mcb
The Living Force
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?
I agree. When I estimated my RDA using "reference weight" it was unsustainably low (Phinney's 1.5-2 is more reasonable for me). I was not sure, however, that everybody here was on the same page. Since I am still focused on weight loss (for "mechanical" reasons, among other things), I have been adjusting my protein intake to be enough so that I don't go hungry. Not too surprisingly that seems to put me in the same general range as others here, using current weight for reference.
You can establish a sort of an "ideal" weight by trying different weights. Back in 2004, using ordinary calorie counting methods (which I do NOT recommend now -- it can burn muscle and vital organs!), I dropped down into my high school weight range before I reached full height. I was still above the middle of my "recommended" BMI range, and probably close to my Phinney/Metropolitan Life reference weight, but I did not look or feel healthy. So I think the tables are nonsense, at least for some (if not many) people. But when I came up 10 pounds I felt and looked much better, and much above that I started to have more problems again.
So I treat the range of about 177-180 lbs. as my "ideal" for now, although the results may be different on this ketogenic diet, and I may find a new "ideal" that is higher or lower than the old one. Anything below 186 is "normal" BMI for me, and will keep the medical folks from bugging me as well as allow me to wear anything in my closet again. I have only about 9 pounds to go to arrive there, and that will happen when it happens, if it happens -- no rush!
And, by the way, I suspect that height-to-waist ratio is a more useful indicator than BMI. I am just over 2:1, and below 2:1 is thought by some to be "good."
Ailén said:...I think that using our current weight is more reliable. This "ideal weight" business is BS, IMO. Everyone is different, it's very difficult to calculate the BMI, etc. If your body is at a certain weight now, you can make a rough calculation for the present, and adjust accordingly when you lose or put on weight. That's my take on it, FWIW. I don't think there is any "ideal". Some people are naturally heavier or lighter. The best thing is to listen to our bodies, and we'll know when it is functionning better and better.
I agree. When I estimated my RDA using "reference weight" it was unsustainably low (Phinney's 1.5-2 is more reasonable for me). I was not sure, however, that everybody here was on the same page. Since I am still focused on weight loss (for "mechanical" reasons, among other things), I have been adjusting my protein intake to be enough so that I don't go hungry. Not too surprisingly that seems to put me in the same general range as others here, using current weight for reference.
You can establish a sort of an "ideal" weight by trying different weights. Back in 2004, using ordinary calorie counting methods (which I do NOT recommend now -- it can burn muscle and vital organs!), I dropped down into my high school weight range before I reached full height. I was still above the middle of my "recommended" BMI range, and probably close to my Phinney/Metropolitan Life reference weight, but I did not look or feel healthy. So I think the tables are nonsense, at least for some (if not many) people. But when I came up 10 pounds I felt and looked much better, and much above that I started to have more problems again.
So I treat the range of about 177-180 lbs. as my "ideal" for now, although the results may be different on this ketogenic diet, and I may find a new "ideal" that is higher or lower than the old one. Anything below 186 is "normal" BMI for me, and will keep the medical folks from bugging me as well as allow me to wear anything in my closet again. I have only about 9 pounds to go to arrive there, and that will happen when it happens, if it happens -- no rush!
And, by the way, I suspect that height-to-waist ratio is a more useful indicator than BMI. I am just over 2:1, and below 2:1 is thought by some to be "good."