used a yard stick the entire England rugby team would be obese which is clearly not the case. Because this uses weight and height , and not build anybody who is not of an average build will produce an abmormal result.
Incidently mine shows as extremly underweight which I am not, just tall.
The easiest way to "boost your metabolism", which most people understand as meaning that you burn more calories at rest and during everyday activities, is, ironically, to put on weight. The more you weigh, the higher your resting metabolic rate, and the more calories you burn off just getting up and walking from one room to another.
..bad idea from me.
Increasing muscle mass also burns more I believe, as muscle itself uses enregy just to exist. Also just generally doing resistence work on the big muscle groups?....legs and arse.
I would like to add some arithmetic on this! I had a test years ago when i was 158 pounds (6ft 1). I was in pretty good form and had done an 8m run at close to 7 min mile pace that morning. The test was putting some electodes on various parts of my body inc. ankles and comoing up with 10.8% fat and 65% water. The range for water was said to be 55-65% water, so i was right on the upper limit.
65% of 158 is 103 pounds, but if one was at 55% it would be 87 pounds so you would have lost 16 pounds. For my weight i would then be 142 pounds, this would improve my times i suspect! If 76% of my weight is fat and water then 24% must be down to bone density and muscle. I would argue that i couldn't go down to less than 7% fat, so where could i lose weight beyond 6 pounds (i am at the same weight now). And yet i did get down to 152 pounds last year when i came back from India. No, i don't think it was fat loss- more likely to be water! I would add that it doesn't mean i was dehydrated, only that my water level was down on what it had been.
In 1975 when i broke my jaw i was 133 pounds momentarily, i have a picture of myself. You wouldn't want to be this thin, so its muscle and fat i lost. One contributor said that they were this light while running 40 mins for 10k, this is just incredible! But i wonder if the reason older people lose weight is down to bone density rather than anything else. Back to the 59 kg person who was 184 cm tall, it may be the biscuits they are eating that is causing the light weight but remember that with a mimimal food intake, which is almost certainly what they have, they are not leaving much room for actual meals. The author of the British Cycle Federation coaching manual stated that empty calories should be avoided. He was right!
As i said my weight is now the same as it was that day. I was 39 then, am now 51. But ,where have i lost weight? Water, bone density, fat or muscle. Or are all my levels the same. It seems that if any of these figures are less than othe other ones may be more. I have a feeling that my fat level will be up marginally(maybe 2%- this amounts to just 3 pounds). This will mean i have lost either muscle or bone density! In 1979 i was 170 pounds as a racing cyclist, i would put it down to more muscle with some increase in fat but not much. If i remember rightly i was 32 inch waist but now am no more than 1/2 inch less!
So tell me are some of these satements flawed in some way or am i right. Does bone density go down with age or is it minimal in terms of overall weight for older people.
older people lose muscle mass very quickly when they are ill
and the "water" thing ..thats also blood, lymph and other fluids not just water that is held in tissues ("water" retention) as well as a rather large part of the brain (85%?)
actually - going back to the muscle thing - i wonder if one of the reasons average BMI is increasing is that as well as getting fatter people are getting heavier because of more muscle mass ?
We know that better quality and quantity of food available has meant height has increased over the last couple of generations but if you look at pictures of people post war (after rationing and food shortages) then there were a lot of people who looked underweight/skinny by comparison to recent years (im not talking about comparing to obviously "overweight" people -just people who would be considered "normal" weight) -perhaps our plentiful supplies mean that we are getting bigger and heavier and not just fatter ?
i know nothing really ..its all just specualtion !
Fatter people need more muscle to support their weight, so a small proportion of their excess weight is muscle. And muscle mass decreases with age (i.e. for the same weight, the proportion of fat to muscle increases as one gets older) which is a good reason to do resistance training to reduce this effect. When fat people lose weight, they also lose a little of the muscle mass which is not required anymore. By the way, there is plenty of water in muscle (blood, muscle cells etc) so that has to be factored in when doing calculations. Bone weight doesn't decrease significantly with age unless there is severe osteoporosis.
And fatter people have a higher metabolic rate, i.e. they burn more calories at rest and during exercise than thin people - despite what many people think. See www.bbc.co.uk/truthaboutfood and click on 'slim', then 'metabolism and weight' to see a common fallacy debunked (i.e. that 'naturally slim people' eat more than fat people yet remain slim). The truth is that overweight people eat more than slim people, often without realising it.
The world has grown fatter since the last world war, due to increased calorie intake and decreased activity - but most of our increased calories are junk calories. Many obese people are malnourished because most of their calorie intake is from junk food.
Agree with all the posters who have questionned the relevance of BMI. We're all runners and exercise has a significant effect on health risks. Someone with a 'normal' BMI who doesn't exercise carries greater health risks than someone who is 'fat and fit'. I'm fitter than ever but BMI 27ish. I've still got fat to lose but thats only because I want to shave seconds off the shorter distances (and look 'trim' I suppose)...
BMI is a generally useful risk predictor for the general population and easy to measure. But it doesn't go much beyond that.
I measure "thinner" but weigh more than I have at times (when not running so much)?!? I presume that this is the muscle weighing more than fat thing?
My BMI is 19.1 (which is in the healthy range) - but my size 8 clothes are kind of baggy... even though I have at times been half a stone lighter? That article on speed makes it seem like if I weighed less then I would be faster in races - but I think I'd have to start wearing childrens clothing.
I run around 30 miles a week at present, but not training for any particular event. Thinking about my first half marathon (only done 10K or 10 mile races up until now). Not sure what my optimum weight is to stay healthy and run well. I guess anything down to a BMI of 18.5 is ok? Or would that make me too think cos of having very little body fat???
You'll only find your optimum weight by trial and error. If your periods cease, you're almost certainly underweight or have insufficient fat. Obviously if you're an elite runner, you'll want to be as light as possible while remaining healthy - all elite distance runners are very slim, with BMI around 18.5.
The ideal is to make all your calories count - i.e. no junk calories, so that you maximise your nutritional intake. Only those training immense volumes will have to eat a lot of sugary stuff to get sufficient calories in easily digestible form.