Friday, March 18, 2011
Fun with numbers
Since I'm on vacation and online traffic is usually slow when I have all the time in the world I decided to play around with some numbers just now. Some time back in a discussion of dieting that guy from Idaho made the point that medically recommended ideal weights seem overly harsh and I thought he was exaggerating at the time until I just googled "ideal weight" and entered my personal information on a couple of websites for a personal ideal weight calculation (you should too to see what I mean). There are many many websites devoted to this and many formulas but they seemed to have a common enough range. OK so I'm at 200 now, doctor is pleased and thanks to Muscle Milk for many happy returns but get this >> Bearing in mind that I'm 6'2" the first site I visited spit this out: my recommended weight range is between 155 and 194 lbs.!!! with my ideal healthy weight being 174. The second place crunched out these numbers and this was supposed to be a more reasonable site not taking everything doctors say as gospel: medical recommendation 148-195 lbs. and ideal weight 190. Now it's not the 190's that get me, that doesn't seem too rad for a guy of 6'2" and big-boned although I don't plan on that but those other ranges I'd be anorexic at those #'s. Ya gotta question this stuff and I'm lucky I have a doctor who heavily gravitates towards the upper numbers. Also for self-defense purposes I strongly favor those higher figures. Just thought I'd have some fun today so crunch in those numbers for yourself and see what you come up with. Last point, if these are the formulas in use to determine we have a fatty/obesity epidemic in this country then the numbers are highly skewed (a political agenda?). The Medical Arts are a crock if they say your personal role model should be Twiggy. You know somewhere in these ranges you have to enjoy life too ya know:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd rather not check mine out and get depressed.
ReplyDeleteI like your thought that the ranges have a political agenda to them, though, wonder if Michelle Obama made them change the ranges downward??
Using these formulas you come to the conclusion that the vast majority of us are overweight so let's draw an analogy. When you're driving most speed limits are artificially low, say 30 MPH and let's say you do 40 by definition you then become a speeder, rather reckless. Nobody questions the orginal number or limit or calculation and that's the problem. The other thing is yeah I think there's a political agenda at work here, to control us and so how can Michelle Obama become the spokesman for a healthy lifestyle if the problem ain't as bad as it's made out to be (not that there isn't a problem but don't hyperdramatize it). Didn't she have a caboose herself not that long ago? Why not start with Oprah?
ReplyDeleteMost of those range calculators are based on things like the Metropolitan Life Insurance tables.
ReplyDeleteYou can put away your political conspiracy theories. These formulas have been in place since the dark ages.
And if anyone is pushing people towards being thinner it's the fashion industry.
There IS an obesity epidemic if you haven't noticed. Go to your local elementary school and look at the kids in the yard if you don't believe me.
Goodness gracious! Michelle is suspected?
ReplyDeleteAgain? We're talking Mrs. Obama and not Mrs. Bachmann, right?
'Fun With Numbers'
ReplyDeleteTake the last two digits of the year in which you were born -now add the age you will be this year, and the result will be 111 for everyone. Supposedly only
happens once every 823 years....
what happens if you add in your weight and divide by the number of fat grams you've had in the past 24 hours?
ReplyDeleteChoose any Number
ReplyDeleteAdd 5
Double the result
Subtract 4
Divide the result by 2
Subtract the number you started with
The result is 3
Yeah you're right Saty many of these formulas have been in place since before 1979, Michelle Obama came on the political scene well after the Hamwi Formula it's safe to say but why hasn't anyone questioned these formulas and yes they will tilt more heavily in the direction there are more fatties among us than ever just like if most speed limits are 30 and most people do 40 we're a nation of speeders. I detect the most mild and nutty political swirl on my palate but at any rate Oprah being such a role model for the rest of us......
ReplyDeleteHere's another reason you can't go by those tables; muscle is way heavier than fat. This is how you get a 5'9" football player who weighs like 200 lb. Those tables don't take any of those things into consideration because they can't figure variables.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing here is how do you feel? If you're out of breath when you walk a flight of steps or you can't tie your shoes then maybe you're too heavy for your height. If you feel good, you're active, you have some energy, then what's the boggle, you're all right. You just can't put all your faith in numbers designed generically for a generic population.
You know for men to get down to those really low numbers in those ranges is not good for self-defense imo. I think the reason why nobody really bothers me is I'm 6'2" and 200 lbs. Get me down to 174 and I don't feel so confident. I remembered your formula Saty and I heard it stated on the radio the other day: the average person needs from 1200-1500 calories per day and if you eat an extra 3500 calories that turns into one pound of fat. Now I'm getting more mathematical about it than I was before and it's helping me to maintain my current levels.
ReplyDeleteI would never intentionally steer ya wrong, man.
ReplyDeleteNo it's good info and when you stop to think about it when people gain weight by eating those extra 3500 cals a day they must really be chowing down. Just saw an infomercial last night about the Air Climber, usually skeptical but looks pretty cool.
ReplyDelete