We’ve lost sight of what is a healthy weight

[SpringPop]

Was chatting to my husband yesterday about getting to a healthy weight.

I am 5ft3 and at start of year I was weighing 80kg (12st 8)

I have hired a PT, workout 3 x weeklyand started eating healthy and now weigh around 72kg (11st 4). I’m not restricting food types or on any fad diet. I’m literally eating a balanced diet and the correct amount to lose up to 1lb a week.

I’ve done a decent start but still want to get to below 10stone where I would be a healthy weight for my height according to BMI.

I literally look like a ball in photos I took at the weekend. So fat.

He thinks I look great and lovely. Which is very kind. I literally don’t get how done people can’t see that I look fat. He’s not just being kind.

we got chatting and I Said to him that people we watch on tv that we think are “normal” (not underweight) and are similar height to me probably weigh between 8-9 stone therefore how could he not see I was overweight and not looking great.

AIBU to think no wonder we are quite an overweight nation. We equate 8stone/9stone as “skinny” but actually isn’t that healthy for someone who is just over 5ft? There should not be any shame in trying to reach a healthy weight. I kinda feel like we have lost sight of what is a healthy weight.

at 11stone/12stone, I’m not my healthiest, I’m not my fittest, I don’t look good. I’m opening myself up to more health conditions. Clothes make me look like a beach ball. I’m quite large chested and instead of making me look sexy/attractive, I just look ridiculous and almost ball shaped.

I know when you look back at TV footage from the 1970s, everyone looks absolutely tiny. Very slim waists. But...I'm not sure this is a sign that they were healthy and we are not. An adult in their twenties and up in the 1970s would have spent part of their childhood living with rationing. The UK had rations until 1954... perhaps this affected part of their development and consequently overall size....also most people smoked. I'm not sure

I'm not sure they were an advertisement for healthy living

Also, although we have certainly got bigger overall since the 70s...then as now, attractive people were more likely to make it on to TV and the media. Fat wasn't fashionable, especially in women. But my family photos show there were definitely overweight people back then.

But...I'm not sure this is a sign that they were healthy and we are not. An adult in their twenties and up in the 1970s would have spent part of their childhood living with rationing

Didn’t rationing actually lead to an improvement in overall health? It ensured that adults and children had a properly balanced diet.

If someone turned round and said "people are only overweight because they eat too much and don't exercise", there'd be a massive push-back, I bet...

People say that all the time. Including on this thread. All over Mumsnet

Because it's true.

The cries of 'yes but what about BODY TYPE! What about BUILD! Swimmers and gymnasts are BROAD! BMI is useless for bodybuilders!' always pop up on weight threads. Yes, because your average person with a too-high BMI is probably just a bodybuilder or Olympic gymnast right? 🤔

Oh and always with the 'I'm 3 stone overweight but I walk 10 miles a day and I'm very fit, fitter than slimmer people'.

It's just total denial.

It may have been balanced but it wasn't plentiful like it is now. How did rationing affect child development and height/build etc? Compared to children now who have a abundance of food available to them?

This!

Always the same old excuses.

I am heavy set.
I have big bones.
I only have to look at a biscuit..
I am curvy.
BMI is total bollox.
I am 20 stone and healthy.
Puppy Fat.
Wide skeleton (best I have heard yet).
I have a bigger frame.
We all put on weight easily in the family, just the way we are made.
Thyroid issues/ no metabolism/ fat genes/ genetically predisposed.

The VAST MAJORITY of people are fat because they eat too much. Fact.

It is also important to realise however that eating addictions/disorders are a huge problem. It is not a simple issue nor is it easy which is why you have people going over to Turkey for weight loss surgery and butchering their bodies to actually physically STOP them from eating so much. It is an addiction just like any other but harder because you have to eat every day, like giving an alcoholic 3 drinks daily and expecting them to be satisfied at that and not want more.

At the end of the day you are fat because you eat too much. In a very small amount of cases it can be a medical problem or medication that is causing weight gain but for the most part it is eating too much. Simple.

If you don't believe that different frames/sizes/metabolisms are a thing then Swellinyewing may I ask you a question?

Do you think that if you gave all the women in the world the exact same diet for a year and made them do the exact same exercise regime, they would all end up the exact same size/weight?

If not, why not?

Great question

Not at all, that would be a ridiculous suggestion. However one would not be 20 stone and the other one 8. Of course there is fluctuation between people's weights but given the scenario you have given there would not be stones and stones in the difference. Someone who is 5 ft 6 and size 20 does not eat the same as a person who is size 10 and 5 ft 6 regardless of metabolism of frame size.

No one is saying someone who's 5"6" and size 20 eats the same as a size 10 person. But someone with a larger frame and slower metabolism could eat the same as someone with a narrow frame and fast metabolism and there could easily be a few sizes - or a few points in bmi - difference.

Myself and my dsis are both 5"8". She takes after my dm and is slender, with small size 4 feet and thin ankles/wrists. Narrow frame. I'm more like the women on my df's side - wide shouldered and hipped, large hands and size 8 feet. Big boobs. I eat a healthy diet of 1200 calories a day and exercise and am 11 stone, size 10-12. It's really a lot of work for me to stay this size. Dsis eats junk food, never cooks a meal, drinks like a fish and takes no exercise but is a size 8 and struggles to gain weight(my dm is the exact same). So we are from the same gene pool and are wildly different.

Don't you look around you and see how everyone has different frames/sizes/holds fat & muscle in different places?

Of course people have different sized skeletons and organs/skin mass etc. Some people have very active lifestyles or a nervous energy that keeps their metabolism fast, others are more sedentary or may have health issues that make it harder to lose weight.

I don't understand why some people don't seem to get that we are not one homogenous mass who, if we only could be more like them, would be skinny too.

Obviously I don't know what they eat, but it has been interesting to see how many steps a day my slimmest friends do via their shared FitBit data online - quite a lot more than me, though I am sometime no 2. out of 10 or more usually no. 3 or no. 4. I do pretty well for steps considering that I work FT in a sedentary job and they work only a few hours a week or do active jobs. I can get 15k+ steps in a day at the weekend but they are able to do that nearly every day- one is a dog walker. I've upped my exercise in the last 6 months but don't always have the time to get all those steps in, especially in winter.

My brother is slim, always has been. I am fat. He is a gamer who walks no further than from his sofa to his car. He also rarely seems to get hungry. He is the kind of person who forgets to eat. At times I do not want to eat but the strong hunger pangs make me eat.

Ahh the wide skeleton again....

“Larger bones might account for a few pounds of weight but not 30 or 40,” “It's not going to be the difference between a healthy body mass index (BMI) and being overweight.”

Larger organs? Are you taking the piss?

Larger skin mass? How would the amount of skin that it takes to cover a 6 foot body differ in BMI than the amount of skin that covers a 5 foot body?

The average human skeleton will account for around 12%-15% of total body weight. So, a 200-pound man would have a skeletal weight of 24-30 pounds. A 150-pound woman has a skeletal weight of 18-22.5 pounds. Bone density refers to the concentration of minerals in your bones, yet dense bones may add only a few pounds to your frame. As an adult continually gains weight throughout life, it’s not because their bones become continually bigger and heavier.

An adult’s skeleton weighs more than a child’s. And a 7-foot person’s skeleton weighs more than a 6-foot person’s, who’s skeleton weighs more than a 5-foot person’s skeleton. Beyond this, people are not “big-boned.” The bones in people of the same height are relatively the same weight. Most people who weigh too much for their height typically do so because of excess body fat, though a more-muscular body does indeed weigh more than a less-muscular body.

Seventy-five percent of Americans are now either overweight or obese. Yet, most people aren’t body builders. Our national weight problem is a fat problem, unrelated to too much muscle or too much bone.

BMI was invented in the 1830s by a mathematician. It's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Of course being hugely obese isn't healthy but do I believe I'm suddenly doomed if my BMI is 26 rather than 25.? no I do not.

No, but BMI wouldn't say you're suddenly doomed at 26. It would just say that statistically, you are at a slightly elevated risk of certain conditions and the higher the score goes, the more that risk increases. If you're counting as overweight because you're actually incredibly muscular, you'll know. Most of us aren't.

It's not a perfect tool - it's a bit blunt - but it's not total bullshit.

Actually there has been research done that suggests being very slightly overweight is actually beneficial....note, I say slightly overweight. Have a Google...it's quite interesting.

But anyway, if BMI is nonsense, which I think it is, then what is actually overweight? So a mathematician in 1830 came up with a calculation that said if the number hits 26, we're overweight...hmmm are we?

You've misunderstood how to use BMI.
It's a tool to help give a picture of overall health.
It's quick, it's free, it's easily accessible.

So a mathematician in 1830 came up with a calculation that said if the number hits 26, we're overweight...hmmm are we?

Probably, yes. For my height there's a 3 stone range of healthy. It's likely that if you fall outside of that you are either over or underweight.

Unless you are very muscular odds are that you are overweight at 24 and 25 too. Your personal healthy weight range is somewhere between 18 and 25 but it isn't throughout it. For the majority of people it will be 20-21 or 21-22 but there are outliers who are naturally healthiest lower and higher than that, so the scale takes them into account. I'm considered very muscular, have large breasts/hips/bum and very dense bones (I got a dexa scan due to family osteoporosis). My ideal is currently about 23, anything above that and I visibly have excess fat. The vast, vast majority of women can take it that they are overweight with a BMI of 26.

As for the research, I've addressed that twice already on this thread. Actually read it. they studies themselves. None of them stand up to scrutiny. The main one discounts cancer as a cause of mortality. Cancer. You can't discount cancer from a study and then claim it means anything about human health. It's deliberate bullshit.

Well, time was that 27 was the cut off for being classed as overweight, so perhaps they will reconfigure it again one day. I have heard that those figures can be a little skewed by older, frail people who are near the end of their lives losing a lot of weight.

As for what is overweight, I'd say it's the point at which the increased health risks start appearing statistically. (You do concede that there comes a point where weight starts to make a difference to health, and that point begins long before you become really huge.) It doesn't mean that if your BMI is X then you WILL experience them, it just means that you are statistically more likely to.

In terms of ‘naturally thin’: my MIL is petite/short and as thin as a rail. She’ll eat almost anything BUT tiny portions. She also actually doesn’t have that much of a sweet tooth naturally. I do think it’s always going to be easier for you if you just don’t like these foods.
My SIL is the same…very petite/short. Slim and athletic. Just doesn’t like sweet foods or even wine that much. Very small portions again.
My FIL on the other hand DOES enjoy sweet foods and will happily drink a few glasses of wine. He is taller and with a more athletic/stocky build and was very sporty when younger (both he and my husband were decent middle distance runners in their youth). HOWEVER, he now has acres of land to maintain and this is his main hobby and joy. He spends all day every day (including weekends and holidays) scrambling up terraces, pruning trees etc. Barely sits down except to eat and usually will fall asleep in front of the TV or over a book.
Finally my husband has been 63kg since he was 15 (he’s about 5’10”, for context). As mentioned he was quite athletic in his youth but he only occasionally does a bit of HIIT or Pilates on YouTube now…no sustained exercise regime at all BUT probably walks for 1-2 hours a day (to/from work plus to/from school when dropping off the eldest). People probably see him and think he works out loads to be that slim but he just doesn’t. He has a tendency towards high cholesterol despite this, but loses too much weight too fast if he tries to diet to correct it and he just doesn’t have the weight to lose. He will eat ANYTHING however and pretty much can constantly eat and it has no effect.
Our eldest son (age 4) has the exact same physique and has done from birth (never had any of those rolls of fat that most babies have and has always been a high percentile for height and low for weight). He also doesn’t much like sweet things (likes the idea of them but takes one nibble and is done! He likes dark chocolate but not icing on cakes, etc).

I on the other hand come from a much shorter/stockier family on average. I also have a demon of a sweet tooth and really have to rein it in (as mentioned, I am sure it is much easier if you just don’t enjoy these foods). I am semi-vegetarian and very active (gym, Pilates, cycling, walking, swimming…) but I also have PCOS and it is a constant struggle to stay under 10st (I am 5’6”). My sister OTOH is 5’4” and the outlier of our family…has always been TINY and despite eating like a horse (she LOVES food and is literally nicknamed the Family Feedbag) she naturally hovers between 8 and 9 stone. She did a 23AndMe thing and there was some sort of genetic marker indicated that basically explains why she is able to eat whatever she likes (I can’t remember what it is! But she is a scientist and interpreted all the data for me at the time).

so ‘naturally thin’? Of course there will always be environmental factors that make it easier or more difficult for some people. But by the same token there are genetic factors that do this as well. So on the whole I do think ‘naturally thin’ and ‘naturally fat’ are real things that do exist.

BMI was invented in the 1830s by a mathematician. It's nonsense as far as I'm concerned

It's been adopted by the NHS and as someone said above, it's a bit of a blunt tool - but a very useful one to give a general overview.

Yet you, in all your wisdom, think it's nonsense. Riiigghhht. Have you contacted the NHS to let them know?

I'm sure that there are plenty of people walking around with a BMI of 30 that are just fine and dandy 🤔 Probably the ones who just have wide skeletons right?

No not just me... plenty of people see it as nonsense. That doesn't mean no one can be overweight of obese, just that BMI might not be the most accurate reflection of a person's weight/health. BMI doesn't take into account age, ethnicity, muscle v fat and various other things. It was devised apparently by looking at white men.