MedEwok wrote:
Which confirms several studies that underweight people have insufficient “reserves” to withstand severe diseases. So, either extreme is unhealthy and being of normal weight is highly desirable, whereas normal is not what is shown in magazines and photo shootings…
Out of interest, I recall reading studies that for longlivety a BMI of approximately 27 appears to be the figure which statistics show as optimum, while the old school still maintains a BMI of 20-25 to be optimal, others even claim 15-25.
I’d think a huge majority of people is in the 25-30 range these days with a notable group between 30 and 35 (to which I also belong now).
Peter’s observation is probably still correct to some degree
I think it is quite old…
Out of interest, I recall reading studies that for longlivety a BMI of approximately 27 appears to be the figure which statistics show as optimum
There is a big difference between life expectancy, and how much one enjoys one’s last few decades. The difference is huge.
Just been to a local countryside cafe, for lunch with Justine (yes we do these things 
). The “scene” there was an eye opener even by normal British standards. It could be that, post-lockdown, everybody was having a “special treat”, but most were off the BMI scale, and it if wasn’t for the vaccine many would not be walking around. Next to us was a mum and daughter, I reckon 130-150kg each. And people don’t “get it”. Huge fish-and-chips dishes, huge cakes. For me, the saddest thing is that any child born into this environment (and plenty are) doesn’t have a chance.
One can get back from there but it takes a big detachment from one’s emotional attachment to certain foods. Also you lose most of your friends – because obesity is fuelled by peer group approval… I know a woman who did that, one of the few who did it successfully, but she lost most of her friends. The NHS advice is utter crap (“everything is fine in moderation” = excuse to eat everything). You have to move to veg, big-time. Anyway, we did all this here and nobody needs more of my opinion, even though it is free
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Out of interest, I recall reading studies that for longlivety a BMI of approximately 27 appears to be the figure which statistics show as optimum, while the old school still maintains a BMI of 20-25 to be optimal, others even claim 15-25.I’d think a huge majority of people is in the 25-30 range these days with a notable group between 30 and 35 (to which I also belong now).
I’ve not seen anything to support the first point. 27 is firmly in the middle of the 25-30 ‘overweight’ banding. To reach a BMI of 27 I would need to put on an extra 6-7kg of weight, and if I did that then I would definitely be overweight – probably to the point of it affecting my general health. Right now I am probably 2kg heavier than I would like to be and not at all frail or vulnerable to disease as a result of not carrying enough resources.
Whether a majority are >25 these days I don’t know, but it’s certainly a significant proportion.
In my view BMI remains a useful measure for the vast majority of the population – a simple comparison of height and weight. Where it falls down is bodybuilders and athletes with very high muscle mass, but these are easily-identifiable cases and relatively few in number.
Peter wrote:
The NHS advice is utter crap (“everything is fine in moderation” = excuse to eat everything). You have to move to veg, big-time
Really? I don’t, but my BMI is 22 (my weight has been the same +- 1kg since my first medical, when I was 24).
You are doing good
Peter wrote:
There is a big difference between life expectancy, and how much one enjoys one’s last few decades.
Peter wrote:
ou have to move to veg, big-time.
These two statements in my case would be a contradiction
alioth wrote:
I don’t, but my BMI is 22 (my weight has been the same +- 1kg since my first medical, when I was 24).
In retrospect what I have experienced is that BMI changes (up) mostly are the consequent of a massive disruption in one’s lifestyle.
I was underweight (BMI 17) until I went into the Airforce for my initial training. Thereafter I went from 65 to 75 kg and stabilized there. Next disruption was when I caught a severe infection in my 30ties and was sent to a sports camp to recuperate for 4 weeks. I slimmed down 2 kg while there and gained 15 over the next 2 months. Stayed 90 kgs for about 10 years until I changed jobs from load controller /ramp agent to a sitting position. I want to get back to about 95 kg, which leaves me right now with about 15 kgs to get rid of. I think I was most healthy with about 90-95. Earlier I caught every bug, every flu, every sneeze, since then I catch next to nothing. This range would also allow me to get back my CPL/Medical Class I, which in Switzerland is limited to people below BMI 30.
Peter wrote:
There is a big difference between life expectancy, and how much one enjoys one’s last few decades. The difference is huge.
Certainly a BMI of 27 doesn’t prevent you from enjoying your last few decades.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Certainly a BMI of 27 doesn’t prevent you from enjoying your last few decades.
No, but going vegetarian would :)
Graham wrote:
I’ve not seen anything to support the first point. 27 is firmly in the middle of the 25-30 ‘overweight’ banding. To reach a BMI of 27 I would need to put on an extra 6-7kg of weight, and if I did that then I would definitely be overweight – probably to the point of it affecting my general health. Right now I am probably 2kg heavier than I would like to be and not at all frail or vulnerable to disease as a result of not carrying enough resources.
Although I can’t comment on the particular figures, there is indeed evidence that being “slightly overweight” is best for your health.
Consider that the definitions of BMI 18.5-25 as “normal” and 25-30 as “overweight” are simply based on (old) statistics on actual weight distribution and not on any health considerations.
