Calculating Healthy Weight & Calorie Needs

[Lisa!]

Is there any formula for calculating the healthy weight for anyone? I guess some factors like height, type of boon & body, and age are involved.
And the other question is that how many calories do our bodies need during the day? Is there any formula for calculating that for different people?

 

[jim mcnamara]

Use a BMI value
http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Calorie calculator:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_6_1x_Calorie_Calculator.asp

 

[JasonRox]

I simply suggest eating good food if your plan is to look better and feel better.

When I say good food, I mean GOOD food. Not thing low in calories or what not.

Things that DON'T count as good food:

- Rice Krispies, Corn Flakes, Sugar Crisp (those types of cereal)
- Lean Cuisines, Stouffer Diners (or any TV diner or food that is frozen)
- Canned Fruit or Canned Vegetables
- Cookies of any kind (even the light cookies they have now)

Things that DO count as good food.

- Organic Cereal (most only contain 2-3 items on the ingredient list instead of 29!)
- Real fruits and vegetables that are fresh
- Whole wheat bread (I choose to eat dry bread with flax seeds)

The purpose for everyone should be to eat REAL food.

Also things I also consider not good food is dairy products. I rather eat a piece of steak than consume dairy products (I don't eat either). This is from personal experience as well as with friends. Most of my closer friends don't eat beef and consume minimal dairy.

Since I stopped eating beef and pork, and consuming MUCH less dairy, my waist when down like an inch a half. I'm down to just about 29.5 inches as a male at 5 feet 9. My weight since hasn't CHANGED at all. I look better and feel better. I use to lift weights and I just went back the other day and my strength is NOT that far down considering how long I've stopped, which tells me that the huge drop in protein intake is nothing. I eat more than enough protein. Just before I ate too much just like the average North American.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Jason - just so you know -

"organic" on a label is essentially meaningless in a lot of places in the US. California and Oregon have laws about labelling that covers this problem, but other states may not.

Where I live, organic only means they charge extra for it, not that there is a guarantee. Unless there is a certificate from the grower or producer present in the bin. Some companies will also guarantee what they sell.

Also, true organic absolutely does not guarantee it is better for you in terms of nutrient content - just that it was grown/raised in the absence of pesticides, herbicides, etc.
This is where science and food habits and perceptions butt heads. Organic food people sometimes insist there are more nutrients. This just ain't so. For nutrient information see the USDA NAL database:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_6_1x_Calorie_Calculator.asp

Plus, some people's diet is so awful that getting them to eat any vegetable from even a non-organic source is a big win.

 

[mgb_phys]

Also, true organic absolutely does not guarantee it is better for you in terms of nutrient content - just that it was grown/raised in the absence of pesticides, herbicides, etc.

And often not even then - organic wine grapes can use 'traditional' fungicides - ie heavy metals but not 'chemical' ones!
The only argument for organic food being better is that since it is usually more expensive it will tend to use expensive ingredients. So organic bread will use high grade wholewheat flour instead of highly processed flour, just because it is a high margin luxury product.

Eating vegatables at all is the first step, then cooking yourself so you don't add extra sugar and salt.

 

[JasonRox]

Jason - just so you know -

"organic" on a label is essentially meaningless in a lot of places in the US. California and Oregon have laws about labelling that covers this problem, but other states may not.

Where I live, organic only means they charge extra for it, not that there is a guarantee. Unless there is a certificate from the grower or producer present in the bin. Some companies will also guarantee what they sell.

Also, true organic absolutely does not guarantee it is better for you in terms of nutrient content - just that it was grown/raised in the absence of pesticides, herbicides, etc.
This is where science and food habits and perceptions butt heads. Organic food people sometimes insist there are more nutrients. This just ain't so. For nutrient information see the USDA NAL database:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_6_1x_Calorie_Calculator.asp

Plus, some people's diet is so awful that getting them to eat any vegetable from even a non-organic source is a big win.

I just choose organic products for cereal because it has natural sugar. It's on the label saying where the sugar comes from and such. It's also under a big name label. Not a ... who the hell is this label.

Also, I buy non-organic fruits and vegetables.

 

[mgb_phys]

Not wanting to start a flame war - but is 'natural' sucrose from sugar cane any different from 'artificial' sucrose from processed corn starch?
I have seen organic salt - I'm still waiting for organic backing soda.

ps. My wife is chemist, who worked for years in agro chemical monitoring - and she is paranoid about washing fruit and veg before eating it.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Here we go with the perception of food vs the science of nutrition. That's what pete is talking about - it almost always ignites a flame war.

natural has less meaning than almost anything else a food producer can put on a label.
However, if you are happy with natural sugar -go for it, please.

In fact a lot of sugar in most forms is not good for you in a nutritional sense. Because it has a really high glycemic index, which over long periods of use may cause issues like hypoglycemia or diabetes.

We now have type II diabetic children - type II up until the late 1990's was virtually unheard of in anyone under 25. The last I read was the Navajo Reservation in Arizona has the highest rate of type II in children under 15 in the US.

The main proven cause for type II in adolescents: obesity in children. An associated factor: diets with very high glycemic indices - high fructose corn syrup is often mentioned. If you are type II the first thing the phsycian usally does is to put dietary restrictions on stuff like - Fruit loops, sugar frosted chocolate bombs (read calvin and hobbes), candy, "energy drinks", sugar soda pop, etc.

 

[mgb_phys]

Isn't glycemic index is only a rate that other stuff gets converted into sugar.
So stuffing a large amount of low GI food down your throat is equivalent to eating a small amount of sugar - right ?

I think like Jason I will stick to eating healthy home cooked food, try and cut out the sugar/salt and get some exercise. (Although it's just started snowing so I don't fancy jogging! )

 

[jim mcnamara]

glycemic index is the rate that a human with no ability to produce insulin converts food into blood glucose. Obviously pure glucose has the highest GI.

Parsnips have a GI in the high 90's... if that make you feel better for hating them.
The point: you can't always predict what your metabolic pathways will do in raising blood sugar levels.

Anyway, if you mix proteins, fats and simple sugars in a meal it does lower the GI effect of the simple sugars.

Fool around here:

http://www.glycemicindex.com/

 

[mgb_phys]

Anyway, if you mix proteins, fats and simple sugars in a meal it does lower the GI effect of the simple sugars.

Excellent - so as long as I have a tripple-double-supersize-cheeseo-burger with my 64oz super-sugar-whizzo-soda I'm ok?

 

[jim mcnamara]

Excellent - so as long as I have a tripple-double-supersize-cheeseo-burger with my 64oz super-sugar-whizzo-soda I'm ok?

Cardiovascular disease not withstanding, sure.

 

[Danger]

Parsnips have a GI in the high 90's... if that make you feel better for hating them.

One does not require an explanation for hating parsnips.

Anyhow, as to the original question, I don't believe that a 'healthy weight' can be calculated by any means. If you go by that stupid chart that pops up all of the time, I should weight about 165 lbs. to match my height. My ideal weight, however, is 132. It used to be 125, going up to 128 during baseball season, but age has brought on some flab. (Well, more beer than age... )

 

[Invictious]

While BMI gives a really general idea of how healthy one is, in terms of mass of course, there are several factors that are missing out:
One main one is that the bone and muscle mass are just..simply assumed. The measure for athletic people, therefore is not reliable. One would rather calculate body fat instead.

 

[Dale]

The BMI is the best commonly used index of healthy weight, but it has some flaws, most of which have already been pointed out. One other flaw is that the healthy BMI range is actually dependent on height. In other words, a healthy weight tall person will have a higher BMI than a healthy weight short person.

On the other topic of this thread, "organic" and "all natural" are not the same as "healthy". After all, botulism and e. coli are all natural and completely organic.

 

[Moonbear]

While BMI gives a really general idea of how healthy one is, in terms of mass of course, there are several factors that are missing out:
One main one is that the bone and muscle mass are just..simply assumed. The measure for athletic people, therefore is not reliable. One would rather calculate body fat instead.

I agree. BMI is pretty flawed. A very healthy, lean body builder would be ranked as obese using BMI alone. Likewise, someone who had NO muscle tone, but was really skinny would have a low BMI despite being fairly unhealthy. It's a poor measure of health.

It's more useful to assess health based on body composition than body weight. In other words, the amount of lean vs. fat (and remember that everyone needs some fat to be healthy, and women need more than men). Consideration of nutrient intake is important too, more so than caloric intake. If you eat 2000 calories, but it's all ice cream, you might wind up overweight yet be nutrient deficient. This is actually common with obesity, that they are still actually malnourished because they eat a lot of calories, but don't get all the vitamins they need. Activity level is also important. For example, I know Chroot has posted here before about the immense number of calories he consumes, but he's also expending those calories by biking to work every day and remaining a healthy weight.

 

[Lisa!]

Thanks for your insights!

Oops! I hadn't noticed the mediacl sciences forum

 

[Astronuc]

I agree. BMI is pretty flawed. A very healthy, lean body builder would be ranked as obese using BMI alone. Likewise, someone who had NO muscle tone, but was really skinny would have a low BMI despite being fairly unhealthy. It's a poor measure of health.

I think there needs to be a correction factor of the BMI based on the specific gravity of a person or proportion on body fat. I have a BMI that indicates I'm nearly overweight, but then my body fat content is low (~ 7% or less) and my specific gravity is greater than 1.0. Without air in my lungs, I sink like a rock.

 

[Hootenanny]

I too agree that BMI is severely flawed, body composition is a far better indicator of a 'healthy' body that BMI. I'm heavily into sport and do regular weight training and aerobic workouts and so consume around 3600 calories per day the majority of that being cereals, pasta and potatoes. I'm round about 5'11" in height and weigh 95 kilos, that puts my BMI bordering on obese (29); and yet I recently had a skin fold test were my sum total was 61 which is where I should be. Like Moonbear said, don't be too concerned on your weight and your calorific intake, the main thing is balance you intake with your exercise and look at your body composition.

and my specific gravity is greater than 1.0. Without air in my lungs, I sink like a rock.

Join the club, I have to fight like hell just to say afloat; but then again, swimming isn't my thing...