Calculating Healthy Weight & Calorie Needs

  • Medical
  • Thread starter Lisa!
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Weight
In summary, there is no one-size-fits-all formula for calculating the healthy weight for anyone. Some factors, like height, type of boon, and body type, as well as age, are involved. And, for those people who want to maintain a healthy weight, eating good, real food is the key.
  • #1
Lisa!
Gold Member
649
98
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?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #3
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
jim mcnamara said:
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.
 
  • #6
jim mcnamara said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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 excercise. (Although it's just started snowing so I don't fancy jogging! )
 
Last edited:
  • #10
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/
 
  • #11
jim mcnamara said:
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?
 
  • #12
mgb_phys said:
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.
 
  • #13
jim mcnamara said:
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. :yuck:

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... :uhh:)
 
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Invictious said:
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.
 
  • #17
Thanks for your insights!:smile:

Oops! I hadn't noticed the mediacl sciences forum:redface:
 
  • #18
Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #19
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.

Astronuc said:
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...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

What is the formula for calculating healthy weight?

The formula for calculating healthy weight is known as the Body Mass Index (BMI). It is calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by their height in meters squared.

What is a healthy BMI range?

A healthy BMI range is typically considered to be between 18.5 and 24.9. A BMI below 18.5 is considered underweight, while a BMI above 24.9 is considered overweight.

How many calories should I consume in a day?

The number of calories a person should consume in a day depends on various factors such as age, gender, height, weight, and activity level. On average, most adults should consume between 1,600 and 2,400 calories per day.

How can I determine my daily calorie needs?

To determine your daily calorie needs, you can use a calorie calculator that takes into account your age, gender, height, weight, and activity level. This will give you an estimate of the number of calories you should consume in a day to maintain your current weight.

How can I maintain a healthy weight?

To maintain a healthy weight, it is important to have a balanced diet and engage in regular physical activity. This means consuming the right amount of calories for your body's needs and engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise per week.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • Poll
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
20
Views
9K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
763
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
15
Views
852
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
297
Back
Top