Major stall--suggestions?

On 2/5/2004 9:13 AM, Ignoramus11765 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote:


On 2/4/2004 4:47 PM, Dally wrote:

Ignoramus16237 wrote:


Am I getting it right that you are 5'7" and 135, and want to be 120
lbs? Is that correct?

Assuming I read your earlier posts correctly, you want to move from
low normal weight to underweight. That's extremely difficult.


Igor, have you stopped to consider how much of he weight is muscle
versus fat?

I absolutely cannot believe how dense you are on this subject. After
all this time you still live your life by the BMI chart! It does not
matter how much she weighs with relation to her height, it matters
whether or not she is carrying too much fat with relation to her lean mass.

Ah, good point. As you said, body fat percentage is at least as
important as BMI -- especially when you start to talk about atheletes.
BMI is good to a point but only to a point.



Remember jmk, we are talking about a person who is underweight

Your opinion, no scientific basis for this. One who is 5'7" and 135 is
not underweight in most people's opinions. In fact, a BMI of 21.1 would
be considered quite healthy by most (not underweight as you have stated)
and I have pointed out to you before that for women, health risks do
decrease with BMIs under 22.

or
close to being underweight. I am not sure why body composition matters
too much at that point. If you are still overweight like, say, Dally,
then body composition matters a lot. But for someone who is at bmi
18.8, whatever their body composition is, they face the same risks
from dieting to such low weight. You can't have that much muscle at 120
lbs 5'7".

Ig, I still recommend that you read Dr. Willett's book. This is
discussed. One of his point is that there may not be a too low weight
since low weight calculations include many very ill people (like the
terminally ill). Certainly there is a danger of not consuming enough of
the correct nutrients but I don't know that weight is the issue so much
as how quickly it is lost, what foods/nutrients are consumed and so
forth. And yes, body fat percentage is an issue. People can weigh very
little and have a high percentage of body fat. Haven't you ever heard
of the anorexic person who is technically under weight (looking at
weight alone) but obese when you look at body fat percentage?

--
jmk in NC

On 2/5/2004 9:15 AM, Ignoramus11765 wrote:

The reason why I think it is risky is that to lose weight while at
that weight, you have to eat so little that it is hard to meet all
nutrient requirements.

How many calories do you think are too little? How many calories do you
think that it takes to meet your nutrient requirements?

--
jmk in NC

On 2/5/2004 9:54 AM, Ignoramus11765 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote:


On 2/5/2004 9:15 AM, Ignoramus11765 wrote:


The reason why I think it is risky is that to lose weight while at
that weight, you have to eat so little that it is hard to meet all
nutrient requirements.

How many calories do you think are too little? How many calories do you
think that it takes to meet your nutrient requirements?



This was discussed at some length in Walford's _Beyond 120 year diet_
book. He experimented with software, diet compositions etc, and at the
level of 30% below "normal" calorie level he found it very hard to
find food combinations that would give all nutrients. So, since about
2,400 calories are maintenance level for me at my plump weight of 174,
if I went to a diet of 1,700 calories (at a much lower weight), it
would be about at the edge of being able to get all nutrients into me
in a natural form.

That's interesting. Is 2400 what you are maintaining at now? I've been
averaging about 1800 but I think that maybe I need to try 1900 for a few
weeks. I'm having a hard time finding that sweet spot :-/ Anyway, that
would put me in the 1260-1330 range for the lowest end. I guess that
sounds about right.

--
jmk in NC

On 2/5/2004 9:52 AM, Ignoramus11765 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote:


On 2/5/2004 9:13 AM, Ignoramus11765 wrote:

In article , jmk wrote:


On 2/4/2004 4:47 PM, Dally wrote:


Ignoramus16237 wrote:



Am I getting it right that you are 5'7" and 135, and want to be 120
lbs? Is that correct?

Assuming I read your earlier posts correctly, you want to move from
low normal weight to underweight. That's extremely difficult.


Igor, have you stopped to consider how much of he weight is muscle
versus fat?

I absolutely cannot believe how dense you are on this subject. After
all this time you still live your life by the BMI chart! It does not
matter how much she weighs with relation to her height, it matters
whether or not she is carrying too much fat with relation to her lean mass.

Ah, good point. As you said, body fat percentage is at least as
important as BMI -- especially when you start to talk about athletes.
BMI is good to a point but only to a point.



Remember jmk, we are talking about a person who is underweight

Your opinion, no scientific basis for this. One who is 5'7" and 135 is
not underweight in most people's opinions. In fact, a BMI of 21.1 would
be considered quite healthy by most (not underweight as you have stated)
and I have pointed out to you before that for women, health risks do
decrease with BMIs under 22.


I was talking about 5'7" and 120 lbs (the OP's goal weight). I agree
that 5'7" and 135 is quite reasonable. Even 120 lbs may be reasonable,
but hard to achieve and also risky to try to diet to.


or

close to being underweight. I am not sure why body composition matters
too much at that point. If you are still overweight like, say, Dally,
then body composition matters a lot. But for someone who is at bmi
18.8, whatever their body composition is, they face the same risks
from dieting to such low weight. You can't have that much muscle at 120
lbs 5'7".

Ig, I still recommend that you read Dr. Willett's book. This is
discussed. One of his point is that there may not be a too low weight
since low weight calculations include many very ill people (like the
terminally ill). Certainly there is a danger of not consuming enough of
the correct nutrients but I don't know that weight is the issue so much
as how quickly it is lost, what foods/nutrients are consumed and so
forth. And yes, body fat percentage is an issue. People can weigh very
little and have a high percentage of body fat. Haven't you ever heard
of the anorexic person who is technically under weight (looking at
weight alone) but obese when you look at body fat percentage?



I agree that it can be healthy to be at low weight. (which I noted in
my original post, if you look it up). I just noted that it is hard to
accomplish and can be risky to accomplish. You eat so little that it
is difficult to get in all nutrients. I am also aware of the argument
that life insurance tables etc for low weight people overrepresent the
risk of being healthy at low weight, since may underweight people are
such due to severe illness. It is discussed in Walkford's beyond 120
year diet book as well.

But, again, my message to the OP is that she is on a risky mission and
needs to treat it as such.

I guess what I am not getting is why you think that it is risky. I
mean, if you stayed about the 70% of maintenance threshold that you
mentioned, then what is the problem?

--
jmk in NC