When I was 22yo and had no job, I would run in the mornings and work out at the gym in the afternoon. 4-5x a week. I was also stretched very thin (pun intended) financially, so I mostly ate rice, beans, olive oil, garlic, and chicken (but only when I could afford the chicken). I weighed 141lbs at 5'4". And I was pretty lean.
No, I didn't eat all raw foods. Perhaps that would have made some difference. But I was pretty muscular and lean. My trainer was considering training me for a figure competition. Yeah. For that, I probably would have dieted down to maybe 125, at the lowest. I can't see 108 in my future.
Just read some of the comments about raw foods, which I am very much apart of and in fact I eat about a 80 - 90% raw food diet, vegan/vegetarian.
I think the thing is that SOME of the raw foodist out there advocate lower weights, but others do not. Just like with any life style choice there are opinions, contradictions, and more. It is a very healthy diet, I know as I eat this way for most of the time. Saying that there are plenty of raw foodist who are not small, but there are also plenty that are. In fact I remember reading about a woman who was under weight and gained weight eating raw foods so she could be healthier for her. It depends on who you talk to, what community you are apart of or listening to, what book you read, etc etc. There is a clear movement within this world going against the "be as thin as you can be" attitude. From Karen Krowler to Alissa Cohen oh and my favorite the Renegade Health Show, they are more focused on healthy living rather than telling you what you should weigh. At least from what I've read and my own experience. Just my two cents on the raw food diet
This particular person, in my opinion, is just not realistically looking at people and how their bodies are. There is no "one weight." Someone like me is rather big boned, I can't be that small, it won't happen. I know enough about my body to know that, but I can be healthy and that is all that matters.
I would love to be 100% raw food one day, but I'm not in a rush to get there. I love some cooked foods so I'm quite happy living in both worlds and a diet like this fits me perfectly.
Last edited by Jacquie668; 09-18-2009 at 10:18 AM.
At 5"6.5", I should be under 117 lbs according to that chart. At the age of 12, I was this height and weighted 112 lbs. I was "icky skinny"! I didn't think so at the time, but when I look at pics I see it now. I didn't have any boobs either...
The point of calorie restriction (I've gotten off the track of raw foods -- I am responding to the natural reaction folks have that such low weights must obviously be unhealthy) is not that you *look* healthy, but that there is some evidence that indicates you could achieve a longer, healthier life, while looking gaunt.
Doing CR means being very careful about what you eat and taking lots of supplements to make sure you aren't setting yourself up for malnutrition. I'm not advocating it myself. It seems too tough a lifestyle to aspire to. Mostly it is studied by enforced CR on animals.
A lot of studies have been done in other species and the results seem pretty convincing. There isn't any *proof* in humans yet so far as I know. But the idea is that there appears to be a mechanism common to many species that allow them to out-survive lean times (deferring fertility) until times of plenty. And that CR-enforced are not just longer-lived but also healthier.
117? Wow. I looked pretty great at 151 and was in a size 6. My goal now is a little lower than that but I was planning on reevaluating that when I got near it. But I have NO desire to weight 117. None whatsoever.
That article really made me angry. If I was 117 pounds, according to my doctor, I would be considered SICK. Honestly, this chick is spouting out information without doing enough research on it. Different body types need to be at different weights. Ask any REPUTABLE doctor and they'll tell you the same.
A new study based on Statistics Canada population data reaches an exceedingly awkward conclusion: People who are overweight live longer than people who are classified as “normal” weight. Not only that, people who are classified as significantly overweight also live longer.
The study, led by Statistics Canada's Heather Orpana, was devised to estimate the relationship between body mass index and mortality in Canadian adults. The database was nearly 12,000 people. The authors of the Canada-U.S. joint study adjusted for age, gender, smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption. They found that the link between weight and mortality is relatively weak. The strongest finding was that underweight men are at greater risk than any other group.
But being overweight was associated with a 25-per-cent lower risk of dying. Being obese was associated with a 12-per-cent lower risk of dying. The risk for the most morbidly obese (who account for less than 3 per cent of all Canadians) was statistically the same as the risk for people of “normal” weight. The findings were published online in the research journal Obesity.
In 2005, another researcher, Katherine Flegel, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published another large study with similar findings. Prominent health experts were outraged, calling the research flawed. “There's not a lot of money in trying to debunk obesity, but a huge amount in making sure it stays a big problem,” Patrick Basham, a professor of health-care policy at Johns Hopkins University, told The Associated Press.
Researchers and public-health authorities are heavily invested in obesity. So are major drug companies, which help fund influential bodies such as the International Obesity Task Force. The Canadian Obesity Network, which gets millions in government funding, lists dozens of leading drug companies as its “industry partners.”
Further info about this study and lots more can be found here:
The theory that calorie-restricted diets and the accompanying low body weight equates to longevity hasn't been proven. It has been demonstrated in lab situations in non-human subjects. This doesn't translate well to real life, though, unless you'd like to live in a laboratory for the rest of your hopefully long life.
Current research is showing that the "ideal" weight leading to optimal longevity is anything with a BMI between 25 and 30, and a waist measurement of less than 35 inches provided that exercise is a key lifestyle component. In fact, a better predictor of health issues is in fact the amount of exercise that one regularly does.
I think we can all get hung up with the numbers. In the end, I don't think it really matters. If you can get below BMI 30 and have a favorable waist measurement, the rest really is vanity. After all, I can produce any weight table I like on my blog to promote my own theories/purposes as this person did. It really isn't the "final word" for me, at least...
Well, at 5'7" I'm supposed to weigh 122 according to that. And the truth is, at age 18 I weighed about 120 without dieting or any particular exercise regimen. But, to get to that weight now, I'd have to lose muscle mass. I'll keep my added muscle, thanks
But seriously, the evidence supporting various ideal weights is all over the map. Clearly, something is missing from the equation. I'm sure both body fat (as opposed to BMI) and lifestyle factors are two of the big factors missing from the equation, and there may well by other big ones.
And I have no problem believing that some bodies are healthiest at higher weights (including higher body fat) than other bodies - even if that does make simple ideal body weight charts impossible.
I think we all have the same opinion, generally speaking, of just wanting to be healthy and feel good. What bothers me about charts and calculators and blah blah...I've read so many books, I've seen so many articles, and for every one that I read there is another saying something else entirely.
The problem with these tools is when it becomes almost an obsession for people and they strive beyond what is healthy for them, as an individual, in order to be a certain weight or take in a certain amount of calories etc. It is like they MUST be 125 pounds or else! They ignore how they feel, they are not listening to their own bodies.
I have a basic idea of my first real "goal" weight, which is 170 pounds. That seems realistic for me and I figure at that point I can take a look at where I want to go from there. I would love to be around 140 pounds, but I'll be basing my decisions on how i feel rather that paying attention to charts and things. Meaning if I don't feel well at a certain weight, then I need to either gain or lose depending on where I am.
I think we do get hung up on the fat. People assume that a thin person, generally speaking, is healthy and a fatter person is terribly unhealthy. I mean if you look at me and see me now at 267 pounds you might think "high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes" etc....but I have perfect blood pressure. I have low cholesterol (good fat is low, bad fat is perfect), I don't have diabetes, and the issues I have stem from another place. Yet the thin person who I'm standing beside in comparison could have a number of health issues. Meaning, I agree that what we look like clearly isn't the point nor does it matter. So, when a chart tells me I should be 112 pounds I just laugh it off. I can't listen to a chart and not my own body. That doesn't make sense to me...
Don't apricot pits contain cyanide? I seem to remember reading a book where someone used crushed apricot pits to slowly poison her husband. Quick internet search finds the following:
Anyway, 122 at 5'7" would be too low for me (and I have a tiny frame - ridiculously small wrists, size 4 ring finger).
Yup, they're poisonous.
Hence the total stupidity of the woman who said that they cure cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyoma
The point of calorie restriction (I've gotten off the track of raw foods -- I am responding to the natural reaction folks have that such low weights must obviously be unhealthy) is not that you *look* healthy, but that there is some evidence that indicates you could achieve a longer, healthier life, while looking gaunt.
Doing CR means being very careful about what you eat and taking lots of supplements to make sure you aren't setting yourself up for malnutrition. I'm not advocating it myself. It seems too tough a lifestyle to aspire to. Mostly it is studied by enforced CR on animals.
A lot of studies have been done in other species and the results seem pretty convincing. There isn't any *proof* in humans yet so far as I know. But the idea is that there appears to be a mechanism common to many species that allow them to out-survive lean times (deferring fertility) until times of plenty. And that CR-enforced are not just longer-lived but also healthier.
But is there any actual real science to back it up?
When there is, then I'll listen. Same with the raw food diet. It's fine for other people, but I am and always will be a skeptic and I need proof.
There's pretty good evidence in lots of studies on other species. It's a lot easier to control for all the other factors with lab rats. I can only imagine that it would be really hard to do a study on humans. At any rate *I* would not sign up for it!
Regarding the other study showing higher weight associated with longevity, I would have a very hard time teasing out the causalities from a weight table. Do you correct for pre-existing conditions? You might correct for them because otherwise skinny people who are skinny because of terminal conditions will skew the data. But if you do correct for preexisting conditions, then you may factor out some of the diseases that are caused by obesity! It's simply really hard to get meaningful data when there are so many factors to consider.
Personally, my *belief* is that it is very hard to get adequate/optimal nutrition on low calorie diets, but that if you can manage it, then it is probably healthier to be thinner than most folks would think optimal. But most folks who are that thin aren't that way because they maintain their weight in an optimal fashion. And I also *believe* that these effects are long term, and that a snapshot of weight at a given point in time won't give a complete picture.
That said, I really wouldn't even suggest that people try it.
Hence the total stupidity of the woman who said that they cure cancer.
Not that apricot pits cure cancer ... but that's pretty much the point of most chemotherapy - poison the heck out of the patient, and hope the cancer dies before the patient does.
I think we do get hung up on the fat. People assume that a thin person, generally speaking, is healthy and a fatter person is terribly unhealthy. I mean if you look at me and see me now at 267 pounds you might think "high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes" etc....but I have perfect blood pressure. I have low cholesterol (good fat is low, bad fat is perfect), I don't have diabetes, and the issues I have stem from another place. Yet the thin person who I'm standing beside in comparison could have a number of health issues. Meaning, I agree that what we look like clearly isn't the point nor does it matter. So, when a chart tells me I should be 112 pounds I just laugh it off. I can't listen to a chart and not my own body. That doesn't make sense to me...
I am the same. A lot of my leaner friends are already on blood pressure medication and cholesterol control medication. Despite being overweight I have perfect health. And I am not guessing. I had a extremely thorough checkup not long ago.
However, I won't fool myself into thinking I am healthy because I am overweight, but despite of it. I am also sure I would be even healthier, and a lower risk of future diseases if I lose weight. I may have the advantage of good genes, excellent nutrition and low stress to balance the equation. Excess weight is just a risk factor, not a sentence.
I would look horrible and folks would think I was sick. I don't claim to have those big, heavy bones either. 
